 sj |
||
|
||
In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:56 AM Five months old now, and all about one man's desire to impose his will on all others, including the site owners. And he accuses Joe and the Clones of being too controlling...SHEEESH! If only we could find a way to hook him up to the National Grid, we could solve all our energy problems for years to come. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST Date: 27 Dec 05 - 02:30 PM In the meantime the said thread will be closed awaiting the democratic process. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST Date: 27 Dec 05 - 01:06 PM OK, Shambles, in order not to "impose" a philosophy on anyone, I propose that we adopt a policy that no thread will have its title changed without first posting a proposal that the title be changed, and then allow six months for everyone to express thier opinion about whether it should be changed or not, and to suggest other possible titles, and then put it to a vote--but first we'll have to allow six months to debate about what the voting procedure should be--should we divid up into parties and allow proportional representation, or should we adopt a winner-take-all procedure; and who should be allowed to vote, and how we're going to make sure nobody votes twice, and whether the method is foolproof or not, and another six months to appoint a committee to count the votes, and another six months to hold hearings on all the complaints about how the votes were counted unfairly--but first I'd like to open debate on whether this proposal is an ironic one or not. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Dec 05 - 01:44 PM I have to first question why the philosophy of someone who can't even use a regular name should be imposed on contributors who are prepared to be known and stand by their philosophy? If something is worth doing - it is perhaps worth doing properly and without any secrecy, imposed judgement and needless division? The DT is serviced by the Forum in the way I suggested but remains a separate entity. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Dec 05 - 08:03 PM Listen very carefully I shall say zis only wunce (phoney French accent). If someone is asking about a particular song, or adding a lyric, a number of blue clickies will usually appear, above the list of posters, linking to pertinent threads. The only reason for some of these appearing is the fact that Joe, or a clone has kindly altered the title to make that happen. As for the idea of our forum moderators being tasked with the job of extracting, and moving, data to another part of the site, has it occurred to you that these people have a life beyond Mudcat which requires their attention. I would suggest that very few people have the spare time to take on this extra work. Perhaps you would be willing to volunteer your services in this matter, as it is apparent that you have more time for posting than most here. At least it would cut down on the high percentage of complaints on these threads. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 24 Dec 05 - 05:43 PM And a Merry Christmas to you, Shambles. May we keep some perspective on what is truly important in life. Innocent civilians are being blown up every day, soldiers are fighting in an unjust war and thousands of people starve to death daily. There are worse things than a title change.. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Dec 05 - 05:32 PM Gotcha!! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 05:02 PM If I gave you my suggestion, Shambles, it would rightfully be edited out by a clone. FYI. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 24 Dec 05 - 04:34 PM My philosophy is that we're not just answering questions here. We're building the world's largest database of useful information about folk music (loosely defined), including lyrics, tunes, information about recordings, links to other useful sites, etc. Information posted here is not only for the benefit of the people who ask for it, but for unknown hundreds or thousands of people who might search for that information in the future. Therefore, the information needs to be organised in a way that makes it easy to find. I have to first question why the philosophy of someone who can't even use a regular name should be imposed on contributors who are prepared to be known and stand by their philosophy? This philosophy is not a unworthy one and is perhaps one that a name could be put to? I only question if it is one that really fits with Max's historical model of what this public discussion forum should be or if it is a philosophy that is at odds with his public statements on this? There is some confusion between The Mudcat proper ie Max's website and the part that he has given over for the public's contributions - The Discussion Forum. Can I suggest that the answer is to use The Mudcat proper to build a database and to extract from the discussion forum the information freely provided by the public and where this information can be organised eleswhere on the site - as your philosophy requires? Hopefully always correctly crediting (and linking) the source of this information? This would leave all of our forum free for all of our contributions to remain unchanged, unedited and uncensored - just as they were posted.........Would this be the best solution? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,One of the JoeClones Date: 24 Dec 05 - 04:07 PM Changing thread titles is a time-honoured tradition in the Music section of the forum, and I have never heard of anyone complaining about it. It happens because people, mainly newcomers who don't know any better, often start threads like— Help! I'm looking for song. or looking for song or Lyr Req: Need a Song or want to find a song to name a few examples that we haven't got around to changing yet—but I fully intend to do it, as time permits. The people who start this kind of music thread haven't a clue what kind of information they should put in a thread title, or why it matters. But they ALL—without exception that I know of—understand once it is explained to them, and then they often apologise for their ignorance and thank us for helping them. People who start BS threads are different. My philosophy is that we're not just answering questions here. We're building the world's largest database of useful information about folk music (loosely defined), including lyrics, tunes, information about recordings, links to other useful sites, etc. Information posted here is not only for the benefit of the people who ask for it, but for unknown hundreds or thousands of people who might search for that information in the future. Therefore, the information needs to be organised in a way that makes it easy to find. One of the ways people find information is by filtering thread titles, so it's important for thread titles to contain a full song title, or at least some important key words about whatever the topic is. I have probably changed hundreds of titles of music threads, and no one ever complained. I once naively assumed the authors would appreciate it if I occasionally changed a BS thread title as well, but I learned better. Now I never change BS threads, and haven't for a long time. Not that I think there would be anything wrong with changing them. I just can't be bothered to do it, given that it is a thankless task. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 24 Dec 05 - 04:52 AM If those with time on their hands and nothing to do but selectivly edit my contributions in various ways and interfere and pass judgements on matters that are none of their concern - - - there would be nothing for me - or anyone else to spend their precious time complaining about. Roll on that day! And roll on the day that those with time on their hand and nothing to do and who repeatly post in support of those few who do the interfering and who post only to pass judgement (or worse) upon the victims of this intererence - can find something more constructive to do with their time. Merry Christmas Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:02 PM "with time on their hands and nothing better to do." Man, that is as perfect a commentary on your complaints, Shambles as I've ever heard... Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:00 PM Shambles, most people have the decency to wank in private. Please join them in that custom. (My apologies to the pedants on the thread. I don't really understand the transitivity of the infinitive "to wank".) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:54 PM he doesn't need your permission, nor your complience - and it is obviously an addition/reply rather an insertion. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM Subject: RE: Law prevents carol singing From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:24 AM You may have missed this editing comment as it was inserted into my post and did not refresh this thread. Subject: RE: Law prevents carol singing. (England) From: The Shambles - PM Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:07 AM Can who ever inserted 'England' to this thread's title please remove it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I won't bother finding out who made the title change, but I can see no good reason for the change to have been made - so I changed it back. I would expect to see a location added to titles of threads about concerts or tours, not for every damn thing. -Joe Offer- [the above editing comment was in small brown writing and still being inserted into my post without my permission and against my wishes]
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Dec 05 - 09:04 AM Wishing you all a Merry Christmas. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:46 AM Another sly underhand, and self serving revival of an old thread by Roger. "Subject: BS: Wanker's Register From: The Shambles - PM Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:15 AM I see we have a Lurker's Register so why not a Wanker's Register for self-confessed wankers? I think that may have 'bashed the Bishop' myself once when I was younger - but I did not inhale................." The self confessed wanker. G. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:31 AM Wishing you all a Merry Christmas. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 30 Aug 05 - 04:21 AM But Roger doesn't like where I put my answers, so he thinks that means it's wrong. Joe Offer I am not sure there a right or wrong here - just different - if plainly unequal views. But where I may really like you to put such answers may prove to be more difficult than where I have politely and formally requested you place them in future. However - I have politely and formally requested that you do not insert them in my posts but contribute to and refresh the threads on equal terms as everyone else - for the reasons given and I hope that you will honour this request. But it was a formal request - made in moderate language and as khandu said earlier in this thread: Simple decency goes a long way. Most importantly when you do show simple decency - it is setting an example that usually tends to be appreciated and reciprocated. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:00 PM Which means, in short, that Roger got an answer that did not please him. That's all. Posting answers under questions works for me, but Roger does not like it. Note that these questions have to do with Mudcat editorial policy, so posting the answer as an editorial comment seems perfectly appropriate. Personal opinions are another matter, but Roger is not requesting my personal opinion. What he defines as my personal opinion is another matter. But Roger doesn't like where I put my answers, so he thinks that means it's wrong. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:13 PM For example ---- I have received a answer to my polite request - that editing comments are not in future inserted into my posts without my permission - in the the form of the following editing comment inserted into my post - without my permission. Aparently because it is easier for our volunteer posters to do this than post conventionally - even when a poster has specifically requested it not to be done to their posts. Request denied. If you ask a question about editorial policy or actions, go back to your question the next day or so and look for an answer - it will be in brown, so you can easily see it. If it's not worth looking for an answer where I'm going to put it, don't bother asking the question in the first place. It's much easier for me to give a clear answer if I put it right below the question. And you DO want clear answers, don't you? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:46 PM Yes. I don't appear to be getting that now - do I? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:40 PM I thought you wanted equal treatment? *I* am formaly requesting any posts by Shambles dealing with editing or thread closure or title changes or any other aspect of the running of this fourm be immediately deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:33 PM I would like to formally request that no more editorial comments are inserted or imposed (without my permission) into my posts. As the practice of inserting these comments into existing posts - does not refresh the thread and signal a response - other than running back over all the previous posts - there is no way that I or anyone else - can tell if any question asked in a thread - has been answered using this practice. I would like to formally request that any response to any question asked publicly by me in a thread - is answered in that thread by a conventional post that does refresh the thread. And that any response made to any publicly expressed view of mine or any comment made about any view of mine publicly expressed in a thread - is made in a conventional posting that does refresh the thread. Thank you.
It's much easier for me to give a clear answer if I put it right below the question. And you DO want clear answers, don't you? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:08 AM I think he's just bonkers Wolfgang. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:16 AM It's the way you tell em - Wolfgang... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Wolfgang Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:04 AM El Greko, well, after thinking very hard about possible rational reasons for Shambles behaviour I came up with three possibilities: (1) he does it for our entertainement (funny relief) (2) he does a social psychology experiment (3) he tries to get on everybody's nerves until there'll be a grassroots movement to make the forum according to all his wishes for that still seems less worse than his constant posts. I see not much support for any of these theories. who NOW informs us that he is responsible for ALL such moves (Shambles) You lie, Shambles, when using the word 'we'. I for one have been informed long before that post just by reading some threads. So please, if you think that you understand something or read something for the first time, use the word 'I' or 'me' when you feel the need to inform others about your most recent progress. Don't assume all others grasp with the same speed. (c&p your favourite quote about 'assumption') Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:50 AM "volunteer fellow posters can now be asked to make a choice – between one role - or the other"... Good one, Sham. Whe you were at work did you stop being a son, a father, a husband, a friend, a hobbyist? Were you then "one thing or the other"? Or were you an integrated person that can be all of those things at the same time? That only raised a smile - must do better to keep the Clown Crown. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:50 AM The following editing comment was inseted into a existing post (in a 'fancy Dan' little box') and did not refresh this thread. That's why I answer in COLOR, Roger - so people can see that there was a question raised and an official answer given. Joe Offer Many personal views and judgements continue to be expressed in editing comments - that are inserted into posts and do not refresh the thread - and many claims to be speaking for what is editing policy – continue to be expressed alongside personal views and judgements – in conventional posts. This practice is confusing and hardly likely to be generally seen as impartial. Perhaps our volunteer fellow posters can now be asked to make a choice – between one role - or the other? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:36 AM See also the following: Closing threads Where you will – (or should be able to) see the following editing comment inserted into an existing post there. Request denied, Shambles. We don't close for technical reasons, so this is not a technical thread. That's why I moved it to the "BS" section. I moved it - the mover is not anonymous. -Joe Offer, who is responsible for ALL thread moves- This was made to my request that that this thread - for which I had chosen a TECH prefix – be taken out of the BS section – where apparently Joe Offer – who NOW informs us that he is responsible for ALL such moves – had moved it……… |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Aug 05 - 07:43 PM It behoves me to blow my own horn. Devilish thing to do, but that last post was 666 after all |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Aug 05 - 07:38 PM Stop it, Roger - you're killing me... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Aug 05 - 05:32 PM Wrong again, Roger. Again and again. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 05 - 03:47 PM People DO read the editorial comments, Roger. Why do you assume they don't? Well sad old buggers like us may look back and read the these editing comments but anyone following the thread less avidly than us - may not even know that these editing words of wisdom (usually from Joe Offer) - have been inserted into existing posts. For they may quite sensibly assume that if the thread has not been refreshed (since their last visit) that there are no more fresh comments (or replies) posted to the thread. But as I may have said before - assumption is the mother of all cock-ups. Most of us ordinary posters seem to be able to copy what we may be replying to when we post. But this of course will refresh the thread - something that - for some reason - some of our volunteer fellow posters do not seem to wish to do........
|
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Aug 05 - 03:29 PM People DO read the editorial comments, Roger. Why do you assume they don't? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 05 - 03:27 PM You may have missed the following - for it was inserted into an existing post as an editing comment - so as not to refresh this thead. In fact if you have missed this one and the many others - so what! There seems little point in Joe Offer inserting these brown comments if no poster is going to ever read them - unless I later place them in a post that does refresh the post...... Hmmm. Again I'm not sure what I'm supposed to apologize for. Maybe I should apologize to the Forum for failing to do a better job of deleting those duplications. Of course, if you eliminated the duplications, that would leave Shambles with about three posts. -Joe Offer- Sorry seems to be the hardest word |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Aug 05 - 02:14 PM SO Wolfgang, you reckon Rog The Sham has been funnying with us all this time, simply wanting to raise some laughs? God, that would be such a relief! I'll go with that. His repetition of the restaurant joke for the 11th (yes, 11th!) time seems to support your "repetition as a transport of humour" statement on the other thread. Nice one, Shambles! Sorry it took me so long to see that your whole set of statements and postings were meant to be a joke - you are indeed the Master! We are not worthy... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wolfgang Date: 28 Aug 05 - 10:21 AM I was in a circus, some months ago, and there was this clown. He was so great. He acted completely straight on the surface but in such a funny way that everybody laughed about him. The pinnacle was when he stood in the middle of the circus and cried: Nobody is taking me serious. We nearly wetted ourselves in that moment. He had that genius of acting that by just merely repeating what he had done in the last seconds he could elicit a roar of laughter. Nothing to do with this thread, I know, I just told you that because I was getting slowly tired of the turd theme. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 05 - 09:56 AM Keep digging - want a shovel? Shovels are no use for digging - but I can always use the dirty knife for that. Oops! I have mentioned the dirty knife now now...... The shovel may be useful for shovelling out all of these turds. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 05 - 09:51 AM The cook comes in; he is very big and carries a meat cleaver. Cook (shouting) You bastards! You vicious, heartless bastards! Look what you've done to him! He's worked his fingers to the bone to make this place what it is, and you come in with your petty feeble quibbling and you grind him into the dirt, this fine, honourable man, whose boots you are not worthy to kiss. Oh... it makes me mad... mad! (slams cleaver into the table) Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife For those with a sense of humour - the full Monty Python sketch can be found here. http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Aug 05 - 06:42 AM Oh - and the fact that you use someone else's behaviour in an attempt to excuse your own, simply makes you a spiteful troll... Keep digging - want a shovel? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Aug 05 - 06:40 AM So, by your own admission - and irrespective of how anyone else behaves - you choose to make such offensive remarks to all fellow posters! Nice one Shambles, I have never seen a more open admission by a troll, that he IS a troll... Let that be on record. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 05 - 05:28 AM Do you actually appreciate how offensive such a lie and such a megalomaniacal challenge is to the ordinary fellow posters of this forum? As an ordinary fellow poster - I do know only too well how offensive these can be. For I am sure you mean like the following - made emphatically to our forum for the second time - for whch no apology to me or our forum has yet been made. Just click on his name in any message he's posted, and you will receive a complete collection of everything Shambles has said on Mudcat. And not one word of it has been deleted, except for some of his more glaring duplications. Joe Offer
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Aug 05 - 05:22 AM Learn some new jokes, Rog :-) Use the dictionary again (see below) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 05 - 05:17 AM Good job I didn't say anything about the dirty knife Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit. Joe Offer Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying. Joe Offer
Would you care to tell the people when and in what context I posted these messages? Would you care to tell the people how often you have copy-pasted these same quotes? You complain about my posting these brown editorial comments to reply to your challenges. Your challenges always have to do with editorial actions and policy, so it certainly seems that an editorial comment would be an appropriate response. Generally, what I post in these brown comments is a statement of fact or policy - usually a direct answer to a question or issue raised in that particular message. When I express personal opinion such as saying that I'm sick of your whining, I put that in an ordinary message - but it's actually quite rare that I say such things, since there's no need. I know that if I say it once, you'll copy-paste it a dozen times. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Aug 05 - 04:58 AM ...and before an ace pedant picks on my HTML: Rog, well done again - this tit-for-tat really adds to your credibility! Especially the "challenge"/caution to "Joe Offer and anonymous volunteer fellow posters" (a term that is so confusing in and of itself, it is apt that you should be using it). Then there is the blatant lie about "views inivited to our forum by Max the site's owner, when nowhere has Max invited those views - and don't use the "invitation to post what we like" as your excuse, that would be word-twisting to serve your purposes. So, another LIE it is... Do you actually appreciate how offensive such a lie and such a megalomaniacal challenge is to the ordinary fellow posters of this forum? I have called you no names in this post, but please do me a favour: open the dictionary, find the most offensive names and adjectives in it, and consider yourself called those, by me. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Aug 05 - 02:11 AM And how will any of this help hamsters? How? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 05 - 02:09 AM You may have missed the follow - for this was inserted into an existing post by fellow poster - Joe Offer as an editing comment and did not refresh this thread. Well, Shambles, I guess I have to say that the answer to your request, as before, is "no." The use of a prefix IS optional for the thread originator. If a prefix or additional information is needed for clarity, it will be added by a volunteer, so not to worry. It's one of the many wonderful services provided to you by your friendly Mudcat volunteers. You are hereby informed, so there's no need to be startled next time you witness this wonderful, generous, selfless act of service. Next time you create a thread, remember the above statement. Since nobody else seems to care, there's no reason to put it on the thread creation screen. Most people just don't care to see all that verbiage. You, on the other hand, are obsessed with verbiage. Sorry, but we have no interest in catering to your obsessions. Most people who have a question simply ask, and don't require us to post caveats about every possible thing that might cause them displeasure. But for your benefit, here goes :Personal Caution to Shambles: There are some aspects of Mudcat and its management which may cause you occasional, mild displeasure. Some decisions made at Mudcat may not meet your personal specifications. Use Mudcat at your own risk! There, I think that covers everything. If you like, you can print this warning up on a little red card and carry it around in your pocket. Better safe than sorry, you know. -Joe Offer- Before anyones junps in - I had already made the same request in a personal message to the Mudcat's owner Max. I am still awiting an answer. Warnings from one poster to their fellow posters - should perhaps been seen in that light? :Personal Caution to Joe Offer and anonymous volunteer fellow posters: There are some aspects of the contributions of your fellow posters - invited to our forum - by Max the site's owner - which may cause you occasional, mild displeasure. Some views inivited to our forum by Max the site's owner - may not meet your personal specifications. Accept that you have no control over the views and words of your fellow posters and allow our forum to continue to be shaped by these contribution and not by your imposed personal specifications.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Aug 05 - 02:09 AM Yeah. Besides...Shatner is more fun. Only marginally more for some, mind you...but still, I think it's worth keeping in mind. Joe, I think you should mail that little yellow warning notice to Roger as a laminated card, and he can stick it on his computer monitor, so as to be aware at all times of the risk he is taking whenever he logs on here. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Cluin Date: 28 Aug 05 - 01:58 AM I would like to request a new title for THIS thread... Big waste of effing time! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jpk Date: 27 Aug 05 - 04:16 PM just too much complaining fer me |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 27 Aug 05 - 04:07 PM Screw this indeed, Spaw! Go to PalTalk and listen to Max, his band, The Other 99%, plus Chance and his other half, and Roger in Baltimore making music!! Look for the music room called "Mudcat Gig." |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 27 Aug 05 - 04:06 PM YESSSS!!!!! Seconded Spaw. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Aug 05 - 03:46 PM Screw that! What we really need here is another new prefix. I propose the prefix CBRSS.......Contains Boring Repetitive Shambles Shit. Or maybe we could just put in one of those toxic waste warning signs for any thread the little dude posts to!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 27 Aug 05 - 03:27 PM Joe Offer said – presumably just as a fellow poster but using still using the word 'we'- in a conventional post that did refresh the thread. Shambles, if anybody has any wish to locate altered thread titles, I'll send them to you. You've very good at identifying them, so why should we bother? Well I think our anonymous volunteer fellow posters should be bothered – because they obviously can be bothered to impose nit-picking changes on the thread titles of selected targets – allegedly for reasons of clarity only. So it is only fair that our anonymous volunteer fellow posters can be seen to be given the credit for their imposed and improved titles and for the bother they may have taken. Or prepared to take the blame for them - if these impositions do not prove not to be an improvement. Our forum has a thread creation screen where it implies that the title of the thread is a choice of the originator and where it quite clearly states - that the choice of using a prefix is optional. Common Prefix (optional) Thread Title (please be specific) The above is now dishonest when Joe Offer states (again presumably just as a fellow poster but using still using the word 'we'- in a conventional post that did refresh the thread)? Learn to live with it. We change thread titles because we want to change thread titles, and because most people seem to appreciate it. You say changing thread titles is offensive to the creator of a thread - but this is so only because you assert it to be so. Changing a thread title is not a power thing or suppression or censorship or anything like that. It's just indexing threads so people can find information in them. We're not intentionally offending anyone - we're just doing something you don't want us to do. You are offended because you have chosen to be offended, because you have chosen to make an issue out of thread indexing. That's all. it's not a big deal, Roger. Get over it Is doing what - our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - now 'want' – more important than any other consideration on our forum? And is what they now 'want' to do - a consideration that now supersedes what our forum's thread creation screen instructs new posters to be the case? Can I formally request that either the thread creation screen is changed to make it quite clear that the use of a prefix is not optional (for the thread's originator) – or that any proposed change o a thread's title - and certainly the intended imposition of any prefix by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - is only undertaken with the originator's knowledge or permission?
You are hereby informed, so there's no need to be startled next time you witness this wonderful, generous, selfless act of service. Next time you create a thread, remember the above statement. Since nobody else seems to care, there's no reason to put it on the thread creation screen. Most people just don't care to see all that verbiage. You, on the other hand, are obsessed with verbiage. Sorry, but we have no interest in catering to your obsessions. Most people who have a question simply ask, and don't require us to post caveats about every possible thing that might cause them displeasure. But for your benefit, here goes:
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 27 Aug 05 - 01:25 PM volunteer fellow posters ANYONE who posts on the Mudcat, presumably does it voluntarily! Are things now enough tur-gid for you?! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Yawn Date: 27 Aug 05 - 01:01 PM Rather like parking your car only to be unable find it - as the car park's attendents have not only judged that your car needs moving from where you chose to park it but have also judged that they do not like the colour and have also re-sprayed it to the colour of their choice. Bad analogy, S******s old sock. You own your car. You don't own any of the threads. Anyway, you got something against turds? I know what it is - you don't like your thread titles to be al-turd. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 27 Aug 05 - 05:13 AM http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=84052&messages=38 There would no seem little point now - in placing the thread's title in any link - for the title may have been judged as unclear by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters and a new title imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission. Rather like parking your car only to be unable find it - as the car park's attendents have not only judged that your car needs moving from where you chose to park it but have also judged that they do not like the colour and have also re-sprayed it to the colour of their choice. And also to find (or not be able to find) that your car is the only one to be subject to this imposed judgement |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Aug 05 - 04:53 AM Nope. Probably we should talk about turds, an essential bodily function far more important than thread title changes or the banning thereof. Turds stink. Maybe even Shambles would agree with that. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 27 Aug 05 - 04:13 AM Or you could just ignore both threads? Just think of all the thread title changes that will need to be imposed - for reasons only of clarity of course. Unless all these imposition are undertaken - how will our readers know where to find all these recipes? But I understand that you are only following the example set by our volunteer fellow posters - and you can't go wrong if you do this - can you? Perhaps we badly need a have a prefix like - Includes Recipes - Includes Vital Information About Turds or - Includes Abusive Personal Attacks, Name-Calling and Foul and Offensive Language? There does now appear to be an urgent need for the last one especially. Or you could contribute to or even start another thread clearly titled to enable our readers to also contribute to the subject and to ensure that no recipes are lost for the lack of clear thread titles. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: JennyO Date: 26 Aug 05 - 11:16 PM ...followed by grilled cow patties with shambled eggs...... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: JennyO Date: 26 Aug 05 - 11:01 PM I would never have thought I would see the day when Father Joebro wanted to talk about turds! I guess desperate times call for desperate measures! If it helps any, I could whip up a nice bowl of "NSW South Coast Dairy Cow Poop Soup" for the other thread.... |
|
Subject: Turds From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 05 - 05:36 PM Well, Spaw, I want them turds to go away....just like You-Know-Who. Not that I would compare You-Know-Who to a turd or anything. It wouldn't be polite. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Aug 05 - 05:16 PM Joe, we have known each other for 6 or 7 years now and I gotta' tell ya' I would never have thought I would see the day when Father Joebro wanted to talk about turds! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Aug 05 - 05:16 PM No, Wes-- but you may use Holy Moly or Golll-olll-olll-LEEEE! ~S~ |
|
Subject: (turd complaint) From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:44 PM Turds. We need to talk about turds. My dog Ralph has been regressing back to puppyhood, and he's been leaving turds in the most inconvenient places. Pee, too. It's gotten so Ralph has become almost as much of a bother as You-Know-Who. -Joe Offer, all pooped out- 632 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:40 PM Susan - Are "Lo", "Hark", and "Shazam" interchangable in your previous post ? I rather like "Shazam". |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:37 PM So, as I said - what are we going to talk about now? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:36 PM Would it be fair to say that most posters who were posting here at the time would credit Joe Offer with the creation of the FAQ? Or would that look just too much like some form of agreement between us - on something? I don't think so. 1. I recall a number of discussions about what ought to go into it and how it ought to work. Joe did compile a lot of the help-text because he was the one who had been writing answers to people's repeated questions in the Help Forum-- he had great familiarity with what the Freq. Asked Q's actually were, and he had gotten good at answering them concisely and accurately so that people understood them. Some things needed to be made clearer, and lo! The community asked that their desires be met, and lo! Joe worked with ongoing community input to make it so 2. I also recall-- and the FAQ of today reflects it-- that in its infancy, people posted in it things like, "Shouldn't we have this" or "that"? And lo! Joe took their contributions and sorted them into the whole and lo! Thus even today people contribute to the FAQ. And lo! In the fullness of time there also was a Tech Tips thread fashioned similarly. 3. I recall that after it got posted in draft form, lo! Some people wanted the FAQ easier to navigate, and lo! So it was made. 4. Some people wanted a Site Index, and as the permathreads developed, lo! There WAS a site index/permathread index made as requested and lo! It grew as people contributed to it. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:25 PM Hey, the FAQ IS my creation, although it's drawn from community contributions. By the way, if you actually read the FAQ, you'll see that it's only the first ten messages or so of the FAQ thread. Of those ten messages, one is titled What's NOT allowed. The other nine messages are informational aids. I'm particularly proud of the message on search engines and search techniques. I did some pretty fancy HTML there (with a lot of help from Jeri and Jon and Pene Azul and others). The remaining messages in the thread are information being developed for the FAQ, and ephemeral questions and answers. Shambles, if anybody has any wish to locate altered thread titles, I'll send them to you. You've very good at identifying them, so why should we bother? Most people come here for conversation and music information, not on paranoid censorship witch hunts. I'll send the paranoids over to you, and you can point out the black helicopters. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:07 PM to many people "main mover and shaker" would imply that Joe was the instigator - rather then a relucant compiler; "everone else largely left it to him " implies that there was little contibution other then Joe's - which is also false; "it seemed to matter most to Joe" - Other then he was the one stuck with the dirty work, how do you figure that? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:02 PM I said. Way back when - the FAQ was intended to be a forum effort. It would be fair to say that Joe Offer was the main mover and shaker in its creation and everone else largely left it to him as it seemed to matter most to Joe. MMario said. As I recall - following an outcry there were no FAQ's - Joe compiled the FAQ from solicited submissions and then posted it after Max reviewed it. There may be a world of difference between my so-called 'tirade' and your view MMario - but I am not sure that I see it...... Would it be fair to say that most posters who were posting here at the time would credit Joe Offer with the creation of the FAQ? Or would that look just too much like some form of agreement between us - on something? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 26 Aug 05 - 03:51 PM "Tirade is hardly the word " no - But how about slanted, biased and subjective view? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 03:46 PM Rog's latest tirade about the FAQs being Joe's creation has been proven (yet) another blatant lie, Tirade is hardly the word - nor is lie. For I don't really think that anyone on our forum would deny Joe Offer the main credit for our FAQ - even Joe Offer! For this fact - it is hardly a revelation..... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Aug 05 - 03:17 PM How about if we all ask you to do the same Roger? You've said it all repeatedly and yet you persist. You ask me to please stop and expect that to work. Okay......I'll stop "digging." Your turn.......Roger, please stop digging. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:57 PM Please just stop digging. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:56 PM Once again ....... Reread that.And the read again my last post. If you took that as a cut at your wife you are wrong. Like I said, I think she deserves a sainthood! But if you're troubled about it still..............Take it to Max (along with the rest of your complaints) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:51 PM From the 'FAQ'. We don't allow hate, racism, stalking or other intimidation, or personal threats or attacks. It matters little what insults are publicly directed at me no matter were they emanate - for they say far more about those posting them and I can ignore these and not respond in kind. The move now to public speculation about members of my family and the attempt to encourage others to follow the sad example of conversations about fellow posters - in posts like the following - is a move too far. Enough is enough. I imagine your wife.............Ya' know really I can't imagine your wife at all. I have a good imagination but that's just too bizarre even for me. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:50 PM So, now that - Joe has explained (for the umpteenth time) to Rog The Sham that thread title changes are traceable because of their difference to the first message title - Rog's latest tirade about the FAQs being Joe's creation has been proven (yet) another blatant lie, ...what shall we talk about? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:48 PM six-eighteen! Hike! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:47 PM Spaw, snap! I guess Rog the Sham's PM to me must have been about the same thing then - well, like you, I said nothing about his wife, only about the kind of cards Rog might give her at anniversaries. So if it was about that - yah-boo-sucks, wrong again. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:44 PM Sorry, Sham - "I was posting here and you weren't" is no proof, no basis for such an assumption, and so inadmissible. BTW - thanks for PMing me, but as I promised you some months ago, I no longer read your PMs, so I deleted it unread. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:41 PM I was here then too and Joe didn't want to do it either! We were all complaining about the need for a FAQ but no one really wanted to put it together. Joe took it on but ask and received input from manyof the rest of us. I had to feel for him a bit. He's trying to include us and we're trying to help, but we all have some kind of agenda we want included and Joe tries for awhile to do just that. The end result is an "adequate" FAQ but it is pretty long and cumbersome and we all complain. So Joe tries to trim it and change it and in typical Mudcat fashion back then, we all continued to bitch. Eventually the FAQ became acceptable to all (pretty much, if you know what I mean) and Max and all gave the basic blessing and for quite awhile no one made much mention of any new things the site needed!!! Once again, don't let Sham tell you things that aren't true. Oh, I suppose they are true to him in whatever reality he lives in but here in the Mudcat world, he's full of shit. AND BY THE WAY>>>>>>>>>>>Another member wrote me saying that I shouldn't make disparaging remarks about Roger's wife. Please read that post again. I did not say anything even remotely bad about his wife or family........I would honestly love to know a lot more about that end of his life and if he behaves this way there too! If he does, I have nothing but admiration, and certainly some degree of amazement, that any woman would tolerate him. No, I am not and have not made any untowards remarks about his wife. Christ, if you ask me, she deserves a Sainthood!!!!Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:30 PM As I recall - following an outcry there were no FAQ's - Joe compiled the FAQ from solicited submissions and then posted it after Max reviewed it. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:22 PM Mainly because I was posting here then - and you were not. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM Why would it be "fair to say that Joe Offer was the main mover and shaker in the creation of the FAQ's", way back when? On what do you base this assumption (for an assumption it certainly is)? |
|
Subject: Another Shambles thread title change complaint From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:07 PM But Shambles, you know how to tell if a thread title has been changed, and nobody else has ever expressed any desire to know. Most people seem to think that the title of a thread is just the title of the thread, and don't really seem to care who gave the thread its title. Their concern seems to be what people say, not how they title it. So, if you're the only one who cares, why should we bother? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:05 PM Spaw, regarding your reference to Roger's marital life vis-a-vis his cutting and pasting habits: This could start a whole conversation in and of itself. For example - does she get the same card for anniversaries, with the year scratched out and replaced? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:03 PM I love Sham's use of "largely" (as in "the FAQs were largely written by Joe Offer..."), trying to discredit the FAQs of Max's site now. What shit for logic. What does "largely" mean? What percentage? And what percentage would it need to be before one can claim that Max had nothing to do with them? Or did it mean "with large letters"? Or what the heck? Way back when - the FAQ was intended to be a forum effort. It would be fair to say that Joe Offer was the main mover and shaker in its creation and everone else largely left it to him as it seemed to matter most to Joe. As to me discrediting the FAQ - the best answer to that is to ask - what is a FAQ supposed to be? A list of answers to the most frequently asked questions on our forum (not to Max's website) - is just that. It would appear that our FAQ has now become something else but it would still be fair to say that it was always largely Joe Offer's baby. There even used to be a link in the FAQ to a thread that I originated (on PMs). If it is still there and not deleted - I suspect a change will have been imposed on the thread's title.... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 02:01 PM If nits had nits, they could do worse than ask Rog The Sham to pick them; honestly, moaning about Joe adding an editorial comment TO HIS OWN POST, which was already at the top of the thread when he made it, and claiming the action was done to avoid refreshing the thread! Laughable? Pitiable? You choose. And then of course, once more, cutting & pasting a paragraph a bare 15 words later in the thread "in case we missed it". Good one, Roger - that gets you plenty of credibility, keep it coming... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:49 PM Shambles - obviously that comment - appended AFTER I made my post is not the one I was referring to. And As he said in the latest editorial comment - he does take responsibility and accountability for thread title changes. Of course he has said this before - and you ignored it, so why should you pay attention now? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:48 PM I find it amusing that you consider the FAQ a "considerable document" when your own postings on the subject are likely to equal the combined word count of War and Peace AND Dr.Zhivago. You seem to think that Max has plenty of time to read your pulpy drivel of no redeeming social value and yet has not had time to read the FAQ on his own site. LMAO.....Actually I'm not.......I'm laughing directly at you Sham as you are a laughable ass. You lower the status of "Dork" to a new nadir. Just thinking of you gives me a chuckle. I'd love to see your cut and paste files! Say, does the rest of your life work this way? I imagine your wife.............Ya' know really I can't imagine your wife at all. I have a good imagination but that's just too bizarre even for me. I bet you have actually beaten a dead horse haven't you? Not just as a figure of speech.......I mean you have actually beaten a dead horse. Was there anyone around to take pictures at the time? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:48 PM HA! I got one this time. I dare you, Oh, Master Of The Delete Button to alter the contents of this thread to your advantage! You wouldn't |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:39 PM MMario Joe Offers editing comment was inserted into this thread so as not to refresh the thread- as I said. Did you miss it too? Good idea, Roger. It's always been our policy. You can tell what the originator's thread title was by looking at the title of the first message. If the thread title is different, it probably was changed (although there are a few exceptions - if the first two messages have titles different from the thread title, then you cna be almost certain the thread title was changed by somebody other than the originator). And it the thread title was changed, I'm the person responsible for those changes, whether or not I made the change myself. If you have a complaint about a thread title change, contact me by personal message or e-mail. I'll be glad to respond, although I can't guarantee you'll like my response (and in Shambles case, I can almost guarantee he won't like my response). That's our policy. -Joe Offer, the person responsible- Joe - It may be very clear to you when a thread title has been subject to imposed change. And there are exceptions as you say. But any other poster reading the 'Minister say's jamming is OK' thread' will be under the incorrect impression that as the first post in the thread has my name – that I would have given the thread its title. Perhaps - for purposes of 'clarification' – some clearer indication that the title chosen has suffered an imposed change – for clarification purposes - can be made? And for more accountability - perhaps the fact that the current thread title should NOT be credited to the thread's originator - can be made clearer than at present? This will enable any credit or blame for the imposed change – to be placed where it belongs? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:34 PM Dang! That Greek so-and-so beat me to it. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:32 PM 600 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:32 PM I meant 600 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:31 PM 500 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:31 PM Roger sez: Now that we have anonymous volunteer fellow posters who can impose any change to a selected orignator's thread title as and when they want to - would it be possible and would it be a good idea for clarification purposes - to always indicate to our forum - where and when such an imposition has taken place and who was responsible? This would avoid the current situation where there is a current thread title that has had a change imposed upon it by an anonymous volunteer fellow poster but which is now less clear and more incorrect as a result of this imposition - but where the title is still credited to its originator? Perhaps as such imposition looks now to be a fact - such action should be seen to be more accountable?
