BS: Opening threads - a debate.

Subject: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:46 AM

As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread.

Thread title changes are now imposed to ensure that it is clear to our forum's readers what the content of the thread may be – so a poster should have no real excuse for opening any thread with a title that may not be of interest them. And if they are still unsure – a quick scan will quickly indicate if the thread is of interest to them - or not.

Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the hread and upon some of the thread's active participants?

Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death?

For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life.

In addition to displaying this lack of control over their own postings - some posters having repeatedly opened a thread that is not to their taste - seem to think that - in addition to only posting personal judgements of their fellow posters - they also have some right to control the postings of others. By instructing others to stop posting - and post requests for editing actions like deletion and closure – be imposed upon the posts of other posters - who are actively involved in posting - to address the thread's subject.

Can any one explain the logic of why any poster on our forum would wish to repeatedly open, post and refresh a thread that they state to be of no interest to them and also feel they have some right to prevent others from contributing to it?

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:50 AM

I suggest that a can of spray paint and a warehouse wall facing the tracks will give you much more satisfaction than posting here.

Paint may in fact last longer although it may fade in which case you should contact the manufacturer.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:53 AM

*grin*....I wonder if they make spray-paint cans which are pre-set to "perhaps" and "impose personal judgements"

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM

I would like to see another column added to the list of threads saying who started that thread. I know this would have prevented me from opening this thread!
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:56 AM

Good for the opera, ballet, or even evening of Shakespeare. Great idea, Shambles. Good work.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:57 AM

OPENING THREADS, TA-DA!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:58 AM

FOR THOSE WISHING TO PRESENT A MORE CASUAL LOOK . . . WE HAVE THE ENCLOSED!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:17 PM

You may have missed this editing comment (or perhaps my posting of it will now make it big enough for you to be able to read it) as it was inserted into an existing post by an anonymous volunteer fellow poster and did not refresh this thread.

The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:27 PM

"The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone"

Then lock this... and if Sham starts another one, ban his stupid ass for being an idiot spammer like any message borad staff worth their salt would do....

"I would like to see another column added to the list of threads saying who started that thread. I know this would have prevented me from opening this thread!"
That John is one of the BEST f**king ideas ever suggested to this place... wanna bet 10 bucks it'll NEVER happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:38 PM

I repeat
Why do you all keep coming back for more?
Why do you keep the thread going by adding to it all the time? just like I am doing now
Why do you all have to get so personal?
Why dont you leave it to Joe Offer and clones

He is not causing any harm, just ignore him if you dont like his views and go to threads that please you, he is doing a very good job of fishing and you are all taking the bait

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:43 PM

Be quiet! You're scaring the fish away!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:01 PM

Ah but Shambles, I LIKE to open your threads because they give me a good laugh. Trouble for you is that I am not laughing with you, I am laughing AT you!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 04:03 PM

You forgot the 'Tech' designation, Roger. What will be your next one? Rubbish?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 06:45 PM

Just on the off chance that this is indeed a serious question...especially since (although the grammar is very difficult to parse) it seems to have been asked about five times in the initial post, using slightly different words each time...I shall attempt to answer it from my own perspective:

Actually, I do not open threads which clearly have no interest to me. For example, I cannot recall ever opening one which contained the word "Hull" in the title. However, I do open threads which have interesting or puzzling titles; such as, for example, Opening threads - a debate. I generally ignore prefixes such as BS or TECH, since they are often misunderstood or misused by the poster.

Once I have opened a thread for the first time, and I have figured out what the actual topic of the thread is (as opposed to what is stated in the title), I may leave never to return, return from time to time to see how the discussion is progressing, or make a post myself if the topic is of interest to me after all. My own interest is history, and specifically historical accuracy, so many of my posts involve historical issues or events. Occasionally, and against my better judgement, I may respond to a troll or participate in an exchange of snide comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 08:31 PM

'I would like to see another column added to the list of threads saying who started that thread.'

"New Messages Since Your Last Visit" page at http://www.mudcat.org/NewMessages.cfm
&
"Messages By Date" page at http://www.mudcat.org/messagesbyday.cfm


both have the headings

Mudcat Name        Subject                Date

Once you have navigated via the drop down list at the top of this page to those pages, add the shortcuts to your PC.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 08:35 PM

Roger....

You post to threads that push your buttons. Or you launch such threads. That's normal. Use it to understand yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 02:04 AM

While we're about it why do we have to scroll down the thread to add our comments? Why not top post like every other bugger? No-one seems to read the whole thread anyway.

Why is the translator so limited? Why no English to Urdu or Hindi?

Why blue clickies? What's wrong with green?

Why are there still some days when there are no new whinging threads? Couldn't we have a mechanism to refresh an old thread of The Shambles when this happens?

Why haven't the above questions been answered yet?

I'm still waiting for a reply...

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 02:07 AM

PS. Try translating the thread to Spanish and see the name of the orginal poster. Food for thought, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 04:29 AM

You can have green clickies.

And red ones...

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 08:19 AM

Occasionally, and against my better judgement, I may respond to a troll or participate in an exchange of snide comments.

Why would you do this?

Why not simply ignore it?

Why deliberatly choose to post something against your better judgement? Which would I hope - tell you that responding in kind - will only result in yet more of the same personal judgements being posted?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 08:36 AM

Because sometimes, dude, ya just gotta do something against your better judgement.

Of course posting in an internet forum is a pretty wimpy way to feed the rebel inside. But whatever floats yer boat...

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 09:45 AM

If decide to do something against your better judgement - do you have any right then to - pass any judgement upon others?

Is there any real point in having better judgement if you decide better - and go against it?

How can anyone else ever know if you have better judgement - if you never use it and if they never see it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 09:46 AM

I like these threads for the comic in them as Yawn does. Shambles posting lack of control over their own postings meaning others or try to debate the issue meaning himself is priceless.

Shambles passing judgement on others' reading ability by copying clone messages inserted in posts and sometimes in the very same post using a serious tone admonishing us not to pass judgement on others has me rolling on the floor laughing.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jeffp
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 10:15 AM

It's our very own theater of the absurd, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 11:28 AM

Perhaps passing judgement should be limited to those who have taken and passed "Judgement Passing 201" from the Shambles College of Rhetorical Obfuscation. And perhaps each 'passing of judgement' should be posted in a special forum, debated for 3 weeks, then voted on by a quorum of all those whom Shambles has ascertained are not 'anonymous volunteers', with the voting results being posted along with the judgement being passed, followed by a 6 month period during which recounts of votes could be challenged by, or in the name of, any poster who might have been judged, whether he is aware of it or not.

...perhaps....

