Objections to Joe Offer

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,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: 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: 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: Paco Rabanne
Date: 05 May 05 - 03:38 AM

Make mine a 100.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,flamenco ted
Date: 05 May 05 - 12:00 PM

Hangings too good for him!

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: 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: 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: Joe Offer
Date: 05 May 05 - 04:58 PM

This is getting detrimental to Mudcat, its main function and purpose.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 05 May 05 - 09:18 PM

Ya think?

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: 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: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 08:49 AM

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.

I will leave others to judge - if I was in fact "demanding" anything.

I certainly was not "demanding" yet another public 'defence' of everything and a little more personal judgement thrown in. Although that is just what we usually get.

I was asking questions to establish if there was a difference in the number of title spaces available. When it was established that it was a fact that our volunteers did have more spaces available than the ordinary poster - I just suggested that perhaps a change would be a good idea.

Is it a such a bad suggestion? I will leave it to you to judge........

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 10:14 AM

Joe Offer says.

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.

I am (almost) lost for words too...The above is simply NOT true and this 'spin' is stated after I have provided the (following) evidence that proves it is NOT true. You can judge from this evidence............

The following post was recently deleted by a still unknown volunteer. It was NOT a personal attack –spam – racist – or a technical problem. The justification given by Joe Offer – before he was even aware that Ted's post had in fact been deleted or by whom – was that these type of posts were thought to be 'obnoxious'.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM

Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so.
-Joe Offer-

Here's Ted's (deleted) message:
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: flamenco ted - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM

200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact imposed changes to thread titles are now undertaken by our anonymous volunteers as a matter of routine. As this recent case where am imposed changed (or addition) to a BS non-music related thread was changed-back.

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
From the following thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819


Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important.
The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back.
-Joe Offer-

It was NOT a personal attack –spam – racist – or a technical problem – but a change was imposed upon this thread title as a matter of routine and without the originator's knowledge or consent.

Perhaps all this routine imposition and judgement can now stop – or any further 'official' explanations given as to 'what we deal with' can include these now routine actions? Which are NOT personal attacks, spam, racism, and technical errors

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: Joe Offer
Date: 06 May 05 - 11:49 AM

Ayup, Kendall. You're right about that.
And I was so proud of myself for being so reasonable and logical. Of course, logic doesn't work with some people. They just keep repeating themselves.
Guess I'd better just ignore Sh----es.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 06 May 05 - 12:13 PM

Let it ride, Joe. You've responded to every "fact" endless times, and there will never be an end. (Now, Shambles, you can copy and paste this statement and refute it.) Temperately phrased, endless repitition is still endless repetition. "Facts" are in the eye of the beholder(another chance to copy and paste a sentence, Roger.)

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 12:59 PM

Folk may have missed the (official) reply to by Joe Offer to Kedall's question. This is because in was inserted as an editorial comment into Kendall's post and did not refresh this thread.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall - PM
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are a few other things, but they're relatively rare. We don't allow Spam or racism, and we don't allow lengthy non-music copy-paste posts (we encourage people to post the entire text of music information they find, and ask them to include attribution). We reserve the right to delete messages in other situations where a need may arise, but I can't think of any such situations now.
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-

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 imposed change.

It is surely worth a try?

It may very well be that a poster - would make a more informative title - if they could use the few extra spaces that our volunteers can. Especially when often the routine imposed change is simply our volunteers feeling that they need to impose a change - by adding something like 'UK'.

If the routine imposed change is just adding "Lyr req:" - perhaps when starting a thread - posters should not be given an optional choice - to use a prefix or not?

Is this illusion of an 'optional choice' a little dishonest - if a prefix is later to be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission - as a matter of routine?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 May 05 - 01:37 PM

Going to the Getaway this year, Kendall? How about you, Brucie?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:09 PM

Joe,

HERE is the FAQ post that includes the Editorial Policy (page down there to find the bold subhead).

It begins with this statement:

"We occasionally get requests for information about what we delete and why we delete it. Most of the principles we follow are stated above, but let me try to state it more succinctly: The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum....."

In sections of that post above the Editorial Policy, there are guidelines about thread titling and song-posting, as well as non-music copy-pastes.

