 sj |
||
|
||
Objections to Joe Offer
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 06 May 05 - 08:36 AM maybe,just maybe,if we all tried to be a little bit,just a tiny little bit "dam well civil" to every one else most of this bullshit would go away of it's own acord! It is surely worth a try. The point about thread titles is that our volunteers consider that these are for them to impose changes upon - if and when they wish without consulting the originator. The well-intention purpose of this is supposed to be to enable folk to find things better. An imposed change to a more informative title is thought to be for the general good. Now my view is that if this change is thought necessary to a thread title - that the originator's permission is first sort - as a sign of respect - if nothing else and an indication that their worth has not been judged wanting - by those with a greater power. The point is that when volunteers impose what they consider to be a more informative thread title - which could be seen as an implied judgement of the original poster's choice - they may find making a more informative title easier - simply because our volunteers are able to use more letters in the box and hence are able to create a longer thread title. My point is simply that if ordinary posters were able to use as many letters as out volunteers are - they may be able to produce more informative titles - without the need for any inposed change. It is surely worth a try? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: kendall Date: 06 May 05 - 08:20 AM Joe, you can't reason with mal contents, why bother to even try? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 05 May 05 - 09:18 PM Ya think? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: jpk Date: 05 May 05 - 09:01 PM maybe,just maybe,if we all tried to be a little bit,just a tiny little bit "dam well civil" to every one else most of this bullshit would go away of it's own acord! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer Date: 05 May 05 - 07:17 PM Well, gee, Spaw, it was just a windy way of saying I'm going to shut the fuck up, that I don't really have any answers to give to Shambles, or any reason to give them. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: catspaw49 Date: 05 May 05 - 05:36 PM I dunno' Joe....Try, "Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up!" Lots more fun anyway...... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 05 May 05 - 05:00 PM Pardon me for being third man in. Roger, it ain't yer business. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer Date: 05 May 05 - 04:58 PM
Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it is detrimental. Shambles is now demanding a defense of our designation of the number of letter spaces allowed in a thread title, implying that some sort of tyranny was involved in allowing 40 spaces instead of 43, or 46, or 47.5. Max and Jeff and I discussed the number of spaces for titles and for title editing, and came up with a number we wanted for each. We kicked the idea around for quite a while, and tried various combinations. We may try other things in the future, but we're happy with what we have for now. I cannot recall all the steps of the decision process, and it would be unfair and unwise for me to attempt to reconstruct what Max and Jeff and I said in the discussion. We based our decision on a number of possibilities, assumptions, hunches, and experiences - along with what Shambles complains is an unfair use of "personal taste," and possibly a bit of sheer whimsy. We did what we did, and we have no reason to discuss or defend what we did. General principles are one thing - nit-picking every action we take is another. Let's say we have no food in the house, and I want to go to the grocery store on the corner to get something to eat for dinner. Little Shambles pesters me, and I finally agree to let him tag along. As soon as we get out the door, he demands to know why I took my first step with my left foot instead of my right. When I say that it was arbitrary, that it just happened that way, he calls me a Communist and refuses to take another step until I go back inside the house and start with my right foot. I humor him the first time and start all over from the beginning; but then he complains that my stride is too long, and he demands that I match his pace exactly. So, OK, I can do that, if it keeps him happy. But then he demands that we walk on the other side of the street because he's afraid the neighbor's dog might come to the window and bark at us. But finally, we get to the store, and it closed five minutes ago. And we starve to death on the way home. It's really difficult to figure out what to say in response to this constant badgering that Shambles puts out. I like to be forthright about things, and my natural tendency is to answer every question that anybody asks. That doesn't apply here. Sometimes, it is unwise to reveal everything about everything, and it is sometimes not within the scope of my authority to reveal certain things. I think that applies particularly to decision processes - in most cases, there is no value in explaining or defending a process used to arrive at what outsiders may consider to be an arbitrary decision. When I worked as a government