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 04:10 PM

If against your better judgement you just carried on urinating in a shared swimming pool - it would hardly be very just - if you then expressed your public concern about the quality of the water and judged that others should not also urinate in the pool.

And any attempt by you to sit in judgement and hold on to the moral-high ground - perhaps should then feel a little hollow - as the end result of all this going against one's better judgement - would still be dirty water in the shared swimming pool?

It appears that some - who in deciding to recently post here - but perhaps against their better judgement - would have been perhaps the best able to shed light on this debate - but chose not to in their posts - may not have been able to read the following - in the original post to this thread. Their posts may perhaps demonstrate very well the problem detailed in the thread's original post - but perhaps do not add much to the debate or perhaps present much hope of a solution?

Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 04:12 PM

All water was piss at some point... and it all will be again some day too....

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 10:57 AM

And then there are those who are completely unable or unwilling to debate in any meaningful sense of the word and call others to seriously debate. That's too funny.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:26 PM

As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:37 PM

Some people have this terrible compulsion to start threads though Roger, and on the same subject every time!!
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:45 PM

Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the thread and upon some of the thread's active participants?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:49 PM

Can you diagram that sentence, Shambles?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:56 PM

There are certain clues that are immediate tip offs that I would find a thread boring and uninteresting. Like having the person who started the thread be Shambles. Nothing against Shambles, but I rarely find much commonality between his concerns and mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:00 PM

Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:21 PM

While being a master myself at the misuse of the ellipsis, may I ask anyway, what the hell is with the hyphens? Since we're on the more humorous elements of Sham's posts as opposed to the simply non-sensical elements, I can't figure for the life of me what he's trying to do with the damn hyphens.

I can't figure if he's trying to use them as substitutes for commas or semi-colons or what? Am I supposed to pause there and allow it to delineate that word or phrase from the others? The best laughs seem to come from the way he often connects three or four incomplete sentences with them, ending up with one long incomplete sentence.

I can't make sense out of most of his shit. I gather I am not alone in that problem. Like Bill, I think in a former life Roger was a certain Danish philosopher but in this life he's just an ass.

Maybe we could have a contest! I'll post a quote by Sham and everyone gets a chance to interpret what the fuck it means! The problem there is that only Sham knows what it means and the little dude's explanation of the quote might be even more mysterious than the quote itself!!! I can go get a thousand others, but let's take a look at this one.   Okay now folks, we need entries.   Take your best shot and see if you can make sense of this:

-If all posters were now to be encouraged - by example - to try to resist the temptation to post publicly - only to pass their personal judgement upon any fellow poster. And were encouraged - by example - not to post and request that any imposition to be imposed upon the contributions of others – and our our volunteer fellow posters did not insist on firing the first shots at our forum - there is real danger that peace could well break out.

Lots of weird hyphenization and I am completely enamored of the phrase "imposition to be imposed."   I have no idea what the hell he really means AND if I go back and retrieve the entire post to put it in context, it gets even worse. That is the real beauty of Sham's postings. The longer they are, the more confusing and convoluted they become.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:23 PM

They stand for dramatic pauses. He thinks he's Shatner.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jeffp
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:24 PM

"If nobody but me posts, there will be no arguments."

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:28 PM

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:29 PM

Should that be Shitner?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:30 PM

He loves italics too. Half the time I can't figure out what he's cut & pasted and what's new. But then even what's new is the S.O.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:34 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 03:27 PM

So Roger - you're saying that YOU have a problem with people replying to you? You're probably right, but one would expect, unless they have a compulsion and CAN'T stop themselves, that they would WANT people to reply. Maybe he really hopes people will stop replying. You know what they say: "it takes an entire village to ..." - no, it was something else about a village.

Spaw, I've considered suggesting Shambles create a glossary so we can know for sure what he's trying to say instead of trying to interpret it. Then I I realized, 1) it's more fun this way, and, 2) who cares?

My stab at it:

-If all posters were now to be encouraged - by example - to try to resist the temptation to post publicly - only to pass their personal judgement upon any fellow poster. And were encouraged - by example - not to post and request that any imposition to be imposed upon the contributions of others � and our our volunteer fellow posters did not insist on firing the first shots at our forum - there is real danger that peace could well break out.

If people would refrain from posting their opinions or requesting editing of other people's opinions[1], and if the editors stopped being the first to complain[2], I might shut up. [3]

[1] I haven't seen anyone ask that another individual's message be edited.
[2] But we aren't - not unles you think everyone except you is a clone, which would be a GOOD reason to not 'come out, wouldn't you say?
[3] When flying is imposed upon porkers without their consent.

Spaw, this is too obviously a parody of his own style to be real. I think he's just trying to win people over by being Pythonesque...or maybe it's his Adams-ish [is that the correct spelling?] Vogon-like writing style, that indefinable French thing: 'je-ne sais quack'. I noticed the imposition of hyperhyphenism too. Perhaps asterisks will be next, or tildes. Who knows?

I can tell you I have no idea what he'd like to debate. Whether people shouldn't post their 'personal judgements' (opinions)? Right. You first, or we'll all get Rogered again. Wham-bam-thank-you-Sham.

This message has been brought to you by the "Make It Go Away, Make It Better, Or Laugh At It (MIGAMIBOLAI) Committee.
"Militant Apathy: Not giving a shit with passion!"

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 03:37 PM

Shambles... Beaking new ground in the exciting world of ++ créâtïve punctuation ++ and anarchic application of font tags

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 03:38 PM

Cluin... breaking new ground in the shameful field of typos

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 04:04 PM

Oh, now that's just too perfect.. Shambles... entertain John.. John... talk to Shambles...

You two should get on like a house on fire...

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 04:18 PM

Spaw,
   Here's my stab at it. I just simply kept in everything that I understood and deleted the rest...here goes...

"If all posters resist the temptation to post peace could well break out."

I agree...

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 06:13 PM

Don't tell Little Hawk I said this, but it really is a shame what's happened to Sha__e_ in recent years. The guy seems to have gone bonkers - and he's gotten fat. I wonder if Uhuru and Heather Locklear would have anything to do with a fat old buffoon like him nowadays. He's just all washed up, poor guy.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 06:41 PM

After thast last fight with a Klingon where he got his stones ripped off, he bloated up. That's what happens to eunuchs. They also grow moobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 06:47 PM

Frank, I think you have it! I can see it now and I couldn't before. If no one posts then no one can possibly argue. I see this as being akin to those times when the 'Cat is down and by golly, Roger has a point on that. No posts=No 'Cat=No arguments and hence no way of insulting anyone. I didn't see it before but you unlocked it for us all Frank! I hereby crown you the

Official Shambles Interpreter

And now to Jeri ...