All of this information has been available to us all for quite some time, including The Shambles. (He's been invited to review those policies several times that I know of, personally.) IMO the policy is quite clear that the policy is the policy is the policy. IMO it's also clear in the FAQ that Max gives his input on policy and that you report to him; that is reflected in the FAQ numerous times.

If any member (including The Shambles) wants to comment on policy that's fine, but the policy IS THE POLICY.

Joe, you do NOT have to answer policy questions or objections in any or every thread where they pop up. One place you can answer them, if you care to, is in the FAQ thread, so that people's thoughts can be addressed and their posts retired after folks have had a chance to clarify their understanding of policy.

I have no doubt that when people offer input constructively, you receive it constructively and, often, incorporate it into your thoughts about next steps to improve Mudcat. I even know (personally) that when the input is not fully positive, in the end you usually manage to consider the thinking behind the input, and incorporate it in your thoughts in a positive fashion, as well.

I also have no doubt that these factor in when you and Jeff and Max confer about new directions, tools, or approaches. IMO, no one could reasonably expect that the process is instantaneous.

I would like to encourage you to think about a site management policy about how and where people's questions, objections, and/or input about policy will be addressed. You have used the FAQ in that way many times, with excellent results. IMO it's a really good approach that could become a stated, enforced policy. You could post a heads-up in other threads, "Please see FAQ for handling this."

Thanks again for all the good work you do here,

~Susan

PS, this post, as I understand it, belongs to me-- that anything we choose to "copyright" is our own, the site's texts otherwise belonging to Max. Therefore, I would request that if anyone quotes from my post without my express permission, such quoting be deleted immediately. Further, only Joe Offer is authorized by me to quote it.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:28 PM

Dance, dance, wherever ye may be, I am the Lord of the Dance, said he .........

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:12 PM

There's an old African American folk saying that "you should never let your mouth go faster than your brain."

In discussion forums such as Mudcat, that saying also applies, but now it's the fingers that are doing the talking.

And from other sources: "Those who have ears let them hear".

And

"If the shoe fits wear it."

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:19 PM

Also, here's a re-phrasing of a Nigerian {Ibo, West Africa} folk saying that fits some on Mudcat more than others:

"You don't praise yourself. If you are worthy, other people will praise you."

Of course, there's always the much overused African saying "It takes a village to raise a child".

And sometimes the 'village' needs to tell the person acting like a child that childhood is a thing of the past.

            
          'Those who have eyes let them see.'

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:27 PM

And for those who are puffed up with their own importance, here's another African American folk saying that was used as the title of a 1970s book by Alice Childress:

"A hero ain't nothin but a sandwich".

[The goes for women too].

BTW, I mean no disrespect toward those who have physical challenges to their hearing and seeing.

Enough said.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:39 PM

Azizi, I love you to bits! :)))))))

Also, here's a re-phrasing of a Nigerian {Ibo, West Africa} folk saying that fits some on Mudcat more than others:

"You don't praise yourself. If you are worthy, other people will praise you."

Sounds like Joe Offer to me. Never heard him say a good word for himself (damn right too!), but seen plenty of good words for him (added one or two grudgingly non-critical ones meself occasionally...)

Of course, there's always the much overused African saying "It takes a village to raise a child".

Do they run an adoption scheme? Cos there are one or two I could nominate as needing it... (but the gods help the poor bloody village!)

And sometimes the 'village' needs to tell the person acting like a child that childhood is a thing of the past.

{Evil grin} Oh, pleasepleaseplease... canIcanIcanI? {/Evil grin}

Oh, Roger... ;-)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:40 PM

Drat! Sorry. Looks like I wuz careless about closing HTML...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jpk
Date: 06 May 05 - 05:22 PM

to top it all off,i cannot believe that anyone cares about it all that dam much, cept maybe mg and/or sham....

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:09 PM

I think that, at the Getaway this year, since there will be so many of Shambles thread-buddies there, we ought to have a toast to him for the service he does in uniting so many disparate souls in one grand goal.

Perhaps (I think that's his favorite word) we can get me, Joe, El Greco, Kendall, Big Mick, Ebbie, Jeri, Amos, harpgirl...I'm sure there are others...and who knows..perhaps Max...
Who else would like to join in raising a glass to our favorite purveyor of hypothetical questions?