Thread titles are not "credited" to anyone, they're just thread titles, used for indexing purposes. Message titles are the work of the message originator, except in certain obvious cases. If a message contains lyrics, the message is given the title of the song. -Joe Offer, the person responsible- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:30 PM I love Sham's use of "largely" (as in "the FAQs were largely written by Joe Offer..."), trying to discredit the FAQs of Max's site now. What shit for logic. What does "largely" mean? What percentage? And what percentage would it need to be before one can claim that Max had nothing to do with them? Or did it mean "with large letters"? Or what the heck? Sham, you use a lot of words - but so do parrots, and mynah birds and budgerigars. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:26 PM Do you *READ* what you cut and paste or just choose them at random? the latter seems more likely. Where and when did joe post that comment. Without know the context in which he made it I cannot respond to it directly You certainly feel that the editing change made to your thread title was "objectionable" - so why wouldn't the request to take it off forum apply? And why object to the suggestion you follow the procedure now - since it has been made repeatedly - and you will note - by more then just I. In fact, had you followed procedure in the first place you might well have had the editing decision reversed. Though why you would WANT it reversed when readers have indicated it did indeed clarify the title despite your opinon on the matter. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:24 PM Shambles is doubting the existence of Max, I thik. He is an unbeliever, and a fatwa should be issued against him (or is it a Fatima? you know what I mean). |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:12 PM gee- these are the rules Max made, the clones adhere to them and if you don't like it you need to do as Max has asked and communicate with him off forum isn't a definative enough answer for you? MMario - because you may wish or believe that Max has made such a request - does not mean that he has - (nor does it mean that I have not contacted him privately). I asked you to provide the evidence of your earlier statement that but also contrary to Max's requests that complaints of this nature be taken off forum. You have failed to produce this evidence but still repeat the claim. Joe Offer says here - inserted to a post as an editing comment - and so presumably not as a fellow poster. Joe Offer has frequently requested that complaints about objectionable posts or threads be conveyed to Joe, Max, or Pene Azul by personal message or e-mail. This instruction is also stated in the FAQ, written by Joe and reviewed by Pene Azul and Max. Such complaints should NOT be posted in the regular forum or in the help forum because they only serve to give troblemakers the very attention that they crave. I have to say I'm not sure WHICH "complaints of this nature" are being referred to in this thead, so I don't know if the instructions apply here. -Joe Offer- As stated above - I remember well when Joe Offer - as a fellow poster and as an aid to fellow posters (not to enslave them) - largely wrote the FAQ. As Joe Offer states here - Max may well have 'reviewed' all of this considerable document but I have yet to see the evidence I requested of Max making such public statement or request that you claim he has. |
|
Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:11 PM Shambles posted the text qouted below: "Now that we have anonymous volunteer fellow posters who can impose any change to a selected orignator's thread title as and when they want to - would it be possible and would it be a good idea for clarification purposes - to always indicate to our forum - where and when such an imposition has taken place and who was responsible? This would avoid the current situation where there is a current thread title that has had a change imposed upon it by an anonymous volunteer fellow poster but which is now less clear and more incorrect as a result of this imposition - but where the title is still credited to its originator? Perhaps as such imposition looks now to be a fact - such action should be seen to be more accountable? " Which to be more accurate shouuld be annotated to read thusly: Now that we have and have had for years anonymous moderators appointed by the site owner who can impose any change to a selected orignator's thread title as and when they want to following the guidelines given to them by the site owner and subject to review by the site owner- would it be possible and would it be a good idea for clarification purposes - to always (editorial comment - Always? there are "always" exceptions to rules - you should know that!) indicate to our forum - where and when such an imposition has taken place and who was responsible? This would avoid the current situation where there is a current thread title that has had a change imposed upon it by an anonymous moderator but which is now less clear and more incorrect as a result of this imposition in the opinon of the originator but not in the opinion of many who have read the thread; and which factually as read is neither incorrect nor unclear- but where the title is still credited to its originator? Perhaps as such imposition looks now to be a fact (editorial comment - it occurred, yes, that is a fact)- such action should be seen to be more accountable?" (editorial comment: not according to Max - whose site it is) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:07 PM Shambles - That is at least the third time that you've quoted me and edited and altered my post without asking my permission or sending me a PM. If you are going to quote me I'm going to have to ask you to use the entire quote. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Granted - this is what you are asking of others - Joe and the clones - so I don't think it's too much to ask in return is it ? Why would you want to change my posts without asking my permission ahead of time ? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:54 PM Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others -Wesley S Joe Offer said - in a conventional post as a fellow poster. Learn to live with it. We change thread titles because we want to change thread titles, and because most people seem to appreciate it. You say changing thread titles is offensive to the creator of a thread - but this is so only because you assert it to be so. Changing a thread title is not a power thing or suppression or censorship or anything like that. It's just indexing threads so people can find information in them. We're not intentionally offending anyone - we're just doing something you don't want us to do. You are offended because you have chosen to be offended. That's all. Get over it. Let us leave our forum to judge things like how much notice to take of whether most people appreciate imposition being undertaken upon others. However, the issue is not one of a change to a thread title but one of risking offence by the routine practice of anonymous volunteer fellow posters automatically imposing this change upon their fellow posters without their knowledge or permission. Now that we have anonymous volunteer fellow posters who can impose any change to a selected orignator's thread title as and when they want to - would it be possible and would it be a good idea for clarification purposes - to always indicate to our forum - where and when such an imposition has taken place and who was responsible? This would avoid the current situation where there is a current thread title that has had a change imposed upon it by an anonymous volunteer fellow poster but which is now less clear and more incorrect as a result of this imposition - but where the title is still credited to its originator? Perhaps as such imposition looks now to be a fact - such action should be seen to be more accountable? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:44 PM It's OK, Roger. You don't have to change your mind. You can go on feeling insulted that those thread titles were changed. It's just that the rest of us are bored silly by your constant repetition. We KNOW what you want. We simply chose to do something else. And if you don't get what you want, and repond by endlessly insisting on having what you want, that's a tantrum. And when that tantrum goes on for four years, the tantrum-thrower tends to lose credibility. Normal people don't do that, Roger. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:42 PM "I am still waiting for some opinion or evidence that will change my mind" gee- these are the rules Max made, the clones adhere to them and if you don't like it you need to do as Max has asked and communicate with him off forum isn't a definative enough answer for you? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:25 PM "I am still waiting for some opinion or evidence that will change my mind" If that's the case I'm claiming post 1000 !! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:15 PM you are not a customer. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:13 PM But the customer is always right. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:12 PM I started a thread. And although an imposed change was made by Joe Offer to its title - this is still that thread. If you don't like the thread subject - you do not have to open it (if you could only resist from just having a peek at the latest posts) and you don't have to post to it (again if only you could resist the temptation). Such is life. I will leave our forum to judge who is having tantrums (and why) and who is still trying to hold a discussion on the part of Max's website set aside for that very purpose. I am still waiting for some opinion or evidence that will change my mind. I live in hope and as has been stated - there is no right or wrong.... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:09 PM Joe - My sympathies to you. Is there ANYTHING that can be said that hasn't already been discussed at least a dozen times before ? THERE IS NOTHING NEW TO SAY ON THIS SUBJECT. Let's let the issue die. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 05 - 11:53 AM Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! etc. You haven't said anything new, Roger. Basically, it's still the same: you want it your way, and your way wasn't chosen. Your way isn't wrong - it's just that other people chose something else. Such is life, except that most people don't have a four-year tantrum about it. Learn to live with it. We change thread titles because we want to change thread titles, and because most people seem to appreciate it. You say changing thread titles is offensive to the creator of a thread - but this is so only because you assert it to be so. Changing a thread title is not a power thing or suppression or censorship or anything like that. It's just indexing threads so people can find information in them. We're not intentionally offending anyone - we're just doing something you don't want us to do. You are offended because you have chosen to be offended, because you have chosen to make an issue out of thread indexing. That's all. it's not a big deal, Roger. Get over it. And stop having tantrums. It's so immature. -Joe Offer- (and what I say is what I say, as an integrated person - whether it's in brown or not - I AM Joe Offer) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 26 Aug 05 - 11:18 AM So...all of those threads started with generic "Need lyrics, don't know the title, etc." titles should remain forever generic, no reading the first post and trying to pull a couple of clues from them to ADD to the title in order to catch peoples'eye? Mudcat has ALWAYS asked posters to be AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE when naming threads. This has become increasinly so as more and more members joined from countries other than the United States. It has been noted, time and again, that this is esp. true between the UK, or any part of it, and the US, as we supposedly share a common language. So often, music threads are started by newbie GUESTS who just happened to have wandered in looking for chords, lyrics, etc. Are we supposed to try to track down everyone of them in order to clarify their thread title so they have a chance in hell of getting the info they seek? This whole thing is so gawddam ridiculous! kat |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 26 Aug 05 - 06:56 AM Roger made a request. It was turned down. The majority of posters to this thread agreed with that decision. That should be the end of the matter, or does Roger feel that his wishes should be tantamount on this forum? By the way Roger, you seem to do so much cutting and pasting - do you work as a decorator? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 05 - 05:49 AM Joe Offer says – in a conventional post – presumably his own personal view as a fellow poster. Shambles: No, volunteers may not change thread titles without permission. The thread title is the creative effort of the thread originator, and must not be changed without prior permission from the thread originator. No – this words are yours Joe - not mine and in this form it is a demand – the original request was as follows and is not one that is without support from other posters - including a fellow volunteer. It is interesting when terms like 'must not' are used by Joe Offer. Are the use of or even the perception of such terms really proportionate on a public discussion forum like this? Subject: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,The Shambles - PM Date: 21 Jul 05 - 07:24 AM Perhaps whether the words 'UK' appear in a thread title or not can be left to the thread's originator - rather than be imposed by some anonymous volunteer - with time on their hands and nothing better to do? Or is it now done automatically? I was amazed to see 'UK' added to a recent thread - a matter of minutes after the thread's creation and before anyone had a chance to respond. Can the wishes of the origination be respected and any change to a thread's title only be undertaken with their knowledge and permission? Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: folkman - PM Date: 21 Jul 05 - 04:39 PM I agree with you Mr Shambles. Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert - PM Date: 21 Jul 05 - 09:11 PM Well said Shambles. The thread title should NEVER be changed without the consent of the originator. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,khandu - PM Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM I am with The Shambles on this one. A couple of years back, I created a thread regarding a certain troll. Within moments, Pene Azul pmed me and explained that he believed this thread would probably do far more harm than good and requested permission to delete it. Certainly, he could have deleted it without bothering to ask. But Jeff showed more class than that. The simple act of contacting me beforehand made all the difference in the world. I told him to delete it and I felt rather good about it all. Had he or anyone else deleted it without contact, I would have been pissed and would have posted a grumbling thread about it. Simple decency goes a long way. Change my thread titles? Sure, if you believe there is a good reason. But show some civility and respect to the creator of the thread by sending a simple PM. khandu |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:08 AM Nope, he wouldn't. Then he couldn't be a manipulative schmoe... Mick |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Aug 05 - 09:07 PM Shambles: No, volunteers may not change thread titles without permission. The thread title is the creative effort of the thread originator, and must not be changed without prior permission from the thread originator. Joe Offer: Yes, volunteers may change thread titles (sparingly, and according to consistent practices) when changes are needed for clarification and other worthwhile purposes. While your view is valid, the thread can just as easily be viewed as the creative work of the entire community, which would imply that the thread title is meant to serve the entire community and can be changed so that it best serves the community's need to have a thread title that identifies the contents of a thread and distinguishes it from other threads. This is a matter of choice, not absolute truth. In this case, the decision was made to choose a policy which does not meet your specifications. Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! Shambles: No! Joe Offer: Yes! etc. Whatever the case, it’s a circular argument. It’s a matter of an arbitrary choice, not a choice between right and wrong. It's a choice in which Shambles did not get his way, so he's not satisfied - and never will be. I suppose the only way to end it is to crown Shambles king. But would he be happy as king???? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 25 Aug 05 - 12:11 PM That qoute - as one can see from the thread titles - was a specific response to someone asking about the "rules" for the BS section of the forum. Out of context in relation to this discussion - it was a specific response to a specific question. and as such has been superceded by Max's guidelines for the clones - whose actions, as mentioned previously, are all subject to review and reversal should Max find it necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 25 Aug 05 - 12:09 PM but also contrary to Max's requests that complaints of this nature be taken off forum. MMario - I have often seen Joe Offer's contention that it is his wish that this is the case - perhaps you can show our forum where Max's wish for this is so worded?
I have to say I'm not sure WHICH "complaints of this nature" are being referred to in this thead, so I don't know if the instructions apply here. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 25 Aug 05 - 12:05 PM Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules From: Max - PM Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 25 Aug 05 - 11:55 AM Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests? From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM ... ... I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 25 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM It doesn't matter what you or I think! Max will rein in Joe if he thinks he has overstepped. Not you, Not I. Mick's calling you a manipulative schmoe is an apt description of the behavior you have exhibited. Likewise the qoute from Joe to the anonymous person who had been distrupting the forum for quite some time was, while perhaps not the best phrased warning in the world was well deserved. Both are logical outcomes of progressions visible in previous posts. Your demands are not only unreasonable - and indicitve that you indeed DO wish to have a say in how Max runs his site - but also contrary to Max's requests that complaints of this nature be taken off forum. And your "polite requests" have indeed become demands due to the way you have insisted on presenting them. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 25 Aug 05 - 11:44 AM MMario - What part of nastiness and keeping it down - do you read as appointed to post nastiness it and encouraging others to post nastiness. If Mick mounts an abusive personal attack on me or any other poster and calls me a manipulative schmoe or Joe Offer issues the following type of threats - 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- -do you wish our forum to think that Max is always in total agreement and that these words are also Max's?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 25 Aug 05 - 11:31 AM Of course Shambles continues to ignore this part: So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. what part of "Max appointed" don't you understand? Though the "volunteers" are volunteers in that there is no compensation monatarily - MAX chose each one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 25 Aug 05 - 11:28 AM This was the post in full. Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests? From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM Shambles, what part of what MMario said do you not understand? It is quite clear to most of us that this site belongs to Max. We have NO say in how it is run. Kendall - It is indeed long been clear that this site belongs to Max and I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. However this is a part of Max's website that he has very generously set aside for invited contributions from the public and called the Mudcat Discussion Forum. I have some agreement - for my reference to this part of Max's site - as our forum. It is from a very unlikely source - and perhaps you would agree with the both of us? [PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05 Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos. So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles. So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life. -Joe Offer- Our forum is certainly not Joe Offer's and it does not say that it is in the FAQ - yet. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 25 Aug 05 - 09:19 AM Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests? From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM ... ... I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Aug 05 - 08:54 AM August in the news gathering industry is known as "The Silly Season" obviously applies on Mudcat too *BG* Giok |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Aug 05 - 06:47 AM "Please can there be no more excuses and weak attempts at justification?"NO PROBLEM!!!And now since we have hit upon the one salient point that keeps this thread going AND we all agree NOT to provide any excuses of any kind, I'd say it's time to close this sucker. Since there is yet another thread devoted to this subject also running, further conversations can be had there! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 25 Aug 05 - 06:21 AM Another example and more evidence of the current 'combat and chaos' that our anonymous volunteer fellow posters create on our forum by their current assumptions and lack of any consistent policy and means of communication between them. BS The piano man The above thread was (mistakenly) given a BS or non-music prefix by the originator. Despite or possibly because there were later requests from the originator for the thread to be moved up to the music related section – this imposed judgement by our volunteer fellow posters - means that this thread stubbornly if illogically still remains in the non music section. We now have another thread on the some subject that was started in the music-related section – and remains there. Piano man This was the reasoning – or lack of – that was given at the time - as to why this music related thread had to stay with the BS. Subject: RE: BS: The piano man. From: GUEST,thread starter - PM Date: 17 May 05 - 04:57 AM I wasn't too sure where to put this request, and did feel bad about the BS tag, with hindsight I wish I had put it above the line. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: The piano man. From: GUEST Date: 25 May 05 - 03:02 AM Is it not possible for someone to move this thread up to the music-related section? Normal procedure if the originator of a thread has designated it as BS is to allow it to remain as BS – joeclone ------------------------------------------------ Subject: RE: BS: The piano man. From: The Shambles - PM Date: 25 May 05 - 07:58 PM Normal procedure if the originator of a thread has designated it as BS is to allow it to remain as BS – joeclone If only other things were allowed to remain as the originator wished. This is simply making our forum look even more stupid. This thread is clearly in the wrong place and the originator has accepted that choosing the B/S prefix was a mistake. Many people who would be interested in this subject and may be able to help - will not even see this thread as many do not venture 'below the line'. Can a more sensible approach be taken please? One which respects the originators wishes and follows common sense? Sorry, but this thread doesn't have enough music information in it to warrant moving it. -Joe Offer- ------------------------------------------------------------ The original anonymous volunteer fellow poster – was under the impression that Mudcat policy meant that if an originator placed a BS prefix – the thread had to remain there. This presumably honouring the originator's wishes (which is good) – even when the originator later requested that it be moved (which is not so good). But the only consideration that now seems to count over and above all this – is the personal judgement of our fellow poster - Joe Offer. As the new thread contains about the same amount of music information as the original thread – will we see this thread too relegated to the BS? Perhaps it is better for our volunteer fellow posters to be guided by the wishes of the contributors -–rather than ignoring this and always rushing to impose their own flawed personal judgement? Please can there be no more excuses and weak attepts at justification? This plain silliness is just more evidence of the current chaos engendered by all this imposition by fellow posters. Can it just be accepted as the 'cock-up' that it is - pride swallowed and steps taken to ensure that such things are not repeated? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 25 Aug 05 - 05:05 AM I certainly do not consider that I, or any other user of this site can be called a customer - that suggests that I have given some sort of consideration for the priviledge of using the site, which is not the case. Therefore I have no right to dictate the way in which the site owner chooses to allow the site to be run by his appointees. I doubt that Max would be silly enough to allow our anonymous volunteer fellow posters to run his entire site for him. But the word 'customer' still seems about right for our forum - judging from Max's words on how he sees our forum. For unlike some of our volunteer fellow posters - even customers will accept they have certain responsibilities to go with their right to see their words remain as posted on our forum. However, I can see why certain of our volunteer fellow posters would not like the idea of their role only to be seen to be serving the needs of their fellow posters - but seem to see it now as judging and dictating what they will 'allow' these fellow posters to have on the part of Max's site that he has generously set aside for contributions from the public. Perhaps an analogy with a hospital where the patients now feel them selves perfectly qualified to impose major surgury upon their fellow patients as and when it suits them - would better describe our present situation? It would result in a similar amount of needless bleeding......and possibly eventual death from this blood loss? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: JennyO Date: 24 Aug 05 - 12:27 PM Yep, turkey turd beers are on the house... (_) (_) (_) (_) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Aug 05 - 12:19 PM I don't think Roger can get his cock up. But over on the other thread we're talking turds, so why not drop this turkey and join us? We can leave Roger and his limp weenie on this one! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 24 Aug 05 - 12:08 PM He is real. Real stoopid. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 24 Aug 05 - 09:38 AM And your assuming that you are totally in the right and can speak for all Mudcatters here is definitely a major cock-up. Get real, why don't you. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 24 Aug 05 - 09:23 AM Assumption - I was always told - was the mother of all cock-ups. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 24 Aug 05 - 09:13 AM If Max disagrees with the way that any clone is doing the job he can withdraw their ability to do it. Since that does not seem to be the case I would assume that Max is happy with the way these unpaid helpers are doing the job. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 24 Aug 05 - 09:09 AM The issue of volunteer fellow posters wishing to remain anonymous rather crucial. My rather simple request - is that any proposed change to a poster's words - be first made in request to the thread's originator. There is no way that an anonymous fellow volunteer could send a PM to a poster (who did use their name) with such a request - and still remain anonymous. Is the protection of this annonimity (seemingly at all costs) the reason why simple request is now rejected - out of hand - by my volunteer fellow poster? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:44 PM Of course he hasn't. He isn't a dissenter, he's just a complainer who kicks and screams when he can't get his own way. My five year old grandson behaves in a more civilised fashion. I certainly do not consider that I, or any other user of this site can be called a customer - that suggests that I have given some sort of consideration for the priviledge of using the site, which is not the case. Therefore I have no right to dictate the way in which the site owner chooses to allow the site to be run by his appointees. Max appointed the clones. To my knowledge they did not ask for the job but were chosen by Max to uphold his own standards. The work is voluntary but they were not, in the true sense of the word, volunteers. (Maybe Roger is upset that he hasn't been asked to be a volunteer). If Max disagrees with the way that any clone is doing the job he can withdraw their ability to do it. Since that does not seem to be the case I would assume that Max is happy with the way these unpaid helpers are doing the job. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:13 PM Face it, Roger - If you want to use a library analogy, the "book" that you write could just as well be the individual message in a thread - and in your case, it often IS book-length. You do control your message and its title, but the thread is the work of all who participate in it. I suppose we could make a rule and say that the thread and its title are under the control of the thread originator, but there is no such rule here. In fact, when we did not have the ability to fix thread titles, we constantly had people lecturing other people on the proper method to title a thread, and it really got old. It certainly is valid for you to think that a thread title should be controlled by the originator, but that is your minority opinion, a personal opinion that you have expressed over and over again until you have bored us all silly. There are valid reasons both for and against thread title changes, but mostly it's an arbitrary thing, a question of "yes" or "no" - and you have been overruled. You are amidst intelligent people, Roger, and you cannot change their minds by simply indundating them with the same words spoken over and over again. A decision has been made, and the only person who can overrule that decision is Max; so you really need to speak to him directly about it if you wish the decision to be changed. And so, I ask once again: Have You Done That, Roger? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Ebbie Date: 23 Aug 05 - 09:15 PM Love your story, Joe. It explains so much. :) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:53 PM Cross-indexing does NOT equal title change. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jeffp Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:43 PM Mudcat is not a library, it is a database. Joe and the Clones are not librarians, they are database administrators. Posts to the Mudcat are not books, they are entries in a database. Sometimes massaging is necessary to ensure efficient retrieval. This is entrusted to database administrators who are appointed by the database owner to do their jobs as they see fit. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:25 PM Libraries cross-index books all the time without getting authors permissions. MMario - are you seriously claiming to our forum that these librarires allow their staff to re-title books as they wish? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:22 PM and how does *that* little parable even remotely relate to adding three words to a thread title? Libraries cross-index books all the time without getting authors permissions. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:12 PM The moral is - If you can't stand the heat - get out of the kitchen. Time to dig this one up. Dear Professor Hawking Or may I call you Stephen? I understand from your publisher's lawyers that you are unhappy with a recent action taken by this library? I refer to the combination of your book - A Brief History Of Time -with Professor Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Dr Wolfgang von Pedant's two definitive works on the Aardvark - Digging The Dirt and The Truth About Termite Mounds. I think that I know our readers needs better than you and I think that this combination of the three volumes into one it makes sense and will enable our readers to find what they are looking for much more easily. This is my only motive in this as I have decided that the library's priority consideration must be to its indexing. I am sorry that you may not be in agreement - but "learn to live with it". The choice of title for this combined work was one suggested by one of the library's best behaved readers. *"QUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK' is a title which I think will best enable our readers to find the information they require. Yours truly The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. * I cannot claim credit for this title - see if you can guess which poster came up with this gem. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:09 PM But some fell upons stony ground, where Onan blessed them. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: curmudgeon Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:29 PM A masterful tale, Joe. Parables are often the best way of teaching, but sadly, they only work for those who are open to learning - Tom |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Janie Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:18 PM *BG* Joe. J. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:10 PM bookmarked as a classic Mudcat Post. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:08 PM ah! But some of your "fellow guests" have been delegated to act for the host BY THE HOST. And you are chastizing them for doing what your host has asked them to do. |
|
Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:06 PM Well, let me tell you a story: Once upon a time, there was a very nice boy named Roger. At least, his mother thought he was a very nice boy. Everything went along swimmingly in Roger's life because his mother adored him. Until he went to Kindergarten. Well, actually, Kindergarten went along quite well, and Little Roger played very well with the other children, and he ended the school year with an "A" in Sandbox. And Little Roger was the Teacher's Pet, and was very loyal to his Teacher Mrs. Offer and always said nice things about her. But then in First Grade, when Mrs. Offer was still his teacher, Roger learned how to give speeches. He liked to hear himself give speeches, so he gave speeches constantly, and he began having problems. His mother still adored him and thought his speeches were wonderful, but Roger soon found that others did not adore him properly, and he became quite unhappy with their lack of deference. He simply couldn't understand why the other children didn't listen to him, and why they didn't share his opinions, and why they acted bored when he gave the same three-hour speech every day. He became especially upset when the children began to mimic and mock his speechifying. He became even more upset when Mrs. Offer asked him nicely to be quiet and give the other children time to give speeches. So Roger began acting out. He decided that the teacher, Mrs. Offer, was responsible for all of his unhappiness. Mrs. Offer was a very nice person and tried to treat all the children with equal niceness, but she did not adore little Roger. Since Mrs. Offer did not show him proper deference, little Roger decided she was nice at all, and he began to question her authority. Thirty times a day, little Roger passed notes around the class, listing out-of-context excerpts from all the things that Mrs. Offer had said over her entire career as teacher. Little Roger would get up in class and give long speeches about how the Principal, Maxine Mirror, had supreme authority in the school and certainly didn't like the dictatorial way that Mrs. Offer conducted class, and that the class certainly should not listen to anything Mrs. Offer had to say. Most of the class disagreed with Little Roger, and they spent the entire day trying to convince Roger that he was wrong. Now, there was one little girl, HappyGirl, who loved Roger and believed everything he said, and she loved to listen to his three-hour speeches. Roger thought it was very nice that HappyGirl believed in him, and this inspired him to increase the length of his speeches to four hours. As a result of this, First Grade seemed to last forever, and the children were very bored. And nobody learned Proper Grammar. And Little Roger's grammar was worst of all. As luck would have it, Mrs. Offer was promoted to Second Grade the next year, and she was given a very substantial raise in pay and a much larger classroom. And wouldn't you know it, Little Roger was promoted to Second Grade, too. Because Mrs. Offer had so much extra work, Mrs. Mirror the Principal appointed certain children to clean the blackboard and tidy up the classroom. Mrs. Mirror did not publish a list of children who were authorized to clean the blackboard, and Little Roger was very distrustful of this policy. The Blackboard Cleaners were appointed by Mrs. Mirror herself, but Little Roger found it convenient to question their Authority to Erase Blackboards. Little Roger declared that the Only True Decisions could be made by Mrs. Mirror, and that nobody could trust the Evil Mrs. Offer and the Blackboard Cleaners and their conspiracy to deprive little innocent schoolchildren of their right to Know Nothing and to speak with Improper Grammar. Furthermore, Little Roger declared that not one word should be erased from the blackboard without the permission of the person who wrote that word. And time went on, and Little Roger gave his four-hour speeches and passed thirty notes a day through the classroom all year during Second Grade, and all the children fell asleep, and still nobody learned Proper Grammar, but Mrs. Offer and everybody were promoted to Third Grade the next year. And to they all were promoted again to Fourth Grade after another year of speeches and messages about all the horrible things Mrs. Offer had done since Kindergarten. Little Roger kept talking about how wonderful and benevolent the Principal Maxine Mirror was, and Mrs. Offer often suggest that Little Roger should go to Mrs. Mirror and discuss his unhappiness. But Little Roger never spoke to Mrs. Mirror, because he was afraid that Mrs. Mirror might disagree with him. Still, he continued to make speeches about how Mrs. Mirror was truly wise and agreed with everything Little Roger said, and that Mrs. Mirror actually despised Mrs. Offer and thought that she was a horrible teacher. And finally, on the very last day of Fourth Grade, Mrs. Offer got tired of all of Little Roger's manipulation and speechifying, and she said: Shut Up, Roger, You Asshole!And she was sentenced to thirty years in prison, and there she is to this very day. End of story. No, it's not the end of the story. What happened was that Little Roger was appointed Teacher, which was a Fate Worse Than Death because HappyGirl turned on him, and made his life More Miserable Than One Could Imagine. And Mrs. Offer was very pleased that she was safely locked away in prison. And she formed a song circle with the prison guards and they spent the rest of their days singing happily away. And Mrs. Offer forgot about Proper Grammar and became the World Authority on Prison Songs and was recorded by Alan Lomax and got a pardon from the Governor and a star on the sidewalk of Hollywood Boulevard. And Mrs. Offer forgot all about Poor Little Roger. And then Mrs. Offer had a sex change operation and became Mr. Offer, and became a Forum Moderator at the Mudcat Cafe. I thought the story should have a happy ending, but I do wish that it had a happier ending for Poor Little Roger. I lied about Mrs. Offer being still in prison, and I apologize publicly for that. I apologize sincerely for all my failures, but I did try so hard to help Roger learn to speak with Proper Grammar. He learned to speak long and often, but he never did learn to speak well. And he never, ever learned the meaning of the word "succinct." Such is life. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:47 PM Yes but a guest of whom? Not of one's fellow guests. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:28 PM another fallacy used to support your view. The customer is always right. And if you do not like that fact - no one is forcing you - or any other volunteer fellow poster - to stay in the kitchen. You are not a customer. You are a guest. A pretty rude one at that. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:22 PM Cook: (shouting) You bastards! You vicious, heartless bastards! Look what you've done to him! He's worked his fingers to the bone to make this place what it is, and you come in with your petty feeble quibbling and you grind him into the dirt, this fine, honourable Man, whose boots you are not worthy to kiss. Oh... it makes me mad... mad! (slams cleaver into the table) After over 500 posting in this thread and the other one over 100, it seems YOU are the only one "upset" about such an "imposition." The customer is always right. And if you do not like that fact - no one is forcing you - or any other volunteer fellow poster - to stay in the kitchen. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:17 PM The whole of Monty Python's - Resturant Sketch can be read on the following... http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/restrant.htm Although some of the more indignant and dramatic personal judgements of me - contained in some of the posts in this thread - from the 'usual supects' are much funnier. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:25 PM Yes, Roger, yes... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:07 PM Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:00 PM True, Giok. I especially love his attempts at representing some sort of invisible group of dicontented members, with his constant "we" and "our" and "us". When by now we all know that he is the only one with these complaints; and that his complaint is not even an honest one, but an underhanded way of getting his own back against Joe for perceived slights of 4 years ago. So he fights on regardless. He ignores awkward questions - indeed he ignores most questions, because he is not into debating. What he is into, is asking questions with the intention of sowing doubt. He knows his problem but cannot afford to recognise it openly - that would mean invalidating 4 years' worth of bickering and even worse, it would mean having to change his opinion of his own worth. He needs to be a hero of the downtrodden, a martyr, to feel good about himself. Sad, but not unique in that. He will complain about name-calling, then hypocritically call others names. He will repeat the same questions and the same quotes, and pretend that he does not realise he is being offensive in doing so (all the while offending being what he actually intends - more hypocrisy). He pretends to be hurt by abuse and to be ever so meek himself, then PMs others to abuse them. And all the while, his true purpose (to hurt Joe) is exposed. In the end, as long as he confines his rantings to 1-2 threads, he does little damage; the only ones taking him seriously for a while are newbies, who soon enough wise up to his tricks. And the rest of the forum continues merrily, with some of us occasionally dipping in here to prod the bear and see it react. And all the time, the bear runs up and down demented, like some that you see in badly-kept zoos. Pathetic; for him and for us, if truth be told. But having tried to reason with him time and again, I cannot honestly blame those who lash out at him in their frustration. If he will not confine himself out of harm's way and keep instead posting here, he deserves all he gets. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:09 AM Well I can always rely on Roger to give me my daily chuckle, there's never an un-dull moment while he's quoting selectively on the Mudcat. Giok. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 23 Aug 05 - 09:15 AM And whatever 'clarity' thought to be gained - not really worth the risk of upsetting anyone by its imposition? After over 500 posting in this thread and the other one over 100, it seems YOU are the only one "upset" about such an "imposition." |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:12 AM Is England no longer a part of the UK? Horrors! Why haven't we been informed of this? After all - the thread wasn't changed to say "Minister say's jamming OK in the ENTIRE UK" So your claim is invalid. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:02 AM You may have missed this also. Careful, Shambles. I did not call anyone names, although I did indicate that people who engaged in certain conduct might be considered such. And your frequently-quoted "pain-in-the-ass" citation referred to a person without a name, a person who preferred to be judged by actions - actions which were clearly troublesome and provocative. No doubt you will stretch and misapply my words as you so often do, but let it be noted that I named no names. I refer to conduct, not to persons. If a person's conduct fits the description, then the reader can draw his or her own conclusion. -Joe Offer- The outbursts and personal attacks upon fellow posters have now subsided and without any apology for them - our forum is now expected to simply forget these and now address the far more reasoanable tone of the following (made in a coventional posting). So, Shambles, what was the issue in this thread anyhow? If I recall, you complained because a volunteer renamed a thread from Minister say's jamming OK to Minister say's jamming OK in UK. The appropriate action would have been for you to contact me in a personal message, and then we could have discussed the matter. I would have been glad to rename the thread to UK Minister says jamming is OK, which would have been clear, precise, and grammatically and factually correct. No - it would still have been just misleading as the title currently still imposed upon it but just as importantly still credited to me as the thread's originator. If you gave the same subject to say 10 posters and asked them to provide a thread title for it - you would probably have 10 different titles. All of them (given the limitations) being just as clear and just as unclear as each other. Now if you are going to have one volunteer fellow poster imposing their judgement of their and choice of title upon every thread title - this impostion would be fair and any complaints about the titles's clarity could be addressed to this volunteer. As the current practice is not this - it is unfair and if any originator feels they may have been unfairly selected for imposition -this selected imposition only - makes any claim made about the imposition being unfair and personally motivated impossible to defend. The appropriate action as far as my personal posting policy (which appear is now placed in my FAQ) is concerned - is for my words - unless there are abusive personal attacks - name-calling or offensive language - to appear as posted. If anyone wishes to make any change to them (for clarity) they are welcome to contact me via PM and ask for for my permission to do so. Why is is the request for a any title change to be made first to the originator - only thought to be nit-picking? Is the intial action - the imposed change - not equally nit-picking? And whatever 'clarity' thought to be gained - not really worth the risk of upsetting anyone by its imposition? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:47 AM And yes, I suppose that if you badger and aggravate me long enough, I may occasionally respond with an aggravated tone. Heck, I suppose I might slip under all that aggravation once in a while and imply that you might possibly have a screw loose. I don't really think I have a reason to apologize for that. I think you have badgered and aggravated me far too long. Anyone in any postion - from shopkeeper to bank manager will be subject to requests they may not agree with - how well they perform in this position and in the how suitable they are for this position -will be judged by whether they can handle such requests without resorting to publicly giving vent to their frustrations. And unlike the examples given - everyone here has the option of responding or not. Some also insist on also having the option of posting their personal judgements (or threats) in editing comments. Any volunteer fellow poster here - who who even once responds with the abusive personal attacks and and name-calling that is the main thing these volunteers are supposed to be protecting our forum from - has set a poor example and publicly demonstrated by this alone - that they are totally unsuitable for this privileged role. Any justification for a volunteer fellow poster's lapse (even once) into setting this poor example and mounting and encouraging abusive personal attacks - that is based on a public appeal that they were provoked - is only bringing the credibilty of our forum even further into question. For how can our forum be asked to trust this volunteer's judgement? Even if the request had be a persoanal attack made in name-calling offensive language - there can be no justification for any posters to respond in kind - or even to respond at all. In this case there has never been any question that the request was made in moderate fashion. The ability to impose your personal judgement upon the words of a fellow poster is NOT a minimal ability - it is a very serious responsibilty. The exercise of this ability MUST always been seen to be impartial and not personally motivated. Our forum - including Max - who is perfectly able to read the forum he has provided for the public on his website and to respond publicly, privately or not at all as he chooses- will no doubt judge if this is the case now. Anyone who wishes to post abusive personal attacks, name-call and use offensive language to do so - are welcome (as a fellow poster) by me- to do this. I will ignore these as is my custom. However, It is not possible for me (or any other poster) to ignore these abusive personal attacks - if those mounting (and encouraging these attacks by example) also think their main contribution to the shaping of our forum is by the method of imposing their judgement and words on the contibutions of their fellow posters at the slightest excuse. And who would appear from the evidence - to be rather selective and personally motivated in their targetting. Perhaps we can all return to posting on an open, fair and equal basis once again and continue to be free to shape our forum by our contributions and not by judgements and impositions made upon them by anonymous fellow posters? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:08 AM Are you then suggesting Roger that the 'minister' mentioned in the thread title is only a minister in England? Giok [I could get good at this nit-picking thing!] |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:41 AM You got a reasoned reply, Shambles. A long, long time ago. You just didn't like the answer you got. So, have you appealed this to Max yet? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:27 AM If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. Susan - I did just that. Perhaps you can tell me what good this was or what effect it had? For this was before some anonymous volunteer fellow imposed the thread title change on the 'UK' thread - making it factually incorrect but still credited to me as the originator. Whatever further incorrect judgements are made by volunteer fellow posters who do not know thread subjects as well as the originator - the imposed change is not clarification - it is now more unclear to our forum's readers. If you need proof that this imposed change remains factually There is a record copied in this thread of thread from a Scottish poster pointing out that the legislation does not apply the the 'UK'. Bert a volunteer fellow poster who I did PM - does feel that he needs to resort to making abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters that he may not agree with - has posted here to totally support my request that originators should be first consulted before any change is imposed upon their thread title. His opinion does not seem to matter as Joe Offer continues to refer to 'WE' as if speaking for these volunteer fellow posters as if they were all always in total agreement with every action of Joe Offers - either as just a poster or volunteer fellow poster. What action would have prevented Joe Offer from imposing the title change upon this thread also? Or from showing any poster who expresses a public view that is different with abusive personal attacks and name-calling and permitting (or encouraging by setting this example) other posters to do the same? Things that we done some time ago cannot be undone. They can be apologised for - the lessons learned and not just allowed to carry on being repeated and attempted to be defended and justified. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:29 AM A screw loose? Hmmmmmm.......That could be because he has no nuts. Now if he had nuts he would PM Max with his list of 1001 complaints and maybe then he would no longer have a screw loose! Of course then he'd just complain of being screwed. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Aug 05 - 07:05 PM So, Shambles, what was the issue in this thread anyhow? If I recall, you complained because a volunteer renamed a thread from Minister say's jamming OK to Minister say's jamming OK in UK. The appropriate action would have been for you to contact me in a personal message, and then we could have discussed the matter. I would have been glad to rename the thread to UK Minister says jamming is OK, which would have been clear, precise, and grammatically and factually correct. I certainly can see that from your perspective as a citizen of the UK, the meaning of the title is clear to you (although I do not believe "say's" is correct in the UK, either). From my perspective as an American, I think of a minister as a cleric, and something needs to be added to the term for me to understand. Therefore, I approved the thread title change, to make it understandable to our worldwide readership in a way that does not change the intended meaning of the thread title. Please note that the title and the text of your messages in that particular thread were not changed in any way. That is the specific issue, and that is my specific answer. I can certainly see how you could disagree with my perspective, but that is my decision, a decision Max authorized me to make. If you disagree with that decision, you have only one remedy - you can appeal to Max. Have you done that?If you cannot address the specific issue, I cannot help you. I can't deal with all these other innuendos and accusations, because there's no specificity and no logic. And I can't and won't do anything about things that were said and done three years ago or even three months ago, so don't even bother to bring them up. Stick to the issue at hand. One other thing - if you want me to change an administrative action, you'll have much better luck if you discuss the matter with me privately. If you make an issue of editorial actions by posting your complaints in a thread, you force me to defend an action instead of allowing me to discuss and negotiate. You can say more-or-less whatever you like in your harangues, but you're not likely to get anything changed that way. And yes, I suppose that if you badger and aggravate me long enough, I may occasionally respond with an aggravated tone. Heck, I suppose I might slip under all that aggravation once in a while and imply that you might possibly have a screw loose. I don't really think I have a reason to apologize for that. I think you have badgered and aggravated me far too long. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Aug 05 - 06:32 PM We can leave our forum can judge from the evidence... "We" don't feel it IS "our" forum, nor do "we" tend to experience Mudcat from the role of its judges, nor do we look to one another's words for "evidence." "We" simply do not share your experience, Roger. I am not speaking "for" "we," but describing what I observe of "we." ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 22 Aug 05 - 03:41 PM If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and resembles a duck to all outward appearances, there may be a remote possibility that it is a grizzly bear - but don't be surprised if most people think it's a duck and call it a duck. they would still qualify as deliberate personal attacks and name-calling I don't think so. YOu have given multiple indications of behavior that would justify any of those names as legitimate descriptions |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Aug 05 - 03:35 PM You may have missed the following editing comments - as these were inserted into existing posts and do not refresh the thread. Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles - PM Date: 17 Aug 05 - 01:49 PM Do you really think that any organisation that allowed any of its representitives to personally abuse and call their customers names - like 'asshole' and 'idiot' in response to civil requests - be following organisational principles likely to enable any organisation to flourish and prosper? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I certainly did not intend to refer to anyone in particular with those terms - I referred only to those who act in such a manner. Feeling guilty, Shambles? -Joe Offer- And Careful, Shambles. I did not call anyone such names, although I did indicate that people who engaged in certain conduct might be considered such. You may stretch or misapply my words as you so often do, but I named no names. -Joe Offer- We can leave our forum can judge from the evidence......Made in these conventional posts that did refresh the thread. From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor.. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for. No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems. If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something? -Joe Offer- It tells me that some animals now consider themselves to be a lot more equal than others and perhaps more entitled to have a good time than others. And that it may be a lot easier to claim that you manage to be good-humoured when you are the one imposing your judgement - than it may be for those who are being imposed upon and subject to the name-calling. The irony is that as I have never responded in kind to these abusive personal attacks and name-calling (from Joe Offer or anyone else) - there are no grounds - nor should there be any question of any of my words being subject to any imposition or for them not to appear as posted. Sadly that has not been the case......... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 22 Aug 05 - 02:57 PM If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and resembles a duck to all outward appearances, there may be a remote possibility that it is a grizzly bear - but don't be surprised if most people think it's a duck and call it a duck. they would still qualify as deliberate personal attacks and name-calling I don't think so. YOu have given multiple indications of behavior that would justify any of those names as legitimate descriptions. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Aug 05 - 02:53 PM Here's the relevant part of what you quoted, as it ought to apply to you, Shambles: If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. A PM. A PM.~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Aug 05 - 02:48 PM Roger - first - neither of those names are particularly abusive. "If the shoe fits", etc. Mmario – To be called an idiot, an asshole or a looney (as I have recently been called on our forum by Joe Offer) may not measure quite so far up on the abusive name-calling front as some of Joe's supporters can now manage to post – without any censure. However they would still qualify as deliberate personal attacks and name-calling. But as you full well know – it is not the level of the abuse that is of most concern - when Joe Offer or any other volunteer fellow poster sets this example on our forum. [PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05 The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it. -Joe Offer- MMarion perhaps you can tell us who now protects posters from abusive personal attacks and name-calling - when these attacks are emanating from the very volunteer fellow posters who are supposed to protect us from them? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Aug 05 - 02:22 PM Come on George, since when did any of Roger's responses actually address the point raised by another 'fellow poster' Giok |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:58 PM Welkins? Where can I get them? Or have I got that wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:50 PM Roger - first - neither of those names are particularly abusive. "If the shoe fits", etc. Secondly - calling the fact that you had a song challenge NAMED as a song challenge my personal opinon doesn't change the fact that it was indeed a song challenge. How many people have to express their "personal opinon" which happens to coincide with the very definition of something, before you will concide that you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong? And insisting that Joe made changes strictly out of his own personal viewpoint and only because your opinion differs from his does not change the fact that Joe acted within the editing policy of the site owner as Joe is authorized to do. Nor does you continueing to whine that "Max can read this thread" make the FACT that he has requested that such discussions be taken off this forum any less true. Do you still deny that you misqoute and qoute out of context? I have yet to see you apologize for the examples that have been pointed out to you. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:33 PM calling a cat a dog does not make it a dog. Denying that a cat is a cat doesn't make it a dog either. And that thread was indeed a song challenge. MMario - your personal judgement is not going to be helpful - is it really intended to be? Perhaps you will will tell me that in your judgement - my perception that the change was imposed upon the title of my thread without my knowledge or permission is also mistaken? Perhaps you will also tell me that in your judgement that it is now perfectly acceptable for Joe Offer to publicly call fellow poster's abusive names like idiot and asshole - merely because they may express on our forum - a personal view that is contrary to his personal view?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Bill D Date: 22 Aug 05 - 10:12 AM "It is my contention that it would now appear that 'our' forum has been taken over by those who may not wish to 'make it a place of combat and chaos' but who have now adopted these methods and from whom - much of the current 'nastiness' is comming from" eeek! Taken over? Funny, I must have missed the coúp. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 22 Aug 05 - 09:30 AM sorry shambles - painful or not - that thread was in its essence a song challenge. That you find this hurtful or painful is your problem - but that doesn't change the fact that if you do not consider it to be a song challenge you are wrong. period. end of discussion. calling a cat a dog does not make it a dog. Denying that a cat is a cat doesn't make it a dog either. And that thread was indeed a song challenge. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Peace Date: 22 Aug 05 - 12:34 AM Time sure passes quiclky, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 22 Aug 05 - 12:32 AM I'm not saying he addressed your point, Susan - but he refers to you by name (post of 21 Aug, 3:03PM). You're right, I couldn't understand to what he was referring. And his sentence that I quoted confused me further, indicating as it does a total reversal of his view on the current status of Mudcat. My head hurts! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 21 Aug 05 - 06:48 PM El Greko, I have no idea why anyone would think that Shambles' post addressed my point at all! ??? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 21 Aug 05 - 05:43 PM Roger, in your last post you told Susan "If you wish to post on a forum on a different basis - where open debate is not encouraged but where personal judgements of each other are made and imposed - perhaps you should find one that operates in the way you wish it to - or start one?" - implying that this forum is not like that (i.e. not a forum where open debate is not encouraged etc etc). Is it me being confused in my dotage, or have you now reversed your original position? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 21 Aug 05 - 04:22 PM Well put, Susan! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 21 Aug 05 - 03:03 PM Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife! Susan this has always been a public discussion forum. It remains one that is open to the all public to post on equal terms. If you wish to post on a forum on a different basis - where open debate is not encouraged but where personal judgements of each other are made and imposed - perhaps you should find one that operates in the way you wish it to - or start one? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:03 AM ...when the originator is placed in the position of questioning the need for such an imposition... People who have voiced editing/titling concerns in the fashion repeatedly requested by appointed site mgmt-- privately-- have been heard with respect, and their opinions have been taken into account by the folks responsible for looking at the "big picture." People who have, instead, mounted public campaigns pretending to speak for many, when it is actually a case of their own wounded excessive pride, have not. In the former case people show good faith. In the latter, they show the intention to cause widepread community harm rather than even try to take reasonable steps to resolve perceived personal harm. Such "originators" place THEMSELVES in the awkward position described. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 21 Aug 05 - 09:40 AM nit picking shambles - the thread was clearly what most people would consider a "song challenge. MMario - No - in my opinion as the thread's originator - it was not. Your personal judgement is not going to be helpful - is really intended to be? If in the opinion of the poor unfortunate who had suffered the wound - it was very painful - would you - expressing an opinion that it was not painful - actually be likely to make it any less painful to the victim - or be seen as very helpful under the circumstances? Is it any comfort to someone who tells you they cannot sleep - to tell that you always sleep like a baby? But why is it not also considered by you equally to be 'nit-picking' when some anonymous volunteer fellow poster feels that they have to impose such a change - without the originator's knowledge or permission? Why do you consider that it is only 'nit-picking' when the originator is placed in the position of questioning the need for such an imposition on our forum? It seems to be a common assumption by many posters here - that the problem only becomes one - when a poster feels themselves forced into the position of voicing an request for a different approach. It then appears that this is just the start of an 'open season' of abusive personal judgements, name-calling and foul language directed at the poster requesting a change - some of this indeed comming from those volunteer fellow posters. An example that is only going to encourage other posters to do the same and think that such posting is now acceptable on our forum. As Monty Python says "Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife! [PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05 Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos. So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles. So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life. -Joe Offer- It is my contention that it would now appear that 'our' forum has been taken over by those who may not wish to 'make it a place of combat and chaos' but who have now adopted these methods and from whom - much of the current 'nastiness' is comming from. That it time to stop 'stumbling along' - or rather acting and doing as 'WE' like - and put a final end to this division, needless imposition and personal judgement. Can we please all just become 'fellow posters' once again? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Ahgighi,,, Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:28 PM Gmmmffff!!! Mmmf! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Fed up Date: 19 Aug 05 - 05:45 PM Would we all pull together and tell Shambles to shut the fuck up!! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Aug 05 - 05:42 PM And to further clarify your muddy waters - as you have qouted above - not that removal of the song challenge would relagate your thread to BS - but if you insisted on making the thread a diatrabe against editing and or the volunteers. MMario - if you care to look again - you will see that Joe Offer's threat to relegate the thread was made before the further threat he made to me about any diatribes. Threats plainly don't work - but Joe only seems to have that club in his bag.... That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu. It was not a song challenge - it was a thread song but the only thing that appears to matter now is Joe Offer's personal disapproval of either - expressed again in the form of an editing comment. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 19 Aug 05 - 04:19 PM And if they deleate my posts I'll just start a thread about this thread and then someone can start a thread asking Max about MY thread and then...... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 19 Aug 05 - 04:18 PM It's quite simple really. When the Clones finally get around to combining this thread with its DUPLICATE, preserving the post order of course, it will all make sense-- just like secret writing exposed to a little warmth. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: artbrooks Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:40 PM That's ok...the thread commenting about this thread will probably go just as high............ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jeffp Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:26 PM YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:25 PM 500!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:25 PM 499 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Cluin Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:02 PM Been stewing about that one since February? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 19 Aug 05 - 02:58 PM And to further clarify your muddy waters - as you have qouted above - not that removal of the song challenge would relagate your thread to BS - but if you insisted on making the thread a diatrabe against editing and or the volunteers. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 19 Aug 05 - 02:55 PM nit picking shambles - the thread was clearly what most people would consider a "song challenge". BTW - what was added was a title clarification - not a pre-fix. The forum doesn't have a "song challenge" prefix. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Aug 05 - 02:54 PM Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix? This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first? Thank you. Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu. The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads. If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section. You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Aug 05 - 02:49 PM Song Challenge Camilla and Charlie were lovers |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Aug 05 - 02:46 PM Again - ALWAYS? the prefixes are an aid to searching and to distinguishing threads so the users of the site (the READERS) can find what they are looking for. If a song challenge is NOT labeled - doesn't it make sense to label it? Isn't this the sensible thing to do? If it is not so labelled - it could possibly be that the originator - seeing in the thread creation screen that the use of a prefix was an optional choice for them and considering that their thread was not a Song Challenge or any other of the optional prefixes available - intentially chose NOT to use one. These prefixes are either optional for the originator or they are not. Would it really be the sensible thing for a anonymous volunteer fellow poster to assume and judge that the thread's originator was an idiot (to use Joe Offer's description of me) and impose the (so-called) optional prefix without the originator's knowledge or permission? Or would it be sensible to take a little time and make little effort to ask them first? In my case the Song Challenge was imposed without my knowledge or permission and when I pointed out that it was not a song challenge but a thread song and requested that the imposed prefixed was removed as the thread creation screen stated it was optional - this request was refused. This request was not only refused but I was told (in an editing comment) that if the prefix was removed this - (a pefectly obvious music related thread) - would be relegated to the non-music section. The personal opinion was also expressed in this editing comment that all such threads should be relegated (for some unexplained reason) to the non-music section. It is the shapeing now of our forum by this form of imposition and the determined (if vain) attempt to control the posting of others - all based upon the assumption and personal prefences of a few posters - rather than being shaped by all our forum's contributors - that badly needs addressing. Any help to ensure that it finally is addressed - will be much appreciated. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Aug 05 - 01:59 PM Once again nothing but smoke...... Until Max publicly states otherwise on our forum – where I am sure that Max is quite capable of reading this thread as well as every other poster - that is good enough for me. But I have yet to read any public statement from our forum's owner saying that he specifically considers the need for any volunteer fellow poster to 'index' or 'consolidate' is more important than the original poster's right to have their words appear as posted. And you haven't read that he is dissatisfied either have you? Your statement is completely meaningless. Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. A statement by Max made 6 years ago and which you have taken out of the contsxt of the thread. Mudcat was MUCH smaller and quieter back then as you well know. Since then Max has instituted rules and other things to keep theplace more functional and has allowed and endorsed a group of members to help out. As you cannot site any example of him firing any of them or being dissatisfied with the job, this is another meaningless argument on your part. In summary, there is nothing new in your post and all of it has been posted by you at least a half dozen or more times so the whole thing is less than nothing. Roger if you had any real desire to fix this thing that you see is so terrible, you'd take it to Max,,,,,but you are a gutless little Dude so you don't. And as I have said before you have NO experience on any other net forums so your lofty ideas are completely laughable. C'mon little Dude, prove me wrong. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Aug 05 - 09:49 AM So, Shambles, not to distract you from your distractions and disparagements, but what did Max say about changing thread titles and about us volunteers encouraging use of the Forum Menu as a mere index instead of as a free speech platform? There is a big difference between the words – 'changing and 'imposing' and also between 'encouraging' and 'imposing'. That crucial difference is what this thread is all about. Joe I am merely replying to your personal views - expressed on our forum as a fellow poster – which I do not agree with. But in my response - I am leaving out the personal abuse and name-calling. You seem to think this acceptable – when this used by you and your supporters. When asked to explain the BS rules – Max publicly stated on our forum - Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. Until Max publicly states otherwise on our forum – where I am sure that Max is quite capable of reading this thread as well as every other poster - that is good enough for me. But I have yet to read any public statement from our forum's owner saying that he specifically considers the need for any volunteer fellow poster to 'index' or 'consolidate' is more important than the original poster's right to have their words appear as posted. Nor has he publicly stated that he considers any possible inconvenience caused to volunteer posters by first asking permission before any changes are imposed by them – are too 'cumbersome'. Nor that this consideration is more important than ensuring that all posters are treated equally and their words appear as posted. Until Max does publicly state this on our forum – I shall assume that he expects all volunteers to follow his lead and facilitate. To use their commons sense in this and NOT to go too far and make any attempt to control and shape our forum by the heavy imposition of their personal judgement – when there are more friendly and welcoming alternatives. The 'index' – is merely a list of thread titles. These titles are the ones that each thread originator has chosen from the optional choices available to them. They may not be Joe Offer's choice (or mine) and they could possible be clarified. However, I strongly maintain that on an issue of clarity only - there is no need and that there are no grounds for any 'clarification' or 'consolidation' to ever be automatically and selectively imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission. Joe - this idea that the thread titles should not now be part of the poster's free speech - which you do rather grudgingly seem accept is the case for the words of the post. Is based only on your assumption that it is up to you to impose what title appears in the 'index' and your personal judgement that posters are now considered wrong if they wish to see the words of their own choosing. Is Max in agreement with this particular point? Have you asked him? Perhaps Max will publicly inform us on the detail? A librarian may not think the list of their book titles look pretty or not informative enough – does that entitle the librarian to impose their own words to these book titles? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Aug 05 - 09:39 PM At the very least, they should be provided with little life preservers so...... Oh. Sorry. Did it again. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Aug 05 - 09:24 PM 489 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Aug 05 - 08:26 PM So, Shambles, not to distract you from your distractions and disparagements, but what did Max say about changing thread titles and about us volunteers encouraging use of the Forum Menu as a mere index instead of as a free speech platform? I'm still waiting for a change in instructions from Max. Otherwise, I'll stick to my rejection of your proposed rules, and we volunteers will stick to changing thread titles (sparingly) when it makes sense and when we think it will be helpful. We were talking about thread titles in this thread - right? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 18 Aug 05 - 08:23 PM Who the hell is Dido? So he thinks he knows me, huh? Dido's first post.... *shy quiet little voice* Hello sorcha and Rob-o. I'm Didelphyia O'Carina, but you can call me Dido. I'm a clay 'possum shaped ocarina, and I don't post much. My brother Cleigh O'Possum is a MudCat Icon and has his very own page at the MudCat resource pages. Welcome to the Mudcat and please don't step on any possums when you visit the Tavern. Dido Now I can guess,LOL |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 18 Aug 05 - 03:21 PM Just a darn minute, Dido....that's MY disorder. I don't recall signing off on any request to assign it to Harpie!! A |
|
Subject: complaining about the complainers From: Dido Date: 18 Aug 05 - 03:11 PM Both 'The Shambles' and Harpgirl seem to live in little fantasy worlds of their own. Both also seem to exhibit traces of megalomania. megalomania \meg-uh-lo-MAY-nee-ah; -nyuh\, noun: 1. A mania for grandiose or extravagant things or actions. 2. A mental disorder characterized by delusions of grandeur. also: megalomania n. form of insanity in which patient believes him- or herself to be person of great importance; mania for doing grand actions. megalomaniac, n. megalomaniacal a. and I would like to express my personal view here. For two people who bitch and moan and whinge about Joe Offer and others claiming to impose thier views on others and consider themselves judges - seems to be doing exactly what they are complaining about. Who gave either of you the right to sit in judgement of the people Max has asked to monitor and administer this site? and Harpgirl - If you consider wikipedia as a source with any amount of veracity you really need to have a reality check. There is more erroneous information on that site then there is in this forum - except they claim to be authoratative experts on EVERY subject. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 18 Aug 05 - 03:02 PM Here's a description that you might be able to understand, Leo:S&M go hand in hand and are interchangeable traits |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 18 Aug 05 - 02:50 PM perhaps it would be better for you Joe to finally accept that you have no control over the postings of others and give-up the attempt? But Max has given him control and REQUESTED he make the attempt. Why do you feel that you alone are qualified to judge the choices of others and feel you have the right to do this? I don't recall Joe ever making any statement of the sort. could you point out where he has claimed he alone is qualified to judge the choices of others? Or where he has claimed he has the right to do so? *You* of course have claimed that right for him repeatedly - that doesn't make it a valid viewpoint for Joe. Why can't you just leave them alone - would this not always be the MOST sensible thing to do? Always? EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE? There is NEVER a reason? What qualifications do you have to decide what to impose upon the contributions of your fellow posters who Max has invited to the part of his site - Max asked him to. When creating a thread - the choice of using a prefix is optional. This should ALWAYS be honoured. Again - ALWAYS? the prefixes are an aid to searching and to distinguishing threads so the users of the site (the READERS) can find what they are looking for. If a song challenge is NOT labeled - doesn't it make sense to label it? Isn't this the sensible thing to do? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Aug 05 - 02:39 PM Oh...sorry! I thought this was the thread about waterskiing hamsters. Excuse me. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Aug 05 - 02:33 PM Joe Offer say- I suppose if the Forum Menu is to be an effective index, it has to have some sort of balance. Despite any imposition upon thread titles - it will remain an index and have a natural balance. Whether this balance agrees with your idea of what it should be - is debatable but perhaps it would be better for you Joe to finally accept that you have no control over the postings of others and give-up the attempt? I rarely start threads myself - I'd be surprised if I start two a month. Usually, I try to add what I have to say to existing threads, to participate in ongoing discussions. That is your choice - no one is judging your choice. Perhaps if you spent less time judging the choices of others - you may have more time to start more threads? Other people start one or more threads per day, every day - whether they have something new to talk about, or not. A very few people consistently start threads on topics that are already currently on the Forum Menu. I don't know why, but they seem to have a compulsion to start threads. Why do you feel that you alone are qualified to judge the choices of others and feel you have the right to do this? Sometimes, we humor those compulsions and let those threads continue, and sometimes we combine them with existing discussions - it all depends on what seems to be the sensible thing to do at the time. Why can't you just leave them alone - would this not always be the MOST sensible thing to do? The other day, it seemed sensible to me to consolidate the dozen Shatner threads that were to be seen on the Forum Menu. See, that's the problem - if we allow Shambles to use the Forum Menu as a platform, we have to give the same privilege to Shatner. So, no, I think we'd better let the Forum Menu be an index, and let Shambles and Shatner say more-or-less whatever they want to say within their own messages (in case some of you didn't know, William Shatner has been an Honorary Mudcatter for quite some time. It happened shortly after Little Hawk joined us - about the time Cletus left us...). I have a problem with what 'WE' will now allow and all the personal judgement involved in this. What others choose to post is their business and it is none of yours. What qualifications do you have to decide what to impose upon the contributions of your fellow posters who Max has invited to the part of his site - set aside for public discussion. If you wish to change something like a thread title - why not simply ask first? When creating a thread - the choice of using a prefix is optional. This should ALWAYS be honoured. If I choose not to use the optional Song Challenge prefix (as the thread is NOT this) I strongly feel that it is quite dishonest for anonymous volunteer posters to later impose this incorrect prefix upon this thread. The use of these prefixes is either optional for the originator - or it is not. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Aug 05 - 01:58 PM Well shit Jeri......If I can't call him an asshole, can I call him a tool? How about Smokey? Roger....Once again a smokescreen and you avoid the issues. Show us some internet experience so we can see your ideas have substance. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 18 Aug 05 - 01:44 PM If all you sadists didn't like to let loose on people, you'd stay out of this thread! Then there's us underdog supporters!....Not clueless as Jeri likes to say about people who don't agree with her, but disgusted at those of you who keep trying to stifle the ones who have complaints! Where would the world be without dissenters? Answer this question, you people. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Aug 05 - 12:59 PM "Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife! Unlike some others - Joe Offer does at least mention the issue along with his abusive name-calling of me. My posting to reasonably disagree with his views (in the face of this) cannot be considered by any sensible poster to be in any way a personal attack by me upon him...For it must be pretty clear and self evident - that any abusive personal attack upon him by me - would have been subject to imposed deletion. Even if other posters are permitted and encouraged simply to post abusive personal attacks, offensive language and name-calling. Joe Offer - says- I think that Shambles makes too much of this editing stuff. He sees it as some sort of Armageddon of the Internet, a cyberpower struggle between the forces of good (Shambles) and evil (those who have edit buttons). Joe's assumption here is also wrong. I think that the freedom of all posters to our forum to always say what they wish in their words - is more important that the wish of some volunteers to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters and certainly more important than any inconvienience caused to these volunteers by obtaining the originator's permission before imposing any changes to these words. I don't see it as quite so dramatic. We volunteers rename threads to make the titles more consistent, informative, and useful. This is fine (if it were always strictly true) but I am sure that if first asked - the originator would readily agree. The is issue is NOT the change but its automatic and unfriendly imposition. I suppose I could write seventeen pages in the FAQ about thread naming conventions, but nobody would read or understand them. So, we add or change tags when they're missing, and add explanatory information when needed. We figure that as time goes on, most people will catch on to our naming conventions - or not. It doesn't really matter, because the Forum Menu is just an index, and we can fix it if it's broke. I suppose we devote our time to teaching, and send Mudcatters preachy little messages about how they should do this or that in thread title naming. We had a lot of that preaching before we had the ability to change thread titles, and it got really old. Now we just make changes when they're needed, and don't make a big deal of it. Most people accept our thread renaming practices very well - most of our complaints come from just one person. If these conventions and changes to conform with them 'don't really matter' are not considered a 'big deal' - why risk upsetting anyone (even me) by imposing them without the originator's knowledge or permission? For is expecting all the contributors to our forum to conform to YOUR re-naming practices rather the 'tail wagging the dog'? Should YOU not be just accepting the naming practices of all the contributors. This surely is the difference between facilitating and the earnest but vain attempt to control the contributions of others? Remember that it was the posters who originally made these conventions and shaped our forum by them. Perhaps they can be permitted to continue to make them? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Aug 05 - 11:55 AM Typical Shambles.......No guts at all, just smoke. I suppose that you are now claiming victory somehow is good. At least it might shut your trap!!! But once again it simply a way to avoid answering even the kindest of posters. You have no moral fortitude whatsoever and it becomes more and more obvious with each new post. You will not engage the issues before you while saying others do not. ALL of your issues have been answered but you refuse to verify that by contacting Max. Show someballs and do it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Jeri Date: 18 Aug 05 - 11:53 AM Shambles, get off the high horse. You accuse people of personal attacks, when this whole crusade of yours is just one huge personal attack on Joe and the admin weenies you know about. If you knew about others, their postings as members wouldn't be safe. You accuse others of name calling, but wasn't you who started with the 'witchfinder general' bullshit? Or, the short version: Stalking someone is much more of a personal attack that calling somebody 'asshole' and walking away. Mick, I know you get involved because you think people might not see through the tactics and the crap. While there are a very few who won't clue into what's really going on, for the most part, people are NOT that stupid. Many of the smarter folks aren't reading this thread, or at least not commenting. Others just have a twisted sense of humor and this is entertaining. If you think you're pointing out the idiocy of all this to innocents, any newby probably tried to figure out Shambles' unsuccessful attempt at selling new 'buzz-words' and phrases was for and wandered off, probably trying to figure out if he was aware how he was coming accross (or not) to others and whether he did it on purpose or accidentally. Or, the short version: People aren't that stupid. I have a problem with calling Shambles an 'asshole'. It's not specific enough. I also don't know him personally. He may be an asshole, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he may also love and be loved, enjoy music as much as the rest of us, and feed the birds in the winter. He just acts like an asshole sometimes. We all do, although most of us aren't quite so consistent or globally public about demonstrating this quality. Long version: I don't think I'd ever call Roger an asshole. I think I'd say he behaved like a control freak who had no control, and in his impotence was spiteful to those who he believed did. I'd say he's taken on a few qualities of a stalker. I'd say he's betrayed people who once respected him and thought of him as a friend. I'd say his constant pointless battles and chronic failures here have almost nothing to do with change and everything to do with his ego. I wouldn't all him an asshole, though. It's personal abuse and name calling. And should anyone seriously wonder: my personal opinions about people have nothing to do with my administrative job here. That's one of the reasons why I'm doing it. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Aug 05 - 10:16 AM Talking of pain - (self-inflicted or otherwise) and its location. On a more practical level - being considered by some to be a 'pain in the ass' - on our friendly forum (for being anonymous) - will result in your freedom of speech being curtailed. 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- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 18 Aug 05 - 10:08 AM Masochism is a paraphila normally expressed primarily through fantasy; normally not being physically expressed - therefore not involving a secondary person other then as on object/subject of the fantasy |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Aug 05 - 10:00 AM Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Big Mick - PM Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:31 PM The alteration it needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over. Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are. Mick If you call a fellow poster a manipulative schmoe a troll or worse - it remains name-calling and remains unhelpful and counter-productive. And when this name-calling is attempted to be excused and justified by you – when you would be the very first to condemn others for doing the same thing – this hypocrisy does highlight our forum's main problem very well. It sadly brings us no nearer to any solution. Blowzabella said - You must know the way things work. Yes and how do you know that they are not working? Not I hope simply because you think that those few posters making all the noise and personal attacks – really know what they are talking about? Do you really think that I would expect these few posters (after all these years) to post any differently or ever resist for very long - the tempation to posting at all? And would you really expect turkeys to vote for Christmas? However unpopular I may appear to have made myself with some posters on our forum - by sticking to my principles – it does appear that as result of all this - things are slightly better. For example – We do now have situation where claims for the 100th post are not now described by Joe Offer as fair game for the Clones to delete as they please. I see that even he now joins in with this fun and the practice is not judged to be 'obnoxious' any more. And we do now seem to have seen the last of entire threads being deleted because our volunteer fellow posters could not be bothered to deal with just the offending post And even the imposed closures of entire threads does now seem to be used a little more sparingly. So it is a fact that effecting change (for the better) by instigating an open and reasoned debate on our forum - is not actually as impossible as some posters would like to have us think.....However, there are still many things that need to be addressed. Any help you can provide - to ensure a return to a more friendly and welcoming situation where the words of thread titles on our forum remain as posted - unless any change is first agreed by the originator - would be much appreciated. This simple request is thought to place a too 'cumbersome' burden upon our volunteer fellow posters - who now insist on the right to impose these changes upon their fellow posters - as they decide. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 18 Aug 05 - 09:48 AM no, you're wrong. Masochism is a concept which requires interaction with another. Self-inflicted pain is not masochism |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 18 Aug 05 - 09:34 AM Not true. In the abscence of sadism a masochist will self-inflict pain. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 18 Aug 05 - 09:23 AM Let me remind all you people that masochism doesn't exist without sadism.... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 18 Aug 05 - 08:56 AM I'll admit to having my own issues as well; prime among them the unwillingness to have posted here or elsewhere information that is blatently false, twisted, slanted and biased without it being contridicted. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Aug 05 - 08:52 AM Yes Mick, you are absolutely right about some of us having issues in this case and I'll be damned if I know why!!! LOL....I'ts strange. Over the years I have learned pretty well and during the last siege on Mudcat by the Martin Gibson persona, I found it easy to ignore as I had on several previous trolls. And just when I thought I was immune to the temptation, Roger takes off again and I cannot seem to help myself. It's just too fascinating to keep playing! I don't know why. I think it's because although I believe him to be a troll, it's as if he himself does not. I really can't determine whether he's a troll or just simple minded and really does want a discourse. This is like wondering if he is an asshole or a dipshit....neither is pleasant but one means no harm. In any case, the questions still are on the table and I'm waiting for the next smokescreen. Let's see if Roger can summon up any balls and answer them! I assume he must have balls although one could be the size of a pea while the other is real tiny. Jon has summed it up veery well in words that need restating: Shambles, |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 18 Aug 05 - 06:55 AM My case is proven. I asked this sad person to do two things. I was sure he would ignore them and he did. It is not namecalling to speak the truth, as one sees it. I see Roger as a sad person in need of help. His pathetic refusal to resolve the problem when the solution is obvious indicates a need, IMO, for professional help. Their is a masochistic streak at work here. As an aside, I think that those that continue to respond to him with logic and solutions, when it is clear he will not respond, probably have issues of their own. Mick,ambling off to deal with issues of his own. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 18 Aug 05 - 06:30 AM Just one question Roger [Which I know you won't answer!] Just what is so sacrosanct about your deathless prose that it should be immune from editing or adding to, in order to clarify it? Did you complain in school when a teacher marked your homework on the basis that you didn't appoint him to his position? In the immortal words of whoever, 'Get a life!' Giok |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Blowzabella Date: 18 Aug 05 - 06:22 AM Dear All, I am going on my holidays tomorrow and won't be able to visit this thread for nearly two weeks. I am sure that it will look after itself while I am away - I am torn between amazement at seeing how stoic the originator is at continuing to repeat his 'civil request' ad nauseum and begging everyone else to stop posting, just to see how long he will continue talking to himself...! PLEASE Shambles - clearly, this method of attempting change is not working for you and so, all reasoning would suggest that you try a different method, to see if that works - e.g. ASK MAX! Otherwise, you show all the symptoms of someone who does not learn from experience and just keeps doing the same thing over and over again - there is, of course, no guarantee that the new method will work either. This is not a democracy - you can make suggestions - even try to persuade someone that you have a valid point of view, but saying the same thing over and over is clearly not working - it is presently wasting your own time and, honestly, making you look a bit, well, foolish. It is another step to instigate change though - lots of people have valid points of view, on all sorts of topics, but fail to get things changed to their way of thinking - because of all sorts of reasons - economical, present way suits most people, person in charge likes things the way they are - haven't you ever been a member of a club? You must know the way things work. As I say, I'm off on my hols....I wonder how many posts this will be up to by the time I get back? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST,Jon Date: 18 Aug 05 - 06:13 AM Jon - does seeing this treatment on our forum not annoy you also? Or do you also seem to think that I deserve this special treatment. Or are you saying that by imposing this special treatment upon selected easy targets - that our volunteers are just following Max's rules? Shambes, You refuse to see the blindingly obvious. The situation you argue is close to impossible. It is possible that if you were a site owner, a mod might act against your own desires on occasion. It is possible you might end up having a PM exchange for example asking them to "mend thier ways". Where it becomes ridiculous is to believe a site owner would not simply remove the authority if matters persisted. One grants such authority on the understanding they are woking for you not against you. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Aug 05 - 04:13 AM Issues buried? LMAO.......Roger, you have posted the "issues" so many times that they could not possibly be buried. You have also patently refused to contact Max even at the request of "fellow posters" who have never in any way, shape, or form, been the least bit abusive to you. No, what this all gets down to is that YOU wish to impose YOUR rules and judgements on Mudcat but have no real courage to confront the situation as you should.....by contacting Max. You also have no real back-up for your ideas as they are simply ideas without any substance and no back-up in real world experience. Your last post is simply another in the line of smokescreens you have thrown up when you are backed into a corner. It's obvious to anyone reading this stupid thread that all you are really doing is stirring the pot and when called out, you show your true self by turning tail and running behind your verbal smokescreen like the poltroon you are. Stand up to a challenge for a change and see how good it feels to have even a soupcon of backbone and integrity, win-lose-or draw. Contact Max. Show us your vast internet experience. My bet is you will once again run away. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 18 Aug 05 - 03:47 AM SO, was my calling you a hypocritical sod simply "name-calling"? I don't think so; I was basing it on your own writings and public behaviour. Three times I repeated it and by now it is obvious that you cannot refute it. You are indeed a hypocritical sod. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Aug 05 - 02:05 AM Mick Those who post (even volunteer fellow posters who should know better - like you) simply to call other posters abusive names and use foul and offensive language may receive a response (from me) if they cease this practice themselves and stop encouraging other posters to do this and publicly apolgise to our forum for their past conduct. If they are not prepared to do this - my posting policy is not to respond in kind but to give the response these posters deserve. Which is not to respond at all. This also prevents the issues from being buried beneath posts containing mounds of name-calling and personal abuse. According to Joe's 'rules' - all abusive personal attacks are supposed to be deleted - but these 'rules' also now say that some animals are more equal than others. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 17 Aug 05 - 10:59 PM Notice how this manipulative schmoe ignores challenges with substance? Roger, you are driving me close to calling you as I see you. I would like you to respond to 'Spaw on his last post, as well as his challenge (as well as a number of other posters) to contact Max. If you respond to this by ignoring those challenges, then you are what you are. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Aug 05 - 07:13 PM Are the requests still considered civil if they've been asked and answered 437 times ? 438 ? 439 ? 440 ? 441 ? 442 ? 443 ? 444 ? 445 ? I would suggest that as long as it remains civil (in the face of much provocation) - no matter how many times a civil request is made - it remains civil. If a civil request is to be answered - it probably always deserves to be answered civilly. If a civil request is not treated civilly and the problem not addressed and an agreed solution found - you could perhaps expect the request to be made again. There is always the option for those who may find it irritating to ignore the thread it is contained in - rather than keep refreshing the thread. It would perhaps always be best for our volunteer fellow posters to treat all posters civilly (perhaps even those who may not be civil)? For if our volunteer fellow posters ever resort to incivility - they lose the moral high ground and more importantly - a poor example is set for others to follow. Now who was it that came up with the following common sense? Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: artbrooks Date: 17 Aug 05 - 06:32 PM Anyone else notice how often the first post each day on this very repetitive thread is....The Shambles? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Aug 05 - 05:42 PM Shambles.....You are so naive when it comes to the function of forums on the internet that anything you suggest should be regarded with LESS than a grain of salt. Your ideas and requests are not based on any reality and are ridiculous at face value. Go ahead......Tell us of your experience and since you love to document things, tell us where those experiences have been or are currently taking place. I'd love to visit them to see just what does go on there. I'll do the same in return for you. I know you either lack the guts to admit you have no experience or will come up with some bullshit that relates not at all to my request. Let's see the places where things work your way. No guts---No glory.......Let's see 'em Dude! And Grannie's button sewing site with it's 4 members and 11 hits a month doesn't count.......At least let's keep them in the same size range as Mudcat....larger if you like. Go for it Big Man..... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 17 Aug 05 - 02:52 PM Are the requests still considered civil if they've been asked and answered 437 times ? 438 ? 439 ? 440 ? 441 ? 442 ? 443 ? 444 ? 445 ? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 17 Aug 05 - 02:45 PM If the shoe fits .............. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 17 Aug 05 - 01:49 PM Do you really think that any organisation that allowed any of its representitives to personally abuse and call their customers names - like 'asshole' and 'idiot' in response to civil requests - be following organisational principles likely to enable any organisation to flourish and prosper?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Aug 05 - 11:29 AM Or at worst, and at the time last night I blew it with you, seeing. Jon - I may have posted it - but they were not my words - were they? It matters less how anyone became a volunteer fellow poster than what they do when they become one of this anonymous, select band of unknown number - who are able to impose their judgement upon the rest of us. Can I suggest that you rather missed the point? It may have been a small victory for a return to a friendly and welcoming forum where these posts are not now subject to automatically imposed deletion by our anonymous fellow posters – but it was a welcome move from the unfriendly position it was before – as stated in the following. 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- ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon - does seeing this treatment on our forum not annoy you also? Or do you also seem to think that I deserve this special treatment. Or are you saying that by imposing this special treatment upon selected easy targets - that our volunteers are just following Max's rules? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Jeri Date: 17 Aug 05 - 10:50 AM The problem, Amos, is that he doesn't espouse any organizational principles. He simply attacks others' and reacts to actions he notices. That said, I'd LOVE to read part of a memo! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 17 Aug 05 - 10:46 AM Sham, I suggest you start a small company with about twenty employees based on the organizational principles you espouse. Flourish and prosper if you can. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 17 Aug 05 - 10:27 AM Jon, it doesn't bother me for you to say that. I do clone work because I care about the Mudcat, just as you said. I don't always enjoy it, but it's just second nature, after all of these years, to try to *tidy* up a bit when I see typos, etc. For the record...I do NOT have the time or energy to check out every single thread title for clarification. None of us do. When I see one in which I think I can help to make it more clear, I will do so. That does NOT mean there are no others that may benefit from such additions, nor does it mean the one which I add to is being singled out. kat |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST,Jon Date: 17 Aug 05 - 10:11 AM Accuesed of being the self imposed they get called, shambles, rather than truthfully being called people asked by Max to carry out tasks Max asks them to do. Or at worst, and at the time last night I blew it with you, seeing. Folk music, Mudcat and the Internet has been saved from the scourge of the "100thpost-ist" anonymous self-appointed clones. All together now : Let's hear it for our eponymous self-appointed drones! The air is somehow fresher this morning... We can take it the other way if you like and I will as I've nothing here to loose. If you want the other way and ask "What the hell is Max doing allowing self-appointed drones to over-run his forum?" |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Aug 05 - 09:52 AM It's just seeimg people accused for obeying Max's rules that is annoying me. Accused of what exactly? Perhaps anonymous folk may expect to be accused of something - even if it is only wishing to remain anonymous? The facts are here. Some anonymous volunteer decided to impose their personal judgement upon my thread title in isolation - when there were many titles that could also have been subject to imposition. This was imposed without my knowledge or permission. Despite the fact the addition of 'UK' made the thread misleading (as the legisltion it concerned was not applicable to the UK) and as the changed title was still credited to me as originator - it opened me up to charges of not knowing my subject. I requested in this thread that originators are always contacted before any imposed changes are made on thread titles. For this - I am subjected to abusive name-calling and offensive language and the imposed editing action is not only defended - the title of this thread is subject to imposition........ Jon - This treatment does tend to annoy me but I do not resort to the abusive name-calling and offensive language that is encouraged in this thread. And if I did - I could be pretty sure that any such contributions of mine - would be subject to imposition and deleted. I just try to ensure that the facts are known so that posters can make up their own minds - from these facts. Jon - does seeing this treatment on our forum not annoy you also? Or do you also seem to think that I deserve this special treatment. Or are you saying that by imposing this special treatment upon selected easy targets - that our volunteers are just following Max's rules? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST,Jon Date: 17 Aug 05 - 04:38 AM I'd better clarify shambles. they would turn on me for suggesting Max should defend them (by something as simple as a statement the the no rules bit you quote no longer stands, deflating one key poin in the basis of many of your arguments). It's just a case of me (again) breaking an unwritten rule round here. By enjoy it, I mean getting the stick you dish out but I don't see why they should be bullied into quitting by you. I think you would find matters a lot worse if there were no volunteers and don't think the current system/policy is a bad one. In truth, and in terms of other forums including ones I do help mod, it is light so I think you would find you have more problems in most other places. It's just seeimg people accused for obeying Max's rules that is annoying me. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Aug 05 - 04:26 AM That was his 8534th post, which in anybody's book is one hell of a lot of rubbish! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Aug 05 - 02:51 AM Joe Offer says- And then there are other people who think I there's something wrong with my responding to Shambles at all when he talks about the stuff that I do. I dunno, I find it an interesting challenge to attempt to give a rational response without repeating myself. I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor.. As an ordinary poster - Joe would be free from such criticism if he returned to posting conventionally - in order to disagree with me or any other poster's views. However, he perhaps may not be free from imosed editing - if he posted (as he currently does here) to mount and encourage others to post abusive personal attacks upon his fellow posters - simply because they hold and express a different view. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Aug 05 - 02:14 AM Jon says- They would all turn on me for saying this but if the truth be told, I don't think they enjoy it but care more for doing thier bit in helping to keep Mudcat going. Jon was once a volunteer fellow poster. Perhaps the best way for them to help The Mudcat now would be to return to contributing on the same basis as the rest of us and not allow anyone to speak for them or compromise the rest of them by expressing their personal opinion (in editing comments) and defending their imposed actions in conventional posts? Joe Offer says For a man who purports to believe that we shouldn't have rules, Shambles can sure make 'em up to control other people. He seems to think that since I do editing here, I shouldn't be allowed to post. And if I have an opinion that somebody might disagree with, I shouldn't be allowed to express it. I suppose Shambles isn't the only person who thinks this, but it's Shambles who expresses it most often. This concept is hardly rocket science - it is just a request for a level playing field and for less confusion and imposition on our forum. I can't impose any of my personal judgements or rules upon anyone but myself. I accept that I have no control over the postings of others and I have no wish to be publicly seen to constantly fail in the vain attempt to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST,Jon Date: 16 Aug 05 - 08:28 PM Stuff it... The only real questionmark here is why Max over all this time has left the clones to defend the accusations. They would all turn on me for saying this but if the truth be told, I don't think they enjoy it but care more for doing thier bit in helping to keep Mudcat going. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 16 Aug 05 - 01:40 PM Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: El Greko - PM Date: 16 May 05 - 06:04 AM I believe "100thpost-ism" has been largely eradicated thanks to the incessant lobbing (or is it lobbying?) of the Protectors Of Our Freedom (POOF for short) and now Ted and others can enjoy the numerical race unmolested. Folk music, Mudcat and the Internet has been saved from the scourge of the "100thpost-ist" anonymous self-appointed clones. All together now : Let's hear it for our eponymous self-appointed drones! The air is somehow fresher this morning... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Aug 05 - 12:38 PM The Shambles has the effect of a time machine, transporting you back to the Elizabethan period. This would explain the fixation on quoting very old posts from Max and others. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 16 Aug 05 - 12:14 PM Shambles Parts of it are described as extremely narrow! Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: curmudgeon Date: 16 Aug 05 - 10:59 AM Pursuant to a brief conversation on this thread last night, I am hereby commencing my penance for stimulating unbridled jocularity without due notice, by responding to Shambles' latest post. Having read same several times in order to comprehend its true purpose and meaning, I am left with this observation: A new verb, to "shamble" ie., to ploddingly wander about, mentally or physically , with no discernable destination, that information being known only to the shambler. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 16 Aug 05 - 06:11 AM Although I may just be free to post and disagree with everything Joe Offer says states and also the way he jumps from a personal judgement to claims to be something else – Joe at least (along with his own abusive personal attacks on a fellow poster) does address the issues raised in this thread. Joe Offer – in a conventional posting (although again speaking in this post - for 'us volunteers') states the following. You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. First I would suggest that our anonymous voluteer fellow posters should be looking after the interests of all of us - rather than just 'most of us. I will leave the readers of this thread to decide just where the posting of any 'adversarial crap' is originating and why the posting of this - is being encouraged? The thread started with a simple request for a return to a less divisive and a more friendly approach – a request that some others posted were in favour of. However, can you think of anything much more adversarial on our forum than selectively and anonymously imposing judgement as a matter of routine - upon the words of fellow posters – without their knowledge or permission? Posters who may also just wish to have a good time among friends.......... We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. If this is so – perhaps our volunteers should be more careful not to fire the first shots? The biggest contribution toward peace – would be to inform our forum how many of these peacekeepers there are and what are the names of these peacekeepers? I think the Colt 45 used to be called the peacemaker? But why would there be any need on our friendly forum - to 'tidy things up' in secrecy? Are these measures really likely to ensure that peace breaks out? Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Are there not many examples of posters – in this thread who could be judged to be posting and also making an asshole of themselves? Why are those that post here only to express a judgement of any negative aspect of a fellow poster (who they may never have met) – also not judged (by you) to be 'assholes'? And why are those who are encouraged to feel they can post just to be personally abusive – use offensive language and call their fellow posters names – not judged by you to be 'assholes' or a 'pain in the ass'? Sadly the answer is only too clear..... 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- The question that need to be answered is - who is that feels themselves qualified to impose their public judgement about who they consider to an 'asshole'? And as a result which poster is not thought entitled to express themselves in the words of their choosing on the part of Max's website that he has set aside for public discussion? Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for. Whoever does feel qualified to impose such heavy judgement as this - upon their fellow posters – does tend to encourage similar judgement to be expressed from those who may feel themselves to be equally qualified but who do not (yet) have the power to impose their judgement. As a result of this encouragement – our forum now regularly has posts asking for one poster's judgement to be imposed upon their fellow posters……Our forum appears now to be in a permanent state of division and indulging in 'war games' (against selected easy targets) would appear now to be officially encouraged. We (meaning all of us) post for many different reasons – all of them equally valid - the role of our volunteers (if we need any) is to follow Max's lead and facilitate. It is not to judge fellow posters and to shape all aspect of our forum by their imposed judgement. No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems. Please face the fact that feeling qualified to sit in judgement (and imposing it) upon your fellow posters is exactly what you are doing and it is indeed 'heavy stuff'. Is it now the official Mudcat view that anyone who may not agree with the imposition of an anonymous volunteer fellow poster's judgement (for the very good reasons already stated here) is an 'idiot' (as well as an 'asshole)? If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something? -Joe Offer- Yes. I think the assumptions and sentiments in the words of your last paragraph does sum-up our forum's main problem very well. It sadly brings us no nearer to any solution........ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Aug 05 - 11:36 PM Another pair of pants here Mick!! Damn 'Mudge........that was as funny as anything I've read in weeks.....JUST PERFECT!!! I am so ashamed I didn't see it myself..................LMAO over and over........... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: curmudgeon Date: 15 Aug 05 - 08:47 PM My day job is currently on "walkabout" until the Fall, thus I might find time to do the required penance for my transgressions. But do bear in mind that I have songs to learn, the Portsmouth Maritime Folk Festival to organise, get ready for the Getaway, and continue having a life. However, I will do my best to comply with your request Mick, but I don't think he'll like it. Of course, if he's true to form, he'll ignore it and post whatever dribbles out of his mind - Tom |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 15 Aug 05 - 08:38 PM Tom (curmudgeon), I find you guilty of violating one of the prime precepts which we operate on around here. In the gospel according to Mick, one must always give the "warning, swallow all liquids before reading this" comment before making a comment like this. For your punishment you are sentenced to responding to all of Shambles posts for the next 6 weeks. I believe you will have to give up your day job to accomplish this. Vogon poetry ....... ROFLMBIAO Mick, ambling off to change his trousers. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 15 Aug 05 - 07:01 PM 'Cause it's my birthday I've allowed myself the treat of seeing just how far this has gone. Vogon poetry - that's really good! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 15 Aug 05 - 06:39 PM That's it! You got it in one! I knew it reminded me of something... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: curmudgeon Date: 15 Aug 05 - 05:05 PM I'm beginning to think that Shambles could give Vogon poetry a run for its money. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 15 Aug 05 - 04:27 PM Yeah, but I've learned to shut up (at least sometimes) when he starts repeating himself. -Joe- You may have missed the above - as it was inserted into a post as an editing comment and did not refresh this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Clinton Hammond Date: 15 Aug 05 - 02:05 PM Holy fuck will someone just delete this stupid crap please... what a waste of electrons! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Cluin Date: 15 Aug 05 - 02:00 PM Okay, Shambles may be a big whiner, but he also commits the unforgivable sin of being boring as well. What limb do I have to chew off to get outta here? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 15 Aug 05 - 04:30 AM If there was a competition for the person who's Mudcat name suits them best, I'm sure Shambles would win hands down! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 15 Aug 05 - 02:54 AM See, Guest 615? 48 hours of no entries preceded by several jokey ones, and Shambles was feeling jittery - his lifeline was disappearing off the bottom of the index. First thing he did as soon as the 'cat came up again is refresh this thread through another tirade, responding to nobody, and a propos nothing. As for that "The attempt is only to try and prevent more and more imposed personal judgements ", what can you say? He has appointed himself Saviour of Mudcat and is fighting the sources of evil single-handed. Tilting at windmills doesn't even come near it...:-) "Is it a bird? Is it a plane?" "No, it's sha..." "Shatner?" "No, it's sha..." "Shaun Of The Dead?" "No, it's sha..." "Come on, what is it?" "Too late..." |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 15 Aug 05 - 02:23 AM It may be considered appropriate that in extreme certain cases – speedy imposed judgement – and deletion be imposed to remove a individual contribution from Max's website. That is a right that Max has reserved and one that very few posters would take issue with. Any form of editing action that is speedily judged and imposed without the posters knowledge or permission – by an anonymous volunteer fellow poster as a matter of routine – in circumstances other than these extreme (and rare) cases is a different matter. And as any imposition could also be seen as the most adversarial, provocative and counter-productive action that our forum could take against a poster – this unfriendly imposition should be undertaken only as, rarely, openly and sensitively as possible? When the routine adversarial action is subsequently defended and justified as consistently conforming to some policy and showing equal treatment – and it is plainly not seen to be this – the whole creditability and traditional open nature of our forum is brought into serious question. Especially when there is more than a question that the judgement behind these actions may be personally motivated and selective. I feel there should never be seen to be any question of this. Many requests have been made that the perfectly valid personal opinions, of our volunteer fellow posters – are always to be clearly seen to be this and posted conventionally - so that any assumptions and judgements expressed about fellow posters can never be mistaken for anything other than this. This perfectly valid request has been ignored. Many personal views and judgements continue to be expressed in editing comments - that are inserted into posts and do not refresh the thread - and many claims to be speaking for what is editing policy – continue to be expressed alongside personal views and judgements – in conventional posts. This practice is confusing and hardly likely to be generally seen as impartial. Perhaps our volunteer fellow posters can now be asked to make a choice – between one role - or the other? This is our open Discussion Forum on Max's Mudcat Café – perhaps it can return to being run as such and not run like a government department, a newspaper with an editor or an abusive and bullying mob. I can impose no rules upon our volunteer fellow posters and there is no attempt by me to do so. The attempt is only to try and prevent more and more imposed personal judgements by anonymous fellow posters from shaping our forum and allow it to once again be shaped – as it was and should be – by the contributions of posters in the words of their choosing. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 13 Aug 05 - 01:35 PM Wellow wellow wellow well, tell me more tell me more tell me more, did she give you fellatio, or was it a fallacy? Uh huh uh huh uh huh. G.. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: JennyO Date: 13 Aug 05 - 01:29 PM And if you followed the fallow fellow into the hollow and wallowed with a pillow in a furrow, while feeling mellow, would you be a mellow pillow wallowing fallow fellow follower? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 13 Aug 05 - 01:17 PM Fellatio on fallow fellows is a felony, fellas. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Aug 05 - 12:57 PM And could it be if you came along and followed the fallow fellow that you'd be a fallow fellow follower? Or would you just be a shriveled nuts, broke-dick, fuckwit, mamalucca? Like Shambles. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 13 Aug 05 - 11:20 AM It's OK, kat, I am a fellow and igottitstoo. Goes with being a large, aging fellow. Now, if one were to not participate in the verbal masturbation, it could be said that they were a "lying fallow, fellow". The there is the whole issue of a fellow performing fellatio, but I will have to wait until after 10:00 pm to post anymore on that. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 13 Aug 05 - 11:05 AM LOL, Jeri! Something like verbal masturbation got it in one El Grecko! I was going to suggest, awhile back, that we all just leave the thread as it's a bit intrusive to watch someone as they jack off... kathowcanIbeafellowwheni'vegottits?! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 13 Aug 05 - 10:59 AM Those who post to this thread to criticize those who post to this thread are being a bit silly. Nothing wrong with silliness though. Jeri, let me be the first to twist your words. :~) Naw-- nothing comes to mind.... You're just too sensible, as usual. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Jeri Date: 13 Aug 05 - 10:39 AM That's why you're not a VOLUNTEER fellow poster (VFP), El G, and merely an FP. You either failed to volunteer to be a 'fellow' or to post. I can't see you posting without volunteering to post unless there are terrorists in your home holding a gun to your head saying "Hit the SUBMIT button, or we'll mess up your screen BAD!" I can, however, understand why you might be a non-volunteer fellow. In other words, your fellowship has been imposed upon you by fellow fellows who don't have the courtesy to ask if you want them for fellows before they join a thread to which you volunteered to post. Since you're Greek, perhaps you'd be happier joining the other Greeks here as a fellow phyllo poster? Or join BillD as a fellow philoposter? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 13 Aug 05 - 10:05 AM Don't you love that expression, "fellow posters"? Well, we are all posters here, but I don't extend my feelings of fellowship equally to all, and certainly not to hypocritical and malicious trolls. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 13 Aug 05 - 09:58 AM OCD |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: artbrooks Date: 13 Aug 05 - 09:40 AM Jeri, a little bit of silliness helps start my day, and any thread begun and nurtured by Shambles is sillier than most. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 13 Aug 05 - 09:12 AM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:52 PM Well, the irony of it all is that Shambles has never been censored. He has always been allowed to say exactly what he wants to say. Now, I will admit that we have sometimes thwarted his desire to post multiple copies of the same message in multiple threads, and we have combined threads when he has see fit to start multiple threads on the same subject - but at least one copy of every word Shambles has written remains posted here at Mudcat. I have just tried to establish the true situation and present this here for our forum to judge against the 'spin' - the extent and manner of which the ordinary poster's freedom of expression is slowly being eroded on our forum by imposition from their fellow posters. Please note the date of the above post. The claims contained in it were incorrect then. Dispite this being corrected by me at the time - the same incorrect claim has publicly been made again in this thread. Any reassurances given - that are based on knowingly incorrect information - should be seen in that light and raise the question why. Anywhere else it would probably not need to be pointed out that the victim of imposed censorship may be more likely to remember this imposed curtailment of their free expression - that those who are imposing upon them - as a matter of routine. Jeri - this talk about anyone 'choosing ememies' is just silly (especially coming from a volunteer fellow poster. There are simply different points of view being expressed in this thread on a discussion forum - provided for that purpose to the public by the site's owner Max. Do you still accept that all of these views are equally valid. Ignoring these views and facts - again and again may become tedious - but they do not lose their validity - however tedious ignoring them and making personal judgements upon the poster expressing them - becomes Most folk only have the perfectly sufficient choice to open this thread or not - to respond in it or not or to ignore it. Some have a further option of imposing their judgement upon the views of their fellow posters. And following this public judgemental example - it often appears that whole point of our forum has become to encourage all posters to feel they have to also judge every aspect of each others personality and motivation. Perhaps a more welcoming and more tolerant example can now be shown by those who appear to ready to accept their privileges but less ready to accept the responsibility that goes with it (especially the right to be known and to stand by your actions)? All this imposition and judgement upon fellow posters displayed here - changes nothing - it just makes further pointless judgement by fellow posters - of fellow posters more likely. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 05 - 08:22 AM Shambles, grow up and give it up! eNOUGH ALREASY. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Jeri Date: 13 Aug 05 - 08:13 AM He targets Joe because Joe always answers him. Somebody always will, but it's just a tad disconcerting to know that the one person who will consistently rise to the bait is the person I would like to believe is too self disciplined to play games with trolls. El G, the crusade does have a certain wankiness about it, and it seems as though Roger's self worth is defined by who he chooses for enemies. GUEST,615 said: "The only way all of this will stop is if you do not respond to this obvious troll." Herein lies the problem: who is 'you'. Is it Joe? Is it Jeri or El Greko or Amos or WYSIWYG or Jon or Clinton or kat or MMario or Wesley S or artbrooks? The thread is here and will likely remain here. The only question is whether or not each person reading this is going to be part of it, and if you're posting to it, you're part of it. Those who post to this thread to criticize those who post to this thread are being a bit silly. Nothing wrong with silliness though.