Jeri, the firm of Lane, Fielding, Patterson, and Swan, Layabouts-At-Large and For Hire, has been remiss in not having a female on board. I have no doubt this stems from our sexist ways and something we need to correct. I have long thought you had the right attitude to become a part of the firm and would like, with the approval of my partners, to offer you an Associate position. If things go as I suspect, you will be offered a full partnership in no time. We offer you the best in support to do nothing for our clients and remember our slogans ...

We do nothing for you, after all, it's the least we can do

AND

When Doing Sweet Damn All Is Just Too Damn Much, call LFPS

If you accept the position we would like to have the rights to your phrase, "Militant Apathy; Not Giving a Shit with Passion." Should you make full partner as I think you will, we would incorporate it into out logo advertising. Please let us know your decision as I feel you are one of us already.

Spaw
Founding Partner
LFPS

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 08:55 PM

You just don't want me to sue when you steal my 'vision statement'. OK. As long as I get my own recliner.

I should warn you that in my position of Official Shambles Interpreter, if I don't fully grasp the meaning of these overstatements, I'm going to do my best to explain what he might have said if I'd understood it. You eventually have to hire somebody to interpret what I write, although it probably doesn't really matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 09:00 PM

He offered the interpreter position to Pseudolus, Jeri.

You get an Associate position in his fat cat corporation. Send us all a Christmas card from Easy Street sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 09:12 PM

Cluin, thanks for helping me to clue in. Frank did a better job of interpretation than I did, anyway, because it appears he was actually paying attention...and paying attention one less thing I'll have to attempt to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 09:33 PM

AH!!! A light! A bright flash of insight! WOW!!!

Now I know who George Bush's speech writer is - it is - THE SHAMBLES!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: snarky
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 11:53 PM

I see the flies. Where is the Lord of the Flies?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 12:00 AM

No, no no!...Bush talks in short, clipped, declarative phrases! A "perhaps" or a semi-colon or compound sentence would baffle him. Sham can toss about multiple-modifiers with impunity! Now, what I'd LOVE to see is Bush trying READ a speech written by Shambles!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 12:46 AM

Shatner could do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 04:18 AM

You mean Bush can read!!
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 06:54 AM

For those who may not have read the original post and who may wish to try and answer the questions posed in it and who may wish to enter the debate on the issue - this is it.


As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread.

Thread title changes are now imposed to ensure that it is clear to our forum's readers what the content of the thread may be – so a poster should have no real excuse for opening any thread with a title that may not be of interest them. And if they are still unsure – a quick scan will quickly indicate if the thread is of interest to them - or not.

Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the thread and upon some of the thread's active participants?

Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death?

For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life.

In addition to displaying this lack of control over their own postings - some posters having repeatedly opened a thread that is not to their taste - seem to think that - in addition to only posting personal judgements of their fellow posters - they also have some right to control the postings of others. By instructing others to stop posting - and post requests for editing actions like deletion and closure – be imposed upon the posts of other posters - who are actively involved in posting - to address the thread's subject.

Can any one explain the logic of why any poster on our forum would wish to repeatedly open, post and refresh a thread that they state to be of no interest to them and also feel they have some right to prevent others from contributing to it?

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 07:24 AM

AAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:38 AM

Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:40 AM

jacqui, I feel your pain.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:50 AM

I seem to be getting this really strong feeling of deja-vu...........







































all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:51 AM

As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:55 AM

It's like one of those toys where you press a button and it repeats the same phrases over and over again, isn't it.

Keep it coming S******s - it's gettin' so I can even predict which one of those phrases is gonna come next - good game eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 09:06 AM

As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forcibly restrained from kicking another poater in the balls but many are lining up to have a go at Shambles.

"For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life."

Nothing in the above paragraph constitutes a sentence leaving us all to wonder once again, "What the fuck?"

Where is Pseudolus Frank? We need an interpreter here! Not that anyone particularly gives a shit, but it makes for some additional fun at Shambles expense. He, of course, cares nothing for such things as he is marching forward with his campaign against ... uh,er ... everything I guess. I say, "Go for it Lil' Dude!" Take care to watch your balls (I can send you a magnifying glass to help you find them).

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 09:12 AM

They used to have a column in the magazine Private Eye called Pseud's Corner where they published extracts from pompous and pretentious speeches or writings by various people. Perhaps we could start a Mudcat Pseud's Corner or MPC; now who could we get to run it?
G..

BTW Roger some people open every thread other than the ones that are titled correctly naming a subject in which they are uninterested.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Martin L King
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 09:16 AM

I have a dream... that one day,













oh, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 11:09 AM

Sorry about that Spaw, I was busy testing out new recliners but JERI gets the recliner, I get the interprutter job...I got it straight now...ok, here we go...


"For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life."


Translated - To repeatedly complain about other posters, makes one go "AAAAAAAAAGGGG".

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 11:15 AM

Spaw, what Sham said (until Frank can give us a proper translation) is: "When you post to a thread, you refresh it, no matter what you say." Ironically (and I'm sure it was an intentional demonstration) Shambles' own post actually refreshed the thread.

Phillip goes to his doctor because his wife was too shy. He say, "Doc, my wife's mammaries are migrating. They're headed south and she wonders if there's anything she can do. We can't affort surgery, everybody knows those creams are bogus. Is there anything we can afford that can help delay the motion of boobs?"

Doc replies, "Phil, a bustier."

I don't know that 'filibuster' fits what Sham does because a filibuster generally has some purpose. When it comes down to copy/pasting his previously ignored inanobilia = Shpam

This glut has actually ensured a couple of things:

No one with a functioning brain cell will ever again want Roger involved in their cause, on their side, because people see a complaint by him and figure its main purpose is for Shambles to demonstrate to the world he exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 11:34 AM

My take on all of this - not that anyone asked - is that Shambles is offended by thread drift whenever it shows up in his threads. It's tough to admit that we can't control a thread after it's been opened. It's almost as if a levee has broken. That's a real problem. Thread drift is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 12:42 PM

So he's a control freak... the very thing he ostensibly criticizes his anonymousvolunteerfellowposter people for.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 02:21 PM

My take on all of this - not that anyone asked - is that Shambles is offended by thread drift whenever it shows up in his threads. It's tough to admit that we can't control a thread after it's been opened. It's almost as if a levee has broken. That's a real problem. Thread drift is not.

Thread drift is a joy because it is a natural process - what is very well evidenced here in this thread - is not that natural process. Rather than certain posters accepting that our forum is open for anyone to post any view and open for anyone to equally ignore any view - a concious attempt is mounted by certain posters and eagerly if sadly followed by others - to control the postings of others - rather than to respond or to ignore them.

