 sj |
||
|
||
Objections to Joe Offer
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Bill D Date: 11 May 05 - 06:31 PM "However, it quite disingenuous and plainly silly to NOW try and maintain that every change that our volunteers wish to make - should be imposed upon fellow posters without their knowledge or permission as a matter of routine." Is that what I claimed?...if I had said something like that, YOU would have spent 2 paragraphs on the word 'every'. Durn, Shambles...some of your logic in this thread reminds me of the reasoning I heard many years ago: "The exception proves the rule...consequently, the more exceptions, the better the rule." |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 11 May 05 - 05:37 PM "Might as well argue with the doorpost." Ain't that what he's been doing? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 May 05 - 04:25 PM MMario, Trolls have no logic and no morals. Might as well argue with the doorpost. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,MMario Date: 11 May 05 - 04:20 PM The less imposed censorship there is - undertaken as a matter now of routine* shambles - that claim is nothing more then a simple falsehood. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to make false statements , claiming them as fact, without rebuttal. * my bolding |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Wolfgang Date: 11 May 05 - 03:43 PM The less imposed censorship there is - undertaken as a matter now of routine - the less chance there is of making a mistake. (Shambles) This sentence is either utterly trivial or nonsense depending upon what you count as a mistake. Mistakes can be mistakes of commission or mistakes of omission. Humans have the tendency to overlook mistakes of omission. If you only mean mistakes of commission as I guess you are trivially right. Act less and you make less mistakes of commission. Do nothing at all and you will never make any error of commission. Trivial BS. If you also consider mistakes by omission it is far from sure that the sentence is correct. There was once a Shambles who liked to quote Niemoeller to make the point that doing nothing can be a mistake. That Shambles wouldn't agree with today's Shambles who seems to think that doing nothing has only advantages. The less you post, Shambles, the smaller is the chance that you post nonsense sentences. But I guess that's a small chance. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 May 05 - 03:37 PM Tried that one, Ebbie. Didn't work. Neither did a number of other approaches. Worse than that, he's spreading his effect on other threads, like a plague, damaging legitimate discussions. This leads me now to believe that we may be harbouring a malintent troll in our midst. Canonisation of Joe seems in order, for what he puts up with. But not for many years to come yet, I hope. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Ebbie Date: 11 May 05 - 03:25 PM Roger, if this were a play, you in your single-minded quest would be cast as a comic character in order to give the audience a chance to moan and boo. Would you not much rather be csst as the talented songwriter you are? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 02:16 PM If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear? The following answer (in a brown editing comment) - was given (and inserted to my post) to the above question. Unfortunately, we're human, so we may continue to make mistakes on occasion. But if we do make a mistake, we'll do our best to try to correct it. I can't promise anything more than that. I suppose we're not a democracy, but we do our best to listen to and honor the wishes of our community. -Joe Offer- Yet more censorship mistakes – detailed on the following thread. Mistakes stemming from the idea that russhing to honour the wishes of (part) of the community means our volunteers imposing censorship on the contributions of (another part) of the community. In this case - the closing of one thread (on matters of personal taste) – leading to the creation and subsequent imposed closure of 3 threads!!!! The whole censorship action resulted in bringing far more attention to the issue than if the contributions of fellow posters were left as they intended. Complaints vs mudslinging The less imposed censorship there is - undertaken as a matter now of routine - the less chance there is of making a mistake. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad Date: 11 May 05 - 02:00 PM If you want repect contact Aretha Franklin. However when you are at someone elses house you have to play by their rules or leave. Not that anyone is asking you to leave - just understand how the game is played and stop complaining about something you have no control over. For crap sake man - it's only a website. It's not like your freedom of speech has been taken away from you. Step away from the computer - go outside and take a deep breath. It's OK. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: jeffp Date: 11 May 05 - 01:59 PM If it not considered practical to first obtain permission ans show the correct respect to the invited contributios of fellow posters - perhaps there is little real need for any change? non sequitur |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 01:54 PM Your incessant harping that ANY change should be 'approved' by the original poster simply ignores practicality. Perhaps Bill you will accept that I have said (in my harping) that there may be (rare) occasions when a post here may justifiably be subject to imposed censorship? However, it quite disingenuous and plainly silly to NOW try and maintain that every change that our volunteers wish to make - should be imposed upon fellow posters without their knowledge or permission as a matter of routine. If it not considered practical to first obtain permission ans show the correct respect to the invited contributios of fellow posters - perhaps there is little real need for any change? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 11 May 05 - 01:25 PM I think you might recall that when you initially psoted to this forum three people were concerned enough about the nature of your posts that they got in touch with you immediately. There were three of us who cared enough to take you seriously. I was one of those three. You just ripped it with me for good. From now on, Dewey, I don't give a shit whether you post to here or not. So in the parlance, fuck you, too. Bruce M |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 11 May 05 - 01:17 PM Well, Dewey, I have stuck up for you in the past as well as disagreed with you a few times. Think what you want of me. If you feel I am disingenuous enough to tell you I like you and you feel you should put me down for it, so be it. Goodbye. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Azizi Date: 11 May 05 - 12:47 PM "I'll hold back my other thoughts.." on this topic I mean-unless the spirit moves me to share them. Then, I'll do my thing regardless.. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Azizi Date: 11 May 05 - 12:45 PM Formerly Dewey, It seems like you are wanting people to beg you to come back and post regualarly.. If you wanna post here, you will. But nobody gonna beg you to do so. [However, some people may beg others to stop posting-and that's their perogative]. Formerly Dewey, you keep saying you have a life. Well congratulations, but everybody has a life and posting on Mudcat may be a regular part or an occasional part of it. So what?? Different strokes for different folks. I just felt the urge to say that. I'll hold back my other thoughts.. Ms. Azizi |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 11 May 05 - 03:46 AM Hi Everybody! I'm gonna go back to having a life. I might post to some of you on occasion. (say maybe 2 or 3 months from now if something stirs me) But mainly I am going to let the rest of you decide for yourselves whether mudcat is a democracy, or just a guy with a fancy computer, doaling out the free space to free loading rabble rousers and trouble makers. To your credit, you do have a wonderful musical and lyrical database, reguardless of who does or does not like the other, or the other's topics, or other's opinions (LOL) I would like to thank Max for that, and anyone and everyone else that has contributed to the "cat" reguardless, or temperments, ideologies, religions or political persuasions. I am not begging to be a regular here, but I do love the site. Seriously, its kind of you to keep it open to all, and without a lot of rules. The world is a big place, and not everyone is going to like everyone else. But for the record: though I am not ready to give anyone here a kiss, I truly do not HATE any of you either. Obviously, I have my favorite members as every person most likely does. It the old birds of a feather rule. Later, Formerly Dewey P.S. TO BRUCIE: Its a safe bet that people who call me "pal" are likely really NOT my "pals" (not that they have to be-:) Thought of the day: "Is the World not big enough for us all?" Thanks for the space!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Bill D Date: 10 May 05 - 06:27 PM Roger...(and dewey)when I typed 'seriously', it was a well- considered insert to modify abuse. I have been here for 9 years, and have SEEN it. Shambles, there have been things deleted and edited that YOU have never seen. There have been egregious, personal, obscene attacks and other posts that simply do not belong, and I am forever grateful that Max & Jeff worked out a system for controlling the worst of it, as well as allowing cosmetic/clarifying corrections to threads. Your incessant harping that ANY change should be 'approved' by the original poster simply ignores practicality. Any public forum of this basic nature requires some editorial control....and this one gets less than most. I'd tell you to give up this silly, tedious attempt to bully and harass the 'management'..(mostly Joe) into doing it your way, but by now I know better. Don Quixote was a piker next to you. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 10 May 05 - 11:30 AM Mr Shambles-why dnt you shut up, and stop trying to make trubble? anyway=this isent our forum, it is maxes, it is on his coputer, in his house, and he pays for it, so shut up. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 10 May 05 - 09:59 AM Hi, Dewey. Hope you're keeping well, buddy. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 05 - 06:11 AM Hi, Dewey - we don't ban any of the things on your list. We do take action on racism, Spam, personal attacks, and a few other things that are generally understood as abuses. -Joe Offer- If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear?