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 13 Aug 05 - 04:43 AM Guest, 615, I agree that Shambles will not let the thread die. But I disagree about his needing entries from the rest of us to keep going. He has shown in the past that he is perfectly capable of keeping a thread going on his own, for days and weeks. He needs this - and if you close the thread down, he will surely start another. It feeds something in his character, it makes him feel good. Something like verbal masturbation, where reality is immaterial, it's the fantasy that's needed. So one might as well keep this thread open - at least that way one localises the damage to the forum. And if people get frustrated with him, let them vent their frustration here too; it makes no difference to Shambles whether they do or not anyway. You will have noticed how selective he is in his responses and quotes, picking only those that serve his purpose in pushing for an apology from Joe and trying to blacken his name. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 13 Aug 05 - 04:08 AM No, Roger. I see no need to apologize. I haven't found any of your words that were deleted, although I concede that one or two of your 8,362 posts may have been deleted, if they were in a thread that was deleted. I did a quick check, and found none. Joe - you have conceded here that one or two of my entire posts and all my words contained in them MAY have been deleted (for no good reason). Do you accept that this alone makes your public contention untrue - especally when it is made for the second time) - when you attempt to still maintain - And not one word of it has been deleted, except for some of his more glaring duplications that this is untrue and misleading our forum? Will you please apolgise for this incorrect attempt to minimise the true situation and to strongly imply that I am not telling the truth? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,615 Date: 12 Aug 05 - 10:31 PM Shambles will NEVER let this die. He's obsessed to say the least. The only way all of this will stop is if you do not respond to this obvious troll. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 12 Aug 05 - 07:09 PM Respect is not a right - it is earned. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 12 Aug 05 - 06:41 PM I said - Can we be assured that it is now a thing of the past? Joe Offer said - I'm so confused. What thing? What past? Who cares? Joe I care - Is the practice of deleting an entire thread and every contribution made to it - because you and volunteer fellow posters cannot be bothered to take the time to delete only the offending post - a thing of the past? Can we be reassued that from now on - only the offending posts will be the subject of imposed editing action? And all posts that have may have made honest attempts to move that thread in a more positive direction will remain as posted? Can we also be assured that posts claiming to be the 100th will now be safe from imposed editing action of anonymous volunteer fellow posters? When you once considered and stated that these type of posts (that some posters now find fun) were 'fair game' for lesser volunteer posters to automatically delete? These assurances would be a small but welcome move back to the respect that used to be shown to all contributors to our forum - rather than the increasing and counter-productive judgement of some contributors by volunteer fellow posters - that we have seen displayed and justified so clearly in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST,Jon Date: 12 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM Worse that that. I find my firt post explaining the meaing gone now. You can't say "plonk" to mean you have "killfiled" (chose to ignore from now on) over there. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST,Jon Date: 12 Aug 05 - 05:09 PM (link was to Wikepedia) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST,Jon Date: 12 Aug 05 - 05:08 PM Well if the censorship troubles here are bad. Try the BBC site. I gave one to Mudcat today, a MIDI of mine, explaining it wasn't a broken link but Mudcat would be down but they deleted it as broken while leaving several other links (over time) to Mudcat that would also have been broken in place... I also gave a link to the usenet meaning of "plonk" and have just found that is an "unsuitable link" for the BBC. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 12 Aug 05 - 04:51 PM OK, Roger. I am so sorry for whatever you require me to be sorry for; and at the same time, I am especially sorry for whatever else I'm supposed to be sorry for. Joe - For the second time - you have publicly and incorrectly informed our forum that none of the words of my posts have been deleted. In response - you have added to this by attempts to further taunt and patronise a fellow poster invited to contribute to our forum on Max's website. And not one word of it has been deleted, except for some of his more glaring duplications. You have reluctantly accepted (or rather explained and excused) these editing actions to our forum - perhaps you could be man enough aplogise to me and our forum for knowingly and publicly misleading our forum for the second time?
Maybe you just don't get it. It's worthwhile to respond to you when you're reasonably rational, when you address an actual issue. When you resort to two-year-old, out-of-context quotations and ad hominem attacks and one-in-a-million situations, you've gone too far, and there's no reasoning with you. Then it's not fun any more. Go hibernate, and come back when you're ready to be rational. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 12 Aug 05 - 04:34 PM 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 The whole point about freedom of speech - apart from how those that are lucky enough to have it treat it so casually - and how precious it is to those who do not have it - is that the real test of it - is how you treat the freedoms of those you may not agree with - may not like or who you may consider to be a pain in the ass. Joe Offer will no doubt - in a conventional post or an editorial comment - give his reasons why he posted this judgement - I will leave you to judge the true extent of his feelings on the subject of free speech. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Jeri Date: 12 Aug 05 - 04:31 PM Clinton, I think you asked the question and answered it in the same post. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Aug 05 - 04:14 PM 400? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Aug 05 - 04:13 PM Well, Clinton, it's true. If you go to a party and spend all your time complaining about what a terrible party it is and what poor service the host gives, sooner or later, somebody's going to start thinking that you're a real asshole. Or whatever. The idea of a party is to enjoy the party, not complain about it. Same goes here. We're here to enjoy ourselves. We volunteers are here to serve the drinks and tidy things up, as it were - we're not here to lord it over anybody. If you come here to whine, you're going to find that people may not regard you as highly as you may regard yourself. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:53 PM "If that's not satisfactory to you..." Why don't you f-off and go somewhere that will coddle to your stupidity... Why oh why does Mudcat let threads like these go on and on and on over and over and over... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: George Papavgeris Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:48 PM Joe, Shambles is just a hypocrite. Don't elevate him to asshole status. Assholes have their uses.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for. No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems. If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 12 Aug 05 - 02:56 PM should have been put behind us long ago. That's the only accurate statement I've seen you make in this thread, Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 12 Aug 05 - 01:46 PM gee Roger - Are YOU going to apologize for all the times you have misqouted him,me, WyWIWYG, Mick and the others that you have misqouted - therby misleading anyone reading your posts? How about requesting that those misqoutes be corrected? Of course that will show how badly you took them out of context. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 12 Aug 05 - 01:39 PM Can we be assured that it is now a thing of the past? Perhaps you could make this clear and apolgise at the same time for supplying incorrect information in your post (expressed just as a fellow poster) which may (unintentionally I am sure) mislead all those reading our forum?
....or was it Mmario or Big Mick or katlaughing or Catspaw that was supposed to be sorry? I'm so confused. What thing? What past? Who cares? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 12 Aug 05 - 11:46 AM And if I have an opinion that somebody might disagree with, I shouldn't be allowed to express it. If you wish now to return to being JUST a fellow poster again - you can express your personal view as you wish (if not now in a thread title). However, I think that it must be recognised that fellow posters have a right to be able to ALWAYS know in what capacity your personal views are expressed. And that jumping - as you do - between these two quite different roles - as and when you feel like - is very confusing and expecting a little too much from our forum - if you wish to be seen as impartial? As any moderator MUST? Joe - are we really expected to believe that anyone is innocent or naive enough to think that if they volunteer and feel qualified to impose their personal judgement upon their fellow posters - that they will be universally loved and admired and all their totally selfless efforts be appreciated - by all of these fellow posters? The example of your last post in this thread is a perfect one of you expressing an 'offical line' whilst posting as a conventional poster expressing their personal views - yet rather than consistently speaking as 'I' - insisting in this post as referring to 'WE'. The following example of a editing comment (there are many such examples) - containing many personal assumptions and judgements (from the now closed - Censorship on Mudcat thread) - is probably equally confusing. Ah, but Roger, I draw a little line. The space above the line is your space, and I leave it alone. And I write in brown, so people won't confuse my comments with yours. Besides that, my usual brown responses are editorial comments in response to your questions about editorial actions. Does it not seem appropriate to give editorial answers to editorial questions in editorial format? As a matter of fact, what is wrong with the brown comments, other than that they are a violation of your own arbitrary rules that you seek to impose upon the editorial staff of Mudcat? Isn't that it? - that you want to be king, and you've had a royal snit for threee years now because no one has seen fit to recognize your royalty? -Joe Offer- Surely it is not too much for our forum to expect a clearer and more consistent line that is currently displayed - if the impartialty of editing actions is even to thought possible? Perhaps a choice must now be made - as to what is now more important to you? The ability to openly express your personal opinion or the ability to impose your personal opinion upon your fellow posters? I suspect that most of us could deal with you (and other volunteer fellow posters) far better in one role or the other - than we can with you trying (and failing) to maintain them both.
As for the brown Joe Offer and the black Joe Offer, they are one and the same, integrated person. The distinctions you wish to draw are largely your own artificial creation - another of the rules you see to impose on the actions of others, on this site that has no rules. When I answer questions about editorial actions, it would seem perfectly appropriate to express those responses in editorial brown - and that is the only communication I have with you. And you've become tedious again. You're prattling on about your one message in a thousand that may have been deleted with others in a flame thread, and trying to dictate when I type in black and when in brown. If that's all you can find to whine about, I guess I won't have anything else to say to you for a while. Your royal snit has now passed its fourth anniversary, and you have had little new to say since the first couple of weeks of your tantrum. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 12 Aug 05 - 10:58 AM And not one word of it has been deleted, except for some of his more glaring duplications. Perhaps you would accept that when anonymous volunteer fellow posters have deleted entire threads - that every word of every post of mine to these threads and every word of every other post contained within it - is deleted permanently? Joe - I have not noticed you imposing this practice upon the rest of us us recently - perhaps I have just not been looking in the right places? Or have you finally listened to those who object to this and accepted that the practice of deleting entire threads - is far too heavy-handed? Can we be assured that it is now a thing of the past? Perhaps you could make this clear and apolgise at the same time for supplying incorrect information in your post (expressed just as a fellow poster) which may (unintentionally I am sure) mislead all those reading our forum? Do you now accept that it is a fact that - with the editing practice I refer to - many words of mine (and others) have been deleted by anonymous volunteer fellow posters? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM For a man who purports to believe that we shouldn't have rules, Shambles can sure make 'em up to control other people. He seems to think that since I do editing here, I shouldn't be allowed to post. And if I have an opinion that somebody might disagree with, I shouldn't be allowed to express it. I suppose Shambles isn't the only person who thinks this, but it's Shambles who expresses it most often. And then there are other people who think I there's something wrong with my responding to Shambles at all when he talks about the stuff that I do. I dunno, I find it an interesting challenge to attempt to give a rational response without repeating myself. I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor.. I think that Shambles makes too much of this editing stuff. He sees it as some sort of Armageddon of the Internet, a cyberpower struggle between the forces of good (Shambles) and evil (those who have edit buttons). I don't see it as quite so dramatic. We volunteers rename threads to make the titles more consistent, informative, and useful. I suppose I could write seventeen pages in the FAQ about thread naming conventions, but nobody would read or understand them. So, we add or change tags when they're missing, and add explanatory information when needed. We figure that as time goes on, most people will catch on to our naming conventions - or not. It doesn't really matter, because the Forum Menu is just an index, and we can fix it if it's broke. I suppose we devote our time to teaching, and send Mudcatters preachy little messages about how they should do this or that in thread title naming. We had a lot of that preaching before we had the ability to change thread titles, and it got really old. Now we just make changes when they're needed, and don't make a big deal of it. Most people accept our thread renaming practices very well - most of our complaints come from just one person. I suppose if the Forum Menu is to be an effective index, it has to have some sort of balance. I rarely start threads myself - I'd be surprised if I start two a month. Usually, I try to add what I have to say to existing threads, to participate in ongoing discussions. Other people start one or more threads per day, every day - whether they have something new to talk about, or not. A very few people consistently start threads on topics that are already currently on the Forum Menu. I don't know why, but they seem to have a compulsion to start threads. Sometimes, we humor those compulsions and let those threads continue, and sometimes we combine them with existing discussions - it all depends on what seems to be the sensible thing to do at the time. The other day, it seemed sensible to me to consolidate the dozen Shatner threads that were to be seen on the Forum Menu. See, that's the problem - if we allow Shambles to use the Forum Menu as a platform, we have to give the same privilege to Shatner. So, no, I think we'd better let the Forum Menu be an index, and let Shambles and Shatner say more-or-less whatever they want to say within their own messages (in case some of you didn't know, William Shatner has been an Honorary Mudcatter for quite some time. It happened shortly after Little Hawk joined us - about the time Cletus left us...). So, I'm sorry that Shambles takes this personally. It isn't meant to be that way. It's all just housekeeping, not a power struggle. It's just trying to make some sense out of the chaos. And we will continue to welcome Shambles to say whatever he wants in every message he posts. He may not get the "front page" coverage he wants for his every word, but his comments are easily found. Just click on his name in any message he's posted, and you will receive a complete collection of everything Shambles has said on Mudcat. And not one word of it has been deleted, except for some of his more glaring duplications. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 Aug 05 - 01:30 PM Neh! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 11 Aug 05 - 01:09 PM Pusti malaka [Sp?] [[Not you George.]] |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 Aug 05 - 01:04 PM I wish you had, oh Lowest of the Low. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 11 Aug 05 - 12:59 PM "Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 Aug 05 - 12:53 PM "... given Joe Offer's role – it must be faced and accepted that our forum has different expectations of the two of us. I am just a fellow poster. Hopefully Joe Offer- having now with this story - clearly demonstrated his inability to remain and operate in the required impartial manner - will return to being just a fellow poster..." You hypocritical sod, Shambles! You moan about not making public character judgements, and then with the above statement (despite everyone else's having already disagreed with you on the matter of Joe's character) you attempt to blacken Joe's name. How dare you! I used to sympathise with your plight; then I just felt sorry for you. But no more, because you now show malice. I repeat, you are a hypocritical sod. And I am saying so publicly, because your related statements that prove it were also made publicly. If you don't like it - sue me. Or, to quote Michaelus Maximus: Bite me. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 11 Aug 05 - 12:42 PM Who's the 'Nobby no Mates' now then?? G ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:08 AM But given Joe Offer's role – it must be faced and accepted that our forum has different expectations of the two of us. I am just a fellow poster. Shambles, let this begin with YOU. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:05 AM Shabmles=shut the fuck up, and get a life. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:41 AM But given Joe Offer's role – it must be faced and accepted that our forum has different expectations of the two of us. I am just a fellow poster. Roger, Joe has done far more to make this forum a good place than you have. He has added more value than you have. I'm sorry if this is unpalatable but it is the simple fact of the matter. Face it. This pinko "fellow poster" thing may be the initial state of the system in theory, but in practice people do different things, that have different value to others. By their fruits, ye shall know them. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Truthtroller Date: 11 Aug 05 - 01:46 AM You have too much time on your hands don't you Shambles!? Go on admit it. No friends nothing to do. Did you chew a blanket when you were a child? T.T. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 05 - 02:28 PM So, that's the story. -Joe Offer- That is list of many assumptions and judgements made by one poster upon a fellow poster. Many may agree with some of Joe Offer's judgements - some (more informed) I hope will not. There are many sides to this story but the rights and wrongs of it are not important now - as this issues is now gone and should have been put behind us long ago. But it does demonstrate the real danger when one poster feels that it is incumbent upon them to impose their judgement (for what they may honestly think are all the right reasons) upon their fellow posters. When all they may doing in reality is using their position to give vent to the personal likes and dislikes that we all have. For Joe Offer is not JUST a fellow poster and MUST be seen operate impartially – ALWAYS. That is the responsibility that comes with the rights that Joe Offer so readily assumes when he feels qualified to sit in and impose his persoanal judgement upon the rest of us. I think that whatever claims Joe Offer may make for impartiality in his subsequent dealings with me – that the special treatment demonstrated by our volunteer fellow posters on our forum to this individual poster - will be seen in the light of this 'story' - to be highly suspect. It is clear that there is a personal attitude and openly displayed dislike of me in particular - that makes it impossible for Joe Offer to give the equal treatment to all posters on our forum that any holder of a responsible position must be seen to do..... It matters little if you share Joe's obvious personal dislike of me or if you think that I show equal dislike of him. I try my best not to let this influence my thinking. But given Joe Offer's role – it must be faced and accepted that our forum has different expectations of the two of us. I am just a fellow poster. Hopefully Joe Offer- having now with this story - clearly demonstrated his inability to remain and operate in the required impartial manner - will return to being just a fellow poster and we can both then disagree on equal terms? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 10 Aug 05 - 02:14 PM As they say in AA - Insanity is repeating behavior over and over and over again expecting different results. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 10 Aug 05 - 02:06 PM FORGIVENESS To understand is to forgive, even oneself. Alexander Chase |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 10 Aug 05 - 02:01 PM Joe, that's how I remember it, too. Plus the endless emails and PMs. My interest was assumed to be support, and my support was assumed to be agreement with all Roger's PELs viewpoints. I bailed from the whole PELs thing because I found it mentally draining and emotionally frustrating to try to communicate sensibly about the issue in part or in whole; once I saw how it was, I didn't want my name associated with Shambles' efforts. Roger, many of us have tried to tell you these things and, each time I'm aware of that included me personally, it got turned into a debate. A proof contest. A battle. That's not how to win people to a cause.... in fact your approach drove me right out of the PELs issue entirely. There are many, many worthy causes in the world, some of which I've worked together with people to bring about change, successfully. I've learned I don't have to put my energies into working in situations that chew me up-- that I can be far more effective in any effort if I focus on situations where I can contribute without being made insane by the working conditions, the team dynamics, and the control issues. I agree with the posts that have cast your mis-applied persistence as a major control issue. You may not feel it that way inside, but it IS what comes across over and over again. Sometimes a control habit is something we are not aware of inside ourselves. Certainly I have found that my own needs to control are seldom as transparent to me as they are to close friends. If I were your close friend, I would urge you, with all the caring persuasion I could exert, to find something positive to work FOR and to stop giving a jot of your energy and passion to working AGAINST anything at all. Learning how to do that might bring you some happiness-- and some success in areas you care deeply about. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:46 PM At least four that I know of. Plus the three deleted threads and god knows how many edited messages. MMario - As you didn't seem to mind these impositions - we can assume that you would have also readily and speedily agreed to these - had you been consulted and asked first. A process that would have not proved too 'cumberssome' or have inconvenienced any of our volunteer fellow posters. I trust you accept that other posters may see this imposition and its manner - in a less charitable light than you appear to and be upset by it? Are they not entitled to hold and evidence a different view on our forum - without being subject to personal judgement and abuse? Roger - the request, which is for an alteration in established procedure - *IS* a complaint. Established long-term procedure is that (wherever possible) poster's contibutions remain as posted. A suggestion to return to this principle - when it seems to be forgotten - should be seen in that light. A suggestion or reasoned and evidenced request for any change could be - in a more reasoned climate - seen as an attempt at improvement to 'established' procedure. Are you suggesting that current procedure as practiced and imposed upon us by our unknown numbers of anonymous fellow posters - is perfect and incapable of being improved on? |
|
Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index. Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion. His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them. So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads. So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted. Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted. So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair. So, that's the story. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: artbrooks Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:07 PM Tell me...how can I become an anonymous Mudcat assistant? I too would like the ability to make reasonable, logical and innocuous changes to ambiguous thread titles and generate month-long discussions in which nothing is said that wasn't said the first day. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 10 Aug 05 - 12:56 PM At least four that I know of. Plus the three deleted threads and god knows how many edited messages. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 10 Aug 05 - 12:54 PM Roger - the request, which is for an alteration in established procedure - *IS* a complaint. And you completley ignore the fact that the volunteers follow guidelines set down by Max - and that they are acting for Max. that they are not ALL in complete agreement with policy is moot. You can disagree with policy and yet not break policy. That policy does not REQUIRE bert to contact someone prior to changing a thread title doesn't mean he CAN'T. He can choose NOT to add a tag to a thread title - even though policy says it is appropriate for him to do so. etc. Your "sensible assumption" is incorrect - you have been told it is incorrect by multiple people and multiple times. You have also been told - as per site policy - that you can verify this by contacting Max off-forum. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 05 - 12:53 PM "Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 Aug 05 - 12:45 PM Nobody loves me! Everybody hates me! Think I'll go and eat worms, Little short fat ones, big long skinny ones, see how they wriggle and squirm. I bites off the heads, and I sucks out the guts, then I throws the skins away. Everybody look and see how I thrive, on worms three times a day! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 05 - 12:38 PM Exactly how many titles of yours have been changed? The issue here - as you well know - is NOT thread titles that have been changed (in any form) but the IMPOSITION of their personal judgement by an unknown number of anonymous volunteer fellow posters - without the thread originator's knowledge or permission. The imposed change to this thread is misleading (whether intentionally so is a matter I will leave to you to judge). For the imposition refers to a complaint - when the original post was making a simple request for originators always to be first consulted before any imposition is made - in the hope that an informed discussion could take place on all of the issues raised. This imposition and its manner and defence - does rather lead poster to the idea that this thead is about a complaint. And sadly there does now tend to be rather a predictable and unhelpful response on our forum - mainly in the form of indignant judgement from some posters - to the making of any complaint - in any form. Rather on the lines of that Monty Python sketch where a customer asks for their fork to be replaced - and is then subject to all sorts of insults from various members of staff - on lines of how ungrateful the - now bemused - customer is being for making this simple request. The answer to your question - is that to my knowledge - there have been at least three imposed changes to my thread titles. At a time when there were many other thread titles (possibly that could be judged to be in equal need of clarification) that were not subject to any imposition. Perhaps a better question for you and others to answer - would be how many of YOUR thread titles (and other contributions) have been subject of imposed changes? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 10 Aug 05 - 10:37 AM BTW - in case anyone hasn't notices - that "don't sweat it, there are no rules" quote from Max is in a thread specifically about the "rules" for BS threads. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 10 Aug 05 - 10:30 AM increasing undertaken and justified on my thread titles Exactly how many titles of yours have been changed? I am aware of two. A quick scan shows that you average about 2.5 new threads per hundred posts - or approximatley 210 threads over the 8400 plus posts you have currenlty archived. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jeffp Date: 10 Aug 05 - 10:13 AM Not really |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 Aug 05 - 10:05 AM Just back from Sidmouth and Broadstairs; did I miss much?? Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 10 Aug 05 - 09:37 AM Butcha got nice bazookas. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 10 Aug 05 - 08:54 AM Harpy can't think of anything particularly nasty I've ever said to you either - we've clashed occasionally but that's probably becuae neither of us is particularly subtle in expressing ourselves. You *do* tend to express rather cynical views of the world in your posts. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 05 - 02:16 AM Prefixes and other tags are optional in the thread creation process, but they will be added by volunteers if needed to assist in indexing. The above comment - as it was provided as an editing comment which did not refresh this thread - I assume is not just Joe Offer's personal view as a fellow poster - but something else. This means that the use of prefixes and other tags in thread titles remain optional - but will be imposed - without the originator's knowledge or permission by anonymous fellow posters - if and when - in the personal judgement of these volunteer fellow posters - the thread title is judged to be lacking. As this imposition seems to be increasing undertaken and justified on my thread titles - perhaps to ensure equal treatment - it would better to make the use of tags and prefixes compulsory up-front? I suggest it would be far better the leave thread titles to the originator's judgement. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad Date: 09 Aug 05 - 11:43 PM The only reason why this thread continues is because people keep feeding the trolls. If we've learned nothing this year - let's resolve to just let the trolls talk to themselves. Walk away. It's that simple. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 09 Aug 05 - 10:22 PM and Leo, you never say anything nice to me so SCREW YOU!!!!!! and katlaughing, you ADDED to the thread title....I know you don't have a devious psychological bone in your body... yeah yeah yeah ... what a crock! love, artemis |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 09 Aug 05 - 10:18 PM well Mickster, that does sound more accurate. The sad part is he doesn't have the time or the money or the inclination to make it run so that we don't lose the record of this microcosm of world global village talk about music and bullshit. hey, I like being your evil little sister! Artemis and Apollo. It fits my fantasy of who I really am! But I miss Orion... love, artemis |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Aug 05 - 08:51 PM The whole crediblty of our forum hinges on the answer to that question. Yeah, we're all holding our breath. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 09 Aug 05 - 07:47 PM well in this case shambles - I can say you are flat out wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 05 - 06:44 PM MMario said - in reference to Max. Do you honestly think he would allow them to continue to so represent him if they weren't performing within the guidelines he has set? I doubt it. I replied that. MMario - The whole crediblty of our forum hinges on the answer to that question. One on which the jury is currently out on. From the evidence of the clearly unfair imposition upon my contributions alone and the defence and justification that is provided here to support these impositions and the suggestions and attempts to prevent an open debate from taking place in this thread - I rather now suspect that jury is back in and that the answer to your question must be yes...............Why is quite another question. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 09 Aug 05 - 05:57 PM OK Harpy, my evil little sister, here is what I think about your analysis. Max isn't playing a game, but he is letting his grand experiment run its course. Were he playing a game, he would manipulate the pieces. What he is doing is exactly the opposite. He refuses to manipulate the pieces. It is MY OPINION (got that Rog, my opinion and nothing more) that he intends this place to be what it is. He purposely imposes very few rules in order for this petri dish of cultures, personalities, interests, and talents to be what it will be. At some point in the future it will be a wonderful subject for research. It is a microcosm of what the world is. I don't think he set out for it to be such, but he has let it evolve. So your horseshit fingerpointing won't do a lot, because doing what you want would change the essential nature of Mudcat. This is why he doesn't want a bunch of rigid rules, just general guidelines. Do we make mistakes? Sure, that is part of it. Whine away, Rog. You are just adding seasoning to the soup. You could stand to learn to cook better though. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 09 Aug 05 - 04:56 PM It's her job, MMario. passive aggressive clone edits one of Roger's thread titles for the umpteenth time it was NOT edited; it was ADDED to...a simple, fecking location. I was asked to be a joe clone, by Max, personally. My direction as one comes ultimately from him. Joe has summed it up very well. People used to appreciate what we did...adding line breaks, fixing typos, adding blue clickies, deleting duplicate postings, cleaning up html mistakes, clarifying thread titles with correct prefixes, etc. I think the majority do still appreciate the volunteer service, but the minority (of one or two?) is more vocal...it's a real shame, but it seems to be a microcosm of the world these days. Once, again, take it to Max. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 05 - 04:55 PM No - I mean the forum that Max provided for our open discussion on his website. Shambles proposes that any time a thread title is altered in any way, the thread originator should be contacted in advance for permission. He contends that any alteration of a thread title is censorship, and should not be done without the express permission of the thread originator. To do less is to show disrespect to the freedom of speech of the thread originator. Yes – and if it were me that was doing the imposition upon your contributions and defending them in the manner evidenced here – you perhaps (and others) may also feel that I was imposing a negative effect on our forum and try to address it? The volunteers and I contend that we do respect the freedom of speech of our fellow Mudcatters because we do not touch the content or titles of the messages posted except in very rare and restricted circumstances. We contend that the Forum Menu and thread titles are merely an index, not a free-speech expression; and that thread titles are a service to the community and should clearly identify the contents of a thread and differentiate that thread from other threads. As such, thread titles are not and should not be under control of the thread originator. It is obvious to anyone reading just the thread titles (especially in the non-music section) that these titles are now are very much part of our forum's free speech expression. There is no attempt here at making the thread's originator any more in control of the thread - than making it under the control of our volunteers. Just simply to ensure that the originator's words appear as posted – unless they agree to any change. In addition to our policy of leaving the contents of messages unaltered in most circumstances, we do show respect for the concerns expressed by Shambles because we attempt to rename threads by adding to them, leaving the core of the thread title intact. If there is a possibility that the thread originator may have trouble finding the thread later, we DO contact the originator when possible and give notice of the new name of the thread. This is like having a car park that you have used for many years. One day you return to find that not only has your car been moved – without your knowledge or permission but that those in charge have decided to re-spay it the colour of their choice. It is showing proper respect - to ask first. Volunteers can add to the titles mainly because they have more characters available to them and can make longer thread titles than ordinary posters can. It would seem sensible (but not seemingly to our volunteers) for all posters to be given the increased characters available to our volunteers. We contend that advance notification of thread name changes is unnecessary and impractical. Most threads have most of their traffic in their first half-day of life - so if a name change is needed, it should be done as soon as possible, to help Mudcatters know right away what's inside that thread. In addition, it would indeed be cumbersome for multiple volunteers to develop a system for contacting thread originators for permission and waiting for a response, and then remembering to make the change once permission is granted. What if more than one volunteer gets the idea the thread title should be changed? Do we have to have a staff meeting to decide responsibility for each title change? Perhaps our volunteers showing some kind of consistent approach – other than just supporting whatever silliness may have been imposed - would be an improvement an the current free-for-all. There is no rush (unless it is to see which volunteer can pounce first). If something is worth doing - it is worth doing properly and without the risk of upsetting anyone. We also have a regular practice of contacting members by personal message and e-mail when they have trouble logging in, and we ask them to respond to make sure everything is working properly for them. Adding a requirement for contact and waiting for response on thread title changes would add effort and confusion to this already-heavy burden. If any volunteer feels that doing it properly is placing a too-heavy burden upon them – they are always welcome to un-volunteer. I am quite sure our forum would continue without them and their imposition – as indeed we have for many years. In general, our thread naming practices are quite innocuous, and consist of adding song titles and songwriter names to threads about songs, adding the date of death to obituaries, adding locations to gig threads, changing ALLCAPS to Title Case, removing inconsistent spellings or unusual characters that can impede searches, and other mundane matters. The logical time for a volunteer to make a thread title change is when he or she is reading the thread - not a day or two later, after the need and the idea have passed. We try to be consistent in our methods of titling thread so that people will have an easier time searching. In our experience, it appears that very few people - perhaps only one - have any complaint about the vast majority of our thread title changes. Your thread naming practices may be generally thought innocuous but they can be saved for the creation of your own threads and thread titles – not for imposing them upon the titles of others without their knowledge or permission. When this imposition is not so general or so innocuous – it does little credit to anyone to pretend they are. Athough we do not have a system for advance approval by thread originators of thread title changes, there's nothing to stop anybody from complaining about any change we make. Just send me a personal message. You may not like my answer - but then you're free to appeal to Max. Perhaps we should? It must be far better for all concerned to show up-front - that fair and equal treatment to all posters is the norm and that every aspect of our forum is seen to be open to public debate? Perhaps those who do not think this are the ones who should find or start another site where they could impose as many rules as they wished? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 09 Aug 05 - 04:26 PM I'm glad I don't have such a dark and cynical view of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 09 Aug 05 - 04:24 PM This is the game that Max plays in catspew's remarks: He won't tell you off or anything of course but will probably suggest that Joe has his confidence but thanks for your suggestions. This is a non answer designed to avoid responsibility but not give adequate responsiblity to someone else. It's called "let's you and him fight." Max could solve this problem. He chooses not to. He enjoys the chaos. What else could one conclude when some passive aggressive clone edits one of Roger's thread titles? the cloneheads know Roger will get upset but they do it anyway. Only Max can solve this problem. He doesn't. Therefore, it continues. Any monkey could understand this. I've always thought that the games Max plays are very interesting and amusing, frankly. But he is ultimately rsponsible for the endless arguing and abuse that is heaped on Roger at his request. Max feels superior and above it all when he watches this shit go on without changing the mudcat structure to make it stop. Simple as that. love, harpgirl |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jeffp Date: 09 Aug 05 - 04:06 PM I am not a clone. I am, however, Spartacus. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Aug 05 - 04:01 PM Way back when Roger you were more than happy to cry to Max at every chance and when things went badly for you, you sulked off in the corner. Ah yes, there was that touching "good-bye" as you left supposedly never to be seen again. But then you decided to come back because the music still had merit or whatever it was you said back then. The joint was pretty small and most of us were so enamored of it that having you return seemed only right. It took a very short time to remember why it was so pleasant when you were gone. This bitch session of yours has been pretty much seamless ever since! You also know exactly what Max will say and you don't want to ask him. He won't tell you off or anything of course but will probably suggest that Joe has his confidence but thanks for your suggestions. We both know he might also suggest that you've repeatedly stated your thoughts and that's enough. Then what will you do? Why will you have reason to come here? Perhaps we need a Shambles Suggestion thread. On it you can post all of your complaints and solutions to Max and the rest of us will leave it undisturbed with no debate whatsoever. Then Max can read it occasionally to see what is troubling your mind lately. To be fair I think you should have to limit yourself. Once you have stated a problem as you see it.......THAT'S IT! No more. Shall I start that thread for you? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 09 Aug 05 - 04:00 PM ?? Max has always responded to me when I've PM's him with questions. And unless you are a clone OR have discussed it with Max, how do you know he doesn't give them direction? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 09 Aug 05 - 03:55 PM tHIS PROBLEM IS NOT A SHAMBLES PROBLEM. iT IS A MUDCAT STRUCURAL PROBLEM WHEREBY MAX SAYS NO RULES AND DOESN'T RESPOND TO QUESTIONS EXCEPT ON THE OPEN FORUM AND WITH PRECIOUS LITTLE CLARIFICATION AND DEFERS RULE MAKING TO THE VARIOUS VOLUNTEERS. iT IS A FRUITLESS DEBATE SINCE THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN CREATED BY mAX IN HOW HE STRUCTURES THE (LOOSELY USED CONCEPT OF) ADMINISTRATION AND HE REFUSES TO DIRECT THE VOLUNTEERS. mAX HAS CREATED THIS ENDLESS DEBATE AND ONLY HE CAN STOP IT. wHY DON'T THE REST OF YOU STOP PLAYING mAX'S PSYCHOLOGICAL GAME? AND MAX, STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND STOP ALL THIS USELESS YAMMERING! LOVE, HARPGIRL aND HERE ARE THE CLONEHEADS THAT i KNOW OF bERT jOE jERI kATLAUGHING mICK AND i THINK CATSPAW AND JEFP |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 09 Aug 05 - 03:53 PM And of course by "our (forum?)" you mean "Max's forum" correct? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 05 - 03:46 PM So you now want to be consulted on changes to others' posts as well? Just a bit of a control freak aren't you? Sorry about that one - it was not of course what I meant to say and in that form - it could have come from any of our volunteers who may be what you describe. It should have read - I don't see anything unreasonable about trying to ensure that the words of what I and others post on our - always remains as posted - unless agreement is first reached with the originator for it to be changed. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 09 Aug 05 - 03:42 PM Probably because you have been repeatedly asked by multiple persons to take your questions to Max - as per stated forum policy - and there is no indication that you have done so. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 05 - 03:39 PM I have nothing more to say on the subject, Shambles. You're repeating things we've already covered. What's the matter? - don't you have the courage to talk to Max about it? -Joe Offer- Since you made that statement you have as usual continued to say more on the subject and will - I suspect - continue to personally taunt me and treat me unfairly whilst doing do so - but at the same time saying little that will change anything for the general benefit of our forum - I fear. However, I have no fear of talking to Max and why would you think that I am not also doing this when I am contributing to an open debate on the forum that Max created on his website - for that very purpose? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jeffp Date: 09 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM I don't see anything unreasonable about trying to ensure that the words of what I and others post on our - always remains as posted - unless agreement is first reached with me for it to be changed. So you now want to be consulted on changes to others' posts as well? Just a bit of a control freak aren't you? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 09 Aug 05 - 03:23 PM hey Joe! thanks for your explanation above - tho' I was attempting to ask Roger to present examples where the situation he describes in his post of 3:02 was applicable. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 05 - 03:16 PM Yes, Susan, good suggestion. Close the thread! Yes! - Me too! - Hang the witch! What is now thought to be so threatening about continuing an open debate on our open discussion forum? These are simply my honest views. What grounds could there possibly be for closing this thread? If its contents are not to your taste - then don't open it - and don't keep posting to refresh it. I don't see anything unreasonable about trying to ensure that the words of what I and others post on our - always remains as posted - unless agreement is first reached with me for it to be changed. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 05 - 03:02 PM The extra spaces are handy, because the allow room for volunteers to fill in missing tags or locations. Joe do I take it that as this was an editing comment - it is not just your personal view? If the extra tags were available to all posters (I suspect a not too difficult operation) - it would be handy for them also and may prevent the imposition of any changes or prefixes - which still remain optional for posters to use or not in titles - or do you personally consider their use now complusory on our forum? The important point about the grammar - (as I am sure you are aware) - was to to point out that when you use the word 'WE' you do not now mean ALL OF US. That remains a very sad fact. You willingly accept that your use of 'WE' did not include Bert - whilst accepting that he is a volunteer - but this fact (or his view) does not seem to have any affect on your insistence on still using this divisive and inacurate term. And claiming your detailed personal view is speaking on behalf of many others.