It has never mattered on our forum how well a view is expressed, spelt or grammatically constructed. Our forum's joy was that an equal welcome was given to all contributors and what was being said was thought more important that who was saying it or how they may have struggled to say it. Posting to laugh at and mock these attempts - were not usually encouraged - perhaps wisely?      

Time perhaps for a re-think and perhaps also a little logic?

Changes are now imposed upon thread titles - (well they are upon mine) - only it is claimed - to make the subject of the thread 'clear' to our forum's readers.

Now if - having opened a thread for example called. 'Opening threads - a debate' - you then intentionally post - for whatever reason - not to contribute to the debate, answer a question or propose a solution - but to talk about any other subject - this will result in the thread's title not being representitive of its contents. There is a danger then of it being judged as unclear and could possibly result a new title being imposed by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters.

So perhaps if certain posters insist on posting to this thread only to talk about grammar, have conversations with each other about other fellow posters or post anything other than the subject of this thread - perhaps it would be better for them to start another thread - titled to clearly show our forum's readers what the subject of this new thread was?

It could very well be that no one does wish to post to this thread to debate the subject - if so - without all of these other posts refreshing this thread - perhaps it will die a natural death? Otherwise it looks set to become yet another 1000 post thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 02:25 PM

N.B.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 06:45 PM

Isn't "spelt" a kind of sardine?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jeffp
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 07:07 PM

No, that's a smelt. Spelt is a grain.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 05 - 04:47 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM

I would like to see another column added to the list of threads saying who started that thread. I know this would have prevented me from opening this thread!
G..

Having known who started this thread (as if this really matters) - it has not prevented you from posting to this thread a further three times? *Smiles*

For I am sure that had such posters as you - with all the answers - actually entered this debate - the answer to the following would have been explained to us all in this thread - long ago.

Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the thread and upon some of the thread's active participants?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 01:52 PM

See also the following thread.

Closing threads

Which you will not now be able to open, and refresh by making any further contributions to that debate - as imposed editing action has now closed that thread - for the second time. And for reasons that are as unclear as the first time. But this time our forum does at least know who was responsible for its closure.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 02:06 PM

Was it ever established in fact - that the first time that thread was wrongly closed - it was done so unintentionally - as implied?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 02:49 PM

I have this recurring dream...I'm sitting in a very uncomfortable computer chair, tears in my eyes, a bright light in my face. Joe Offer is standing behind me holding what appears to be a gun. It may not be a real one but nevertheless it is situated directly behind my right ear. I can hear him saying, "Type scumbag!!! People are waiting for this thread!" And then....

Me: But I don't wanna open a thread on how Quantum Physics relates to music!
Joe: Shut up ya no good whining Mudcattin piece of garbage!!! Open the Thread!
Me: No, I won't.
Joe: Do it!
Me: No!
Joe: Yes! Or I'll start randomly closing threads you've started!
Me: OH NO! Anything but that!!!!
Joe: Watch me, and then tomorrow I'll claim it was an accident! Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaa!!!
Me: They'll never believe that will they?
Joe: Oh no?? Just watch.....

Next thing I know, I'm sitting by myself, going through threads and nothing I ever submitted was there, it was like I never existed, like some Clone clicked on delete and I dissappeared. My kid walked in the room and said, "Hey Mom there's a strange man using our computer!!" Damn those clones!!!!!!!!

Uh, it could happen couldn't it? I mean, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get ya, right?


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 03:16 PM

Sorry Frank, we've been having a problem on the 'Cat as you know and Max is working on it but I'm afraid there has been some leakage and bleedover into aspects of the 3-D world. Your dream is a case in point. It seems pretty accurate overall as that IS a scenario often used here but the bleedover has blurred things and that is NOT Joe Offer......it's me.

And I AM out after your ass so watch yourself.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 07:53 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-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:23 AM

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-

To be fair - the above quote should perhaps be seen in context.

Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:35 AM

So, Shambles, do you have a reason for all these Joe Offer quotes? Is there some reason why you seem to claim a right to use my words with such wild abandon? Don't I have a right to say my own words, without having to be concerned about your constant misuse of my words by quoting them out of context? In the previous two messages, you have copy-pasted the same Joe Offer quote from 2003, twice. What is your reason for that? Yes, you provide a link - but the implication seems to be that my words were directed at you, which they weren't.

I hereby request that you cease copy-pasting my words without obtaining advance permission from me. If you wish to include my words in a post, please be sure to submit a royalty check with your permission request. $100 per quote is my fee.

Besides, this obsession of yours is just plain spooky, quoting me dozens, maybe hundreds of times like you do. Are you some kind of stalker?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 05:06 AM

Yes, you provide a link - but the implication seems to be that my words were directed at you, which they weren't.

The concern is not which fellow posters such threats may be directed at on our forum - but who these threats are coming from. Perhaps someone who reveals such an selective attitude toward the freedom of speech on a discussion forum set-up by Max the site's owner for the invited contributions of the public - is not the ideal person to be trusted with the power to impose this attitude upon all of their fellow posters?

You have implied that Closing threads was closed for the first time accidentally. Now that you have informed our forum (when closing it for a second time) that you have eventually established which of our anonymous volunteer fellow posters was responsible for this error - can you confirm whether the first closure was in fact intentional? Or whether it was accidental - as you have earlier implied?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 05:28 AM

So, Shambles, you have quoted my "pain in the ass" passage at least ten times - and I don't think SuperSearch includes the two times you quoted the passage in this very thread. At $100 a quote for royalties, that's a pretty hefty chunk of change. Pay up.

As for the closure of the "closing threads" thread, I gave you an honest answer. I did not know at first who closed the thread temporarily and why, and today I got my answer and now I know. I am not at liberty to reveal internal information beyond that. If you have a need of additional information, please contact Max.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 06:07 AM

As for the closure of the "closing threads" thread, I gave you an honest answer. I did not know at first who closed the thread temporarily and why, and today I got my answer and now I know. I am not at liberty to reveal internal information beyond that. If you have a need of additional information, please contact Max.
-Joe Offer-

Does the above and the following quote demonstrate a double standard? Ordinary posters are expected (by you) to 'take responsibilty' and expected to 'use a name' and are threatened (by you) if they do not comply.

On the other hand you protect the right of volunteer fellow posters not to 'take responsibilty' for their actions and to remain anonymous whilst they wrongly (in your judgement) impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of their fellow posters. Posters who are named and who do 'take responsinibilty' for their actions - along with threats, name-calling and abusive personal attacks.

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-

In the absence of any full explanation and of any totally honest answer - perhaps it is safe for our forum to assume that the error in closing Closing threads for the first time was as intentional as the second and final closure was. And the reasons for both closures - just as unclear and equally as invalid.