investigator, I chose to print my notes with a ballpoint pen - mostly, because that's the way I liked to do it, but there were a number of other valid reasons that led me to do it that way - and I taught dozens of trainee investigators to do it the same way. I had a coworker who wrote his notes in a self-devised code, so nobody would be able to get any information from his notes in case he lost them. I thought his system was really stupid, but I never questioned him. I outranked him, but he was not under my supervision, so it wasn't my responsibility to interfere. However, I did not allow him to impose his system on my trainees. How he did his work was none of my business, and how I trained new employees was none of his (although he didn't quite see it that way). As for volunteers judging the "value" of posts, I don't know what to say. The only things we deal with are personal attacks, spam, racism, and technical errors. What people think of posts beyond that doesn't have anything to do with our editorial policy. And again, we often cannot discuss our editorial decisions in detail, for a number of very valid reasons. It seems rude to say something is "none of your damn business," but oftentimes, that's the case. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 05 - 02:27 PM This is getting detrimental to Mudcat, its main function and purpose. Which is what? If you look back you will see that increasingly its main function (for the last few years) has been to judge the worth of those who post and encourage everyone to post and judge the worth of everyone else and to gang-up and tell fellow posters to go away - if they don't like all the judgement. Whatever the main function of our forum it - I would suggest that it is not to encourage all this judgement of each other. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: EagleWing Date: 05 May 05 - 01:15 PM Oh - I thought you were going to recommend multiple hangings for him (is that Joe or Roger or someone else?) Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,flamenco ted Date: 05 May 05 - 12:21 PM Shit! missed out the apostrophe! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,flamenco ted Date: 05 May 05 - 12:00 PM Hangings too good for him! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Zany Mouse Date: 05 May 05 - 09:01 AM The title of this thread is very sad indeed. I met Joe once about 3/4 years ago at a little pub in Ashwell, Hertfordshire. I found him to be a total gentleman (in every sense of the word) with a terrific sense of humour, and, which is good for Mudcat, a very practical outlook on everything. Give the guy space, let's get on with enjoying the forum for all the information and companionship we find here. Rhiannon |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 05 May 05 - 06:32 AM Monty Python: "This is getting silly...". We have a number of threads (at least 5) at the moment which deal with the same complaints essentially - though some of those threads were started for different reasons. Worst example is the "Bawdy titles" thread, which is now diverted to discuss the length of titles ordinary posters can use versus the equivalent that the editorial team are allowed. This is getting detrimental to Mudcat, its main function and purpose. I suggest therefore that we consolidate all complaints about the running of Mudcat into a single permathread, which can be used by those who wish to discuss something there, or ignored by those who do not; leaving thus the remainder of the index free for more pertinent (or in the case of the BS section more "impertinent"?) matters. The permathread could have capital letters, so it would be easy to spot. Something like MUDCAT COMPLAINTS BOX. Any new complaints threads would be consolidated into it, with out the approval of the originators being necessary. Just a matter of sweeping up all complaints into a single area. That way Max (and anyone else) would have a single place to look for any complaints or suggestions about the running of Mudcat, instead of them being strewn all over the forum. Roger, you could start it off, and I am sure Joe would turn it into a Permathread for you, with yourself having sole editorial control - nobody else. I am suggesting you for two reasons: a) You have brought out the biggest number of complaints, which to date have mostly not been satisfied, and b)you clearly have an interest (more so than the majority) in improving the forum and ridding it of inadequacies and inequalities. You could start it off, Roger, with a summary of the complaints to date - as Gervase suggested -, preferably without undue copying and pasting to make points, but rather using your own words to explain each issue, clearly and succinctly. Over and out, Roger (did I just cross metaphors?) *smile* |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 05 - 05:54 AM Make mine a 100. *Smiles* We have been there Ted – in the Censorship on Mudcat thread. There - your 100 was snatched away. And then - when it was all runny – you were allowed to have it again.......Kid's stuff eh? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 05 - 05:16 AM Yes Jon - I am a truly terrible person. That is your view - which as far as I am concerned - you can express here as many times and in as many way as you wish (as you already have many times). But the point is however you or Joe and his anonymous volunteers may judge mine or the worth others and whatever abuse you may subject us to - we remain as posters and are equally entitled to moderatly express our view from where we sit - (as many times as we may think is required). You are not forced to read it or respond. The idea that I am the only poster who does not think that every thing that Joe Offer and his anonymous volunteers do to our forum - is unquestionably wonderful - is not supported by the facts. The only means of me finding out exactly what has really been happening in the last few years - is when posters complain about their treatment or question where their contributions had gone. There are no shortage of these. If you treat children as you would treat adults - they tend to respond better than if you treat them as children. If you treat adults as would treat children - they tend to behave like children. If you deny your child the ice cream they request - to establish whose decision this is or to maintain control for the sake of it - children tend to see through this very quickly. If this is the reason why you wish to deny them an ice cream - sometimes it is better just to let them have the bloody ice cream. For in any subsquent argument - the child will be perfectly correct - however irrational both sides become. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 05 May 05 - 04:20 AM Then one day of them asks for an ice cream - and one then tells the other that he will not allow his equal to have the ice cream of his choice. But that did not happen here... One day the shop owner said to one of his customers "you have been a really good customer. This shop is getting busier and is more than I can handle on my own. Could you help me with some of the work round here"? Over time the shop owner needed more help and took on more assistants. While most customers were happy with this arangement, one customer got upset but could not face up to the reality that the shop owner had appointed these people. To satisfy his own illusion, he created a situation in his mind whereby the assistants had appointed themselves. These days he doesn't come in for ice cream much but instead comes in to criticise those appointed by the shop owner. He becomes more bitter and twisted by the day and can't understand why people can't take his complaints seriously. He is so lost in his fantasy that any sense of reality or logic is wasted on him. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Paco Rabanne Date: 05 May 05 - 03:38 AM Make mine a 100. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 05 - 02:34 AM Wolfgang. A slightly shorter fairy story. Two grown adults often go in to an ice cream parlour together. Then one day of them asks for an ice cream - and one then tells the other that he will not allow his equal to have the ice cream of his choice. One of these adults is sorely tempted to punch his companion right on the nose - but resists this temptation and concentrates on trying to again reach the situtation where they - and everyone else could again visit the ice cream parlour as equals and all the arguments caused by the assumption and heavy-handed imposition of authority - could cease. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 05 - 02:20 AM As no one is forcing anyone to open any thread. There seems little point in posters choosing not only to open it but to then post and refresh the thread to complain in many and varied ways - simply to judge that its contents (or certain posters) are not to their taste. If you don't like lots of ice cream - there seems little point of entering an ice cream parlour in the first place - let alone then sitting down to repeatedly complain about the amount of ice cream and its ingredients and to praise each other for each attempt. Why not just leave it to those who lots of ice cream is to their taste? As someone who wants to continue being informed by this thread - and the other one - could I request: "No more ice cream, please"? You could and you did - but if you accept that this IS an ice cream parlour (amongst other things) - why enter if you don't like lots of ice cream. Our forum has always catered for all tastes. I'll have a 99 - please. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 May 05 - 06:48 PM Dunno Jeri but Ice-stein would seem to me a name for a clever thinking ice-cream. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jeri Date: 04 May 05 - 06:16 PM I'm just trying to figure out what Ben & Jerry would name ice cream that thinks. 'NietzschePeazche' just isn't funny enough. I'm also wondering how it would feel about being eaten, and how long after being eaten would it retain its ability to think. As for WHAT it would think... At any point in the digestive process, "Oh shit!" is undoubtedly an appropriate thought. Would it miss its cherry, if said cherry had been stolen? On a hot day, would it sound like the Wicked Witch of the West? Was she possibly ice cream in disguise? THAT was funnier than some stuff Catspaw comes up with on purpose! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 04 May 05 - 05:57 PM And what do you do for a living? Sell dope? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad Date: 04 May 05 - 05:35 PM Now I know what Shambles does for a living - he's a political speech writer. I'm guessing for George Bush Jr. The wisdom, the clarity of thought - it's all there. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: katlaughing Date: 04 May 05 - 05:17 PM Haven't read the whole damn thing, but Wolfgang that was BRILL! LMAO! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 04 May 05 - 05:02 PM Just to keep some reference to music in here, anyone remember Smokey Joe's Cafe by the Robins? Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: jpk Date: 04 May 05 - 04:42 PM i would object to the rejection of my objections,but since i have no real objections to offer,i retract my objection to the rejection of my offer to object to Offers,offer |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Wolfgang Date: 04 May 05 - 03:53 PM Speaking about ice cream.... Mama, can I get an ice cream? No, you can't. Mama, why can't I get an ice cream? Because it is close to dinner time? Mama, what has dinner time to do with ice cream? I want that you get something real to eat Mama, why is ice cream not real? It is as real as anything else, but if you eat an icecream now you will not eat enough of the nourishing food Mama, do I get an ice cream? NO, SHUT UP NOW, you get on my nerves. Why do you scream at me, Mama, when I'm only asking politely? Cause I've other things to do. If you've got other things to do, Mama, why do you scream? ----- Mama, but why can't I get an ice cream? I'm only asking politely. Because too much ice cream is not good for you. Now, Mama, you change your reasons, what is it? Is too much ice cream bad for me or just does it make me eat less from what is good? I can't argue all day with you. That's both the same. I've heard what you want and the answer is no. NO! Mama, but why can't I get an ice cream now? OH STOP IT and FUCK OFF Mama, do you think using swear words is a good example for me to follow?.... No but it's you who makes me do it. Me, but I haven't uased swear words as you have No, you haven't but you repeatedly ask the same question and don't listen to my response. I do listen but you give me conflicting reasons why I can't get an ice cream --- Do I get one or not? No But why no? Because Is that a reason or is it just your whim? You don't listen to my reasons Was saying 'because' a reason? You can say what you want you won't get an ice cream Was saying 'because' a reason? No and you know that. Now go play something else. But if you have no reason as you now admitted yourself why can't I get an ice cream? The mention of the ice cream made me going off on a tangent. Sorry for the thread creep. Now back to the theme of the thread. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 May 05 - 03:14 PM Folk could just choose to eat the ice cream of course - but it thought is far more fun to gang-up and call it names and question what make ice cream think it belongs in an ice cream parlour. ??? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 May 05 - 03:11 PM I don't understand the second sentence Roger - could you please explain? As for the first, well, you are forcing us to eat it. Only today you suggested that scanning through 900 posts of another thread on a similar topic was not too much in your view. As someone who wants to continue being informed by this thread - and the other one - could I request: "No more ice cream, please"? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 02:57 PM No one is being force to eat it - are they? Folk could just choose to eat the ice cream of course - but it thought is far more fun to gang-up and call it names and question what make ice cream think it belongs in an ice cream parlour. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 04 May 05 - 02:38 PM the same arguments repeated endlessly even if individually moderate make the entire effort immoderate. A half cup of ice cream is a moderate serving. 150 half cup servings of ice cream is extreme. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 02:26 PM They are endlessly repetitive. But repetitively moderate. This despite of lot of - much less moderate provocation. Which tends to be equally or even more repetitive and seldom actually addresses the issue. For the true test of our forum now - is not how well it treats the compliant poster but how well it accommodates our 'trouble makers'. These defined as anyone (even long-term posters) who may have suffered at their hands and who may not post to say that everything that Joe Offer and his anonymous volunteers are doing to our forum is quite so wonderful. For both sides of this may even be equally right. How you see something - simply depends on the view you have from where you are sitting. Our volunteer or fellow posters - simply judging and being encouraged to judge - a so-called 'trouble-maker's worth as a poster - does not solve the problem - it just causes more division and ill-feeling. If a more imaginitive and realistic solution is not found of accommodating all views - I fear there will be many more trouble-makers created - than there will be loyal subjects and true followers. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: kendall Date: 04 May 05 - 02:01 PM Ok Joe, I guess I spoke too soon. I see racist remarks as personal attacks. Anyway, if I had to make a list of the most forbidden posts, personal attacks would be number 1. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: JedMarum Date: 04 May 05 - 01:24 PM Wow - how did I miss out on all this fun??? I stumbled into this thread, checking to see if Jeri was still posting at MC, since I haven't seen anything from her in a while ... and what fun do I find? This thread, this tempest in a teacup, this "only at Mudcat" style disucssion! I loved your Sunday Mass story Joe - GOOD FOR YOU. I wish I'd been there! Great post Jeri - re: sh*tting in the middle of the room ... As for Objections to Joe?? I love Joe Offer. Thanks for all you do at Mudcat ... and as someone more clever then me said above, I object to the objectors! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 04 May 05 - 12:39 PM But what has that got to do with moderatly expressing and evidencing an honest opinion on the Mudcat Discussion Forum? Shambles, based on your posting history you have never "moderatly expressed" your opinion. That is part of the problem people have with your posts. They are endlessly repetitive. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 04 May 05 - 12:35 PM Apocalypse NOW! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 May 05 - 12:30 PM There, there, Roger you are not a terrible person. Don't go all defensive... I just said that I thought one particular action was "not nice" - that hardly characterises anybody as "terrible" now! My Mum used to say "there are no bad people about - we know that, because all the bad ones are in jail". |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 12:05 PM George I confess that I am a truly terrible person.............. But what has that got to do with moderatly expressing and evidencing an honest opinion on the Mudcat Discussion Forum? Are terrible people like me - now forbidden to do this? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 May 05 - 11:45 AM Roger, you say: "If this - what many folk honestly believe is the case - were in fact the case - I wouldn't be providing all this evidence to clearly demonstrate otherwise. Or feel that I needed to." You claim here the fact that you feel you need to provide evidence, and that you provided the exerpts earlier, as evidence in itself. "I feel the need to provide evidence, I provide evidence, so clearly that fact is evidence". Sorry, Rog, that is a perfectly circular argument, and counter to any logic. You just invalidated your argument. You then go on to say: "Only for this evidence to be mostly ignored and for folk to still carry on expressing opinions that simply fly in the face of the facts. And for folk to be encouraged post to call me names, tell me to shut-up and to go away." You state yourself that this "evidence" is ignored by people, and they express opinions counter to yours. Is that not evidence that you stand alone in your claims therefore? I will not even go into how you painted yourself into a corner with the start of your 5:38AM post. Joe offered an olive branch and you took it and attempted to hit him with it! Not nice, I thought... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 11:15 AM Oh Kendall now youve done it...:>) Be prepared for a bountiful script of the many things that at are "forbidden" according to Roger on his Forum, sorry, OUR forum, oh I mean MAX's Forum......twitch, tick, oh dear...have to go...getting that feeling again..lol Blessings Jude Please get this right - it is now JOE's FORUM on JOE's CAFE and only Joe will tell you what's forbidden. 'Learn to live with it' OK? *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 04 May 05 - 10:26 AM Helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllpuh |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: M.Ted Date: 04 May 05 - 10:23 AM Roger likes to suggest things and then complains if you don't do what he asks, and and complains if you do. Two examples at least are documented in this thread--I think we should hand him over to the folks on the "Assaults Upon Teachers" thread who want to reinstate corporeal punishment. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 10:23 AM As far as I can see, the only thing that is forbidden here is personal attacks. What is wrong with that? If this - what many folk honestly believe is the case - were in fact the case - I wouldn't be providing all this evidence to clearly demonstrate otherwise. Or feel that I needed to. Only for this evidence to be mostly ignored and for folk to still carry on expressing opinions that simply fly in the face of the facts. And for folk to be encouraged post to call me names, tell me to shut-up and to go away. The facts can be found on the following thread. Censorship on Mudcat |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Alba Date: 04 May 05 - 09:40 AM Oh Kendall now youve done it...:>) Be prepared for a bountiful script of the many things that at are "forbidden" according to Roger on his Forum, sorry, OUR forum, oh I mean MAX's Forum......twitch, tick, oh dear...have to go...getting that feeling again..lol Blessings Jude |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: kendall Date: 04 May 05 - 08:02 AM As far as I can see, the only thing that is forbidden here is personal attacks. What is wrong with that?