I will be glad to take pictures!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:14 PM

ummm..Roger, we make a lot of music there...you oughta come sometime.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 May 05 - 08:39 PM

Excellent idea, Bill D. And Shambles, I wish you would come to the Getaway too. I can picture all of us surrounding you, glasses held high. And you would laugh, and go and sin no more...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 05 - 01:55 AM

I never did enough of anything in the 1960s to really, truly understand this thread. Just thought I'd mention that to y'all.

"Therefore, I would request that if anyone quotes from my post without my express permission, such quoting be deleted immediately. Further, only Joe Offer is authorized by me to quote it."

"Therefore, I would request that if anyone quotes from my post without my express permission, such quoting be deleted immediately. Further, only Joe Offer is authorized by me to quote it."

Ditto that. I think. Or, maybe on second thought, don't ditto that which I have already dittoed. So just ditto the second quote but not the first. Right.

Hey, man, wanna pass that over here? Sshhhhhhhhshhssshhhshhhhshshsssshkabooooooom.

So like now, I'm changing sparkplugs on Venus, man.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:30 AM

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum....."

It should be noted that - this of course was pinned on to the stable door long after many horses had bolted by those who wished to shape our forum by doing these things - at the time when most other long-term posters were busy shaping our forum by posting to it.

However, is The Mudcat Cafe reserving the right to do these things - really the same as anonymous volunteers now imposing them upon fellow posters as a matter of routine?

Max reserving the right to do these things is sensible.

Using this to justify needless meddling as a matter of routine, by fellow posters (some of them remaining anonymous) and the imposition of their personal taste and judgement upon the invited and freely given contributions of - other fellow posters without the originator's knowledge or consent - is not sensible.

It does not show the correct level of respect and in the long-run the division caused by it - will prove counter-productive.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:13 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Joe Offer.

Can it now finally be accepted from the evidence - that it is clear FACT the above 'spin' is not true - and that ROUTINE censorship is now encouraged to be imposed by anonymous volunteers (on matters of personal taste only) - which are NOT personal attacks, spam, racism and technical errors? And that these are thought by our Editor in Chief - to "fair game" for his underlings to indulge in?

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 before the following misleading 'spin' is wheeled-out yet again for our benefit - unchanged and incomplete?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: gnu
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:26 AM

I feel sorry for the clones. They HAVE to read all this stuff. I can skip posts from certain individuals or simply ignore such treads altogether... turn the thread, as it were.

Keep up (unfortunately) the good work Joe, Mick, et al.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:47 AM

Pedantic thought for the day:

There should be forfeits for posts over a certain length or for posts containing long copy-pastes, like junk mail. The Post Office would have charged excess postage, if they were real letters. And why not? Such posters abuse the storage space available to Mudcat, reducing the available space for the rest of us, possibly contributing to system crashes in some small degree, and eventually causing earlier purchase of additional storage, thus raising the running costs of Mudcat and endangering its existence!

I believe this issue to be much more important than the length of titles. Which reminds me: For the same reason, we should definitely not increase the number of characters available for title creation by posters - too much cost and risk!

But first - make junk-posters pay (this excludes April Fools and the legitimate racing towards the next 100th post, or course).

I think I'll start a campaign on this. :-)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:20 AM

WHAT EVIDENCE ROGER???

You post the same shit over and over and it makes no sense. Your issues are becoming so laughable......the number of characters in a title line?   Has someone's life been ruined over a thread title? It just gets sillier and sillier.....Man, you got a warped groove, yaa' know?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:34 AM

I'll lead you all, wherever you may be, I'll lead you all in the dance, said he......

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,lesblank
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:39 AM

Shambles, you have fallen into the realm of the completely boring !!!
It is no wonder that, with idiots like you and Martin Gibson, the toilet papers manufacturers are reaping a financial windfall !!

Did it never occur to you that, without folks like Joe and Max and Dick, you would not have a forum to spout your totally asinine rants ??!! Get a life !!!!

Right on, JOE !!!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:25 AM

George, Jacqui and I will be at the Getaway. (I wont be bringing my gun)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:27 PM

oh, good, kendall....then we only need to worry about getting HALF-shot..*grin*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:28 PM

200