It would appear that the need to protect our few obviously out-of-control, anonymous volunteer fellow posters from any embarrassment on our forum - is now more important than accountability and the freedom of expression of all contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 06:25 AM

Now, is this about out-of-control clones or about out-of-control clowns?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 06:33 AM

$200 to Joe, Shambles. Pay up.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 07:21 AM

I sit here desperately trying to think of a way you could be a bigger asshole Shambles, but I just can't do it.

What's with this freedom of speech bullshit? This is the internet numbnuts! There is no law of free speech on the net, something you'd know if you went anywhere else besides here at the 'Cat. Most sites would have banned your simple ass ages ago and eradicated all of your precious words from their threads.

Shambles says:"It would appear that the need to protect our few obviously out-of-control, anonymous volunteer fellow posters from any embarrassment on our forum - is now more important than accountability and the freedom of expression of all contributors."

Try to get this through the mush that is all that remains of your brain. A site owner chooses the people who are to assist in the daily workings of the website, generally known as Moderators. Moderators are almost always anonymous and use another screen name when performing their duties. The reason is that the site owner takes all responsibility for their actions and all complaints about them should be done by PM with the owner. THAT is the way things function at larger forums and Mudcat qualifies as a large forum. YOU have no reason to know who they are, simply direct complaints to the site owner. At most places, anyone even beginning to launch into a diatribe against a Mod would be banned, at least temporarily, from the forum and the thread deleted. Mudcat tries to be more open and free than most other places and for that you need to say a prayer of thanks. But YOU have no reason to know who did what and when. All you need to know is that if you have a complaint you need to take it to Max via PM.

While I'm at it, I am NOT a "fellow poster" of yours. I try to select even casual acquaintenances who are free of the more serious mental problems and whatever ails your sorry ass is no small thing.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 10:34 AM

...had the dream again, It was Spaw...he kept making me say, "I can't respect any Forum that would have me as a poster"...it was ugly...


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 12:59 PM

OK, Shambles, this is serious. We're talking big money here. My messages are my creation, and I have a right to them. Just as you as a poster have a right to your messages, I have a right to mine. That right does not extend to thread titles that show up as an index on the Forum Menu, but it does cover the text of messages.

You have ranted for years how about how the words of yourself and your "fellow posters" should be sacrosanct, and I agree with that. Well, MY words are sacrosanct, too; and I do not want you plagiarizing them any more. My fee for each quote is $100, payable in advance of any use of my words.

Pay up, or shut up!!

-Joe Offer, the owner of his own words-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:10 PM

Dear GawdinEvvin, I cannot believe this dialogue is still goingt on!!! ROFLMAO.

Sham, aincha got nuffin better to do? Couldn't you go build an outhouse or sumpn?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:11 PM

Was it ever established - that the first time that Closing threads was (in Joe Offer's judgement) wrongly closed - it was done so unintentionally - as the first so-called 'honest' answer to our forum implied?

It will be clear to the many remaining sensible posters - that our forum's current editing set-up is not open, fair or accountable but has a built-in secrecy. Is this heavy-handed approach really proportionate or needed?

The requirement for our volunteer fellow posters to remain anonymous - seemingly at all costs - makes even supplying our forum with the totally honest answers to a fairly simply question (like the one above) - impossible. Which makes it look as if there really is something to hide and where it is impossible to defend any accusation of impartiality in these editing actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:14 PM

the "many remaining sensible posters" - that would be the two - or is it three - that have responded favorurably to your threads?

Joe answered your questions. He also informed you that if you needed more information you could PM Max. Why is it that you apparently refuse to do so. It is the ONLY way you will get the info.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:43 PM

Joe answered your questions. He also informed you that if you needed more information you could PM Max. Why is it that you apparently refuse to do so. It is the ONLY way you will get the info.

MMario are you seriously asking our forum to consider that a totally honest answer has been provided to the simple question of whether a thread's imposed closure was intentional?

We are informed that the answer to who was responsible for the closure has eventually been established - so why is it a problem for our forum to be finally informed if a thread on our forum was closed accidently or intentionally?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:49 PM

No,Roger,I am expecting you to act like a rational being and accept the facts as stated; that Joe has provided what information he will provide you and that any more information will require that you contact Max off forum.

Joe is under NO obligation whatsoever to furnish you with ANY information (nor is Max for that matter).

I also have to wonder why "a totally honest answer has been provided " is expected when you continually twist and distort the truth in the attempt to validate your agenda - and have yet to apologize for a single one of your mis-qoutes, qoutes out of context etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:57 PM

1. You've already been given the answer, many times.

2. Even if you hadn't been, you don't have the right to demand an answer anyway.

But you already know that, don't you.

What you don't seem to get is that no amount of passive-aggressive bullying is going to make anyone cave in just to shut you up.

Y

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:01 PM

You will see from the following Closing threads that it was not thought to be a problem for Joe Offer to suggest and speculate that this closure may have been accidental and that he himself may have unknowingly closed it.

Now that that the circumstances have been established - why should it be thought problem for our forum to be finally informed if a thread on our forum was closed accidently or intentionally?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:05 PM

Y    A    W    N   !

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:06 PM

100 :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:06 PM

gee - why don't you ask Max, as Joe told you you needed to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:11 PM

From Closing threads

And no, nobody but the responsible party can tell whether a change is intentional or inadvertant - logic should tell you that.
Joe Offer

Logic is not perhaps much in evidence on our forum now - but if it were - it should tell us that now the 'responsible party' has eventually been established - the fact of whether the closure was intentional or not - should also have been established.

Perhaps our forum can be informed if this first closure was intentional or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:14 PM

$300! (and the rest)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:16 PM

Oooooooooooooooooo, so you want to know if it was closed intentionally???? Well, hell, why didn't you say so in the first place! I'll tell ya, this beatin around the bush ain't gonna getcha nowhere! But since I have ESP and can predict what some people can say, let me give this a shot...mmmmmm, ok....I see it. Joe says that he has talked to the original Clone who closed the thread....and he got all the information he needs.....and.....uhhhh....he says that if you want to know more......uhhhhh.....you can talk to.....uh...Mix...no, uh, Tax, no...mmmmm MAX, that's it, you can talk to Max! Phew, that was tough!! But I think I got it now...

ESPseudolus

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:57 PM

Jenny, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the Shambles Quote Bill. If you'd like to keep the job, I'll give you ten percent of whatever you collect. The rest goes to support Mudcat.

Shambles, I've told you all I'm at liberty to say about the incident in which the "closing threads" thread was closed for a few hours in the middle of the night. If you'd like to request a further explanation from Max, be sure to explain to him what good it will do for you and others to know who closed that thread and why.