And we view thread and message titles as indexing tools that are to be used to help Mudcatters determine the contents of a thread or message. We do change thread titles and move messages to consolidate duplicate threads as part of our indexing process. And we do occasionally close threads for various reasons - but people are free to start a new thread or post to a related thread if there's a need. The "Mehlberger" thread title was changed to enable visitors to understand what the thread contains without knowing who John Mehlberg(er) is. The Girvan thread will be changed sooner or later to something like Girvan (folk festival 2005). Threads titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request" are routinely changed to "Lyr req:" plus song title. With the few exceptions mentioned above, the contents of messages are rarely changed. This is a fairly comprehensive explanation of our editing policy. Does anybody but Shambles object? The Editorial Policy is here (click) in the FAQ, last revised in 2003. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 05:38 AM Shambles suggested that it was inappropriate to have John's name in the thread title, so I took his advice. Thanks for the suggestion, Shambles. -Joe Offer- I am not sure that my advice would ever have been to impose any action on any of the three threads nor to impose a change to that - or any other thread title without the originator's knowledge or consent. I have made other suggestions..... But most – if not all of these tend to be thought (by Joe Offer) too be problematic and are rejected. Such as the one in this thread. Censorship on Mudcat Joe am I take it from this as OFFICIAL that my suggestion is rejected and that you intend to carry on imposing your personal tastes upon the titles chosen by fellow posters - as you wish - without their knowledge or consent? Or (as it is NOT in brown writing) is this just you expressing your personal opinion? {The following in brown writing} Yes, Shambles, you may take that as official. Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary. Note, however, that efforts ARE made to respect and preserve the thread originator's work. Ordinarily, the original thread title remains intact in the original message in the thread. Also, thread titles are usually altered by augmentation of the original title by the addition of a clarifying word or phrase, preserving the original title if space allows. If it appears that a thread originator may have trouble locating the thread after a title change, the originator is usually contacted by e-mail or personal message with information on how to locate the thread. -Joe Offer- Which to me reads that 'efforts ARE made (by our volunteers) to respect and preserve the thread originator's work' – BUT if our volunteers do not wish to make the effort first (even when there is no urgency required) – our volunteer's wishes - even those of anonymous ones - should now on our forum be thought to take priority over the wishes of ordinary Mudcatters and their freely given contributions to the Mudcat community. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 May 05 - 03:43 AM Subject: Objection to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:19 AM Objections to John Mehlbeher [snip] I have no objection to John Mehlberger nor any other poster. I probably do have an objection to threads being started that have a poster's name and invitations for fellow posters to pass their personal judgement. Perhaps a better example can be set? [snip] Shambles now objects: That thread is now called Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 02:50 AM Shambles, I usually stay OUT of this kind of threads, but tell me this.....just WHY are you still here if you hate it that much? Come on, it's a simple answer.... Simple answer ---- to a not so simple question. Because I don't hate many things - certainly not our forum. And I do love many things - including the basic right for people to be able to express their view here - without personal judgement being made of them and the 'rules' views and personal taste of others being imposed upon them. Perhaps as you have now posted to this thread - you could also be asking why certain posters think they are qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters? There are some practical difficulties in this I know - as some of these volunteers are anonymous. But that appears to be OK? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Sorcha Date: 04 May 05 - 01:59 AM Shambles, I usually stay OUT of this kind of threads, but tell me this.....just WHY are you still here if you hate it that much? Come on, it's a simple answer.... |
| Share Thread: |