I suppose we're not a democracy, but we do our best to listen to and honor the wishes of our community. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Formerly Dewey Date: 10 May 05 - 05:36 AM Makes sense Joe! I generally know when I've stepped over the line, and can usually self correct without alot of PM's, this usually adds to the problems that many feel obligated to solve. I think self-discretion is the way to go. And I like the rules the way they are and can abide by them. I apologize to Mudcat for the personal and un-acceptable posts. I thought they would never reach the board in the first place. You have my assurance they will not be repeated. I am an occasional catter, sometimes I get alot on my mind that needs to be shared and I come here to do it. My postings though, lengthy, are never intentionally personal (though one of them did end up going that way) I am extra sensitive, and write lengthy; and. sometimes I am over zealous in my religion... but, I do move on, and above all else I am not intentionally rubbing people the wrong way, unless of course I lose it which I do do on occasion, but I think I am in good company. I hate censorship, especially when it generally is not necessary and is a great waist of time and energy. Dewey |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer Date: 10 May 05 - 04:46 AM Hi, Dewey - we don't ban any of the things on your list. We do take action on racism, Spam, personal attacks, and a few other things that are generally understood as abuses. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 May 05 - 04:29 AM Yes sneaky, this poll works on one vote per IP address. Others do use cookies. Whatever method is used. there will always be pretty easy means of getting extra votes on open anonymous polls like this. I don't suppose it matters much on a large poll as I think users, if voting "by hand" would soon tire but on small polls it wouldn't take many extra votes to influence the results. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,FormerlyDewey Date: 10 May 05 - 03:44 AM Please give some examples of the "too many" you refer to Bill. There are people who are sincere in their beliefs and they are not always looking for trouble... just sincere likeminded people who may be looking for other sincere likeminded people to share a particular belief with. Politics doesn't seem to be banned. Posting a sincere comment about a topical discussion over the christian belief in a coming of a Chirstian anti-christ is far from the end of the world. Art Bell, did a show on the Anti-christ, and nobody got him kicked off the radio for doing. So lighten up! You have you bias as I do. You otherwise are most likely a decent person, so please let a few things slip, without making yourself out as the final arbitrator here over coreect and in-correct postings, its a waste of your time and life as well as mine. Everybody has their push buttons, you pushed mine when you were complaining about my going to far in my anti-christ postings, while at the same time endorsing, bush bashing threads and profuse use of porfanity, two things which are just as offensive to me, should I ever care to complain to you about them. Joe Offer shared his Catholism here, and I for one was not offended by it. If the topics is "Bush-bashing" there seems to be alot of heartily uncensored contributions. For you, this might NOT be taking it "too far" But who made you judge and jury. There are conservatives on the cat too, that could scream, "You are taking this too far, as a conscervative I am offended! Please ban this guy!" Banning of any kind is stupid and not necessary, it just adds to the problem more than resolves it. Let people have their say You don't have to contribute anything to the discussion you do not like or agree with. I don't like the swearing and the dirty talk, but I lived with it while I was here on the cat, and didn't send you PM's trying to ban this orthat person from their own stupidity. Who here hasn't done something stupid or opinionated! Bush political threads are stupid and opinionated. Could this be the "too many" you are referring to? Taking it "too far" Formerly Dewey (who still has a life, and will not burden this message board) |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 05 - 03:17 AM Nope....too many seriously abuse that. 'Seriously' Bill?………..Perhaps it is you who are on the wrong website? Has someone's life been ruined over a thread title? Over the years - there has been a lot of over-reaction and dramatic language - the use of emotive words like attacks etc - but there must be some question whether the use of words like 'serious abuse' is at all warranted. There must be also be some question if the over-prescriptive (if selective) approach to deal with this 'serious abuse' is really proportionate. These are – after all - only words on a discussion forum. For perhaps you will accept that these measures have had very little effect - except on limiting the basic freedoms of ordinary posters and in further and needlessly dividing all of us? The very best system of dealing with any 'abuse' is one that is open, fair and has a clear objective. The so-called 'system' – which posters are loyally expected to defend here now - is secretive, unfair and inconsistent. The very thing that - unless it is now reviewed and improved - has and will continue to provide the fuel and justification that will ensure that the issue of imposed censorship and resulting and needless division engendered by the current set-up - will just grind on and on. If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Bill D Date: 09 May 05 - 07:26 PM "How about everyone else also being allowed to say anything they feel like? Nope....too many seriously abuse that. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 05 - 07:16 PM 3. Being allowed to say anything I feel like. How about everyone else also being allowed to say anything they feel like? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,sneaky Date: 09 May 05 - 07:00 PM To vote twice, you need a different IP address, I think. I used a proxy. I might have voted 12 times, but it wasn't worth it. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,jeffp Date: 09 May 05 - 04:39 PM HERETIC!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Wesley S Date: 09 May 05 - 04:32 PM Perhaps - Music ? Does anyone remember music ?? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 05 - 02:44 PM Actually, Shambles, I DID check 'Too Scared to Say'. Hope you recognize TIC. *Smiles* What is the main function and purpose of the Mudcat in my opinion? Connection and Community. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 09 May 05 - 02:39 PM 4) I am thinking golf today, and I have never played it in my life. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: jeffp Date: 09 May 05 - 02:37 PM 3. Being allowed to say anything I feel like. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 09 May 05 - 02:29 PM The result on the following question may be interesting and helpful. What do you consider to be the Mudcat Discussion Forum's main function and purpose? Depending of course on the options given.......The follwing two options sometimes appear to be the only ones.... 1. Being allowed and encouraged to say - nice things to and about our volunteers? 2. Being allowed and encouraged to say - not so nice things to and about other posters? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 09 May 05 - 01:52 PM It is a bit difficult to choose the poll question that suits. Jon - Am I supposed to choose - I'm too scared to say? *Smiles* Perhaps some rather more serious questions in a similar poll - may be useful? I could suggest a few basic questions. In fact - I think I may have............. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: jeffp Date: 09 May 05 - 01:21 PM My guesses would be: Multiple computers Multiple browsers Reset cookies then do it again jeffp |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 09 May 05 - 12:48 PM That is very bad, sneaky. How'd you do it? I tried and couldn't. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,sneaky Date: 09 May 05 - 12:41 PM Ha! I voted twice! But I voted against myself the second time. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 09 May 05 - 11:52 AM No one is a foreigner in their own country. Aristotle |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: JennyO Date: 09 May 05 - 11:25 AM BTW, I like the name of your poll, Jon :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: JennyO Date: 09 May 05 - 11:23 AM Amen to that! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 09 May 05 - 11:01 AM Well, I want everyone to know that I was the FIRST to vote and I said they were aliens. No thanks necessary. I take my franchise seriously. The most unthanked and underappreciated group of people here are Max, Jeff, Joe and the many nameless clones who give their time to make this place happen and function. IMNSHO. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 09 May 05 - 10:57 AM I voted. I hope that the tally isn't done in Florida. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: jeffp Date: 09 May 05 - 10:45 AM Taken care of. Actually, to Shambles, the clones are agents of a foreign power--Max, who is the power behind Mudcat and foreign to Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 09 May 05 - 10:31 AM OK. The voting ain't movin' along too fast. No one has said the clones are agents of a foreign power. They are if you're from space, and we got a few of those around here--myself included. Where's the Mudcat spirit? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 09 May 05 - 09:57 AM Me too. Harpgirl, just be happy with the compliment; don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I should know. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: JennyO Date: 09 May 05 - 09:07 AM I just voted. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,autoharpy Date: 09 May 05 - 09:02 AM Am I the "Queen of Cute?????" Oh thank you GUEST! I have never been the queen of anything. A fiftysix year old queen of cute. Oh, boy! You made my day.... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 08 May 05 - 05:05 PM If this was a democracy we could vote, and there are at least three people who would be thrown out. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Ebbie Date: 08 May 05 - 04:51 PM Me too. |
| Share Thread: |