Usual procedures were followed. I reviewed the action, found it to be an unnecessary closing, and countermanded it. I didn't find out who did it and why until yesterday, but that's neither here nor there. I think that's all you need to know, and I fail to see how you could use additional information for anything other than causing a Big Stink about it. Big Stinks are usually counterproductive, not to mention the fact that they're downright unfriendly.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 03:12 PM

This has changed from a debate to a rant. Can this thread be retitled to "Opening threads - a rant" for the purposes of clarity ?

I'll let the clones decide if "in the UK" needs to be added also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 11:12 PM

Wesley S, I like the way you think :-)

Joe, that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Wow, 10%!

I'M RICH! I'M RICH! (laughs maniacally)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:48 AM

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1277273

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:15 AM

Shambles, I've told you all I'm at liberty to say about the incident in which the "closing threads" thread was closed for a few hours in the middle of the night. If you'd like to request a further explanation from Max, be sure to explain to him what good it will do for you and others to know who closed that thread and why.

I have already done this but now that that the circumstances have been established - can it be explained why should it be thought problem for our forum to also be finally informed if a thread on our forum was closed accidently or intentionally? For what possible harm could the provision of this information to our forum do?

It may be irritating for some posters to see a perfectly valid question repeatedly asked. As no one is forcing anyone to open this thread - that problem is easily solved by them not opening it.

It is just as irritating for others to see a perfectly valid question repeatly NOT answered and it is this refusal to answer - that results in others being irritated by constantly seeing the question.

It may now be thought FORBIDDEN to provide our forum with this answer - but it is not (yet) FORBIDDEN to ask it on our discussion forum.

The provision of a simple answer to a simple question will enable us all to move on. The refusal to provide our forum with this answer - in conjunction with attempts to minimise the incident and others to encourage the discrediting the fellow poster who is asking the question - will only give the impression that there IS something that our volunteer fellow posters wish to hide.

Joe - as it was you who first proposed the concept of an accidental closure of this thread - to our forum - perhaps it is only fair that it should be you who finally informs our forum if this was in fact the case?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:19 AM

Shambles - Joe has given you a perfectly clear, unambiguous answer to your question. He has also informed you that in order to get further information you must contact Max off-forum. which part of the latter instruction don't you understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:24 AM

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 05:17 PM

But I still don't know who closed this thread, and I was mad as hell at the person who did it, and if I found out who did it, I was gonna kick butt. But of course, it could have been Joe Offer that closed the thread inadvertantly, and kicking HIS butt could cause problems that even his wife the chiropractor couldn't fix.
>Snip<

Was this first closure in fact an accident?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:29 AM

Joe said: "I've told you all I'm at liberty to say about the incident "

this is pretty clear-cut. Now, on the matter of the mudcat, the forum, etc - thee only one I know of that gives direction to Joe that might constrain him is Max. Joe then states:

If you'd like to request a further explanation from Max, be sure to explain to him what good it will do for you and others to know who closed that thread and why.

to me this implies 2 things.

1) Max told Joe not to give you any further information.
2) Max doesn't consider it any of your business.

Obviously you interpret it differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:34 AM

MMario

What possible harm do you consider the provision of this information to our forum would do?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:38 AM

I haven't the foggiest idea. However - As Joe has informed you multiple times already - he has given you all the information he is at liverty to provide. In order to obtain more you must contact Max off forum. How much clearer can it be to you?

If you went to your local council office and asked a question re: a regulation and they informed you they were not allowed to give you the information - it could only be provided by a personal visit to the regional office - would you continue to walk into the local office daily demanding an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:14 AM

Mama, why can't I get an icecream?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:37 AM

Shambles, you are the Poster child for the group of Catters that want more moderator control on this forum.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 01:09 PM

Roger why did you sub-title this thread 'A debate'? You don't debate, you don't answer anybodies points, you send rude PMs to people rather than answer them on an open forum, you just cut paste cut paste cut paste cut paste cut paste cut paste, ad nauseam.
F off Roger, go find another forum that will put up with your nit picking crap!!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 02:53 PM

If you went to your local council office and asked a question re: a regulation and they informed you they were not allowed to give you the information - it could only be provided by a personal visit to the regional office - would you continue to walk into the local office daily demanding an answer?

MMario - If you didn't get an answer from either place - would you just give-up? And if you decided not to - would you take any notice of a third party who advised you to give-up?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 02:58 PM

Does this mean you have asked Max?


Because sure as hell you ain't gonna get an answer on the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:00 PM

MMario

What possible harm do you consider the provision of this information to our forum would do?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:04 PM

??

the information isn't *AVAILABLE* from the people on the forum. It's available from MAX - who has requested it be dealt with off-forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:05 PM

You have no need to know.....period. I really wish that in this one case, Mudcat functioned like the rest of the internet forums and Shambles would be flushed into the ether.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:19 PM

It's available from MAX - who has requested it be dealt with off-forum.

MMario -

Where has Max ever stated on our forum that the answer to such a question as this one should be dealt with off-forum?

What would be gained by our forum by such a measure - even if Max had ever stated such a thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:27 PM

You have no need to know. I have no need to know. Mario has no need to know. Santa Claus has no need to know.

How would knowing benefit the forum?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:35 PM

Does anyone on the forum other than The Shambles CARE ?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:39 PM

Roger you are gradually working your way to the stage where the peeps who run this forum will tell the whole population of Timbuctoo before they tell you, and do you know why? Because you're a f***ing boring repetitive self obsessed tosser that's why!!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:46 PM

I don't think he cares either. He apparently just wants to cause a stink and force things to be done his way.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:07 PM

The idea of intentionally posting to change the intended subject of a thread is one that is ...
In my opinion - ... not acceptable. (Shambles)

Interesting.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:18 PM

The cook comes in; he is very big and comes 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)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:19 PM

'Spaw!

Santa Claus probably already knows!

For as the song says:


He knows if you've been bad or good

Maybe the Shambles should write a letter to the North Pole? Santa could probably answer his questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:24 PM

I was going to make a cheap shot here comparing the Shambles actions on this and similar threads to my 3 year old great neice - but decided not to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:28 PM

Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the hread and upon some of the thread's active participants?

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

MMario

What possible harm do you consider the provision of this information to our forum would do?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:41 PM

Roger - I answered that question the first time you asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:23 AM

$500!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 04:35 AM

For the same reason as you Roger have fouled up an irrelevant thread with your narcisistic maunderings, why did you bother to open a thread about Mudcat quotations? Did you think you would find a lesson in how to post more of Joe Offers work? Once there, did you read it? I doubt it!
As I have said before, and will continue to say F**k off Roger, you may have declared war on Joe Offer and the other people who work for nothing to keep this site tidy, but I too little boy can declare war on you!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 06:47 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

Perhaps it is time concepts like declations of war on our forum can be seen for the plain silliness they are and reactions to posts can be allowed to return to being proportionate? Addressing what is said - rather than who may be saying it or making asumptions about their motivation?