You're repeating things we've already covered. What's the matter? - don't you have the courage to talk to Max about it? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: (yet another thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Aug 05 - 02:41 PM I thought of closing the thread and waiting for Roger to come back with a response from Max, but that would just give him a reason to start another diatribe about closing threads. So, let Roger decide whether he wants to prattle on, or if he wants to go to the top and convince Max to countermand our current practice and impose Roger's rules upon us. Maybe he can get Max to make a ruling on the proper use of "I" and "we," huh? I think it's wiser to keep this thread open and force Roger to keep his remarks in this one place where I've taken the time to give a reasoned response. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 09 Aug 05 - 02:24 PM Yes, Susan, good suggestion. Close the thread! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Aug 05 - 02:19 PM Perhaps the thread could be closed till Shambles notifies a volunteer (via the Help Forum) that he has something current from Max, to add. Perhaps future (and any still-opn past) threads on the same manner could also be promptly closed? ~Susan |
|
Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Aug 05 - 02:06 PM Well, Roger, you've made your rebuttal. I think I'm satisfied with what I said in my initial summary (click) on 08 Aug 05 - 12:49 AM, and I don't have anything to add. You haven't changed my mind and I'm not willing to accept the rules you seek to impose on our volunteers. We will continue to operate by common sense and consistent practices, not rules, sparingly augmenting thread titles for the purpose of clarification; and we will continue to leave message titles and content unchanged. And yes, I will acknowledge that Bert is a volunteer and has been since the beginning of Mudcat, and that he has expressed a differing opinion. He is the only volunteer who has done so, and many of our volunteers have spoken up in this thread. Perhaps he would like to step forward and explain more fully why it's wrong to add a song title or songwriter name to the countless threads titled "lyrics required," or a location to a gig thread, or a date of death or "Obit" tag to an obituary without going through an approval process. As far as I can see, Bert is the only individual who has expressed any agreement with your proposed rules at all.
I realize that you have a compulsion to write rules for the behavior of others, but extending it to their use of grammar is a bit extreme. I prefer to follow conventional rules of English usage, and not to emulate your style of prose or attempt to follow the rules of Shamblesgrammar. So, our policy on thread title changes has been stated. If you don't like it, your next step is to go to Max. I have nothing more to say on the matter and you've had your chance. Please stop back and tell us how Max responds. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: MMario Date: 09 Aug 05 - 01:53 PM Please give some examples where a volunteer changed a thread title that was already at the limit
I sometimes squeeze in extra space by changing "lyr req" to "req" (or "req/add" when lyrics are submitted) so a more complete song title can appear in the thread title. Harvesting marks and other harvesting and categorizing tags are sometimes added, but most of the volunteers are not involved in that process. I have also experimented with changing "lyr req" to "lyr/chords" or "lyr/tune" when appropriate, rather than having separate threads for lyrics, chords, and tune requests and additions. Common sense, I think. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 05 - 01:49 PM If thread titles were really thought to need clarification – the originator would be likely to agree and there would be no need for imposition. Also if it is generally thought that they would benefit from additions being imposed – this is in effect – means thread titles being made longer by our volunteers. The question raised by this is – if longer imposed thread titles are possible – and they are - because our volunteers with edit buttons have more characters available to them for thread titles – than ordinary posters. Why cannot the number of characters available to ordinary posters be increased to the same number available to our volunteer fellow posters? Certainly any judgement made by our volunteer fellow posters on the clarity of originator's thread titles should be seen in this light. With more characters available to them - the originator may have been able (without any imposition) to make a much clearer and longer title themselves. Given this needless inequality – any imposed judgement could be seen to be a little harsh and perhaps hypocritical? Can the number of characters available for thread titles - for ordinary posters - be increased to be the same as those given to our volunteer fellow posters? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 05 - 01:04 PM Bert is wrong in which elf he *thinks* added to the title I have no idea who Bert may think was responsible and whether he is right or not - because he has not said and it matters little anyway. But if all volunteer fellow posters were known and operated openly - would there be a need for any of this divisive speculation? Perhaps those who do feel themselves qualified to do this can explain why they wish to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters and how and why they feel qualified to do so? Perhaps if they now all volunteered to unvolunteer to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters - we would could all start again to post pn an equal basis? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 09 Aug 05 - 12:43 PM What Kat and George said. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 09 Aug 05 - 12:38 PM Joe speaks for me too, though I am not a joeclone. IMO, rules are needed where common sense is absent. In this case, common sense flew out of the window a long time ago. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 09 Aug 05 - 12:28 PM Take it to Max, Roger. Bert is wrong in which elf he *thinks* added to the title. As a joeclone, Joe is speaking for me. IMO, this thread should be closed. Take it to Max. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 05 - 06:26 AM You (who contend that there should be no rules) have proposed new rules to control actions of volunteers in the naming and renaming of thead titles, and I have responded to your proposal and given you a chance to rebut my response. Joe - It is not my contention that there should not be any rules. But over the years there have been precious few imposed in practice or much real need for this imposition - and it is Max who I quote and to whom you should perhaps take issue? It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. I am making no rules - just a simple request proper respect is again shown as a matter of course - to invited contributions. That thread titles remain as posted unless the originator's permission to change it is first obtained. It is only your personal wish to impose your judgments upon thread titles and your personal view and insistence that thread titles are now yours to impose changes upon - that is causing the concern that I am trying to address. Stop playing games, Roger. In my first paragraph, I identified "we" as "the volunteers and I." That's not the issue. I am afraid that before I make any further response to your personal opinions posted as an ordinary fellow poster and refreshing the thread in the conventional manner - and not as a editing comment which does not refresh the thread - this remains very much the issue. Certain terms need to be first agreed before this exchange can be called in any honesty - a debate on our open public discussion forum – where all animals remain equal. Or something quite different where some animals are now more equal than others - and their views thought more important and to be routinely imposed, defended and justified. I see my personal views as no more important than any of my fellow posters and have no wish to impose my views upon them – as I have no qualification that enables me to sit in judgement. Perhaps those who do feel themselves qualified to do this can explain why they wish to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters and how and why they feel qualified to do so? When other posters and I use the word 'WE' - it is general term for ALL OF US. Joe when you use the same word and speak for this 'WE'- whoever you are speaking for - it does not mean ALL OFF US - does it? When YOU use this word now - it has a specific meaning that does not include other fellow posters and me. Your use of this word now - refers a unknown number of volunteer fellow posters. And upon whom – the placing (what some of these volunteers) consider to be a cumbersome burden upon or inconveniencing in any way – is beginning to sound as if it is thought (by these volunteer posters anyway) to the major consideration on our forum. A priority that is less with our forum's readers needs (as claimed) but the needs of some of our volunteers fellow posters. And when your use of the word 'WE' switches at will - to the word 'I' - there will always remain some confusion about who you claim to speaking for and the status of your personal views. I question the wisdom or the need for such a 'THEM and 'US' divide on our forum - and it is the attempt to maintain this fairly new attitude in the face of this division between friends - that is at the very heart of the issue. I stand to be corrected - as I am not privy to these secrets - but is not Bert still a volunteer fellow poster with an edit button. Is his opinion included when you post and speak for 'WE'? Or are the views of anyone who may not agree with your personal views simply to be discounted? Bert for one - does not seem to be in agreement with what you claim 'WE' - are said by you - to maintain. Perhaps there are others who may also not be in agreement? If so - one can only hope that they are brave enough to publicly say this here and if they do – that their views and wishes are then given more consideration than mine, Bert's or others. Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert - PM Date: 22 Jul 05 - 10:37 PM I have to agree with Shambles on this. If someone originates a thread what right does someone else have to change the title? Unless the thread is offensive then it should stay as it is. So if YOU have the ability to edit threads then keep your bloody maulers off unless the thread is a personal attack, a threat, or is offensive. Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert - PM Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:04 PM Oooh wow. There's a lot going on here. First Shambles and Katlaughing and Wolfgang and just about everybody posting here. No not just about - EVERY SINGLE PERSON posting here, I consider to be a dear friend. So my opinion is based on the issue involved and is not personal in any way. The issue is that Shambles has been targetted for editing by one particular elf. So if that particular elf would BACK OFF AND LEAVE HIM ALONE then the problem will go away. I will also state that I consider the elf in question to be a dear friend. So it is not a personal thing. Now Elf in question just take it easy and let Shambles and all the rest of us have their say without interference - PLEASE Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert - PM Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:03 PM No Jerimeluv, I didn't take Shambles side without question. Firstly I have the right to my own opinion regarding this issue. "Either leave things as they are or add place of origin to ALL Mudcat postings." Willy nilly adding origins to a few threads only doesn't appear top me to be a good solution to the imagined problem. And it is an imagined problem, we have been doing fine for years without adding origins to threads. If we do start adding origins I see the posibility of Mudcat being divided along national lines. This is something I would not like to see. Secondly I have exchanged pm's with Shambles about his postings being subject of unnecessary editing and removal. So I can also see why he is a little sensitive about his thread being changed. If we had received the same treatment that Shambles has then we all would be up in arms about the problem and would come down firmly on his side. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 08 Aug 05 - 08:27 PM "Stick to the subject at hand, Roger." LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO And when exactly has he ever done that before? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 08 Aug 05 - 06:38 PM Who types faster? Roger or Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Aug 05 - 04:12 PM Stop playing games, Roger. In my first paragraph, I identified "we" as "the volunteers and I." That's not the issue. You (who contend that there should be no rules) have proposed new rules to control actions of volunteers in the naming and renaming of thead titles, and I have responded to your proposal and given you a chance to rebut my response. Thus far, you have failed to offer a rebuttal, and you have instead chosen to attempt to confuse the issue with your silly "I-we" game. Do you have anything rational to say to rebut my response, or not? Stick to the subject at hand, Roger. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 08 Aug 05 - 02:57 PM Judging by his answer Joe is already quite aware of the differences and correct usage. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 05 - 02:54 PM Anyone who claims to know English (even American English) will know there is a world of difference between 'I' and 'WE'. Perhaps you could explain this difference to Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 08 Aug 05 - 02:51 PM Sham, do you not speak English? A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 05 - 02:41 PM We contend that advance notification of thread name changes is unnecessary and impractical. I have no idea who Joe's Offer's 'we' consists of do you? There are an unknown number of anonymous volunteers and an unknown number of volunteers (with edit buttons) who are prepared for their names to be be known and to stand by their imposed judgements upon their fellow posters. Until it is clear that Joe Offer has approached every one he claims to speak for and all of of them are in complete agreement with everthing he has stated here on their behalf - I will make the sensible assumption that it is only Joe Offer's personal (and perfectly valid) view. For this message was not contributed as an editing comment and to add further to the confusion - it finshes off with the following. So, Shambles, I think that's a pretty good summary of your complaint and my answer. So Joe - is this your personal view expressed as a fellow poster? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 08 Aug 05 - 03:53 AM Roger......Is that your answer expressed as a troll? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 08 Aug 05 - 03:50 AM Your response should be one and the same, Roger, irrespective of which hat Joe was wearing. The truth is always the truth; and your position should always be the same, no matter who asks the question. So skip the smokescreen. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 05 - 02:29 AM Joe - Is this your personal view expressed as a fellow poster? |
|
Subject: Policy on thread name changes From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Aug 05 - 12:49 AM Well, let's see....I guess there are some 315 posts in this thread, probably more by the time I'm done with this. Maybe it's time to summarize.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: bobad Date: 07 Aug 05 - 08:10 PM Shambles has had 8481 posts to date. Anyone willing to venture a guess as to how many of these were complaints about mudcat? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST Date: 07 Aug 05 - 07:49 PM 312 posts in one of these threads before the quote comes out. Is this a record? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Aug 05 - 07:21 PM Shambles, just because you may not have grown up any since 26 Oct 99 doesn't mean Max hasn't. Is it possible he's learned a few things about running a discussion forum since then? Oh well, since you have not consulted him, you're free to imagine him held hostage, too, as you seem to think you are yourself. What, did Joe Offer slip him mind-control drugs last time they met? Bad Joe! :~) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 07 Aug 05 - 06:47 PM That is why the consultation principle has the potential to be cumbersome; look at the enormous waste of time in this thread. It would not be cumbersome at all to most of us - just polite - and this thread is only a waste of time for those who don't think the issue to be important and keep posting and refreshing the thread just to say how unimportant they consider actions imposed upon other people are. If you dont like max's rules and the way he organises his helpers then set up your own forum and if we all like it better we'll follow you. I have like Max's rules perfectly well for many years - perhaps those who do not kike them - are the ones who should take their rules and actions that you consider as too cumbersome and start a site where they could impose as many rules as they wished? Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules From: Max - PM Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: RobbieWilson Date: 07 Aug 05 - 06:24 PM And if you disagreed about the way the forum is run for our benefit? That is why the consultation principle has the potential to be cumbersome; look at the enormous waste of time in this thread. If you were unhappy about the change then a comment to that effect in the relevant thread explaining your position should have been sufficient. If you dont like max's rules and the way he organises his helpers then set up your own forum and if we all like it better we'll follow you. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 07 Aug 05 - 06:08 PM Editing complaints are asked, numerous times, to be posted in the Help Forum or privately to Joe Offer. Joe Offer states in this thread - that basic respect cannot always first be shown to posters - in the manner of privately consulting them before editing is imposed upon their contributions - because it is considered by our volunteer fellow posters as too 'cumbersome'. My posting policy (to be found in my FAQ) is to ask that I and others are first consulted privately before any changes are publicly imposed upon our contributions as a matter now of routine - by anonymous fellow posters. If this simple request was honoured by my fellow posters - there would be no need for any complaints about imposed editing action to be made - in any form. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 07 Aug 05 - 05:02 PM Agree, WYSIWYG - that is why we Greeks traditionally only look gift horses in the mouth :-) And of course they are more stroppy than goats. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Aug 05 - 04:39 PM "The manner of which the title change was needlessly imposed on this thread and the harm done to any attempt at of impartiality and posters being treated equally by our volunteer fellow posters - rather speaks for itself....." Yes, you could be right. I think it does speak for itself. What it is saying is: "At least 95% of the people have no idea what it is that Shambles is running on and on about and could care even less. If Shambles is so overwrought and deeply harmed as he purports to be than he should take his troubles and his damaged soul to Max who is the ONLY ONE who can provide the solace he so desperately requires." Yeah.....that's what I hear it saying. You're big on the PM's Roger......Why haven't you written to Max? Better get on it right away!!! Or you could take Susan's appraoch and fuck the horse in the ass! I'll buy a ticket for that!!!!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,615 Date: 07 Aug 05 - 03:25 PM Holy crap - is this whinefest STILL going on ? Shambles - get a grip. There are far more important things to worry about. And NONE of them are located here at the Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Aug 05 - 03:04 PM Editing complaints are asked, numerous times, to be posted in the Help Forum or privately to Joe Offer. Taking it public as a first course of action, and making a witch hunt of it against site personnel, is a bit like undertaking to f**k a gift horse up the a**. That's one's own choice, of course, but to pretend surprise when one is kicked is somewhat disingenuous. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 07 Aug 05 - 02:24 PM No harm? No harm, you say? This is the thin end of the wedge, this is! What's to stop message content being changed next? And after that, it will spread to other websites, no doubt. Soon enough it will be accepted as standard practice across the internet. Books will be censored. Free speech curtailed. By that time nobody will care, anyway, when they come to take your spouse away. And your children, to work in sweatshops. And it will be one short step away from indiscriminate killing of any free thinkers, to make the parallel with the Holocaust complete. I see them coming now. They are coming to take me away. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 07 Aug 05 - 02:20 PM The harm done was that the polite and respectful action of first asking the originator was not undertaken before the still anonymous volunteer poster imposed their judgement selectively and unfairly upon that thread title in isolation and not others. Further harm was done because had the originator been first asked - the 'UK' would not have been incorrectly added because the information the thread contained did not apply to the UK. Perhaps the originator should be the one who judges whether harm is done or not. Perhaps they should also be due an apology when they are clearly seen to have been unfairly treated? Considerable harm is done to the credibility of our forum if these incorrect imposed judgements by anonymous fellow posters are still to be defended (as if they had in fact clarifed anything or been fairly and generally imposed) and anyone one who may object to this needless imposition is subject to abuse and name-calling for just expressing and evidencing this view. The manner of which the title change was needlessly imposed on this thread and the harm done to any attempt at of impartiality and posters being treated equally by our volunteer fellow posters - rather speaks for itself..... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 07 Aug 05 - 10:38 AM ONCE AGAIN: the thread title in question, after 300+ postings, was ADDED TO, NOT changed. There was no harm done by it. kat |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 05 - 10:12 AM As far as I know, Shambles, everyone is treated equally, within reasonable margins of error. If they post hatred, it will be deleted; if the post with an obscure or confusing post title it may be enhanced; the FAQ lays out the nature of the game. It is natural that some develop reputations in one direction and others in another. I have a reputation for being very wordy and long-winded. But that's part of the territory of human interaction, and is easily managed by personal choice. So there ya go. You are an equal among equals. Not all posts or all threads are created equal, though; when I create a post that breaks the rules of the forum I get it removed, and Joe tells me why he did it. I say, "Oh. Quite right, Joe, I overstepped there, didn't I? Jolly good, carry on." End of story -- two PMs. Under the exact same circumstances, you would, I think, be more likely to write a Gibbon-sized tome on the wrongness of all that has been done to you. Somehow that does not strike you as boring. I can only assume that you enjoy that activity -- me, I prefer to get on with it. I think there are MUCH more interesting things to discuss than the tiny vagaries of site management. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 07 Aug 05 - 10:06 AM You mean Max's forum that we use, for free in most cases? The one where Max makes the rules or chooses not to? Thanks, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 07 Aug 05 - 09:25 AM So Shambles, when YOU call people names it's free speech, but when anyone else does it, it's a conspiracy? Susan - these are your words not mine. Please first provide the evidence of me calling anyone names or responding in kind to the abuse and many names that I have been called and that you seem to think is acceptable on our forum? Or perhaps it would be more constructive for you to address the issue? I would like to see a situation return on our forum where everyone was seen to be treated equally. Is that really so bad? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Aug 05 - 09:15 AM So Shambles, when YOU call people names it's free speech, but when anyone else does it, it's a conspiracy? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 07 Aug 05 - 09:12 AM Considered your request. Denied. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 07 Aug 05 - 06:02 AM You mean, except when you misquote them, slant them, quote them out of context and long after the fact, and use them to stir up upset that has nothing to do with what they said or meant? Susan- One of the best aspects of our forum is that the words that are posted remain as posted and can always be brought back for clarification - unless they have deletions, closures and other changes routinely imposed upon them by fellow posters (some of whom remain anonymous). All posters can judge for themselves if I really deserve your accusation - or indeed any of the accusations and abusive names that it now seems acceptable to call me - or anyone else who posts views that are not now thought to follow the official line in open discussion and debate on our forum. Or indeed if such judgements of fellow posters - by fellow posters have anything at all to do with all those invited by Max to contribute to our open discussion forum. The request remains simple - that a posters words in thread titles remain as they are posted - unless they agree to any changes. The new principle has developed where our volunteer posters now consider that all thread titles are there for them to impose any changes they wish - without the originator's knowledge or permission. A practice said to be only undertaken for the clarification of our forum's readers - which (in a major if unstated piece of officail policy) are thought now to be more important than it contributors and seems to prevent the showing of equal respect to its contributors. But as pointed out in this thread - this is a practice that is only selectively practiced on certain thread titles - even when many (or even most) thread titles could always be clarifed. Despite this - such selective actions are defended and justified as if the originator's wishes were thought less important than the wishes of those of their volunteer fellow posters ( some of whom remain anonymous) and whose actions always seem to be supported. Even when - as in this case when the incorrect imposed change caused the very confusion it was supposed to be changed to avoid. I would like to see a situation return on our forum where everyone was seen to be treated equally. Is that really so bad? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Aug 05 - 03:15 AM I prefer untrammeled histrionic moanery, but it only takes me to message #296... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 07 Aug 05 - 02:52 AM There's freedom of expression and there's gurning. Sorry...couldn't resist it... cheap dig... apologies. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 05 - 11:42 PM Well, sure, Rog, have at it, say whatever you like. Feel free. I'd be more interested if it was less likely to be untrammeled histrionic moanery, but you don't care about that. I'll do likewise. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Aug 05 - 09:15 PM I cannot impose my personal judgements upon the contributions of others and have no wish to do so. You mean, except when you misquote them, slant them, quote them out of context and long after the fact, and use them to stir up upset that has nothing to do with what they said or meant? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 06 Aug 05 - 08:11 PM The best way to deal with a fellow poster's freely expressed views - is perhaps not to impose your judgement on their words and change them. Or to publicly judge their mental health and to pontificate upon their possible motives, call them names and invite others to do the same and laugh at their views (especially when you are not aware of all the circumstances). You may very well consider their concerns - not to be of equal concern to you. But if you don't - why not just ignore them? They are not your concerns but your public judgement of them and your lack of concern - will not not make them of any less concern - to the one concerned - will it? I do not agree that that is all you are doing. It matters little if you agree or not ----- For it remains a fact that all that CAN (just about) do on our forum is express my views. To freely do so in the words of my choosing is all I wish - that I and everyone else is allowed to do. I cannot impose my personal judgements upon the contributions of others and have no wish to do so. I accept that I have no control over the posts of others and have no wish to this either. I can very easily ignore the contributions of some posters and not post to refresh a thread with concerns that I claim am not concerned with. Something that others seem to find impossible........ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 05 - 05:40 PM Shambles: I do not agree that that is all you are doing. Your charges of pretense, dishonesty, and moderation are not all they are claimed to be; they do not arrive there. The manner of your choosing, as you put it, is cloudy, unanswerable and obscure beyond reason. Joe or one of his clones modifies the title of a thread to make it clearer to viewers. For this you launch a Federal case of infringement? It may seem to you that some imbedded power structure of the Mudcat has erected an unfeeling, unhearing barrier to your rational and innocent communication. But it does not work that way. My judgement is the Mudcatter doth protest too much. You need to find the answer, but it won't be found among others, but within. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 06 Aug 05 - 04:00 PM So, Roger, by implication the thread title alterations (without originator approval) in Mudcat are just the tip of the iceberg, and will lead to worse things - that is what you imply by drawing a parallel with the holocaust and the early appeasers, correct? Nope - I was asked to do it in this thread. I think what I said in those few words will be pretty clear to anyone who is not determined to find it obscure or intent on reading something else into it or finding in it yet more ammunition to fire (with the mob) at a selected easy target. If you have an atmosphere - like the original spirit of The Mudcat Forum - that gives an accomodating welcome for all views to be expressed openly, equally and without judgement - most (if not all) contributors feel encouraged to follow the friendly example set. Folk usually know what the right and respectful thing to do is - and they feel free to do this in such an atmosphere. When this atmosphere changes to one where an accomodating welcome is not given for all views to be expressed equally and where judgement upon the right of these to be expressed as posted - is imposed - folk then feel encouraged to follow this example. Folk still know what the right and respectful thing to do is - but are less likely to do it - in such an atmosphere. Folk still know what the right and respectful thing to do is - but some feel in this new atmosphere - that not doing it and joining in with openly abusive witch-hunts against selective easy targets (like the one in this thread) - is now acceptable. Or some think that even if they do not join in - that tolerating such hypocrisy as displayed in these type of witch-hunts - (as long as it happens to someone else who probably deserves it anyway) - is acceptable. Thankfully others always know (whatever atmosphere is created) what the right and respectful thing to do is and do always try to do it. The really sad thing is that the prentence is still made that the traditional accomodating welcome is still given on our forum when most of the guideing principles have long been sacrificed to some private concept of order. Over time - our forum has traditionally changed in order to accomodate the contributors. Now the contibutors are expected to change and conform to the expectations of those few who feel their personal views and wishes are most important and now feel they are suitable qualified to control every aspect of our forum. I live in hope that the traditional values of our forum are not lost forever. And I will continue do my best to try and ensure that the current pretence can once again become an honest accomodating welcome to all contributors to express their views - in the manner of their choosing. For that is all that I am doing. Is it really acceptable that anyone be subjest to open abuse on our forum - for moderately expressing their views? You judge. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 05 - 03:51 PM My GOd, Roger, ....I never LOOKED at it that way before!!! There really IS no difference between social compromise and Fascism!! Wow!!I mean, sure, they are a little bit different in terms of the determination of them, but that's just a quibble; the Germans are an excellent example. IS that a freight train I hear coming out of your monitor? Ohhh....nooooooooooo! A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Aug 05 - 03:05 PM Yeah, and Mudcat Gatherings are really just a convenient way for Max to round us all up and send us away. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 06 Aug 05 - 02:53 PM So, Roger, by implication the thread title alterations (without originator approval) in Mudcat are just the tip of the iceberg, and will lead to worse things - that is what you imply by drawing a parallel with the holocaust and the early appeasers, correct? If that is indeed your drift, by all means, express away; feel free. And allow us the freedom to have a laugh at your example too. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 06 Aug 05 - 06:39 AM OK - as you asked. Many of aspects of the Holocaust were down to perfectly good people who were caught in a system - (that was based on bullying and stealing from selected targets) - when it was that it was too late for them to change or influence that system. The main contribution these good people made to the humilitation and destruction of other equally good people - was to look the other way and fill in the forms that ensured the process which resulted in the murder of millions of others - was undertaken as efficiently as possible. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Aug 05 - 11:54 PM Why not write a long dissertation comparing the atrocities committed by the evil Clones of Mudcat to the Holocaust? Somebody put on a cassette of "Onward Christian Soldiers" to set the ambience....... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 05 Aug 05 - 07:00 PM The 'small stuff' is often what we mistakenly think it is safe to let pass. Our precious and hard-won freedoms are all lost in this fashion. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 05 Aug 05 - 06:38 PM Perhaps if you had made more of it - this may have played a part in preventing the same treatment from being imposed upon others - who may have deserved it a lot less than you thought you did and would not have taken it so well? I wish well to all who tread these hallowed threads, but I assure you I have better things to do than to worry about those who are so self-obsessed or so plain overly-delicate that they can't handle a little plain and friendly exchange with someone as decent as Joe or his Clones. My advice to anyone in such a sorry condition is to toughen up, get a sense of humor, and discover a passion for life itself. Then they won't be bothered with sweating the small stuff. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Blowzabella Date: 05 Aug 05 - 06:21 PM "Not that I see I have any real choice but to continue until there is an end to special treatment that I unfairly receive from our volunteer fellow posters and all posters are again treated equally and respected on our forum." (Shambles) Oh ....please can I be excused - I must go and watch some paint dry... Blowz (who can't be bothered to learn how to do things in italics or other fancy stuff) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 05 Aug 05 - 03:51 PM Well, in fact, Roger, it is not, in my view. I have had such judgements imposed on me, and found the explanations tolerable and made no big deal about it. Amos- Perhaps if you had made more of it - this may have played a part in preventing the same treatment from being imposed upon others - who may have deserved it a lot less than you thought you did and would not have taken it so well? But you are welcome to your choice. However, I do not appear to be very welcome to express mine. Not that I see I have any real choice but to continue until there is an end to special treatment that I unfairly receive from our volunteer fellow posters and all posters are again treated equally and respected on our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Aug 05 - 02:53 PM LOL! But that's the whole point, isn't it? Oh, Hillary, sweet Hillary.... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 05 Aug 05 - 02:46 PM LH - the Hilary Clinton blow-up doll was discontinued because no one could tell it apart from the real one. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Aug 05 - 02:44 PM Look, I have been going crazy here, trying to find a blow-up doll of Hillary Clinton, okay? There aren't any. Not on Ebay, not at Howard Stern's site, not on the black market, not anywhere. And it's not fair! Something needs to be done about it. This is important, don't you agree? Who is going to help? Anyone? I want action on this! So just get on it, okay? You too, Shambles. Address yourself to something that friggin' matters for a change. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 05 Aug 05 - 02:27 PM I would accept that it could conceivably be a major thing, but in most cases is not. Amos - perhaps you would accept that when such action happens to you - the impostion of another's judgement - will ALWAYS be a major thing? Well, in fact, Roger, it is not, in my view. I have had such judgements imposed on me, and found the explanations tolerable and made no big deal about it. See, I know I am not perfect, and I enjoy my fellow man well enough that a little give and take to make things move along smoothly is acceptable to me. Not only is such stuff not ALWAYS a major thing, in my experience as it has actually occurred here it has NEVER been a major thing and I see no reason to make it into one. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Aug 05 - 02:26 PM Look man.....You ain't nothin' but a troll....period. It works for you and you love it. Anything else that might be on your agenda is pure unadultereated bullshit. You're a troll.....period..agaim. If any of this tripe you sputter and spit had any validity to you, you would take it to Max and fight for some changes. Instead you troll along here having great fun with no real agenda at all. I can only judge a person based on evidence and I can say that looking at the evidence, you are not the least interested in change but rather in stirring the pot. I have yet to see or hear of you taking any action that might result in the changes you supposedly desire. Not a single thing can I recall that would lead to change has been undertaken on your part. If there is, please enlighten us. You have no more interest in change around here than you do in sucking shit out of a yak's ass. You do a helluva' good job of trolling though!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 05 Aug 05 - 02:00 PM Your suggestion was no edit be done without the permission of the original poster. How does one determine that for an anonymous poster? If this is the only problem to be overcome before the suggestions here can be implemented - there is not much to worry about. MMario if it is not possible for any poster to be contacted - then leave the contribution as posted. Before I am subject to more accusations and assumptions about my mental health from people I have never met - I feel some reality needs to be introduced into this debate. It will remain a fact that none of my contributions have been subject to editing because they were abusive (or anonymous) or ever presented any real threat to our forum. Mostly they have been subject because the personal views of Joe Offer are different and thought (by Joe Offer) to be more important than mine or fellow posters. Along with others I have had totally innocous posts delected permanently just for being in an entire thread - because Joe Offer stated that he was not prepared to take the time to delete only the offending posts from the thread. His personal view is thought to be more important than mine (and others). I have lost count of the number of threads that I have either orgininated or posted to - that have been closed - again (usually) by Joe Offer and only because his personal views and judgement is different and thought superior to mine. I have a similar problem with thread titles that anonymous volunteer fellow posters and Joe Offer seem to need to impose changes to - without my knowledge or permission - again because Joe Offer's personal views are different to mine. And so on.............. Is it seriously suggested that Joe Offer's personal views and resulting actions are always shared exactly by Max? Is it really too much to expect a situation where any volunteers fellow poster's personal views expressed on our forum - can never be confused by anyone - with Max's views and policy and thought to be one and the same? It is not my paranoia but fact to be faced by all on our forum - that the difficulty that I have now in being subject to this imposition and special treatment - results only from expressing and evidencing a different view - on an open discussion forum - to that of one fellow poster. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 05 Aug 05 - 12:43 PM MMariodarlin'...it's no use...his convoluted, lone ramblings will go on and on, no matter how much logic and reason you try to insert. May this thread die through lack of response to such paranoid obfuscation... kat |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 05 Aug 05 - 12:31 PM The suggestions do not prevent 'indexing' - clarification or anything else thought necessary - the only thing that will be prevented is the routine imposition of the personal views of volunteer fellow posters upon the contributions of their fellow posters - without their knowledge or permission Your suggestion was no edit be done without the permission of the original poster. How does one determine that for an anonymous poster? And as regard the routine imposition of the personal views of volunteer fellow posters upon the contributions of their fellow posters - without their knowledge or permission - well - we've been over this already - especially regarding "routine" and "fellow posters" in reference to the clones. As far as the "personal views" bit goes - there are guidlelines that have been given by Max. The work of the clones is subject to review. If the guidelines are exceeded or ignored the edits can be reversed. How does this become "imposition of personal views"????? A system of checks and balances is in place - ordained by the site owner. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 05 Aug 05 - 12:19 PM If anyone really likes imposed censorship on the lines detailed - perhaps they would like to go to such a site or start one - rather than invite others who do not welcome the introduction of such things on our forum - to go elsewhere. Our forum is special - any attempts to make it as ordinary as other places - will never be very welcome by many long- term posters. Such things have nothing to do with the accomodating welcome and toleration that has always been the case and which will remain crucial to our forum. The suggestions do not prevent 'indexing' - clarification or anything else thought necessary - the only thing that will be prevented is the routine imposition of the personal views of volunteer fellow posters upon the contributions of their fellow posters - without their knowledge or permission. MMario says - The procedure as you describe it would prevent any change being made on any anonymous contribution, spammer , etc. Max has a life. Part of the reason there are clones in the first place is to provide faster, better response time and more coverage. It is perhaps not a good idea for you to mention the prevention of anonymous contributions or anonymous anything? But common sense would dictate that what is being stressed here by me and other posters - is the showing of mutual respect. A conventional contribution from a named poster will be showing our forum respect - even if (to some folks mind - its title could be clarified). Anonymous spam etc - would not be showing our forum any respect. Are you really suggesting that it all should be lumped together -viewed and treated the same - for the sake of speed etc? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 05 Aug 05 - 11:18 AM I have a solution! Shambles can donate the necessary funds to have round the clock moderation of the forum by named emplyess who will be forbidden to post. I expect roughly $120,000 annually should cover the salaries and benefits. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Aug 05 - 11:00 AM For everyone elses edification..........In most forums there are moderators delegated by the site administrator or owner who perform the duties Shambles objects to here. They do so as do the Joeclones at the request and with the approval of the site admin or owher, Posters to the forum are expected to follow a set of rules as laid out and these are subject to change and interpretation by the moderators and they have the approval of the owner before doing so, Posters have no say in these matters and debates and discussions such as this one are non-existent because a mod OR the site owner/admin would have removed it immediately. Administration and moderation of the site is NOT a topic for discussion. These moderators are anonymous and use "handles" when performing their duties AND they also post to the threads but under their usual name. As a poster and member of the forum, you do not know who is who. As a moderator they are "Thread Zapper" and as a member they are "Danny from DesMoines." Here at Mudcat the clones were asked to remain anonymous but it soon became common knowledge who was a clone. This would not have happened had they chosen separate names as Mods. The mods make editorial postings when they want to give a warning but in general they PM the parties involved after the fact. A warning might read.......I have let this thread go on but it is getting close to becoming nothing more than a flame war. Pull it back now or I zap it into the ozone....Thread Zapper" Anonymity keeps any debate between the site owner through PM or e-mail. It works well. Just wanted to let everyone know that what Shambles is complaining about is like a pea in the Grand Canyon. Mudcat operates so freely and loosely we all should be overjoyed that so little actually is done to even clean it up. If you are so sensitive that the meer change of a title to more accurately reflect the subject bothers you, you need a valium. I am grateful for whatever is done to keep things clearer. As Shamble's stock-in-trade is obtuse obfuscation, I can see why he is troubled. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 05 Aug 05 - 05:00 AM I would accept that it could conceivably be a major thing, but in most cases is not. Amos - perhaps you would accept that when such action happens to you - the impostion of another's judgement - will ALWAYS be a major thing? Perhaps those are the cases you refer to where you consider it conceivably could be a major thing? Especially perhaps when the individual imposing the judgement is an anonymous fellow poster? You may think it a major thing if I were the one imposing my personal judgement upon you. And how do I or anyone else know that it was not you that imposed your personal judgement upon my first thread title? Perhaps it was you? Sadly I can see why some of us would judge that any action imposed upon others would not be a major thing. However, that sort of judgement is not likely to move our forum or the human race very much forward - is it? We're alright Jack, so don't bother us It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss I can see you are wounded Not in the best of health But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 05 Aug 05 - 04:41 AM "fellow poster" when describing a volunteer doing editing duties is not , and as has been explained to you, should not be considered an accurate description. That is your opinion - which you are very welcome to explain. However, some of our volunteer fellow posters are quite insistent on their rights. Their right to impose their personal judgement upon their fellow posters - (whilst claiming to be impartial) - whilst at the same time - declaring their right to be entitled to openly express their personal opinions (and sometimes personal abuse). To be a fellow poster - appears to be important to some of them. If YOu and a surgeon are both members of a country club you wouldn't normally describe that surgeon while operating as a "fellow country club memeber" There are many that clues that let you know when a surgeon is undertaking their duties and when you need to respect their knowledge and skill in that field. If they jumped over the tennis court nets and decided to open you up with a scalpel - you may decide that they may be geting a little confused and unable to tell the difference. If our volunteer fellow posters - just want to conventionally moderate on our forum - I will be quite happy to describe them as moderators. As they insist on doing both (and some remain anonymous) the term - volunteer fellow poster - perfectly describes this role and at he same time - demonstrates the roles main weakness. For how can any lesser poster ever be expected to know the difference? Perhaps if Joe Offer will forsake his ability to post his personal opinions on our forum and concentrate all his Mudcat time moderating -and confine his contributions to inserted brown editing comments - then there will be no confusion and no need for any other volunteer fellow posters? Even better - perhaps all our volunteer fellow posters will all just volunteer to return to post on the same basis as their fellow posters - or perhaps Max can ensure that they do? There are reasons why things are as they are currently. However, if our volunteer fellow posters are given a choice now - for the future of our forum - I hope they will at least chose one or the other. The combination of these two aspects and needless secrecy about it - is expecting far too much of everyone. If the role is limited to helping - at the request of or with the prior permission of the originator - that does not create the same problems. The problem that urgently needs addressing is just the current and increasingly used ability of volunteer fellow posters (some remaining anonymous) to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters - without the originators knowledge or permission. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 04 Aug 05 - 07:51 PM Shambles- All you do is fucking moan, why dont you do something usefull with your spare time? [work in animal shelter, homeless place, kids home, or charity shop, [or wahtever], obviously you got too much time to fill, . you wont anser me, buit i;m not bothered. you are a real moany, i dont know were you live, but if im ever in your area, i definetley wont go to your folk session, or folk club [your too moany]. you always complain about mudcat, but, i reckon that even if mudcat could give you words and cords to any folk song, and free cd downloads of any folk cd you choosw, you still would moan! a while ago, [couple of years?], i started a thread ="Are you happy with Mudcat?" about 93 percent said YES,! and= you keep saying =QOUTE= "this is our forum". It isn't!,it is MAx;s forum, if you dont like them, use another site, or set one up, simple as that! I've had tyhreads deleted, [they were drunken bullshit threads, that made no sense to anyone!] i had pms from joe and jeff= "hi john, i delted your tyhread, as it was a total load of crap, and made no sense wahtso ever" so wahts wrong with that then? just shut up. john |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:56 PM MMario - will you accept that for a fellow poster to impose any change upon another's contribution (for whatever reason) without their knowledge or permission - on our forum - should be always thought to a major thing. I would accept that it could conceivably be a major thing, but in most cases is not. Perhaps if this can finally be recognised - a more sensitive approach is needed than just repeating that whichever anonymous volunteers was responisible - was just following Max's guidelines? Practically speaking, there is such a thing as over-sensitivity, a disproportionate reaction to stimuli which do not actually constitute an important impact. These minor judgement calls on the part of forum volunteers have by and large improved the forum, and not lessened anyone's ability to communicate. It does require some slight degree of flexibility, though, which is not evident in this instance. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:54 PM you keep adding on those modifiers and conditions. Yes - your basic premise is true, fair, and to be desired - but like a pork barrel politician you can't leave it there. "fellow poster" when describing a volunteer doing editing duties is not , and as has been explained to you, should not be considered an accurate description. If YOu and a surgeon are both members of a country club you wouldn't normally describe that surgeon while operating as a "fellow country club memeber" The procedure as you describe it would prevent any change being made on any anonymous contribution, spammer , etc. Max has a life. Part of the reason there are clones in the first place is to provide faster, better response time and more coverage. And you have yet show that "routine" applies. BTW - How many times have you qouted me, or Joe, or other fellow posters out of context? I daresay it would be a routine procedure for you even using my definition of routine. I can think of at least seven or eight people you have done it to without even having to strain. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:51 PM Can the wishes of the origination be respected and any change to a thread's title only be undertaken with their knowledge and permission? Thank you. MMarios now says So you are saying your ONLY objection is that you weren't asked first? It is difficult to see what exactly you are arguing with me about - if you did not understand this. Yes IMPOSITION is the main concern - there often may be very good reasons why a thread title may need clarifing - if so - in most cases the originator would readily agree to any proposed change. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:40 PM MMario says I again protest the use of the word "routine" - there does not seem to be enough evidence that thread title changes occur as "routine" in any sense of the word. From my position there is far too much evidence that imposition is undertaken - as a matter of routine - too often on my posts alone. MMario - will you accept that for a fellow poster to impose any change upon another's contribution (for whatever reason) without their knowledge or permission - on our forum - should be always thought to a major thing. Something not to be done on a regular basis or a matter of routine but as rarely as possible and to handled as fairly and sensitively as can be managed? Perhaps if this can finally be recognised - a more sensitive approach is needed than just repeating that whichever anonymous volunteers was responisible - was just following Max's guidelines? Perhaps the sensitive nature of such imposition can be finally recognised (by those who are unlikely to ever be subject to it)? And if always seeking the originator's permission is thought too cumbersome - perhaps to ensure that such action is always seen to have met with Max's approval - any volunteer fellow poster comtemplating such imposition - always obtains Max's approval first? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:35 PM If Max disagreed with the policy I'm sure the policy would be changed. sensible view would not have prevented the second imposed change from taking place - just from any conflict or bad feeling resulting from the change being imposed upon the originator without their knowledge or permission. The originator - who (in this case) would have readily agreed to any proposed change. Had they been first asked So you are saying your ONLY objection is that you weren't asked first? That makes this whole thread even MORE senseless then at first glance. YOu remind me of the person invited to dinner who makes a fuss because they are allergic to the entree- yet never informed the person hosting the dinner they had the allergy until they were served. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:14 PM Actually the title of this thread IS much clearer than it was originally. Even you can stand on occasional improvement. (Hard to believe, sure). A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:13 PM Bert says The thread title should NEVER be changed without the consent of the originator. MMarios says But Max disagress. Does he? Where is this stated - or is it your assumption that Max will automatically agree with all of Joe Offer's or any other volunteers personal views or actions? And MMario - also says. well - from my point of view the title change was just what Joe says it was - a clarification of a very vague thread title. Your support for Joe is as notable as it is damaging in this instance. But Bert's sensible view would not have prevented the second imposed change from taking place - just from any conflict or bad feeling resulting from the change being imposed upon the originator without their knowledge or permission. The originator - who (in this case) would have readily agreed to any proposed change. Had they been first asked. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 04 Aug 05 - 11:03 AM given that the subject had already been discussed - so that you were essentially beating a dead horse -that opening "oh-so-civil" request comes across as rather snide and self-serving. the title of this thread was subject to yet further imposition and the attempt made to justify what was a deliberate and personally motivated imposition on my contribution - by a fellow poster well - from my point of view the title change was just what Joe says it was - a clarification of a very vague thread title. and you still have not acknowledged that the "fellow poster" is the appointed designee of the site owner, operating under the approval of the site owner, performing a job the site owner has requested him to do and following guidelines given him by the site owner. whether or not you like the fact, or whether or not you respect the fact - the fact remains. Joe and the clones operate with the support and consent of the site owner. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:46 AM But Max disagress. and you misqouted me. the original was: Whether or not it is true - you give every indication to those reading you that you have deliberatly taken offense at minor editorial changes and blown them into a crusade very different from what you have quoted |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:44 AM This is what I asked in the first post. This was before the title of this thread was subject to yet further imposition and the attempt made to justify what was a deliberate and personally motivated imposition on my contribution - by a fellow poster. Can the wishes of the origination be respected and any change to a thread's title only be undertaken with their knowledge and permission? Thank you. MMario - and you accuse (amongst other things) that I have deliberatly taken offense at minor editorial changes and blown them into a crusade. I totally agree with what another long-term poster has posted earlier in this thread. The thread title should NEVER be changed without the consent of the originator. NEVER means just that. Adopting this suggestion - saves all of us from making or being the victim of any needlesss judgements. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:14 AM I again protest the use of the word "routine" - there does not seem to be enough evidence that thread title changes occur as "routine" in any sense of the word. BTW - it is *NOT* particularly "Joe's concept", he merely is the one that stated it. Any title or post can be changed - how it this "unequal treatment"? There is a concerted effort to make changes only when they will aide in searces or clarify issues. Yes, personal judgement is used. But all editorial changes are subject to review by the owner of the site and can be reversed if he finds against them. Since he holds the right to change, delete, edit ANY content on his private pages (which includes the entire forum) this is his privilige. Furthermore - the *desire* to be respected does not necessarily lead to respect. Respect, as the old saying goes, has to be earned. Whether or not it is true - you give every indication to those reading you that you have deliberatly taken offense at minor editorial changes and blown them into a crusade. Reading over these threads my impression is not that YOU have been mistreated - but rather you are doing your best to cast aspersions on Joe and the clones, stir up dissension and basically cause trouble. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:06 AM Do you honestly think he would allow them to continue to so represent him if they weren't performing within the guidelines he has set? I doubt it. MMario - The whole crediblty of our forum hinges on the answer to that question. One on which the jury is currently out on. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:01 AM Shambles, you have mis-stated Joe's description of current reality, and then suggested a debate that is founded on the non-reality that your position and Joe's are mutually exclusive-- as if there is a battle necessary. Susan - I have mis-stated nothing. I have copied Joe's views in full - just as he stated them. Joe has claimed this 'priority' to our forum's readers was the majority view. The question is simply if the need Joe sees now for this unequal treatment is - in fact the majority view? The routine imposition of thread tile changes upon the originator - that we have seem evidenced here - springs directly from Joe's concept that priority should now be given to our forum's readers - one that he claims to be a view supported by the majority. I suggest that the majority of posters would still wish to be respected and treated equally - whether they are posting or reading. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:50 AM they know this because the number of readers outweighs the number of posters. They know this because of the number of searches that occur. They know this because of the number of people who have said they came for the lyrics. but in the long run - it doesn't matter - because it *is* Max's view and that's the way he wants it to run. Roger - each and every volunteer with editing abilities is essentially a representative of Max. Do you honestly think he would allow them to continue to so represent him if they weren't performing within the guidelines he has set? I doubt it. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:43 AM Yes, Roger - Joe's view is most likely the majority view. More importantly - it is Max's view. Is it really Max's view? I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information. As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. Is this - in fact - now the majority view? How would you, me, Max or Joe - know this? Shall we have a poll to establish what the majority view now is? If such a thing as the majority view is now really thought to still be important......... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:41 AM Shambles, you have mis-stated Joe's description of current reality, and then suggested a debate that is founded on the non-reality that your position and Joe's are mutually exclusive-- as if there is a battle necessary. In fact there is no battle, nor need there be. People are free here to post whatever and however they wish, and there is nothing preventing that. As each post passes into the memory of the database Max maintains here-- the database of threads and posts-- it sometimes undergoes changes to take what was evanescent, transitory, and store it as a functional resource. In other words, what happens in the "NOW" is based on free choice, but as posts pass from "now" into "The Past," there is some organizing applied so that as people come looking for things, they can be found with some degree of logic and clarity. Your statement of Joe's position makes him out to be a demigod. He's not-- he's a man who's been entrusted with a job to do, and he does it like a human being, warts and all. To treat him as if he's the man who singlehandedly and capriciously forced you into PELs is not only wrong, it's inaccurate. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:34 AM YOUR view is not the majority view. For the record - my view is that - as far as possible - everyone should be given equal consideration and receive equal treatment? Can anyone really disagree with that view? Apart from those who would appear to feel that they had to disagree with any view of mine....whatever it was? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:25 AM Yes, Roger - Joe's view is most likely the majority view. More importantly - it is Max's view. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jeffp Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:19 AM YOUR view is not the majority view. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:12 AM Are you saying that Joe Offer's view is not the majority view? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:50 AM I would say it is a forum for the invited public to do what they wish - WITHIN THE LIMITS SET BY MAX. Max has chosen to set and enforce those limits via proxy. His site. His choice. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:47 AM That is what Joe Offer tells us is the majority view. Mmario - If you think that it is not the majority view then please say so - or if you see alternatives - perhaps you can say what they are? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:38 AM those are not the only alternatives - nor are they even the most likely alternatives. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:21 AM I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information. As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. The above is now Joe Offer's view - is it in fact - now the majority view - as claimed? Or is the majority view - that as far as possible - everyone should be given equal consideration and receive equal treatment? I would suggest the following to be the question for open debate: Is our forum primarily for the invited public to do as THEY wish - with the aspects that THEY prefer- or primarily for some volunteer fellow posters to impose their prefrences upon those wishes? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 07:27 AM The following from The Mudcat Songbook. We're Alright Jack by The Shambles The Shambles' Comments: The thinking behind the song is fairly simple. It could be expressed as 'put up or shut up'. I can understand why an individual would not wish to get actively involved in a cause or campaign. The choice is theirs. There is only so much time and one would soon be worn out if you were not selective in where you placed your limited energy. What I don't understand is why some people, who maybe generally in favour of the overall objective and who recognise the scale of the problem, are motivated to spend their time and energy to publicly place some nit-picking criticism of the methods that are being used by those who are actively involved. Doing this without making any positive alternative suggestions or accepting that others may not have the luxury of choosing if they wish to be actively involved. The original criticisms are usually justified by a claim that the methods used are counter-productive and/or risk making the situation worse. Not recognising that for a victim, things could not get much worse or that expressing these negative criticisms is the most counter-productive action and risks diverting attention away from the real problem. I possibly do understand why this is done, I do not however understand why this is considered to be a respectable position? Or why when such negative views are expressed, these are then followed with 'sheep-like' agreement from others? Or are expressed, because it is felt to be expressing a collective, if undemonstrated view or feeling? No one is above criticism or above making mistakes but are there not better ways of dealing with this, ones that do not risk confusing the issue or diluting the strength of the message? This song reflects my personal experiences with the Public Entertainment Licensing issue, over the past 2 years, but can be applied to many wider issues. An obvious example is the present situation with Iraq. We're alright Jack, so don't bother us It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss I can see you are wounded Not in the best of health But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself Am I not entitled, just like all of you To speak from what I see, my personal point of view? I'll question those who try to get the problem solved And criticise those who would get me involved We're alright Jack, so don't bother us It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss I can see you are wounded Not in the best of health But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself These fears of mugging are simply overblown Didn't get mugged, when I went out alone Ignore the statistics, ignore the traumatised In my opinion, its over dramatised We're alright Jack, so don't bother us It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss I can see you are wounded Not in the best of health But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself The victims of this crime may not think I am right Many now, if able, would not go out at night My support may give some consolation I'll leave them in their lonely isolation We're alright Jack, so don't bother us It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss I can see you are wounded Not in the best of health But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself ©Roger Gall – September 2002 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 05 - 07:20 AM So - what you are saying is that even though your complaints and issues have been responded to and answers given - you do not accept the answers - even when they agree with you (which several have) so will continue to harp and complain about the same matter repeatedly? What I am saying is - full credit to those who have made an effort - but as very few other posters appear to be brave enough or prepared to do very much try and ensure that such unfair treatment as evidenced here - is not ever imposed upon other victims (or upon me in particular) by anonymous fellow posters - it looks as that I will just have to continue to do my best. For there have been no answers. Just the opinions of volunteer fellow posters and blind support for an initial imposition by their number (that made the thread title factually misleading). Followed by a further needless and petty imposed change to the title of this thread. These actions were clearly selective and unfair - to present some apology (private or public) for this and state that such things will not be repeated - is what is needed in these circumstances - if our forum is to retain any credibilty for impartiality. In the abscence of that - trying to ensure that continuing and informed open debate of these matters on our forum - will have to suffice. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:51 AM Amos- This rather sounds a fancy way of saying that you consider that I (and others) deserve the sort of treatment that is attempted to be justified here. I don't see that I have any more sense of self than any other posters and probably have less of this than many others - who do not have changes imposed so often on their posts. I know that you do not; that's what I am trying to tell you -- not that you "deserve" but that, knowingly or not, you certainly do "bring about". Deserving is niot part of the equation. Causation is, however. You may not believe you have an appetite for victimization and dramatic wrongs from others, but it looks that way from here. I do not expect you to believe that this responsibililty is your own, but I see it that way, and I would, in your shoes, look within for the answers instead of flailing endlessly in long-winded posts. Because all you have apparently accomplished on your existing operating basis is a lot of sound and fury and the persistance of your complaint. A |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:48 AM So - what you are saying is that even though your complaints and issues have been responded to and answers given - you do not accept the answers - even when they agree with you (which several have) so will continue to harp and complain about the same matter repeatedly? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:48 AM Shambles-SHUT UP! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:37 AM And he probably would - if you did as he requests and contacted him OFF-FORUM regarding it. Max is welcome to respond to my views in any manner he choose - or not at all. But certain volunteer fellow posters are not shy of expressing their views publicly......many posters may assume that they are the site's owner or speaking for Max.... And they may well be? But none of this prevents anyone from publicly expressing their view on our forum - does it? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:29 AM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 27 Apr 05 - 07:06 PM Well, I have to say that there is value in Shambles/Roger's perspective. Most of the rest of us don't share that perspective, so it is difficult for us to understand his priorities. Shambles sees Mudcat primarily as a vehicle for self-expression, as a place for people to express their creativity and ideas and lyrics and whatnot. As such, he believes Mudcat should orient itself toward the priorities of the people who post messages. And it is true that Mudcat has been that, and has served many people very well as a means of self-expression. I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information. As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. It is wonderful that so many people have furnished all this information and creativity, but the reader needs help in finding his way around this maze. That's why we index and title and organize and remove duplicates. We don't do it to offend the originator, and we have no reason to offend the originator. It's not a matter of "personal taste" - it's simply a matter of doing the best we can to help people find their way around, building a roadmap or a highway system so that people can find their way around the 1.47 million messages that have been posted here. Roger's concerns are legitimate - but it's just a matter of choice. The general tip of the scale is that Mudcat is a reader-oriented forum that assists readers in finding information - but still does its best to respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here. -Joe Offer- Can finding as too 'cumbersome' - the attempt to always contact the originator before any changes are imposed by anonymous fellow posters upon the poster's chosen thread title - really be thought of as doing the best to "respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here." I see our forum as primarily for the invited public to do as THEY wish - with the aspects that they prefer- not for some fellow posters to impose their prefrence upon those wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:15 AM And he probably would - if you did as he requests and contacted him OFF-FORUM regarding it. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:13 AM However he can always tell us – if this view is wrong or has changed. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 03 Aug 05 - 10:56 AM gee - nice fantasy you have developed there. However -what you forget is that the volunteers have been recruited and given their guidelines by MAX - which invalidates your whole theory. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 03 Aug 05 - 10:39 AM Thanks for your considered reply, though. I must admit, I found it much easier to understand than some of your more convoluted ones. Thanks too for your reasoned contribution to the debate. Time I think for a more convoluted one. The Mudcat Forum has become many things to many people. Its strength is when it freely encourages and equally reflects all of its input. Its weakness is that rather than accepting all these different aspects as equally valid – values judgements are now being made about which aspect are more important than others. Fellow posters are making these value judgements and not the site's owner Max - and these judgements (over seemingly every aspect) appear to be ever increasing. To the extent that it getting to appear that contributors now first requires the permission of these fellow posters.- and must only now submit any contribution in the manner and form that meets the approval of these fellow posters – or be subject to routine imposition by them (even when undertaken anonymously). This is not the welcoming view to all contributors that was once thought to be traditional on our friendly forum. My reading of Max's words here over many years is that he sees his role on the forum as to facilitate – to provide what the forum wishes and not to judge these wishes. His own wish would probably still be to get rid of all these troublesome folkies and concentrate on blues. However he can always tell us – if this view is wrong or has changed…..I see that the role of these fellow posters should be to follow Max's lead and to facilitate – not to impose their personal judgements upon the rest of us.. When these fellow posters see their role as judges make these attempts to shape our forum by their value judgements – Max is placed in a difficult position – as he may think this IS NOW the popular view. I don't think that it is the popular view but any other view does tend to be shouted down or ignored. Possibly more on a matter of personalities than by taking a serious overview of where support for this general approach is leading. The taking of sides – is usually what happens. This is not helpful and demonstrates the deep divisions that are caused by the shaping of our forum on the judgements of only a few fellow posters. To be seen to be giving the views of these fellow posters support – could be thought a way to ensure that any imposition would always be made upon the contributions of others……..? The traditional ethos of our forum that - all animals are equal is compromised by the fairly recent introduction of – some animals are more equal than others. In a purely practical sense – peace is never likely to break-out with such an ethos and our forum will just get more and more divided - if the view of those who consider themselves to be more equal – is the only view now thought to be a valid one. The single largest value judgement by these fellow posters – made needlessly in my opinion – is that our forum is primarily some kind of research tool – and that all the other aspect of our forum are secondary, subservient and expendable to this aspect. The idea that valuable information contributed should be as easily assessable to any reader is sensible. But a further value judgement has been made – again by fellow posters that the rights of our forum's readers – are secondary to the right of its contributors to say what they wish in their own words. That changes to the words of contributors will now be routinely imposed upon them – without the contributor's knowledge or permission – for the purposes of (manual) 'indexing'. As our forum's readers and writers are one and the same – it would not seem sensible to me - to place the requirements one over the other. But that is what is now argued by these fellow posters. My view is that if these fellow posters manage (by this routine imposition) to inhibit contributors (in any way) there is nothing (new) going to be contributed - for anyone to later read. This brings us to the seeming need for these fellow poster to be feel qualified to judge when a thread title is wanting and for these fellow posters to impose any change upon this – without making any attempt to first obtain the originator's permission. And to their justification – that is seemingly supported by some other posters – that to always make the attempt to first contact the originator – is too 'cumbersome'. Do you consider that this attempt to always show the correct respect to invited contributions – is ever too 'cumbersome'? If the attempt to first contact the originator is thought to be too 'cumbersome' and to inconvenience these fellow posters – perhaps you may also consider that he proposed change is not really important enough to take the risk of imposing? Every action has a reaction to it. The reaction to needless judgement and routine imposition - is unpredictable on our forum – but there will be one. If this reaction can be avoided – it is probably wise for all concerned - that it is. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:33 PM Shambles, the editing policy in the FAQ has been available for quite some time now. There have been a number of istances where you harangued about "no policy stated" and then were directed to it, in the FAQ. At most forums, the FAQ or a place like it is available about all site policies-- but it's up to the members to read and inwardly digest it. ANd abide by it, or not-- always a choice open to you, as is the choice of applying that policy, to Max's duly authorized representatives. I don't know why you insist on portraying the site volunteers as "fellow posters." They act in a specific role when they edit, not in personal mode. This is called BOUNDARIES. Example: your doctor might be your fellow drinker at a tavern, but he's not taking out your appendix at that moment in time (one hopes). Can you not understand a simple separation of roles? Many of us have that kind of separation between various rtoles we play on our lives. This week I have a job in respite care, helping to care for a few hours each day for a man we know who had a stroke. In that capacity today, I changed his pants. I am not planning on changing them when I see him and his wife socially. See? It's not that weird, really, if you THINK about it. And not necessarily a plot against YOU, or anyone. It's simply how Max has chosen to run his site. I'm your fellow poster but I can't edit you. The few who can are not acting as your peer at those times, but as site personnel. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Blowzabella Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:08 PM No Shambles - as I said: "I'm sure he is aware of your disgruntlement, but perhaps he is waiting for you to contact him formally about it, rather than enter into discussion here?" Clearly we won't agree on this - but I never expected that we would. Thanks for your considered reply, though. I must admit, I found it much easier to understand than some of your more convoluted ones. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:01 PM Over time there has been a needless lowering of expectations and a huge gulf in these expectations. This is not a newspaper. it is (or perhaps was) an online community of contributors who posted equally on a discussion forum open to the public. I and I suspect others would not have first contributed to a forum where our posts were subject the imposed judgement of our fellow posters. Whose workload was thought to be the prime consideration. Especially if these fellow posters were anonymous. I use the term - our forum to show the extent that many long-term posters feel about a forum that their contributions have helped to make special and that some of our volunteers appear to wish to make ordinary - by introducing more rules than a tax office. The concept is less that prior permission for any changes would place any sort of 'cumbersome' burden on our volunteers now. But that it is really inconceivable to many of us - that any fellow posters would really wish to ever impose their judgement - without first asking the originator. We all did managed to create a fine and welcoming forum without all of this administration indexing- - tidying-up and most of all without any IMPOSITION - undertaken as a first option and at the slightest excuse. Followed-up usually - if anyone should not be happy with this imposition - with - 'well if you don't like it go somewhere else'. A cry taken up readily by some posters who feel that they will never themselves be the subject of such treatment. As has been pointed-out - our forum became the special place because of Max's vision - not because of recently introduced volunteers who claim that undertaking their role properly and facilitating - is too 'cumbersome'. If these volunteers feel that doing things properly and showing respect equally to all contributors - is too taxing - yes perhaps they should un-volunteer. Some posters have agreed and had the courage to say that certain things - like thead titles - should be safe from imposed changes. So it must be clear that if peace is ever going to break-out - it has to be given a chance to. Some middle ground is going to have to be again found to acommodate all views........... Blowzabella - are you another poster who feels that Max does not have access to his own website? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Blowzabella Date: 02 Aug 05 - 04:46 PM I agree, Shambles, that you have had thread titles changed and some other people hven't had them changed - yet. They might well do at some point in the future. It might well also be true that some of the volunteers have got a bit cheesed off wih you, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised by that, would you? They are only human. I can sympathise with you if you feel you have been unfairly treated but I cannot honestly understand how you can feel that it is reasonable for you to expect the volunteers / recruits (whatever they might be), who help to administer and tidy up this site, to contact the originator of a thread to ask if it is ok to change the title, or combine one thread with another etc. I DO think it is too cumbersome. Far too cumbersome - having to keep track of who they contacted, when. Some people post a thread and then don't log on for days apart. Should they send reminders fter a certain period has passed? These people are not employees who have eight hours a day to spend here! They are, most probably, people trying to make a living, play some music, have a family life and fit in a bit of Mudcatting! If I was Max I would add a disclaimer along the lines of my earlier post and have done with it! It might not clear up your problems with past posts / threads but it would clarify the position in the future. (And, in local papers, the editors GIVE submissions titles themselves - it is the same with Press Releases or letters - the writer of the piece has no say in it!) I know that your reply will be something along the lines of 'well, if they haven't got time to do it properly they shouldn't volunteer', and that you would prefer it if there was no tidying up anyway, in case it 'censored' anything. I'm afraid I'm with the ones who say Take it up with Max, if you have got a problem with the way his assistants are dealing with your submissions to the site. I'm sure he is aware of your disgruntlement, but perhaps he is waiting for you to contact him formally about it, rather than enter into discussion here? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 02 Aug 05 - 02:26 PM Shambles, I am sure that you have previously had letters to newspapers edited. The letters page always carries a disclaimer which says that this can happen to correspondents submissions. Have you carried on in this way with your local press? When you have something like this - up-front and at the beginning of any correspondence - you have the choice to contribute on this basis or not. You may also expect that such rules would apply equally to all contributors.......... There were no such disclaimers or anonymous censors and all animals were treated as equals - when I started posting here. What was there - was a mutual respect and little or no need for any imposition. Would you agree that attempts to close and bolt a stable door are of most use when the horse is still present and are best not made by one's fellow horses. Would you also agree that attempts to contact the originator of a thread's title before the imposition of any change by any anonymous fellow poster is now too 'cumbersome'? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Blowzabella Date: 02 Aug 05 - 01:34 PM Shambles, I am sure that you have previously had letters to newspapers edited. The letters page always carries a disclaimer which says that this can happen to correspondents submissions. Have you carried on in this way with your local press? If so, I'll bet they love it when another letter from you comes into the office.... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 02 Aug 05 - 12:39 PM It so happened that this came out today. Not describing anyone in particular (perhaps me more than anyone else), but I dedicate it to the most frequent poster of this thread.: Grumpy Old Man In photographs I am the one who constantly refuses to say "cheese" My stare is colder than the deepest freeze My face I will not crease And friends I used to have a few, but now they're getting fewer every year And nobody now wants to lend an ear Afraid of what they'll hear In any social gathering I have the corner seat To find a fault in everyone it is my biggest treat On everything under the sun opinions I excrete But I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man Yes I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man Don't try to explain 'cause I don't want to understand I'm just proud - To be a grumpy old man. The youngsters don't know anything and most of them don't even know they're born The future of mankind I like to mourn They all deserve my scorn They speak in riddles and cliches and any advice they're given they reject Their manners and appearance they neglect They never show respect They have no conversation, they all just seem to spit Their humour is despicable, they are devoid of wit And just the other day a little brat called me a tit But I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man Yes I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man Don't try to explain 'cause I don't want to understand I'm just proud - To be a grumpy old man. I'd go abroad on holiday but there's too many foreigners out there For strange foods and habits I don't care So I travel in my chair My hand on the TV control I scan through all the channels in their turn Sometimes the TV I want to burn Such rubbish that they churn No cultured programmes anywhere, they only feed us pap With perverts and celebrities that talk a lot of crap If I could put them on my knee I'd take to them my strap Because I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man Yes I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man Don't try to explain 'cause I don't want to understand I'm just proud - To be a grumpy old man. I have no pleasures left in life but pointing out to others that they're wrong And everywhere I sing the same old song And nowhere I belong I was once young and fanciful before these wrinkles grew upon my brow An angry youth I was, I will allow But I'm just angry now You say it may be jealousy that makes me blow my top My age and experience that I would gladly swap But I am too old to learn now, and I'll moan until I drop And I'll be proud - To be a grumpy old man Yes I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man Don't try to explain 'cause I don't want to understand I'm just proud - To be a grumpy old man. (Closes to the strains of "If I had a hammer...") (C)Copyright 2005 George Papavgeris |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 02 Aug 05 - 12:29 PM So, Shambles, nice to see that you are not above raking up things already discussed and arguments already countered, as "character witnesses" to devalue posts or opinions you dislike. What a sweet, democratic, open-minded, non-bullying, non-judgmental, non-character-assassinating thing to do. You hypocritical sod, you gave me a laugh, bless you. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST Date: 02 Aug 05 - 09:32 AM Just to save everyone repeating their argument for the 17th time I refer all readers to the first 20 posts, just read those and then ,er, read them again and then well read them again, if you're still not convinced one way or t'other, you've guessed it, read them again, if that doesn't work read them once more, or twice more after which you can read them again and then,er, read them again and then well read them again, if you're still not convinced one way or t'other, you've guessed it, read them again, if that doesn't work read them once more, or twice more after which you can read them again and then,er, read them again and then well read them again, if you're still not convinced one way or t'other, you've guessed it, read them again, if that doesn't work read them once more, or twice more after which you can read them again and then,er, read them again and then well read them again, if you're still not convinced one way or t'other, you've guessed it, read them again, if that doesn't work read them once more, or twice more after which you can read them again and then |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 02 Aug 05 - 09:23 AM ALL their work is subject to review and can be reversed should Max see fit. That is the way it works. That is the way Max has set it up and *wants* it to work. My understanding is that Max would wish that all contributors would be seen to be treated fairly and our volunteers should only faciltate this. My understanding differs from yours so perhaps Max will tell us his views? But are you serously suggesting - (despite the defence and justification given here) - that Max would consider the current examples here - are the best examples of fair and equal treatment? They are personly motivated, petty and plainly not best examples of equal treatment - and to defend them as if they were - does imeasurable damage to the crediblty of our forum - which we should be showing our loyality and commitment to. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 02 Aug 05 - 09:07 AM Roger - I have had my thread titles changed - I've had my posts deleted. I will admit that to my knowledge I haven't had a thread I started closed. Joe, the clones, and their previous incarnation - the mud-elves - do their job. ALL their work is subject to review and can be reversed should Max see fit. That is the way it works. That is the way Max has set it up and *wants* it to work. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 02 Aug 05 - 08:51 AM The views of those who would always consider their contributions to be safe from imposed actions and why they would consider any suggested measure to prevent imposed action upon others would be thought too 'cumbersome' for our volunteers - should rather be seen in that light. In the case of BillD (and some others) – they would think their contributions safe - no matter how abusive their posts may be. And in the case of El Greko - despite the fact that they created a bogus thread and a bogus identity (Xander) in order to fool others and argue with themselves. created purely for a April fool prank (in March) ? – You judge.... Mudcat censorship a proposal A thread that remains open……..when this one Censorship on Mudcat has been closed. The reasons why certain posters would feel free now - from imposed action that others receive (and are thought by them to somehow deserve) and how you too can ensure your freedom on our forum from such actions – is something that could be explained? If it really wasn't sadly so self-evident……… |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 02 Aug 05 - 12:33 AM Agree |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Bill D Date: 01 Aug 05 - 11:01 PM "... Is it really too 'cumbersome' for volunteers to always consult with the originator before imposing any changes to the titles of threads?" oh, yes...I'd think so... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 01 Aug 05 - 09:15 PM Exactly, Amos. The "facts" do not support the conclusions. Especially, to my mind, to claim that editorial changes effected by volunteers appointed by Max is a claim to superiority by those volunteers is specious. So that is OK then - there is NO problem to address.......! That you may consider the conclusions are not supported by the facts - does not mean that the facts are not still the facts and that they can then be ignored. The treatment of my contributions is a fact evidenced here - you seem content that this special treatment is somehow deserved and open support of this unfair treatment is somehow excusable. I don't feel qualified to sit in judgement and impose my personal views upon the freely invited contributions of my fellow posters without their knowledge or permission. Those that do feel themselves qualified to place themselves in this position - would I suggest feel themselves superior to me (and the rest of us lesser mortals). Perhaps MMario you could try seeing it NOT from the position of the volunteers - but from the position of their victims? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 01 Aug 05 - 08:57 PM I think there are real and identifiable reasons why your interactions with this system have proven to be so strangely and dramatically unfortunate, but the answer does NOT lie in the malevolence of others, or even in their negligence, but in your own appetite for the dramatic and unfortunate. Amos- This rather sounds a fancy way of saying that you consider that I (and others) deserve the sort of treatment that is attempted to be justified here. I don't see that I have any more sense of self than any other posters and probably have less of this than many others - who do not have changes imposed so often on their posts. I also don't see that the answer lies with my perception - rather than the reality. The reality remains that these judgement and changes have in fact been imposed on my contributions (and others) but not on yours. I make no claim for the malevolence or negilgence of others - these are not my words of explanation....However, I strongly feel that some explanation - or change - is required. This messenger has been shot so many times - it would be nice if the message was actually addresed - rather than just keep on shooting the messenger . For it would be interesting if some attempt could be made for posters to address the issue. Which is not whether The Shambles is a nice bloke or not - the issue is one of: - Is it really too 'cumbersome' for volunteers to always consult with the originator before imposing any changes to the titles of threads? I am sorry if I don't agree with your judgement that my contributions over many years have been unfortunate in any way. But perhaps judgement upon the worth of fellow posters is not really what our forum is for? I am very pround that I (and others) have made a very positive part in making our forum a special place. I am pleased that some of the threads that I started - like the 'jingles' and the 'busking is begging' threads are still being posted to. I am just as pleased to see that they still manage seem to have their original titles.....So far...*Smiles* I intend to try and continue to post openly. Whatever special treatment you judge my contributions deserve but yours do not - from those fellow posters who remain anonymous. I would be grateful for any help in trying to ensure that my contributions (and those of others) are treated - by those who now feel qualified to judge us - the same as yours.... Equally. As for this being my lone battle. You may agree that the odds are so stacked that a battle is hardly the right word? The word for this is a masacre... An honest and open debate debate among equals - is what is requested an long overdue. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Nigel Parsons Date: 01 Aug 05 - 07:08 PM Is it a fact that despite being subject to many of these abusive personal attacks and much provocation - that this poster has always refused to respond in kind? I see little choice but to carry on moderately expressing and evidencing my view - and probably being subject to yet more personal abuse for doing so - if that is what it takes...... In view of The Shambles above claims; that he is innofensive, and doesn't respond with personal abuse, I would remind him of a PM he sent 12 Dec 2002 02:37 PM to myself. Whilst I thought it very abusive, and totally unnecessary, I merely referred it to Joe. I have never quoted it, and would rather not, as it is not the sort of language I customarily use. However, if The Shambles doth protest too much.... Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 01 Aug 05 - 03:20 PM Exactly, Amos. The "facts" do not support the conclusions. Especially, to my mind, to claim that editorial changes effected by volunteers appointed by Max is a claim to superiority by those volunteers is specious. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Amos Date: 01 Aug 05 - 03:15 PM I believe that what is misplaced, Roger, is your obdurate ignoral of WHY these sad things happen to you and a few others. I submit for reflection that it might have something to do with your own misplaced preoccupation with self. It appears to me, FWIW, that while you take the position of fighting for the common good and answering to a higher call, the reality of it is that your interest lies within the perimeter of your own mind, not in fact with the best balance of operation for the community at large. I do not mean this as abusive, although I suppose you can take it as such if you so choose. But seriously, the larger matrix of interactions amongst members, as far as I can see, is as removed from your lonely battle as the real world is removed from the belief that the heavens revolve around the earth -- it may sound like a nice idea, but it doesn't match up with experience. I think there are real and identifiable reasons why your interactions with this system have proven to be so strangely and dramatically unfortunate, but the answer does NOT lie in the malevolence of others, or even in their negligence, but in your own appetite for the dramatic and unfortunate. Why you should have such an appetite is a question only you can answer, but the question lies squarely at your own feet. This is the reason that so many voices on these several threads about you have sought to dampen your enthusiasm for carping and whinging about the Great Wrongnesses of the Cat. And that, sir, is all I have to say on the matter. Amos |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 01 Aug 05 - 03:00 PM Now that some individuals claim that others consider themselves to be superior and persist in repeatedly stating this over and over with no evidence to support their claim there will be little chance of this ever happening. I am not sure how much more evidence is really needed to satisfy some posters. Perhaps as long as it does not happen to them and always happens to others - nothing will? Is it a fact that changes have been imposed here - to not just one but two of my thread titles and imposed by two different volunteers (one still remaining anonymous - the other less so)? Is it a fact that this poster is probably alone in having a thread that they originated - closed by Joe Offer - not only once but twice? Is it a fact that this poster has provided the evidence here yet again of abusive personal attacks from Joe Offer - where he incites others to do the same? Is it a fact that despite being subject to many of these abusive personal attacks and much provocation - that this poster has always refused to respond in kind? I see little choice but to carry on moderately expressing and evidencing my view - and probably being subject to yet more personal abuse for doing so - if that is what it takes...... MMario - be bored with it ignore it - if you think you must but please do not claim there is no supporting evidence. Your loyality is recognised - but do you think that it may be looking a little mis-placed? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 01 Aug 05 - 12:17 PM When all animals were seen to be equal on our forum there was always a chance of serenity or a chance of peace breaking-out. Now that some animals consider themselves themselves more equal than others and openly flaunt this - there will be little chance of this ever happening I submit that the above is about as factual as the following: When all animals were seen to be equal on our forum there was very little chance of serenity or peace breaking out because basically most of the animals here are a cantakerous lot. Now that some individuals claim that others consider themselves to be superior and persist in repeatedly stating this over and over with no evidence to support their claim there will be little chance of this ever happening. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 01 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM There is little hope of much serenity. Just sitting by and watching others struggle - is not serenity... It is something quite different. When all animals were seen to be equal on our forum there was always a chance of serenity or a chance of peace breaking-out. Now that some animals consider themselves themselves more equal than others and openly flaunt this - there will be little chance of this ever happening. Unless this situation is addressed. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 05 - 03:11 PM Is this 'Reinhold' bloke - one of our anonymous volunteers? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 05 - 10:48 AM He is just copying our Wesley S.... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: freda underhill Date: 31 Jul 05 - 10:30 AM Serenity Prayer - By Reinhold Niebuhr God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change Courage to change the things I can, Wisdom to know the difference, Living one day at a time, Enjoying one moment at a time, Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace, Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it. Trusting that you will make all things right If I surrender to your will. So that I might be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with you forever in the next. Amen |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 05 - 10:18 AM Wesley S has said it better. Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: freda underhill Date: 31 Jul 05 - 09:59 AM from the control link.. An important message is that the more you let go of the control over the people, places, and things in your life, the more control in your personal life you will gain. In order to let go of control over others, you must first be convinced that they are the uncontrollables and unchangeables in your life and that the only one you can control and change is yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 05 - 09:51 AM Joe Offer said. In the thread in question, the title was originally Minister say's jamming OK. For the sake of clarity, one of our volunteers changed to thitle to Minister say's jamming OK in UK. I suppose I would have changed it to (UK) Minister says jamming OK, but that's neither here nor there. In the end, it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of difference, but the UK designation does make it a bit more clear. Perhaps it can finally be accepted that whatever its intention and whatever defence is made for it - this imposed change (in isolation) -IS factually incorrect, DOES not clarify anything and is actually misleading people into thinking that the originator was as mis-informed as our volunteers and their imposed judgement upon fellow posters - without their knowledge or permission - have quite needlessly been proved to be? Perhaps it can be finally accepted - that it only remains the opinion of one fellow poster - that - it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of difference. It quite obviously does make a big difference to those it directly affects. Perhaps such judgements can be left to them? Will our volunteers now respect the fact that the originator will probably always be better informed on the thread's subject and how they choose to title it? And if they do not prove to be - the simple courtesy of always ensuring the originator is first consulted - will make sure that our forum always reflects and continues to be shaped by the wishes of all its contributors - rather than the imposed judgement of a few anonymous volunteers? The subsequent imposition of this current thread's title and it manner - rather speaks for itself. Perhaps some assurances will be given that these important lessons have finally been learned and that these actions and the manner of their defence of them shown in this thread will never be repeated? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 05 - 08:41 AM Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK From: Jim McLean - PM Date: 31 Jul 05 - 07:37 AM Am I correct in assuming this new licensing act only applies to England and Wales and not the UK? From the following thread. Minister says jamming is OK in the UK I am not one to say 'I told you' - so I won't......*Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST,thoughtful Date: 31 Jul 05 - 08:10 AM This site is very interesting and worth a look. Sometimes the need for control feels political, when it can be very personal. The following link is of interest - anyone can learn more from examining these issues. the need to control |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 05 - 06:19 AM Please bear also in mind that in a debate, volume of statements is not what wins it, but quality. Please bear in mind that despite request for a debate - that what this thead contiues to be is a battle. With many contributions making no reference to the issue at all. I am not sure if debates are ever won - however, they may be settled. Battles however are won - but not decided on quality - the winners are usually just the stronger party. But in any war - everyone loses. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST Date: 31 Jul 05 - 06:10 AM 200 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST Date: 31 Jul 05 - 06:09 AM 199 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 05 - 06:06 AM I just thought of a parallel, from the world of politics. Say a journalist asks a question of Bush or Blair publicly - you'd hardly expect the response to be in a private letter! It rather depends on what is aked of Mr Blair etc. If he is asked publicly to answer what he may consider to be a side issue or in particular private matter - the manner of his reply (or to reply at all) would be a matter for him. In a case where it was demanded of him publicly to reveal if he had written privately to a third party and to explain publicly the result of that correspondence - he probably feel that he had no need to reply at all. and if another party suggested that he was wrong in this regard - he would probably tell them - with some justification - that it was none of their business. But I am not in public office. I did as least reply to Susan's public demand for private information in the manner I felt was proper. Making public - a private exchange is something that Susan may think is acceptable - but I do not. Not doing this is a convention that most of us do respect. However, there is no convention that precludes private contact via PMs here - unless the poster expressly wishes it (prefably not in public)- then it should be respected. Max has provided us with a number of way to communicate and not all are used correctly. The difficulty is less that public questions may be replied to privately. The problem is the opposite. Some posters now insist on carrying out purely private conversations or gossip and judgements about fellow posters in public. Or making public - what should be private demands. This is side issue - perhaps subject for another thread (and title)? The issue remains if it really too 'cumbersome' for the orgininators of thread titles to always be consulted before any change is imposed by anonymous fellow posters? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 30 Jul 05 - 10:32 PM The problem isn't Roger. It is all of you that continually answer. If you don't stop, I wish you would quit beefing about it. We have a pretty good handle on what drives him. What I want to know is what drives the rest of you. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 30 Jul 05 - 11:28 AM Well, El Greko, as a lot of us do here, I do use PMS to try to clear up confusion or conflict from a thread-- that's one reason we have PMs, and when both parties are open to actual communication they can be quite effective. (Besides, I'm a Bible girl, and it's Biblical.) But this usually comes to an end when either party repeatedly gives notice they want to be left alone. So when it's clear the two parties are not going to be able to get on the same wavelength, sometimes it comes to that. I try to assume both parties are doing the best they can under the circumstances, and sometimes there just isn't sufficient foundation for the communication to continue-- it isn't really communication past that point, but noise. Sometimes time helps-- one person with whom I once declined further communication wrote to me again MUCH later with an apology that indicated they had finally understood their end of what was stuck, and took responsibility for it. So it is usually my practice to open all PMs and to reply where I see reason at work, even if there has been a problem in the past. Or (like others) I sometimes just delete them unread, depending on the history with that person (and the PM title). This is the first time I can recall going all Garbo on someone, though, right out in a thread. Some things have been said attempting to characterize my thoughts and/or feelings, and they are inaccurate. Maybe it's helpful to clarify that one can simply be over one's limit, and we should all be able to say for ourselves where the limit is without having to defend a reson for it. It's called Personal Boundaries. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Jul 05 - 11:03 AM Thanks Susan. Second-guessing people is dangerous, so I'm glad I got it right. I just thought of a parallel, from the world of politics. Say a journalist asks a question of Bush or Blair publicly - you'd hardly expect the response to be in a private letter! And if Bush or Blair had information that should not be divulged in public, they would simply state the fact and leave it at that. Imagine Blair responding at Prime Minister's Question Time in the Parliament by saying "I'll give you a call later to answer your question"! Now if that's good enough for country leaders, it's good enough and commonsense for us all. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Jul 05 - 04:45 PM Thank you, El Greko, for accurately reading my intent and for re-stating it so clearly. Any other assumptions would be incorrect, baseless, and unwarranted. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:48 PM I'll tell you in a PM. *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:44 PM OK - I'll bite. Who ? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:41 PM Roger - I thought you had "rested your case" a long time ago. What happened ? It was not a case of what - it was a case of who. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:34 PM Sorry that should have read. Susan - If you stop on continuing to address me publicly - I will certainly have no interest in providing the answers to you in any form. I am very concerned that posters may get the implication from Susan's post that there may be something sinister, abusive or insulting in any form of communication of mine with her. There is not. Susan - if you do not wish me to reply to your questions (in the form of my choosing) then please do not address me or ask me questions publicly or privately. I consider the questions you insist on asking me publicly are a side issue - if I choose to answer your questions via PMs - that is a matter for me. However you have requested that I do not send you PMs and I will of course respect this request. But if you continue to ask me questions - I will answer in the form that I think best and I would appreciate that you make no more attempts to create needless drama at my expense. You may have sometime ago asked me not to PM you - but this was not made recently and a request I thought null and void in the respect of the questions you have asked me - and which I have now provided. A simple repeat of this request made to via PM would have been perfectly sufficient and been respected by me. The public attempt to give some impression of 'stalking' - was not necessary and is not appreciated. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:15 PM Roger, if Susan asks you questions publicly, she presumably is looking for the answers in the same manner (unless you are in possession of facts that you do not wish to divulge in an open forum). If that is the case, simply say so. But to respond "If you insist on continuing to address me publicly - I will certainly have no interest in providing the answers to you in any form" is a little... how can I say it... unorthodox? peevish? bullying? I don't know, you call it what you like. Please bear also in mind that in a debate, volume of statements is not what wins it, but quality. So repetitions and copy-pastes generally prove little and are just as likely to detract from your argument, because they irritate. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:14 PM Roger - I thought you had "rested your case" a long time ago. What happened ? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:05 PM Roger-- once more-- and this time publicly-- please stop sending me PMs about this issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you insist on continuing to address me publicly - I will certainly have no interest in providing the answers to you in any form. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Jul 05 - 01:56 PM Roger-- once more-- and this time publicly-- please stop sending me PMs about this issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 29 Jul 05 - 01:32 PM No excuse necessary. Max does not require the volunteers disclose their identity , nor does he require a PM before making changes his policy authorizes. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 05 - 01:27 PM You may have missed this too? You're absolutely right, Shambles. It isn't too cumbersome to send a personal message (and wait for a response) when there's a reason to do it, but is there a reason to go through a permission process to simply add a date to an obit, or a location to a gig thread, or a song title to a lyrics request? It isn't too cumbersome to address you as "Shambles (may your name be forever hallowed)" - but to do it EVERY time, with no copy-paste allowed, would become cumbersome in short order. -Joe Offer- I can accept no real excuse for why other known volunteers prefer not to take the little time and trouble required to undertake properly - their role of 'facilitating'. As Max chooses not to sit in judgement upon posters and has stated the word 'faciltate' to describe his approach - I can see no reason why any volunteer (anonymous or otherwise) should see themselves as qualified to be seen as any more than this. Perhaps some new volunteers can be recruited who are prepared to go that 'extra mile' to ensure that posters always feel their contributions to given the value and respectand would not think time taken to do this this would be 'cumbersome'. I would suggest the point is rather that anonymous volunteers cannot send PMs and still remain anonymous. For quite why the divisive ability to feel qualified to imposed judgement upon fellow posters yet remain anonymous - is defended - is still a puzzle to me? Perhaps this can be given a re-think - if only for the reason that this prevents them from sending a PM that would prevent the need for them to impose their judgement upon an orinator's thread title? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 29 Jul 05 - 11:08 AM Yes Roger - you have said over and over and over that this is your concern. And you have been told that Max will yank those rights from his appointees if he feels they have overstepped their bounds. It is his decision. Not mine, not yours, not joe's. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Yawn Date: 29 Jul 05 - 11:07 AM The reality of some of 'his appointed designees' hiding some far less noble designs behind the now - all too regular exercise by some of them - of these rights - is the issue that we should face up to now. What a load of crap! Get it through your head, Shambles, that the clones are doing what Max WANTS them to do. If you doubt that, WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM??? You really should do something about that paranoia, mate! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Jul 05 - 11:06 AM ... And be prepared to take the necessary steps (whatever they may be) to understand and ensure that it is Max's true wishes that we respect. So, Shambles, YOU are finally going to contact Max and get his current word on all this? Please be sure to share it with us when you do. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 05 - 10:58 AM the practical difference is that as a private site posters have no right to free speech - and Max (or his appointed designees) have the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any content whatsoever. On a truly public site this is not so. In a practical sense - most posters (certainly long-term ones like me) would willingly respect that Max has these rights and recognise them as inherent but are grateful these rights have been traditionally held in reserve. These rights are not the issue. The reality of some of 'his appointed designees' hiding some far less noble designs behind the now - all too regular exercise by some of them - of these rights - is the issue that we should face up to now. For Max shows has shown respect over many years to the free speech and (many others aspects) of posters and the results of this mutual respect (worry and hard work) have made our forum the special place it just about struggles to remain. Max has historically reserved these rights and posters have (generally and) historically respected this. I only hope that Max will continue to struggle-on and continue to ensure that this mutual respect can continue on our forum. And be prepared to take the necessary steps (whatever they may be) to understand and ensure that it is Max's true wishes that we respect. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: kendall Date: 29 Jul 05 - 10:34 AM Some time ago I got into a pissing contest with another member, and eventually, Joe Offer said "Enough..." the other member had the last word, and I was irritated but I didn't make a federal case out of it. Fact is, it HAD gone far enough and Joe was right. "Men mature after they have exhausted all other options" |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 29 Jul 05 - 10:21 AM the practical difference is that as a private site posters have no right to free speech - and Max (or his appointed designees) have the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any content whatsoever. On a truly public site this is not so. I think you would agree that our forum has not become mine, yours or Joe Offer's? Agreed - noting that "our" in feference to the forum is more or less rhetorical - because it is and always has been Max's. Will you accept the fact that Max *has* set the rules as they are applied? Because I assure you - he has. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 05 - 10:05 AM correction - this is not a "public" discussion forum. it is a private discussion forum which happens to be frequented by the public. there is a big difference. And what exactly is that difference in practical terms? It is a part of Max's website that he has historically set aside for contributions welcomed from all of the public - with as few rules and restrictions placed upon them as possible. MMario - Whatever you may consider it - I think you would agree that our forum has not become mine, yours or Joe Offer's? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Yawn Date: 29 Jul 05 - 10:04 AM ...this needless imposition. It may inhibit any further contributions from the poster directly affected We should be so lucky...(sigh) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 29 Jul 05 - 09:46 AM correction - this is not a "public" discussion forum. it is a private discussion forum which happens to be frequented by the public. there is a big difference. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 29 Jul 05 - 09:45 AM I smell another 2000 posts, most of which will be the very epitome of redundancy. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 05 - 09:43 AM I feel the recently introduced process by which aspects appear to be 'decided' for us on our public discussion forum - are of as much concern as what these 'final' decisions turn out to be. These 'final' decisions and edicts - increasingly seem to follow very closly the personally expressed opinions of a certain long-term fellow poster of mine - whose views I once respected very much but which I always used to be able to feel free to post to disagree with. These 'final' decisions now seem to be concerned more with any possible problems presented to the volunteer role - rather than addressing the interests of all on our forum.....Perhaps there is another answer for anyone who may find the demands made upon them by this volunteer role to be too taxing? It has also been stated more than once that thread originators ARE informed or consulted when there is a reason to do so - but not every time, since that would be cumbersome. -Joe Offer- I have never found it too 'cumbersome' to send a PM. The reason for always asking the originator first - before any change is imposed upon their chosen thread title is pretty obvious and still thought to be a very good reason - to those who have posted to make the simple requested here. Which is that this convention be followed and this respect always be shown - by those who volunteer to help the rest of us - and not to rule over us.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 29 Jul 05 - 08:30 AM Roger: "I feel that we have now reached the stage when a lot of these questions are for the forum to publicly debate and decide now - rather than for one individual fellow poster to now feel qualified to judge what is best for the rest of us". By all means, let's debate; let people post their opinion here without fear of bullying or personal attacks. As for "deciding", however, let's also be clear that any decision by this forum has no power other than that of a reasoned suggestion, as it does not automatically constitute policy and cannot be imposed. Such a decision/suggestion may be ignored by the owner or operators of the forum, and that's simply the way it is. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Alix graaa parot Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:16 AM bi mean girl |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 28 Jul 05 - 10:50 PM Damn - Thought we'd headed this one off at the pass. I'm out of here. Byeeee... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 28 Jul 05 - 08:22 PM What harm was done by adding "UK" to the thread title in question? Harm was done is this needless imposition. It may inhibit any further contributions from the poster directly affected and other posters witnessing this treatment. There is nothing friendly or welcoming about the attitude displayed and defended here. But as has already been pointed out – the addition of UK in the context of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Government Minister responsible - is incorrect as their jurisdiction does not cover the UK. A point that would have been made by the thread's originator – had the anonymous volunteer taken the little time required to ask. The harm done by this imposed change is that a thread title (with the originator still credited with its creation) is now knowingly incorrect – leaving the originator open to accusations of misrepresentation from Scottish posters and of not being informed. Does it make the thread title more clear and a better index for our readers? In fact no – this title is now incorrect and the imposition was done on this thread title - in isolation. The rights of our readers matter no more than the rights of our posters – for we are one and the same and we all should be equally respected whether posting or reading. Does the need to preserve the sanctity of thread titles outweigh the need for clarity of indexing? Why? No - but why do our volunteers consider the need for clarity of their indexing outweighs the need for always showing the proper respect to all the contributors they are supposed to be helping on our forum - rather than imposing their judgment upon? What harm has ever been done by the editing done at Mudcat? When what is imposed is plainly seen NOT to be for the reasons stated and is seen to be unfair and inconsistent as well as needlessly impolite and selectively heavy-handed – the harm done to individuals and the whole forum - is immeasurable. The imposition of the change to the second thread's title the manner in which it undertaken – is a perfect example of this harm. For if I had been asked by Joe Offer (who could have easily asked in a PM) I would have willingly agreed to a change. If folk do not know the harm done by bullying (in all its forms) they probably never will. I feel that we have now reached the stage when a lot of these questions are for the forum to publicly debate and decide now - rather than for one individual fellow poster to now feel qualified to judge what is best for the rest of us. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 27 Jul 05 - 09:01 PM oh. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:59 PM Sorry jOhn - don't do domestic. (Ask Kendall) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:43 PM jacquic-Are you good at cooking and cleaning the house, and shopping etc? if so= if your husnand runs off, just let me knoew. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:53 PM oh. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jacqui.c Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:53 PM jOhn - if I wasn't married I'd propose to you. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:28 PM Shambles- you are a moany old fart. Qoute "As one who as suffered from this thread adding to name change etc" blar bklar blar! Shambles-you have NOT suffered becase of someone adding "UK" to your thread. people really ARE suffering now, ie little kids dying of cancer, african people starvingf etc, and loads of stuff like that. i reckon you have a decent house ie roof over your head etc, you probly got stuff like telly, video, dvd, computer etcetc, and plenty of food in the fridge. you dont know waht suffering is, and for you to say you have suffered beacase joe or sombody added uk to a thread you started is an insult to people that are suffering. if you want to know suffering, take a walk around your local childrens ward, [maybe you could volounteeer there, instead of starting moany threadss on mudcat]. most folk are happy here, if you dont like mudcat, why not fuck off, and make your own site. john |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:28 PM I'm imagining it right now, Pal. Oops I have to back up my data and go home. Byeeeeee |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jul 05 - 04:12 PM Harpy, perseveration could be caused due to physical injury, it could also be organic. I should have indicated that use of the term pathological, that is to say relating to or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive, was simply my opinion. And the "bite me" comment was meant in the biblical sense ..... nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 05 - 04:12 PM You may have missed the following – it was submitted as a editing comment – in order not to refresh the thread. It has also been stated more than once that thread originators ARE informed or consulted when there is a reason to do so. -Joe Offer- And this one. No, Spaw. Why close it? It's OK for Roger to have a place to express himself. If we close this thread, he'll start another with the same questions. I'd rather answer the questions once in a thread and then let the discussion continue. If he starts a new thread, then I feel obliged to give the same answers all over again, so he isn't able to convey the implication that our silence proves our guilt. -Joe Offer- Perhaps then – this thread can be re-opened? Censorship on Mudcat |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:45 PM WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE NOT ROUTINE - nor ever likely to become so. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:36 PM When you perfect these routine actions - your speed increases each time you practice until - it become automatic and un-thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:27 PM but at such a low frequency of occurance it is neither normal nor ordinary. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:26 PM "routine" would be "as a matter of course", "frequent". No - it means becoming the normal and ordinary way of doing something. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:19 PM Oh and Mickster, you don't have any licenses which qualify you to make this statement, so stick to organizing! "This person has a pathological need for validation" I don't think anyone who doesn't know Roger should presume to know his psychology. I just worry that he perseverates because of a head injury or something. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:18 PM No Roger - it is not routine - when the changes *may* be made on what ? One in a hundred? possibly (though I doubt it - probably much less occurance then that) "routine" would be "as a matter of course", "frequent". we currently have approximately 83,273 threads on the forum. Can you where even 1 tenth of 1% of those thread titles have been changed? Can you even come up with 1/1ooth of a percent of thread titles that you can show were changed without permission? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:09 PM Your own examples SHOW that it is not routine. It has been maintained by our volunteeers that thread titles shall be changed by them - if and when they wish for the reasons they may wish it - without the originator's knowledge or permission. If you do not consider that now as routine - if this intention is not re-thought to address the concerns expressed about it by posters in this thread - I suspect that this and many other things will become routine.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:54 PM I have also likened this routine imposed changing of originator's thread titles - to a library changing the titles of its books without the author's knowledge or permission - in order to clarify them for purposes of indexing. I am sure that authors who have struggled over their titles would offer no objection to such a practice....Even though this may later make it quite difficult to locate their own book.... there you go! An example Roger! You have already been informed, publicly, that a) changing of thread titles is not routine. You insist on continueing to refer to it as routine. Your own examples SHOW that it is not routine. B) that except for extremely exceptional circumstances thread titles are only modified by additions, spelling corrections, etc. This will neither prevent finding the title, nor will it make finding the title more difficult. The length of thread title has already been thrashed out - yet you bring it up again. Only two people have the ability to change that feature - Max and Jeff. They choose not to - at least at this time. Max is the site owner. This is his right. Jeff is his programmer and to the best of my knowledge only makes changes at Max's request. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:44 PM One of the aspects of creating thread titles that has been discovered - is that our volunteers with edit buttons have more characters available to them than other posters. Not itself perhaps a big thing especially perhaps to those who poccess this ability. But possibly a bigger thing for those who do not who may feel themselves to be a lesser poster for lacking in this respect? But for a lesser poster to have their thread title publicly judged as wanting and a change imposed upon this without your knowedge or permission is perhaps a bigger thing? Perhaps if us lesser posters (in this factual respect) had the same number of characters available - we to may be able to provide a title that would not need to be 'clarified' with or without our knowledge or permission? I have some months ago - publicly asked if the same number of characters as are available to our volunteers for thread titles - could be made available to us non-volunteers - but this was not thought (by our volunteers) to be necessary. I have also likened this routine imposed changing of originator's thread titles - to a library changing the titles of its books without the author's knowledge or permission - in order to clarify them for purposes of indexing. I am sure that authors who have struggled over their titles would offer no objection to such a practice....Even though this may later make it quite difficult to locate their own book.... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:31 PM Roger - I can, I have, and you have ignored. BTW- *YOU* have labeled people as "lessor posters". I doubt any of the volunteers considers there to be such a catagory. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:25 PM Roger does not only point out wrongs. He fabricates them. Over and over and over again. I call him on it, just as you call people on things you believe are wrong. Period. No meaness about it. If that were true and you could supply any evidence to support such a wide and wild claim - it would not excuse or justify the sort of response that this poster has come to expect as normal - from those who should really be setting the example for other (lesser posters) to follow. This is not about the treatment that I see I continue to receive - seemingly because I am thought by those that really matter to somehow deserve it. It is trying to ensure that others do not also receive treatment they do not deserve from those who should know better and are inhibited from posting as a result. A simple request was made here for more respect to shown to contributors by our vonunteers. it was ignored by most but supported by some - yet nothing changes - except the rudeness and general intolerence (from some who should know better) is encouraged. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:22 PM gee harpy, how do you know there isn't any manual? Nor does there have to be a manual in order for there to be an editing policy. Roger does not only point out wrongs. He fabricates them. Over and over and over again. I call him on it, just as you call people on things you believe are wrong. Period. No meaness about it. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:18 PM Oh please Mario, where is "the editing policy" manual. There isn't one. Pointing out a wrong is okay. These problems wouldn't exist if they're were clear rules, policies, or structure that helped people get along. Max doesn't want to make changes that will solve many of these problems. That is his right, but don't pretend that being mean to roger is right. It isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 05 - 11:22 AM I also think bullying is "picking on" someone over and over about something. That person may set themselves up as a victim but to blame him for your response to him is blaming the victim. Solve the problem children. Don't keep saying mean things about Roger. Rogoer repeatedly makes inaccurate and misleading stements regarding joe, the clones, and editing policy. this is suppossed to be ignored because pointing out that he is wrong is "bullying"? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Jul 05 - 11:21 AM harp, I stand by my statement that I think the clones keep their feelings separate from their editing actions. They do have feelings about being repeatedly attacked, and I can't blame them for venting them. I gave up bushel baskets a long time ago, thank you very much. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 27 Jul 05 - 11:16 AM Susan, you've got to be living under a bushelbasket to believe this when it comes to Shambles repetitive complaints: "they are very good at keeping their personal thoughts about stuff separate from their loyalty to the job they have been given to do." I don't think the clones should change anything unless the poster requests it, in the BS section. Stay out of it. Editing buttons were meant for music. Or if the offended person requests it, first he or she must ask the poster. Half the time, people take offense over stuff other people don't mean to give offense about. If they sign their name they should be able to communicate with the one they are pissed about. If they don't sign their name too bad. If Max wanted to eliminate the ability to speak up anonymously, he would eliminate it. Cloneheads were instituted because Max doesn't have to time to edit. Not because they were meant to be moral arbiters, or inherently more capable of being moral arbiters, including Father Joebro. He's just an ordinary man with as much pettiness in him as the rest of us. Or should I say as much "devil." Bert is the only one of the signers on this thread to show Shambles any reasonable support or look for a solution. They rest of you are part of the problem since you aren't part of the solution. My opinion, which I am entitled to. I also think bullying is "picking on" someone over and over about something. That person may set themselves up as a victim but to blame him for your response to him is blaming the victim. Solve the problem children. Don't keep saying mean things about Roger. And if anyone accuses me of bullying Lepus, I will agree. And if Lepus wants a personal or public apology for anything I said that was UNTRUE, he will get it. But he hasn't ever asked me. so there l,h |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:49 AM Hey Mickster, I liked the "bite me". That I can relate to! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:19 AM It seems to be generally recognised that this is a public dicussion form - set up on Max's website - so perhaps we can have an open public discussion...and not a battle. No answers have been given - just the views of individual posters. This is just a thread - like any other on our forum with no reason for it to be closed. Especially after all the volunteer's time and effort required to impose a change or if your prefer - to clarify this thread's title. Some poster have stated that perhaps thread titles should be left as posted and that any proposed change be notified first as a matter of common decency. I suggest that this remains their view - it remains mine. Are these the views from these posters on our forum not to be considered and to be thought as valid and to be as everyone elses's? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Bert Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:47 AM YAAAAH! I said "I have found a real need to add location information to ANY thread title" what I meant was "I have NEVER found a real need to add location information to ANY thread title" Ah well these things happen. Susan, I think you're talking about me, If so that's fine, you are such a good friend that you can mention my name without me getting offended. And you're right, I am not here all the time, and I certainly have not read all of Shambles postings, or anyone else's for that matter. It is highly likely that I have missed those things that seem to have got ereryone up in arms about this. But that is not the issue. The issue is that Shambles has had threads and postings edited and deleted. It appears to me that there is a personal vendetta going on between Roger and Joe. And so I will ask Joe, and Joe only 'cos he's a good friend too. Please leave Shambles alone. Just let things rest and as Susan says "take a breath". Thedn I'm sure things will quieten down because Roger will not escalate the issue if he is left alone. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:00 PM Why not just close this thread now Joe? Any reason for it's existence is over. Shambles had some questions that have been answered and although he doesn't care for the answers, they have been given. Anything further has to come from Max and it has been suggested repeatedly to Roger that he take it to Max. He refuses to do so I guess and states that Max can read it here just like the rest of us and since he's had plenty of time to do so and can access any thread anytime, Max seems to have nothing to say on the matter and as kat noted, she has not been called down on anything she's done. And of course Shamble's constant harping on about anonymity is classic and shows how little experience he has. Moderators are almost always unknown on larger boards. Nothing new or sinister in that. Looks to me like it's a wrap. Other forums would have closed this thing ages ago. Luckily for all of us Mudcat isn't other forums but is a bit unique in what is allowed and the freedom it gives it's members. However, letting this go on does nothing to enhance anything about the 'Cat or profit members in any way. We can of course wait in anticipation of Shamble's copy and paste posts. THey've all been explained and discussed before ad infinitums. Just close it Joe. Anyplace else would have done it long before now. Spaw
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:33 PM Of course, if anyone dares to disagree with Shambles, it's labeled "abuse." Heck, if I say anything in disagreement with anybody, no matter how politely and logically, I get accused of all sorts of horrible things. I guess some people think I'm not allowed to express my opinion here. Such is life. Some following examples of the double standard that is making this forum look foolish and oppressive. You judge........... Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it. Bob, I'm sorry this happened. Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen. But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:50 AM Of course, if anyone dares to disagree with Shambles, it's labeled "abuse." Heck, if I say anything in disagreement with anybody, no matter how politely and logically, I get accused of all sorts of horrible things. I guess some people think I'm not allowed to express my opinion here. Such is life. I was certainly aware that adding the tag (thread title change complaint) to the title of this thread, would be viewed by some as an act of defiance against the rules Shambles seeks to impose upon us. Still, the title In the UK... had no meaning at all, and our general principle is to ensure threads have titles that indicate the contents of the thread. So, I changed the thread title. I can't say I felt really horribly guilty about defying Shambles in that way, but the fact of the matter is that the thread title change follows our general principles. Before we had the ability to change thread titles, we had scads of messages in every misleadingly-titled thread, preaching to the originator on how a thread should be titled, and urging him to start another thread with a proper title. Now, if a thread title doesn't adequately describe the contents, we just simply change it. No big deal. We've always operated under the principle that threads are a product of the community, not of the thread originator. We have allowed thread originators to control the content of threads only in certain designated PermaThreads. Otherwise, thread originators generally have no control over what people may or may not say in subsequent messages. Each individual has more-or-less complete control over the contents of his or her individual message, but not over the entire thread. Therefore, it would seem to follow logically that the thread title should reflect the needs of the community that produced the thread, not only of the thread originator. If the thread originator controls the thread then it follows that he/she should control the thread title and should be consulted about any title change. That's not the case here, so I see no need to ask permission of the thread originator for a title clarification. Please note, however, that thread originators ARE contacted if there is any reason to think that a thread title change would make it difficult for the originator to find the thread. So, I guess it boils down to this: Shambles thinks it's an offense against the thread originator to change a thread title, so changes should be made only with the thread originator's permission. We think otherwise, but we do make attempts to contact the thread originator in certain situations when we think it's necessary. I think that's an indication that we've met Shambles halfway. That seems fair to me - I see no need for total compliance to his rules, but we have made an effort to honor his concerns. As for Bert's question about location designators, we usually add location tags for threads on gigs/tours/festivals where the location is not obvious, and on items for sale where international shipping might present a problem. Although the thread in question does not fall into either category, the location addition made sense. We usually try to follow the rules of common sense, not some lengthy legalistic guidebook. Our general guiding principle in thread title renaming is clarity. We have other people who scream at us because we allow naughty words in thread titles, but propriety has not generally been a major concern in our editing - that gets a little too close to censorship. -Joe Offer-
|
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: freda underhill Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:27 AM Being in any sort of group of people means having to give up control. even those who seem to be in control are not in control. If you accept that there are things you can't control in life, or in Mudcat, you're halfway there. its called surrender. Strangely, by giving up on the thing you really want (control) you get peace. or at least everyone else might. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: s&r Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:21 AM When I edit copy I use the convention i was taught - editor's comments are put in [square brackets] Stu |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Big Mick Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:17 AM The poster who referred to folks as bullies is one who, for years, is fine as long as one agrees with her. She seems to think that it is bullying to have strong opinions. Having said that, I still consider her a longstanding cyberfriend, kind of like someone who is so close that they can criticize, be criticized, fight with, but in the end it still works out. So bite me, Harpy. Just because I am a clone does not mean I can't have strong opinions. And I have never edited anyone's remarks other than personal attacks being deleted, per policy. And I won't delete personal attacks on me. I leave that call to others. My opinions about Roger and his incessant trolling for attention are well known, never veiled, and based on reasons that IMO are solid. But it is just my opinion, after all. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:06 AM I'd just like to add one thing to Kat's post. She and I don't always get along. That has never, ever interfered with a request I've made, or how she's handled it. I can say the same about Joe Offer. These and other expriences lead me to the conclusion that our wonderful site volunteers have excellent personal boundaries-- they are very good at keeping their personal thoughts about stuff separate from their loyalty to the job they have been given to do. Now, I've seen some strong opinions expressed here from a few people who have, at various times, been absent from this community. You know who you are. I'd like to ask that you take a breath and think about some of the people who are disagreeing with you, who are people you also respect. I'd ask you to consider whether maybe they have had an experience with Shambles that you may not fully share or comprehend, because you weren't here. I'd also ask folks to consider that some people posting here have been pushed to the wall, on both "sides," over and over again. D'ya think maybe the posts tend to reflect the reaction about how that feels, and that they may actually think and feel differently later? Once they have had quiet time to reflect? Could we not allow for everyone to take a breath? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 26 Jul 05 - 10:50 AM khandu, my first post to this thread, within the first twenty: It's fairly common to ADD to a title if it helps to clarify. People on dial-up, at work, etc., often don't have a lot of time to "surf", so a quick scan of the titles helps them as to which threads they'd like to open. I don't agree with Shambles. I did not side-step the issue, nor did I attack him. I think it would be good for folks to recall the way it was before Max implemented the BIG change in the way the threads ran years ago. No automatic line breaks, no preview, no automatic help with blue clickies, and no easy way for anyone but Max, Jeff, or Joe to clarify thread titles or fix typos, etc. in postings. Max asked a few of us if we'd help out by watching for such things, as well as duplicate postings. I was honoured to be asked and I believe I have done a good job. Max must, too, as he's never called me to task. This kind of constant carping by one individual who has been notorious for this kind of behaviour for years, makes me think "why the fuck bother?" Esp. when another member whom I usually respect and get along with, calls me a bully. I am a joe clone and I am OPEN about it. Many people PM me asking for help in changing their postings, adding blue clickies, and adding or changing their thread titles. To them, I say "thank you." Otherwise, right now, I say "fuck it." Being a joe clone involves volunteering; there's no malice, no vendetta, no mountain. I give careful consideration to anything I do as a joe clone, as do the others. Anyone, including Shambles, who has a problem with a clone should take it to Max. This has been repeated and repeated, yet Shambles does not address that issue. Roger, take it to Max. kat |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Wolfgang Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:25 AM It is your preference that other poster's preferences are ignored and subject to needless impostion... (Shambles) Shambles, it is my very strong preference that you may refrain from posting your comments into your paraphrasing of what you think my thoughts are. You're welcome to criticise my thoughts and preferences and you're also welcome to to say that my preferences lead in your eyes to 'needless impostion'. But your addition of 'needless' is a comment within a paraphrase. I have stated my preference very clearly and I do not need you to restate it in your own words in a deliberate attempt to make my preference look stupid. If you want to restate what you think my preference is to make clear to which understanding you respond that's fine. If you want to comment that's fine too. But when you talk to or about me do not make your frequent mistake of not separating between statement of fact and comment. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Bert Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:29 PM Thanks for your reply Joe. The problem is of course not just that particular thread. It has been an ongoing issue that is very sensitive to Shambles. The way I see it is that if a Mudcatter FEELS that he/she has been dealt with unfairly then it is an issue that we must address. And first we must come down firmly on the side of the member (or guest) who feels that they have been slighted. I know that Joe is doing his very best for Mudcat but I think that changes to threads and titles should be only made in a consistent manner. When only 25% of threads have location information then that is not consistent and any poster who has this information added to his/her thread title could rightly assume that they are being singled out. Let's decide if threads should have location information in their titles and then put that information in ALL threads or let us clones keep our fingers to ourselves and leave well enough alone. In several years of having had the ability to edit threads, I have found a real need to add location information to ANY thread title. Bert (on Kelly's computer) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: khandu Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:00 PM I will admit that I have no idea what it is like being a Mudelf, JoeClone or any of those who have editing powers, by whatever name you choose to call them. I am just a common member of Mudcat who ocassionally makes worthwhile posts and who often makes inane posts. I can speak only from this side of the fence. Here is what I see. Apparently, The Shambles irritates the hell out of many of you. You (from what you have said) seem to see him as a whining, complaining, redundant asswhole. A nit-picking, mountain-making swine that you would prefer to either shut up or go away. It appears, that whenever The Shambles creates a thread of complaint, it is met with a dismissive/offensive attitude. Maybe he is all these things and more. I do not know, because The Shambles and have had very little interchange in the years I have been here. Go back & look at his opening post on this thread. Now look at the first twenty posts of those who responded to him. How many actually dealt with the issue he voiced in the opening? Only those who agreed with him; the rest were either side-steps or personal insults. I, for one and for what it's worth, agree with The Shambles on this issue. I have enjoyed Joe Offer. He has held my respect for the years I have been here. But on this, I totally disagree. And, Joe, though you said "I changed the title of this thread to In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) The purpose of this change was to give readers the freedom to know what was inside the thread without having to open it. In other words, it was done for the sake of clarity., it really appeared to me that the purpose was more to show contempt to The Shambles. It seemed mean-spirited. Joe said "...Adding "UK" to the thread title eliminated that confusion, and certainly did no harm to the thread originator or his intentions. Adding (thread title change complaint) to this thread did no harm to the originator, either. Sending a PM to the originator prior to adding "UK" would have done no harm to anyone, either. Though I will probably fall into the disfavor of some, that is my honest view point on this. I will say no more about it. Ken |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: RobbieWilson Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:23 PM May I start off by thanking whoever took the time and trouble to clarify both this and the PEL thread title for my benefit. The sheer waste of time that is this thread is the clearest possible illustration of why simple, sensible, beneficial to us clarifications should be carried out rather than discussed. If the clones were to waste indulging the self obssessed lack of perspective represented here then nothing would ever get done. An explanatory pm might be a little more polite but would I suspect have still resulted in the same unreal complaint about enforced censorship. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:46 PM Hey Harpgirl, what we need is another in your "hey max" series to establish whether or not Joe et all are working under Mudcat guidelines. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: harpgirl Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:31 PM Another relevant question, what harm has ever been done by protesting the action of a clone? Predictable: Roger complains about someone screwing around with his post and kat, catspaw, Mick, Jacqui, MMario and Joe Offer verbally abuse him. Let's see, did I miss any of our biggest bullies? |
|
Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:41 PM Well, Bert, we try to use common sense in our editing. If a location designator seems be need to help a thread make sense, we add it. Most of the time, there's no need for it. In this case, "minister" means government official in the UK, and a religious functionary in the US, so the title was confusing. Adding "UK" to the thread title eliminated that confusion, and certainly did no harm to the thread originator or his intentions. Adding (thread title change complaint) to this thread did no harm to the originator, either - and it allows readers to know what they will be reading without having to open a hundred-message thread. Yes, certainly there are times when it makes sense and is relevant to a discussion to post a copy of a message you've posted before. But if you post a lengthy diatribe and copy-paste it into two other threads at the same time just so it gets noticed, that's more like Spam - and Shambles has had a few of those duplicate messages deleted. So, yeah, if a reasonable person would think that the duplicate messages are accidental duplicates or that they're posted for the purpose of flooding Mudcat with the same information, we're likely to delete the duplicates. You can get all legalistic about it and draw everything out to the point of ridiculousness, but there seems to be no need for that. We edit, sparingly, when it seems to make sense. In all of the cases Shambles complains about, there's little evidence that our editing has done any harm. He's very good at making mountains out of molehills. Most of this stuff is just no big deal. I think the relevant questions here are these:
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Bert Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:24 PM Joe, right now, I looked at the first twenty threads, only five of them give any indication of origin. So if clarity is REALLY the issue then you'd better get busy on the other fifteen. You say "that messages from Shambles have never been changed." That statement conflicts with other information that I have received. It is my belief that Shambles has had some of his postings deleted. You also say "Duplicate messages are routinely deleted. It just isn't fair to post the same message in several threads." That is just not true. Many times I have copied a message of mine into anther thread where I deemed it a relevant contribution to that thread. For such a posting to be arbitrarily deleted would be wrong and unethical on the part of the deleter. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:14 PM I doubt that |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:10 PM Years ago, a (later) brother in law of mine and his girlfriend who were battling over everything both trivial and profound decided to get married- so that they at least would no longer have that to fight about. What would you do, Roger, if this issue were settled to your satisfaction? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:07 PM Promise ! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:58 PM Sigh I rest my case. |
|
Subject: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:55 PM I changed the title of this thread to
In response to Bert's comments, let me say that messages from Shambles have never been changed. Thread titles and duplicate messages are another matter. Thread titles are an index to our threads, and are routinely changed when clarity is lacking. If at all posssible, we add a clarifying tag or parenthetical statement to the thread title, and avoid changing the essence of the thread title. We are well aware that Shambles believes that thread titles should only be changed after consultation and such, and we respectfully disagree because that process is comubersome and most people just don't seem to think it's a really big deal. I think it's safe to say that it's a matter of opinion, one that will never be resolved. Such is life. In the thread in question, the title was originally Minister say's jamming OK. For the sake of clarity, one of our volunteers changed to thitle to Minister say's jamming OK in UK. I suppose I would have changed it to (UK) Minister says jamming OK, but that's neither here nor there. In the end, it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of difference, but the UK designation does make it a bit more clear. We also routinely change thread titles that are ALLCAPS. We routinely add dates to obituary threads, and we move non-music threads to the non-music section - usually without renaming them. it's just normal housekeeping, nothing that should make much difference to most people - so it seems silly to go through some lengthy approval process. Duplicate messages are routinely deleted. It just isn't fair to post the same message in several threads. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: MMario Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:35 PM Silence is an answer. You don't wish to accept it. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:17 PM It seems to be generally recognised that this is a public dicussion form - set up on Max's website - so perhaps we can have an open public discussion...and not a battle. However, it also seems to be overlooked (by some) that Max is perfectly able to read everything that appears on this forum - along with the rest of us. So any post to the forum is at the same time a post to Max - who can respond - publicly or privately - to what is posted here - - if and when he chooses to. It is my view that anonymously imposed judgement as a matter of routine - upon fellow posters - has no real place on our open public forum. And that whatever the original intentions were of this increase in their number - (and I am sure they were good) - the move of the role over time - from well-meaning helpers to anonymous volunteer judges imposing changes on the contributions of their fellow posters - as a matter now of routine - is not a good move. Its present form has nothing to do with the thinking that has created what many folk fondly think of as the spirit of The Mudcat, where all have traditionally been welcome to contribute equally. Being anonymous prevents a well-intentioned volunteer from defending their actions if they are thought to be or are accused of acting improperly. And secrecy when there is no real need for any - just creates paranoia. For defenders of this secrecy to accuse some posters of being paranoid - is I feel a rather poor joke - in the climate this secrecy and division needlessly creates. I post my opinions about this publicly. I do this as I think that there is not much that cannot be a subject for open discussion on our forum (if it moderatly expressed). I also stress the word volunteer. I do this intentionly as I feel that IF the current anonymous recruits volunteered to be known (and join their upfront fellows) or volunteered not to be anononymous volunteers - this problem at least would be solved. For as has already been pointed out - a simple personal message to the thread title's originator - from a volunteer about any proposed change - would have prevented this controversy. However, it is not possible for a anonymous volunteer to send a personal message - and remain anonymous........ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:52 PM Bertdarlin'...I've been here for over seven years and I DO remember people asking for just this kind of thing for clarification...less confusion. I think we are all adult enough to NOT be divided by such a simple thing. We have enough REAL LIFE contact through get-togethers that we wouldn't let a little thing such as location keep us apart. You and I certainly didn't let it get in the way, now did we? luvyakat |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:20 PM Spaw, No this is not the dumbest yet. It is a reaction to the treatment that he has received on this website. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:18 PM Mick, "I swear we will never learn. This person has a pathological need for validation" No, he has a valid reason for being touchy about his postings being edited and sometimes deleted. So would you be if it had happened to you. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:14 PM Katdarlin' you said "Bert, if you know which "elf" it was, why don't you discuss it with them by PM?". Well, I said my piece in my post above. He knows who he is. I have long suspected a little over enthusiasm in his editing. But when it comes down to singling out one member for particular attention then it's time for him to stop and think and maybe cool it down a little. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:03 PM No Jerimeluv, I didn't take Shambles side without question. Firstly I have the right to my own opinion regarding this issue. "Either leave things as they are or add place of origin to ALL Mudcat postings." Willy nilly adding origins to a few threads only doesn't appear top me to be a good solution to the imagined problem. And it is an imagined problem, we have been doing fine for years without adding origins to threads. If we do start adding origins I see the posibility of Mudcat being divided along national lines. This is something I would not like to see. Secondly I have exchanged pm's with Shambles about his postings being subject of unnecessary editing and removal. So I can also see why he is a little sensitive about his thread being changed. If we had received the same treatment that Shambles has then we all would be up in arms about the problem and would come down firmly on his side. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:01 PM A simple PM could have made a big difference and possibly prevented this whole controversy. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:00 AM Aw gee Mick....He's so good at copy and paste!! And I can hardly wait for that 6 year old off-the-wall comment by Max to resurface. I think my last post should do it. But you're right. He gets these things going and has a great time diggin' the attention. At this point though the problem is still that we are all so verbal that it's nigh ass impossible to shut up and he knows it. Tat's why the thread removal works so well at the other site! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Big Mick Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:48 AM I swear we will never learn. This person has a pathological need for validation. He knows all he needs to do is start one of these and he will get it. And you all will act as though you are going to help this poor deluded man to finally "get it". Trouble is, he doesn't want to "get it" because then he wouldn't get the attention here that he can't get elsewhere. I look forward to this pointless thread reaching 1000+ posts, with 40% or more coming from Shambles. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:17 AM Ah yes Roger.....I knew that would get you! Now if those same rules were used here, I would be playing by them here as well. Take your complaints about me here to Max.......and while you're there get an answer to your other questions as well and hopefully that will put an end to these silly threads. Or do you lack the cajones to do that? Are you afraid that a definitive answer will possibly rule against you? C'mon now Shambles.......Write to Max and see what he has to say. It makes a lot more sense than these threads do. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: jacqui.c Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:05 AM I, personally, know four of the clones. None of them are compainers/troublemakers. In fact, all four are very popular and well liked and respected on this forum. Get your facts straight GUEST 8.47. BTW, are you scared to post under your Mudcat identity? Frightened that people might not like you if you did? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:47 AM I think it was some clone's passive aggressive touch. Why would anyone edit one of Shambles posts except to stir up trouble? Everyone who has been around here a long time knows that the clones were chosen because they were the biggest complainers/troublemakers on the board. The owner just wanted to shut them up. They certainly don't have any more integrity, intelligence, or morality than anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:42 AM I think this is an over reaction which could have been avoided by a one line pm sent to the originator. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:35 AM Aw c'mon - a very sensible addendum to a title and we get all this? I've been deleted in the past (not often), and while there may be some issues there, by and large we have a good forum with a light touch here. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:33 AM 100 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:33 AM I belong to one such forum and the place works quite well. People are friendly and discussion is excellent. We all play by the rules and when someone doesn't, it is dealt with immediately. *Smiles* You also are a member of our forum - and as the sample of your posts in this thread alone demonstrate - you have hardly ever failed to post abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material. Sadly such material posted here by you on a pretty regular basis - will be not only tolerated by our anonymous volunteers but even thought to be worthy of praise and to be humourous - as long as it is directed at what is thought to be some easy target. The very last thing our forum needs is any more imposed rules for you to ignore. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: jacqui.c Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:25 AM GUEST 8.10. I and the others you have mentioned have minds of our own and no need to 'schmooz' anyone. For myself, if others don't like me for what I am that is their loss not mine. I grew out of that need many years ago. I just get tired of the whining and moaning coming from the same few people about how this FREE site is moderated. And I have never posted anonymously. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:10 AM Another example of the mudcat brethren schmoozing the people they want to like them and dumping on the ones they choose as scapegoats. It's pretty sickening to watch! Mario why don't you go back to your knitting? You're the worst on this thread, along with Jacqui C. and katlaughing. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:46 AM THANK YEW, SPAW!! Roger, if we are upfront, then we ARE known to fellow members. You are, as usual, making a lot of paranoid assumptions. I wish Max WOULD use something like Spaw posted. It'd make the clone job a lot easier and less murky. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:20 AM Where do I sign? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: jacqui.c Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:20 AM Well put 'Spaw. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:54 AM Roger, I would once again suggest you contact Max regarding your issues here. I would also suggest you read the following paragraph and consider it is used on most other message boards and forums of Mudcat's size and larger. Highlights are mine but read this and consider that it is what we could be using here. It would simplify all matters. We are fortunate that Max has not made the decision to go this route but try to believe me when I tell you that the possibility does exist. Threads like this one are immediately removed from these forums and anything which the UNKNOWN moderators and admin people decide to remove is done so with no notice given and no questions asked. "You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to REMOVE, EDIT, MOVE, or CLOSE ANY TOPIC at any time should they see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised." I belong to one such forum and the place works quite well. People are friendly and discussion is excellent. We all play by the rules and when someone doesn't, it is dealt with immediately. A thread like this one wanting to discuss policy is immediately removed. Try to think it through and see if you can't live with the minor nitpicks which you insist on championing. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:17 AM No - the reference here was only to volunteer/clones/recruits who feel qualified to impose their judgement upon the fellow poster - but wish (and are permitted) to remain anonymous. I suggest that it would however be a litle foolish to consider that - given the history of the 'guest' prefix on our forum - that any anonymous posting is ever to be thought as generally acceptable by the majority of posters - who are always prepared to be known and stand by their actions. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Peace Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:16 AM That would mean no more guest posts. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:13 AM If you did your research, Roger, you'd find that MANY of the clones, including me, have been upfront about who we are from the get-go. But, of course, that wouldn't support your argument, would it, so why bother. Only if it serves your convoluted minutiae. Rather than having to research such things - perhaps then it would lift things a little if the names of those who are upfront were known to their fellow posters? Those who have no problem with being known - will have no reason not to send a PM to ask the originator's permission before any proposed change to a thread title. Those who choose to remain anonymous - will NOT be able to do this and remain anonymous. They will have to rely on those (like yourself)who are prepared to be known - to speak for them. Perhaps in future - those who are still NOT prepared to be known and to stand by their actions - should NOT be able to impose their judgement upon the rest of their fellow posters who are prepared to be known and to stand by their actions? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:43 PM If you did your research, Roger, you'd find that MANY of the clones, including me, have been upfront about who we are from the get-go. But, of course, that wouldn't support your argument, would it, so why bother. Only if it serves your convoluted minutiae. I suppose if you didn't like the way a garment you'd donated to charity was hung on a hangar, you'd want to complain to THE anonymous volunteer who dared to drape it in the wrong way, instead of the public manager. Arse-backward...imo. A while back someone suggested you be made a joe clone. There may be some sweet irony/justice in that. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:37 PM 87 posts to an idiotic thread. What a frigging waste of bandwidth! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:19 PM A simple PM could have made a big difference and possibly prevented this whole controversy. I entirely agree with this point but the issue still rather turns on the factor of our volunteers wishing to be and permitted to be anonymous. For it would hardly be possible for an anonymous volunteer to remain anonymous - if they sent a PM to the thread's orgriginator. I really cannot have any personal squabble with someone whose identity remains unknown to me - but does anyone really consider that the anonymous volunteer who insisted is so quickly imposing this particular change to this thread title - was entirely unaware that their action may cause controversy? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: khandu Date: 24 Jul 05 - 04:07 PM The discussion is not about whether it was a "sensible" change. The change was made without any discussion with the originator. A simple PM could have made a big difference and possibly prevented this whole controversy. k |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:20 PM It seems a rather sensible change to me. Indeed all threads that concern law or social norms might benefit from clarity about jurisdiction, and certainly offers of a kitten too. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,615 Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:02 PM Have you tried contacting Max directly about these issues Roger ? Did you get any response ? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Jul 05 - 02:37 PM Mudelf, I guess you wanted to transfer one of the other three 'In the UK' threads up to here and not this one. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:35 PM IT WAS NOT CHANGED NOR CENSORED! IT WAS ADDED TO!!! Whatever the CHANGE was - to the original thread title - the point is that the CHANGE was imposed by some anonymous fellow poster - without the named originator's knowledge or permission. For a start - it seems pretty obvious that the respectful thing to do to any contribution invited by Max to the public discussion forum on his website - would be for any third party (no matter how well-intentioned) to either leave the thread title as posted or contact the originator and ask them for their thoughts on any proposed change. Perhaps we can leave all of the other issues aside - and just concentrate on the reasons why it is so difficult for our anonymous volunteers to (or try to) consult the originator privately if any change is thought necessary to the thread title and why our anonymous volunteers consider that such changes always need to be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission? Is this really too much to ask - when our volunteers now seem expect that any concern from us should be sent in a personal message to them (or to Max)? Mutual respect online - and the attempt to reflect the poster's wishes - has been I think a quality that our forum has been a fine example of. If this mutual respect is to be retained - and our (currently anonymous) volunteers wish to be appreciated and respected by all for their efforts - perhaps some more respect needs to be shown by them to all of the rest of the forum's contributors (whatever the volunteers personal feelings may be towards individual posters)? A good start would be to perhaps present these fellow posters with a choice now of continuing to be a volunteer but NOT continuing to remain anonymous. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,khandu Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:26 AM Yes, I agree, Spaw; it is apples and oranges. The "apple" was my example of the thread deletion, the "orange" is The Shambles' title change. But this can fall under "fruit" , the editing of threads. I do understand the "clarification changes to make things easier". Personally, I would have no objection to clarification being added to my titles. I think a simple act of respect (prior notice via PM) from the editor is not beyond reason. I am aware of The Shambles' "long running vendetta against Joe and the Clones" to which The Shambles' could respond, saying it is "long running vendetta against The Shambles' by Joe and the Clones". In my opinion, there have been many threads that had/have titles that could be made clearer that have gone unedited. I have seen some (Other that Roger's) that have been "Clarified", but it does seem that Roger's posts draw more attention from the editors. I am not a part of this "vendetta", whichever way it comes, nor will I be. I maintain what I said earlier "Simple decency goes a long way". A PM, prior to editing, is simple decency. ken |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:17 AM READ MY LIPS, FOLKS: IT WAS NOT CHANGED NOR CENSORED! IT WAS ADDED TO!!! NO censorship or Shambles wouldn't still be posting. Roger, as to none of us giving a damn in the US. If you google my name, one of the first things that comes up is my posting of support for your "cause" to a site in England for which you had provided a link. If you look back at the original thread on PEL, you will find many US folks posted support and interest. I do NOT have any vendetta against you...for heaven's sake you are the only other person I know with whom I share an exact birthdate! I love your songs and have said so many times. As a joe clone I do not have the time nor energy or desire to sit here, hunkered down with malice aforethought looking for ways to "get you" or anyone else. Good grief! kat - "recruited" joe clone |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,Yawn Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:09 AM Of course he hasn't, Spaw. He doesn't want to do that because he knows what Max would say - and then he couldn't justify his whinge to us about Joe and the clones. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:52 AM It's apples and oranges Ken. Jeff was dealing with a serious problem with a troll and trying his best to rid the place of the troll without any more ruckus than necessary. This is about simple clarification changes to make things easier. Actually what this is about is Shambles' long running vendetta against Joe and the Clones....simple as that. Once again I would ask him this: SHAMBLES.....HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS WITH MAX? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,khandu Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM I am with The Shambles on this one. A couple of years back, I created a thread regarding a certain troll. Within moments, Pene Azul pmed me and explained that he believed this thread would probably do far more harm than good and requested permission to delete it. Certainly, he could have deleted it without bothering to ask. But Jeff showed more class than that. The simple act of contacting me beforehand made all the difference in the world. I told him to delete it and I felt rather good about it all. Had he or anyone else deleted it without contact, I would have been pissed and would have posted a grumbling thread about it. Simple decency goes a long way. Change my thread titles? Sure, if you believe there is a good reason. But show some civility and respect to the creator of the thread by sending a simple PM. khandu |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:10 AM Congratulations Roger! A new low!!! This is the dumbest fuckin' shit yet! A simple matter of clarification which hurts no one is now your reason for being! Actually it's just another diatribe about Joe and the Clones (who ARE NOT to the best of my knowledge volunteers....they were all recruited). I gotta' tell ya' that almost any other forum I know of would have flushed this entire thread by this point. Be thankful this joint is as open and laid back as it is and quit harping on these nonsensical non-problems. So listen.......I was considering starting a thread to discuss your penis and testicles and I don't want to have any problems with the title so should it be Shambles' Cock & Balls or Shambles' Dick and Nuts? I'm also wondering if I need to tag on Worldwide to get the most response or to get the responses by area and in that case start three threads or maybe 6. Maybe I'll just title it: Shambles; Pathetic Broke-Dick Mamalucca, Anywhere and AnytineSpaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: JennyO Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:48 AM Nice one Shambles. I like the sentiments! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:43 AM A Song For Mudcatters. Just another singer With just another guitar It don't matter what you want to be It only matters who you are I look forward to that day And I hope it won't be long When we all get to sing the same song We can sing it it high and we can sing it low We can sing it fast and we can sing it slow I look forward to that day And I hope it won't be long When we all get to sing the same song We come from many countries We are both old and young We may all come from many faiths But the singing makes us one I look forward to that day And I hope it won't be long When we all get to sing the same song We can sing it it high and we can sing it low We can sing it fast and we can sing it slow I look forward to that day And I hope it won't be long When we all get to sing the same song We have different views That's the way it'll always be It don't matter who's right or wrong We'll just agree to disagree I look forward to that day And I hope it won't be long When we all get to sing the same song We can sing it it high and we can sing it low We can sing it fast and we can sing it slow I look forward to that day And I hope it won't be long When we all get to sing the same song It may come as a struggle It maybe just a breeze You may sing like a croaking frog Or the birds up in the trees I look forward to that day And I hope it won't be long When we all get to sing the same song We can sing it it high and we can sing it low We can sing it fast and we can sing it slow I look forward to that day And I hope it won't be long When we all get to sing the same song Roger Gall 1999 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:13 AM ... actually, why don't you put your grieviences into verse? Prose isn't your best medium. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:12 AM .... sounds like a cue for a song... Got a relevant one hidden away there, Shambles? |
|
Subject: BS: In the UK.............? From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:56 AM Any good festivals? I am thinking of visiting this summer. |
|
Subject: BS: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:54 AM There seems to be a lot going on right now, what with the recent bombs and the shooting of the innocent "suspect" and that. A lot that is serious and merits serious discussion. I find it offensive therefore that Shambles starts a thread with such a title (similar to this one), misleading people that the thread is for discussion of these serious things, only to air once more his personal grievances. I request that Shamble's thread title be changed appropriately. |
|
Subject: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:53 AM There seems to be a lot going on right now, what with the recent bombs and the shooting of the innocent "suspect" and that. A lot that is serious and merits serious discussion. I find it offensive therefore that Shambles starts a thread with such a title (similar to this one), misleading people that the thread is for discussion of these serious things, only to air once more his personal grievances. I request that Shamble's thread title be changed appropriately. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:19 AM My good friend Jeri said. Bert, I'm not sure whether that comment about being friends with folks was supposed to sound sincere, coming as it was right before you took Shambles side without question. I am grateful for Bert's contribution - as it does now appear to take courage on our forum to go against the general flow. However, this talk of taking sides is indicative of the needless divide (between friends) that now appears on our forum. When some animals become more equal than others (and rather choose to rub this fact in) it is as inevitable as it is sad. Perhaps the taking of sides can be left behind us in the playground and we can just be free to express our own views and principles? If it is a principle respected (so far anyway) that a post should appear as written - it is a simple request that this principle and respect be extended to a thread's title. Or if any change is thought necessary - that the originator is always first consulted. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 05 - 07:52 AM I understand your devotion to your cause. But, I submit, you do your cause more harm than good by constantly berating those who work to provide you with a forum to spread your views. You would better spend your time choosing your battles wisely. The reference to my cause - I assume is to the music Licensing one (I have many). Those who have worked to provide a forum for this issue have not been constantly berated by me - whatever the impression that may be given by those anaonymous few who now feel themselves qualified to sit in judgement on their fellow posters. If anything - it is has been the other way around. Max has always had my respect and gratitude for the real and positive impact that his creation and this forum has had and continues to have on what I see a vital issue for anyone interested in any music anywhere. Max has not interferred with any of the many contributions from many very concerned posters on this issue over many years. But that is not to say that there has not been interferance and obstructions by others. This issue (for many reasons) has caused irritations with some posters and some of our volunteers did rather pander to these irritations rather than recognise the seriousness of the situation called for a more understanding view. These irritations - to my surprise became rather personalised and directed at me. In spite of the fact I always tried to do did what I could to take on board these irritations and do what I could to address them. I think it fair to say that the main irritation reflected that many 'US' folk did not see it as an issue that directly affected them. It is also fair to say that many 'US' folk were (and are) very supportive and made many positive contributions - dispite the fact that the issue may not have affected them directly. I and many folk remain very grateful for this. The nit-picking was to the effect that the threads were - too many - too long - not informative - duplicated - politically inspired - personal ego-trips and many other such irritations. Some of these criticisms may well have been valid - but my view is and was that the nature of the posting largely just reflected the nature of the problems this issue presented and also the structure of the forum. The fact that you can't please all of the people - all of the time - is one that can get overlooked - when everyone is being encouraged by the example of our anonoymous volunteers - to sit in judgement on everyone else. Joe Offer's relations with me have never recovered from this. And the role of the anonymous volunteer also changed in this period - from helper to judge and censor My openly expressed view is that the role of any volunteer fellow poster is to follow Max's lead and only facilite. To enable all posting rather than to pass judgement and obstruct it. I fear that our forum is now more shaped by the personal preferences of unknown nunber of these anonymous volunteers - than it is by the preferences of the majority of contributors. The point of this thead is to bring attention to a imposed censorship action that I have been needlessly subject to and to request that if any change is thought to be needed to a thread title that I have originated - that the volunteer concerned contact me first and that this is adopted as general practice. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,Yawn Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:05 AM He's noticed :-) But of course he's not taking the hint..... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 23 Jul 05 - 11:35 PM Ditto what Jeri said, ten times and more! Bert, if you know which "elf" it was, why don't you discuss it with them by PM? Still luvya,though...kat |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: IvanB Date: 23 Jul 05 - 11:16 PM Shambles, you certainly may have had no intent to "lure" anybody in with a less than clear title, but, face it, that can be exactly the effect whether desired or not. As Jeri has mentioned above, readers of threads have some rights as well. And, I'd submit, one of those rights is not to have to waste their time even opening those threads in which they have no interest. As for seeing the thread's original title very quickly, yes, I clicked on it shortly after the post was made and noted in the same Mudcat session that it had been changed, in my estimation for the better. Interestingly enough, I continue to read the thread because I am interested in what's happening regarding the PEL's. Perhaps, had I not seen the original when I did, I might be more inclined to open the thread because of the modified title, since I'm not often interested in the doings of fundamentalist preachers even when they manage to get something right. I understand your devotion to your cause. But, I submit, you do your cause more harm than good by constantly berating those who work to provide you with a forum to spread your views. You would better spend your time choosing your battles wisely. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Jeri Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:50 PM Bert, I'm not sure whether that comment about being friends with folks was supposed to sound sincere, coming as it was right before you took Shambles side without question. What the heck SPECIFICALLY are you talking about with regards to 'one particular elf'? As far as him being singled out, it's bullshit. He's very dedicated to complaining and he's quick on the trigger. And other people who've started threads that had their titles<ammended don't seem toosee those titles as their personal property the way Roger seems to. This 'UK' and 'US' thing has been going on for as long as I've been here. I alluded to that earlier, but it doesn't seem you noticed. There was an addition to this thread title. I've added 'UK's and "US's, although I usually add the town/city for US places because while there may be one Portsmouth, UK, there is a Portsmouth, NH, USA and a Portsmouth VA, USA and probably more than that. I've seen other people add more specific information to titles Shambles is basically<out to get Joe and the volunteers. If you're going to believe whatever he says even though it makes some of your 'friends' look like<bigoted, hateful, small-minded<creeps, and would, in most other situations, prompt people to look for some facts and ask questions, you're probably going to have listen to some hurt 'friends'. For the record people who<read threads and<their titles have<a right to understand. They have a right to comprehensability, clarity and accuracy, and<thread titles are not the originator's intellectual property. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:13 PM It seems to be always a slow day for Shambles Here Roger, I'll save you the bother Click |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:04 PM Oooh wow. There's a lot going on here. First Shambles and Katlaughing and Wolfgang and just about everybody posting here. No not just about - EVERY SINGLE PERSON posting here, I consider to be a dear friend. So my opinion is based on the issue involved and is not personal in any way. The issue is that Shambles has been targetted for editing by one particular elf. So if that particular elf would BACK OFF AND LEAVE HIM ALONE then the problem will go away. I will also state that I consider the elf in question to be a dear friend. So it is not a personal thing. Now Elf in question just take it easy and let Shambles and all the rest of us have their say without interference - PLEASE |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:27 PM DID YOU FIRST FOLLOW THE POLICY and PM Joe, Shambles? Reserving the right to do something is just that. Anonymous fellow posters imposing it upon their fellow posters as a first option and as a matter now of routine - is something quite different and a perfectly legitimate matter for public discussion. I and many others have been contributing to the part of Max's website that he has set aside for public discussion long before all of Joe's personal dislikes - the introduction of 'guests' - anonymous censors - more bloody prefixes than most junkies - and all the other recently introduced Orwellian sillyness........ If you wish to go along with the increasing protocols that Snowball, Napoleon and the rest of the pigs have introduced since they feel they have taking over the running and all aspects of Animal Farm - feel free to do so. Susan - I will stick with good old Boxer and the values that have made this forum a special place and which others now seem determined to turn into something very ordinary. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: wysiwyg Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:37 PM Policy seems clear-- as with any publication, management reserves the right to edit for clarity. Recourse is to be privately discussed via PM with main site admin-- Joe Offer. Starting a fresh town meeting every time one's nose is out of joint-- DID YOU FIRST FOLLOW THE POLICY and PM Joe, Shambles? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Peace Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:26 PM . . . or not? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Peace Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:26 PM Sorry. That was thread drift. But, from the Zen of threads--can a directionless thread drift? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Peace Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:25 PM Hi, Ebbie. Hope yer well. Saw the thread about when people feel the most alive. I'll post to it soon. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:21 PM hahhahah |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Peace Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:18 PM Send the cat to Robomatic. His fridge quit and he needs food. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:13 PM To Give Away: a Kitten Clone: May we add your location to the title? Me: No. |
|
Subject: "Hands off my thread!" From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 05 - 03:27 PM I still can't see how starting a thread gives someone any particular rights over it. I mean in a conversation in a pub you wouldn't expect to have someone asserting their ownership rights in a discussion, on the grounds that they broached the topic in the first place. I suppose, when we have started a thread, we may take a certain parental interest in it, maybe nursing it along to make sure it stays around long enough to pull in participants, but that's not the same thing. Sometimes you do see people here who seem to think that having started a thread means they have the ability to pull the plug on it when they think it's run its course, or deviated too widely from where it was intended to go, but it rarely works. Why should it? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jul 05 - 03:18 PM 1 GUEST,Yawn RE: In the UK..............? 23-Jul-05 - 12:14 PM 2 GUEST,Yawn RE: Mudcat- Who is Who. 11-Jul-05 - 12:26 PM 3 GUEST,Yawn RE: BS: For Real. I quit 21-Jun-05 - 10:02 AM 4 GUEST,Yawn RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 09-Jun-05 - 03:26 AM 5 GUEST,Yawn RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 01-Jun-05 - 06:17 AM yawn. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,Yawn Date: 23 Jul 05 - 12:14 PM Bit of a slow day, is it Shambles? Why don't you go and do something useful, like pulling the wings off a few flies? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jul 05 - 10:13 AM Though struictly speaking it's wrong - the Minister in question wasn't talking about jamming in the context of "the UK", since the law involved doesn't apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Unlike the rest of the post (from someone who does not judge this issue is important and posts many times to demonstrate this) - this is a good point and one I would have made - if I had been asked. Many posters have objected to the use of 'UK' in this regard as it is not accurate. Perhaps it would be better and safer (if they intend to continue to impose such changes and in such cases without the originators knowledge or permission) for our anonymous volunteers to insert - 'not 'US'? As this is rather more the point that is being made by these sort of changes......... But where do these sort of imposed changes (or additions) end? How many more such prefixes will be required - if we follow this example to its ultimate conclusion? Perhaps it is better to stop now? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:59 AM Kevin - these changes may also have been acceptable to me - had i been asked. Would it have really been too much trouble for those who imposed these changes - to have asked me first? Perhaps from now on - our anonymous volunteer fellow posters can now always ensure that they always ask the originator first - just to make sure that any future imposed change always obtains Kevin McGrath's approval. I suggest that no other poster's opinion (even Kevin's) really matters. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:50 AM Both those changes noted there seem very sensible to me. And improvements on the original. "Minister says Jamming is OK" goes to "Minister says jammimng is OK in the UK" - sounds better, as well as being more informative. Though struictly speaking it's wrong - the Minister in question wasn't talking about jamming in the context of "the UK", since the law involved doesn't apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As for "Camilla and Charles were lovers" going to "Song Challenge: Camilla and Charles were lovers" - well it does start "I have made a start on the song - perhaps others would like to continue it?", and that makes it a Song Challenge on my book, whereas the other title rather invites people to leap in arguing about stuff. Now if the clones started adding "Shambles special" to threads like that... Probably better not. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Jeri Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:26 AM Azizi, I agree with you completely. Too many people think that any mention of a characteristic, whether it's sex, race, country of origin or habitation, religion, etc, and there has to be some type of discrimination involved. My guess is that some people are incapable of, or too lazy to understand and judge what's being said based on content, so they scan for 'trigger' words or phrases. I KNOW they think I'm a white male, based on the amount of spam I recieved aimed at making my groinal appendage either longer or harder. Bert, '(UK)' and '(US)' have been added to titles for clarification for as long as I've been here. As the musical center of my local universe is in Portsmouth (U?), these additions may be more a matter of routine to me than others. I understand if you've noticed them now for the first time. If9you9want9to play<with9Roger,<it's<OK. <I believe he started this thread because<1) he had a typically lame excuse<to revive<the anti-admin crusade, and 2)<he thought enough time had passed so<the subject would seem fresh and attractive once>again. As far as I can tell from following these threads over the years, the main<purpose seems9to be>to provide Shambles a<platform from which he can argue a point no one can quite understand towards a<goal that doesn't exist with people that mistakenly believe (at least until they>clue<in) they can9find common ground9with him. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:24 AM I prefer uninformative thread titles being made more informative immediately when spotted. It is your preference that other poster's preferences are ignored and subject to needless impostion by anonymous fellow posters - without the originator's knowledge or permission. It is my preference that the originator's preferences are respected and not ignored (as now) - as a matter of routine. As it should be recognised that the only contributions we have (or should have ) any control over - are our own. But other posters can post to agree or disagree with our preferences - as we (and others) are prepared to use our names to express and publicly stand by those preferences. But the only preferences that are sadly and rapidly beginning to matter on our forum (and which are often mow defended by them and their supportes - with insults and accusations) - are those preferences of unknown numbers our anonymous volunteer fellow posters. Whose number and identity are intentionally withheld. Perhaps it is time for a re-think? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:51 AM It is my opinion that ANY change to any contribution when there is no question of it being offensive - imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission by anonymous volunteer, fellow posters - is a form of needless routine censorship that has no place on the public forum that I and many other long-term posters have been contributing to for many years. Many of these posters are still under the impression that this is a unmoderated forum...... Examples of thread changes. Minister say jamming is OK Camilla and Charlie were lovers |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:42 AM As one who has suffered from this action on many occasions "suffered??!!" Ever heard of the expression "drama queen?" I, too, saw the original title and thought it was probably about some fundementalist preacher in the US who had finally allowed less sedate music in church. Clones do not go around changing thread titles, willy-nilly. They change them when requested by the originator. They DO ADD to them when it seems to be HELPFUL. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:25 AM It appears that there was a particular thread title change that got Shambles goat, last straw so to speak. So what was it? From what he wrote I took it he was objecting on principle to the addition of a place indicator to threads about events, to indicate what part of the world they are hap-pening. That seems to me a very sensible thing to have done, and if ever it happens to some thread that I've started I'll be grateful. It very likely has. I'd call it a service rather than an imposition. Complaining about it strikes me as way over the top, and in fact ungrateful, and I took it that was what was being objected to. However when it comes to changing other thread titles for other reasons, I think that needs to be done with tact and circumspection, and only where there are very good reasons for it. That's not so much because there is a need to get the consent of the person who happens to have launched a thread - I don't accept the idea that somehow starting a thread gives one any kind of property rights in it - but out of consideration for other people who might be following it, or who might want to find it again some time in the future. Changing titles can make it harder to keep in touch with a thread, especially when there are Mudcat outages to live with. So complaining about those kind of changes, if they have been done clumsily or inappropriately, might be a reasonable thing to do. It doesn't seem to me thatthey have been, but maybe I've not been reading the right threads. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:25 AM I responded to bert right after his last post, Shambles. And, will again. Bertdarlin'...you know me better than to think I would NOT open a thread just because it had "UK" in the title. I've lots of friends over and from there and have no prejudice when it comes to the reading of their "doings." I know I am not alone in that enjoyment, regardless of thread title! (Nice to see you posting more!) As Wolfgang and others have said, it saves time and confusion to have a location noted in the title. How about we leave off any location in all of the gig threads; or someone's "travelling to" thread? How nice is it for a newcomer to come in, see their own region in a thread title...exciting and encouraging, imo. Jacqui, I think you are right! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jul 05 - 08:13 AM Surprise, surprise! I don't agree with the statement that persons posting comments on the Internet should always {or even usually}refrain from mentioning their race/ethnicity, nationality, gender,religion, and/or age. I certainly believe that there are times when such information is irrelevant. But there are other times when those demographics adds context, depth, and another perspective to the discussion. That is exactly why I contend that - the choice to place such (incidental) information or not - should always be left to the thread's originator. Do you agree? Do you think that there is any reason why not respecting this convention and imposing a anonymous volunteer's wishes upon the originator's thead title - is really necessary or desirable on our forum? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:55 AM When I saw the original title, I immediately (in my provincial thinking) figured some Southern Baptist minister had finally seen the light. Boy, was I wrong! Ivan - you must have been very quick indeed to see the original title. The title change by one of our unkown number of anonymous volunteers was imposed almost instantly. But your point is taken. Although I share your concern regarding the PEL business, I doubt that all Mudcatters do, and there's no reason to "lure" the uninterested in with a less than clear thread title. There are no grounds for this suspicion. The suggestion that there was any attempt by me to lure anyone (by the ommission of UK) has no foundation. I gave the title a lot of thought and was happy with it - but not with any intention of misleading anyone - for what would be the point of this? There is no way that a thread title (given the limited space available to lesser posters) can ever be always clear to everyone or meet agreement from everybody. No more than the thread's contents will ever meet with agreement from everyone. But part of the fun (especially for B/S threads) is the imaginitive titles that folk think up. For that reason alone - I would suggest that all titles are left to the originator and only changed with their agreement. I await to see any sound reason given here so far - as to why it is really so desirable for anonymous volunteers - now as a matter of routine - to impose any change at any time to a thread title - without first obtaining the originator's permission. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:39 AM The sensibilities of the single person, the thread originator, matter to me less than the sensibilities of a large majority, the readers of uninformative thread titles. I prefer uninformative thread titles being made more informative immediately when spotted. Quick action of the Mudcat helpers has saved me a lot of time already. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:35 AM Those of you who have not had your thread titles changed by anonymous volunteers without your knowledge or permission may think this imposed action by out anonymous volunteers to be helpful. You are welcome to express that view. Those posters to whom it matters enough to post - but to say only that it matters little to them - are perhaps wasting their post or are not being very honest or very considerate to their fellow posters. As one who has suffered from this action on many occasions - I do not think that it is helpful to me or to our forum. Many posters do not seem to think that I am welcome to express that view. It is interesting that no one yet has responded to Bert - another long-term poster who is also considers that thread titles should be left to the originator and that permssion should be first sought for any changes - and is brave enough to post and say so. Whether the proposed change is helpful or not - I suggest is a matter only for the anonymous volunteer proposing the change and the originator. Why is it so difficult for the originator always to be asked first by the anonymous volunteer - to be guided by the response or to leave the title as post - for the lack of a response? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: gnu Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:23 AM I had a PM a while back asking why I am constantly starting a story with, "Up in Kent County, New Brunswick, Canada....". It's just polite, not arrogant as the PM implied. And, it saves me answering posts and PM's asking me where I am to, too. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: jacqui.c Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:31 AM Exactly gnu. There are certain threads, discussing upcoming events, that would benefit from a location guide. If the original poster has neglected (as I did on one occasion) to add that bit of information than it is handy if a helpful clone provides it. I haven't seen any evidence that titles are being changed willy-nilly just to show the origin of the original poster. From what I have seen the clones are being HELPFUL! And, basically, if you don't like the way the site runs, don't come here. It works for the vast majority of us. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:25 AM I too prefer to see the "UK" or "US" or AUS" or whatever prefix, it helps. Where the originator has omitted to include sich a prefix, I find it sensible for the editorial team to add it instead. Whether they do so with the express permission of the originator, it matters not to me, in this case. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: gnu Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:13 AM LTS... which Portland? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Azizi Date: 23 Jul 05 - 01:52 AM While this is somewhat tangential to the main point of this thread, I was struck by a comment that Shambles made in in his 22 Jul 05 - 02:57 PM post: "I do have a problem with bringing attention online (where this is not anything to do with the point of the post) to poster's ethnic origins - nationality - sexual preferences - religion - politics or any thing else that may divide us. It is the love of music that has brought all the contributors to this public forum together and this universal language can transcend most of our differences - if we allow it to." -snip- Surprise, surprise! I don't agree with the statement that persons posting comments on the Internet should always {or even usually}refrain from mentioning their race/ethnicity, nationality, gender,religion, and/or age. I certainly believe that there are times when such information is irrelevant. But there are other times when those demographics adds context, depth, and another perspective to the discussion. See this article on Race in Cyperspace Among other comments, the researcher posits that "White male" is the default descriptor for folks posting on the Internet-meaning that people's first assumption is that the person posting online is a White male, probably because the majority of bloggers are White males. I'm raising this issue not for the purpose of diverting the conversation from Shamble's main point about titles of threads being changed titles without the originator's permissions, but because I feel that his point about sharing demographics is {also?} worthy of discussion. Peace, Ms. Azizi |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert Date: 22 Jul 05 - 11:35 PM Then why not start a UK prefix just like the BS one. Then we can have a filter so that we don't have to read about them dumb Limeys. Keep them over on their side of the pond. No, we see many threads that could be from here or there but no one goes changing them (or adding to them). Now just where was that bell clapper? - for instance. It would be really sad to see the Mudcat divided on us and them lines. There always has been a little confusion when reading a new thread as to know where it originated, but does adding UK to just ONE thread really help? We have managed fine for years and have asked for locations when necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: jacqui.c Date: 22 Jul 05 - 11:25 PM Kat - There are some people in this world who only seem to exist to bitch and moan. I think that we have the perfect example here. As far as I am aware no-one who has had a thread title changed has complained about the fact and some have probably been grateful to the clones for doing it. The Shambles has his own convoluted agenda here and seems to think that he should be able to call the shots on someone elase's web site. Taking into consideration that Max and VOLUNTEERS keep this thing running on a wing and a prayer IMHO his attitude stinks. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 22 Jul 05 - 11:14 PM IT WASN'T CHANGED!!! It was ADDED to for clarity! Key-riced on a crutch! Thank gawd nobody bitches when someone adds BS. In fact, folks are quick to point out when a non-music thread winds up "up top" and needs redesignation. Or, gawd forbid if someone makes a mistake, i.e. OBIT, when it should be something else, or gets a date wrong in the title, etc., a clone goes in, sees it and kindly corrects it. Do you have ANY appreciation for this site, at all, Shambles? If so, why not start a thread about that?! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert Date: 22 Jul 05 - 10:37 PM I have to agree with Shambles on this. If someone originates a thread what right does someone else have to change the title? Unless the thread is offensive then it should stay as it is. So if YOU have the ability to edit threads then keep your bloody maulers off unless the thread is a personal attack, a threat, or is offensive. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: IvanB Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:46 PM When I saw the original title, I immediately (in my provincial thinking) figured some Southern Baptist minister had finally seen the light. Boy, was I wrong! Shambles, consulting with the thread's originator might be a fine idea in theory, but I'm not sure the concept's worth getting very excited about. The originator might not be immediately available for consultation, then must the whole board waste their time because a thread title hasn't been clarified. Although I share your concern regarding the PEL business, I doubt that all Mudcatters do, and there's no reason to "lure" the uninterested in with a less than clear thread title. The clones work hard for us trying to make this site a more pleasant place to be and, frankly, my hat's off to them for the guff they have to take with far too few thanks from any of us. I sure wouldn't want the job. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:30 PM Thre's some good music in Weymouth I've heard, and in Dorset generally.. Welcome to Weymouth, Massachussets Weymouth Township, New Jersey Or in Australia" Then there's Dorset in Ohio, in Vermont and Minnesota, and of course the Dorset Vale in Australia... Where was that session then? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:13 PM And PS-- in the US my husband is a minister, and like most ministers I know, he's always thought jamming was OK. But these ministers have got nothing to do with PELs. :~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:09 PM Oh, NOW I see.... It's a thread Shambles started, so once again he's veiling his personal upset as a crusade for free speech-- he's reacting like a hurt child, because no one asked HIM. He's generalizing his upset to a host of non-posting, non-commenting people who he would like to think agree with him. Shambles, we ARE discussing-- I suppose now you want to control THAT, too. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Jul 05 - 06:46 PM The issue is .... Shambles-- people seem to agree, that (location clarity) IS the issue. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:51 PM Let's see now...I have a product I want to market. My market is one particular area only. For sure, in my adverts, I would NOT want to be too exclusive, so that all may have the benefit from reading my cleverness, so I would definitely leave OUT the location. I think we all need to enroll in SA - Shambles Anonymous - to get over our addiction of responding to his drivel. He'd much rather read his own words than take into consideration ANYTHING anyone else opines. kat |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:53 PM This is a simple request and one that is made in moderate language. I hope and trust that it will be discussed and considered. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: MMario Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:22 PM Perhaps the originator thought that no matter how much care they took and whatever thread title they settled on - it would be judged as wanting and a change to it would be automatically imposed anyway - without their knowledge or permission? CRAP! That statement is pure troll-bait! (As are many of your postings recently) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:19 PM But could one assume that a thread originally titled "RE: In the UK.....?" making points about editorial policy may well miss its intended audience. Perhaps the originator thought that no matter how much care they took and whatever thread title they settled on - it would be judged as wanting and a change to it would be automatically imposed anyway - without their knowledge or permission? Perhaps ALL thread titles should be left to our unknown volunteers - who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon us lesser posters? Perhaps this unknown number of special but anonymous posters should be thought to be the only ones qualified enough to post anything? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: MMario Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:07 PM because that is the procedure established by the owner of the site. No. I do not honestly believe that it is. well - correct - in that you insist on adding "automaticaly" whenever you refer to editing - and it is not in any way an automatic procedure - as has repeatedly been explained to you. But Max has granted the ability to change titles, delete posts, close threads to a number of people HE HAS CHOSEN to represent him and to perform such functions. He has established a review procedure. AND HE CAN WITHDRAW THOSE ABILITIES AT ANY TIME HE PLEASES. Therefore - one has to assume that those people currently utilizing such abilities are NOT performing beyond the boundaries Max has set.
italics corrected without previously contacting poster - joeclone |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Sorcha Date: 22 Jul 05 - 04:01 PM Oh Shambles....geez. Give over. I personally prefer to KNOW if something is in the UK instead of US or Outer Mongolia....what difference can it possibly make???? No wonder Joe is in Bulgaria. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:58 PM because that is the procedure established by the owner of the site. No. I do not honestly believe that it is. Reserving the right to do something - should never be thought or changed to be the same thing as imposing it upon all posters without their prior knowledge or permission - as a matter of routine. There may well be times when it is thought to quickly remove offensive postings - many posters would support action such as this and have little sympathy with the originator. It has never be the Mudcat way to treat all contributors with such little consideration. I hope that it never will be. This is a simple request and one that is made in moderate language. I hope and trust that it will be discussed and considered. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:54 PM Some things matter a lot. Some things don't matter very much. Some things don't matter a damn. I'd put this "issue" in column three. Ore column four if there was one... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Nigel Parsons Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:50 PM Am I being overly picky here? (perish the thought) But could one assume that a thread originally titled "RE: In the UK.....?" making points about editorial policy may well miss its intended audience. Always assuming that the title will prevent 'transpondians' from reading it! Nigel (in Wales, which most Americans believe is part of England! :P)) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: MMario Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:37 PM because that is the procedure established by the owner of the site. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:31 PM If anyone's posting info about events, yes it does make sense to specify which country the event is in because of the duplication of place names in UK, US, and the Antipodes. People have quite often said that they'd gone to a thread and then realised that the event described wasn't on the same continent. I agree that there are times when such a change may indeed make sense - and if it makes sense to the originator - they will probably specify the county in the title they choose. And if they don't - and a change is suggested to them - they will probably agree to such a proposal. All I am suggesting is that to place this in a thread title or not - should be left to the originator. For why should any change be automatically imposed by some anonymous fellow poster without the originator's knowledge or permission? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: jacqui.c Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:09 PM So - because a thread is 'labelled' UK or USA that would stop you opening it, Why? Who says that a thread title is carefully chosen? Not every time. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: MMario Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:08 PM Ask yourself - is it worth the risk of upsetting the owner of the site by nitpicking editorial changes that NO ONE OTHER THEN YOURSELF has complained about - or if they have - have done it by the requested method - privately to the designated persons. For someone who professes to be concerned about politiness and good manners you exhibit a decided lack of both. repeatedly. frequently. On the other hand multiple people have complained about ambigously titled threads that when opened prove to be specific to either the US or the UK. furthermore - you have absolutely no proof that the title was "carefully chosen". Nor are such changes "automatically imposed" - and as has been repeatedly mentioned - any such change is subject to review and can be corrected if necessary. YOu are quick enough to complain and rail against personal judgement being made in editorial changes. Have you "looked in the mirror" lately? You are certainly attempting to force your own personal judgement on the management and general populace of this site. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Herga Kitty Date: 22 Jul 05 - 03:07 PM If anyone's posting info about events, yes it does make sense to specify which country the event is in because of the duplication of place names in UK, US, and the Antipodes. People have quite often said that they'd gone to a thread and then realised that the event described wasn't on the same continent. Kitty |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Jul 05 - 02:57 PM Why would a minor change in the title worry any sensible person? That is rather my point - I think. If the intended change is first thought to be so minor - why impose it and run any risk of upsetting anyone? And why needlessly judge them - as sensible or not? Are not all posters are entitled to their (moderately expressed) view? But to go off the main point - which is setting the example of simple good manners and being seen to be friendly. I do have a problem with bringing attention online (where this is not anything to do with the point of the post) to poster's ethnic origins - nationality - sexual preferences - religion - politics or any thing else that may divide us. It is the love of music that has brought all the contributors to this public forum together and this universal language can transcend most of our differences - if we allow it to. Yes it might sometimes be useful to know from a thread title - what the originator's country of origin was or where the thread deals with a particular country - but most times it is not. I see a risk that in automatically imposing these type of changes to thread titles - that we will get (even further and needlessly) divided along national lines instead of learning from our national differences. Is it really worth the risk upsetting any poster by imposing any change to the thread title - that they have carefully chosen - without asking them first? For some reason that i can't see - you may well think that it is worth this risk. I suggest that even if one other poster did not think it was worth taking this risk - that it would be better to oblige them and would do little real harm to anyone else - to do this. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: bobad Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:45 PM Much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot. Etc. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: katlaughing Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:43 PM It's fairly common to ADD to a title if it helps to clarify. People on dial-up, at work, etc., often don't have a lot of time to "surf", so a quick scan of the titles helps them as to which threads they'd like to open. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: jacqui.c Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:38 PM If the change is helpful to other Mudcat users I can't see the problem. Why would a minor change in the title worry any sensible person? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Bert Date: 21 Jul 05 - 09:11 PM Well said Shambles. The thread title should NEVER be changed without the consent of the originator. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Jul 05 - 04:52 PM Myself I'd sooner see the name of the country instead - ie England, or whatever. But it seems a sensible innovation to me. I'm sure the net effect will to avoid irritation rather than to cause it, Mr Growser, Sir. ("It ought not to be allowed!") |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Sliding Down The Bannister At My Auntie's House Date: 21 Jul 05 - 04:39 PM I agree with you Mr Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 21 Jul 05 - 01:40 PM Well I for one am quite happy to have it.... I'm sick of hearing about exciting things happening in Portland, only to find it's Maine, rather than Dorset or Oregon. The issue is not whether any changes are sensible or not. A change to a thread title may well be sensible. If it is sensible - the originator (when or if consulted) will probably willingly agree. The issue is simply one of showing respect and being polite to those who Max has invited to contribute. I suggest that it is those unknown volunteers who feel that imposing such changes - as a matter of urgency (and without first consulting the originator) - are the ones who need to get a life and join the real world........... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,MMario Date: 21 Jul 05 - 11:34 AM oh for Chirst's Sake Shambles! Will you take the poker out of your ass and get back to the real world? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 21 Jul 05 - 11:32 AM Well I for one am quite happy to have it.... I'm sick of hearing about exciting things happening in Portland, only to find it's Maine, rather than Dorset or Oregon. Mind you..... exciting things on Portland is a bit of an oxymoron.. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK..............? From: GUEST Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:16 AM Hey, get a life! |
|
Subject: In the UK..............? From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 21 Jul 05 - 07:24 AM Perhaps whether the words 'UK' appear in a thread title or not can be left to the thread's originator - rather than be imposed by some anonymous volunteer - with time on their hands and nothing better to do? Or is it now done automatically? I was amazed to see 'UK' added to a recent thread - a matter of minutes after the thread's creation and before anyone had a chance to respond. Can the wishes of the origination be respected and any change to a thread's title only be undertaken with their knowledge and permission? Thank you. |
| Share Thread: |