The attempt (by a certain few of my fellow posters) to use such a silly concept as an excuse and justification for calling certain of their fellow posters names and making abusive personal attacks and to encourage others to follow suit -is very sad. For the concept of declaration of personal wars on our forum is too juvunile for serious consideration - for it is everyone who loses in any war.

All that certain posters are repeatedly posting here to express their frustration at - is fellow posters expressing and evidencing a view that may be different to their own. Rather responding to what is said or simply ignoring it.

This on a discussion forum set-up for exactly that purpose. An exchange of views can surely still be undertaken on our forum without any need to resort to the sort of personal judgements of fellow posters by fellow posters evidenced here and seemingly now thought to be acceptable? In fact certain of these posters seem to think - and are perhaps encouraged to think - that they should not only post to make (increasingly) abusive personal attacks but that they can at the same time retain the moral high-ground.   

There now appears to be a complete misunderstanding of what should be made public on a discussion forum and what should be conveyed via PMs. Those who have been posting for a long time and who should know better – also seem confused about this and do not set a very good example.

Making personal judgements to or about and having conversations about fellow posters on a public discussion forum is not what its purpose is. What is said in the thread about the issue concerned is what is important – NOT who may be saying it or how one poster may judge another's worth. The most effective judgement of a contribution that you may not approve of - is to ignore it.

Personal messages are the correct medium for any personal exchanges and not for inflicting on the rest of our forum.

It has taken a long time for some to accept that the only postings they have any real control over - is their own. But some have finally grasped this concept but have not been too successful in convincing others. I may not agree with all of the following but - for I have never been a problem on our forum - but some of it is spot-on.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 07:36 AM

Perhaps it is time concepts like declations of war on our forum can be seen for the plain silliness they are and reactions to posts can be allowed to return to being proportionate? Addressing what is said - rather than who may be saying it or making asumptions about their motivation?

'Addressing what is said' Roger, you ought to practice what you preach sonny. Your foot must be like a colander the amount of times you shoot yourself in it.
Go find another site.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:39 AM

Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:29 AM

You forgot pompous!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 07:30 AM

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.

Posters like me - who do NOT post to only to make abusive personal attacks, NOR post only to call fellow posters names, nor post only to threaten them, NOR post only to hold public conversations about their fellow posters etc– will NEVER be a problem on our forum.

So where are the grounds for the special treatment that my posts now receive and why should my posts and words be subject to ANY imposed editing action on our forum?

Especially when those who do post only to make abusive personal attacks, AND post only to call fellow posters names, AND post only to threaten them, AND post only to hold public conversations about their fellow posters etc – are seemingly thought not to be a problem and are not subject to any imposed editing action?

I am not the only poster to have been concerned about this and think it unfair....


http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 07:39 AM

Oh and repetitive.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:06 AM

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=84724&messages=32

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:16 AM

Three of my recent thread titles have had changes imposed upon them -for reasons of clarity - when there were many more unclear thread titles than these – which escaped any imposition.

And Closing threads was by moved by Joe Offer to the BS section – was closed by some unknown fellow poster for reasons that were unclear and judged then by Joe Offer to be wrong or possibly accidental – when he re-opened it.

Joe Offer later imposed closure for a second time on equally questionable grounds and that thread remains closed.

The circumstances of the first closure have no been established but the answer to the question of whether this was accidental – appears to be thought to be too harmful for our forum to be informed.

What possible harm to ur forum do you consider the provision of this information would do? Or would you consider that it does our forum more harm for some of our fellow posters to intentionally withold it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 02:39 PM

Shambles - fellow posters are not intentionally withholding anything from you - Joe has told you all he is PERMITTED to tell you - he has told you this!!! The parameters of what Joe (or the other administrators) is permitted to tell you are not set by fellow posters or by the 'administrators' but by Max. You have been directed to contact Max if you seek further info and, presumably, he will make a decision as to whether or not to let you have that additional info. If ge doesn't, I don't know what you will do... (I actually suspect that you have already asked him, but have gotten no further and are now trying to wrangle it out of one of the administrators by sheer persistence! ...but that is just me and my cynical way of thinking...)

Now, as I truly believe that you are quite an intelligent bloke, if a little nitpicky (you wouldn't last a week living with me, believe me!!) please tell me if there is anything in the above post that you do not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 02:25 AM

No one has prevented Joe Offer - a fellow poster of ours - from publicly speculating on our forum - that the first closure may have been accidental.

What evidence do you have that Max is preventing this fellow poster from confirming the answer to my question to our forum - now that this information is available?

What possible harm to our forum - do YOU consider that ending the public speculation that this closure was accidental would cause?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:39 AM

1. Shambles - when he is acting as a fellow poster, Joe is as entitled as you or I to speculate, as much or little as he wants to, about whatever does or does not take his fancy.

2. I require no evidence beyond the fact that Joe has told me that he has given all the information he is permitted to give. Whilst that might be called 'hearsay', I really don't care enough to contact Max myself and have Joe's statement proven or otherwise. Plus, I am persuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, this seems to be a likely truth (if I needed persuading).

3. You ask me what harm the ending of public speculation would do. I really don't think that there is any public speculation on the subject. The phrase 'Public speculation' suggests that a number of people are asking the same questions or, indeed, speculating as to what the answers to those questions might be. There is no 'number of people' from where I am standing - just you. If you really want to end your own speculation, ask Max - he might tell you, he might not! I really don't care.

I have bigger things to worry about in my life - be thankful that you, obviously, don't!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:40 AM

I can't see any reason why it should have been closed. The "close thread" link is in a location where a volunteer could click it accidentally and not notice, so it may have been closed inadvertantly. Whatever the case, I don't think it should have been closed. I reopened the thread.
-Joe Offer-

The above speculation is contained in an editing comment (in brown) from the thread that Joe Offer has now imposed closure upon called Closing threads

Can YOU explain any real reason why that thread needed the imposed judgement to be anonymously closed - re-opened by Joe Offer - and then closed by Joe Offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:48 AM

Nope - 'fraid I can't - but I'm not going to lose sleep over it....

Come to think of it...there are a lot of things in life I can't explain - such as how do televisions and the internal combustion engine work. I don't need to know, I don't lose sleep over that either....

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:58 AM

3. You ask me what harm the ending of public speculation would do. I really don't think that there is any public speculation on the subject. The phrase 'Public speculation' suggests that a number of people are asking the same questions or, indeed, speculating as to what the answers to those questions might be. There is no 'number of people' from where I am standing - just you.

Even if it were just me who wished to be informed - the current and continuing speculation as to if this was an accidental closure or not - would still be taking place in public. In anyone's book - that would make it public speculation.

The following public speculation was made in a post following yours - in Closing threads Even if that is only three fellow posters publicly speculating - there may be many more reading - who may be interested in the answer or hearing what harm it would do to our forum - if our forum were to be provided with the answer?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,Jon - PM
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 07:07 PM

How likely is it that this thread's closure was really inadvertent?

Given the one click process Joe Offer described, I'd say it's very likely. I don't know the mechanism here but it is also possible that the "culprit" was unaware of what they did.

>Snip<

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:59 AM

I think you would find the internal combustion engine easier to understand than Shambles, you can get handbooks and instructions with an engine. It is also easier to stop, but not as easy to start.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 06:22 AM

Shambles, to answer your original question - here is my view:

Because people are just that - people. And by definition therefore also fallible, mischievous, caring, responsive when their buttons are pressed, forgiving, curious, and all those things that make up this wonderful species.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 06:40 AM

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 02:36 PM

Divisions are caused by divisive people.
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 07:17 AM

there may be many more reading - who may be interested in the answer or hearing what harm it would do to our forum - if our forum were to be provided with the answer?

I for one couldn't care less. Most of us don't even care enough to respond to you.

$600 by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 07:28 AM

I still think it a pretty accurate description of your role on Mudcat Roger, so thanks for quoting it. Nice to know we agree with me.
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:35 PM

For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life.

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:46 PM

And now we're back to pomposity.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:50 PM

Have you tried stamps and an envelope?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:54 PM

It is sad to see a person's "condition" played out in such a public way. It is even sadder to see bright people feed it. This is a mountain made out of a molehill. But Roger ain't the guilty party. He can't help himself. Those of you who continue to enable his sad behaviour are the ones responsible. IMHO.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 01:34 PM

Schadenfreude

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 01:36 PM

The reason why our forum's Editing Staff's knickers are currently so twisted over this issue and why PMs could not be sent before any editing action is imposed - is the stubborn insistence of keeping a few of their number anonymous.

So this few can continue to anonymously impose their personal judgements upon the words of their fellow posters (who are prepared to be known and responsible for their actions) and insert comments like the following vital examples - into existing posts.

The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone
From Opening threads

Or from Max what about Shambles requests

Yes, Rog-o, as you can see it was redundant and covered by this thread. And no one was talking turds over there, so I exercised editorial control so that we can talk about turds. Stay on subject please. Mudelf

I am closing this. It is redundant and deals with the same issue as two other threads. It will just become another 1000 post thread with nothing new to add. Please use the existing threads.
Thanks, Mudelf

I see you have arrived first. Blessings upon you Mudelf....I have your back!.......FatClone

All of these personal comments could of course be made in conventional posts – whilst using their usual posting names. Or not made at all. But with such examples being set by these few anonymous trusted ones – it is hardly surprising that other posters may now feel that following this example – and posting only personal judgements of their fellow posters - is one that it is now OK to follow on our forum. …Is this now OK?

Is the cost of continuing this anonimimity for a few really worth any benefit that it may be thought to bring to our forum? Or is our forum being compromised by the defence of anonymous posting and anonymous imposed editing action?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 10:06 AM

Knowing their names won't change their judgements, it will just give ammunition to carping and complaining self obsessed posters. It will be used as a hook to hang their complaints on, and a name to vilify, not to mention someone they can blame for all their ills imaginary or otherwise. Nobody has the need to know the identity of those who police this site, and even less do they have a RIGHT to know.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 11:14 AM

Exactly, John. The only reason trolls want to know this, is to give them more to bitch about. Trolls play a game of manipulating folks in order to enhance what they see as self worth. They see it as "Look how easy it is to make them dance". When the mod's stay unseen, they don't like it. Pene told me that long ago, right after I revealed that I was a mudelf. I have come to know the wisdom of what he said. It is why I am very disappointed with those that continue to feed this man's need to "make 'em dance". And the one's that should know better most of all, are the one's that are most disappointing. One of the Mudcats earliest and most respected members sent me an email and in it made the comment that "Mudcat has gone to shit". I don't agree, but it certainly is once again suffering. Not because we have sorry individuals who get a perverse enjoyment out of their incessant and obsessive posts. The Internet will always let them get more exposure than they could get in the pre-internet age. But many of these folks that continue to respond are either tilting at windmills (which means they have their own issues), or have a twisted sense of self importance.

Just rambling,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 12:44 PM

Why is the assumption made that this is any way about anyone wishing to know the names of those who feel themselves qualified to impose their personal judgement upon their fellow posters?

Joe Offer is the only one who imposes his personal judgement on his fellow posters on any regular basis and is prepared to be known. Posters may not ever agree to what his imposed judgement may be or feel that Joe Offer is anymore qualified to impose his personal judgement upon them - than any one else - but the fact that he is at least prepared to be known and be seen to be responsible for his actions - is respected.

A practical result of Joe Offer being known - is that it is perfectly possible for him to send a PM to any other forum member in advance of any imposition - indicating to the originator that he judged that some change was required to their contribution.

This polite and simple process (that I have requested) - is not possible for a volunteer who wishes to operate anonymously. They have to impose their judgement without the originator's knowledge or permission - as for them to send a PM would not be possible if they wished to remain anonymous.   

It is my wish to see any editing process on our forum to reflect the traditional basic values of our forum and be open, fair and to be seen to have a clear objective.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 01:43 PM

On our forum we now have quite the reverse problem.

The ones who plainly cannot resist refreshing threads by posting the anonymous personal judgements of their fellow posters or inserting these into existing posts and setting this poor example - are not the (usually anonymous) trolls and flamers but often the few supposedly trusted to deal with the trolls and flamers.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 01:50 PM

You're such a complete and total dumbass with so little knowledge of the net that it's unbelievable.

If a clone wished to remain anonymous here at the 'Cat then the easiest thing to do is to do what is done at other forums. The clone acquires a second screen name and uses that for his mod duties. He can then send PM's if desired or not. My experience says that on most larger forums, the mods send a PM less than probably 10% of the time.

Why is that? The decision belongs to the moderator and he is supervised by someone else. Members have agreed to terms of usage and they have no say in the moderation of the board.

You don't either Sham. Try to understand that. You have no say really in what goes on here. Quit deluding yourself with a 6 year old throw-off line from Max. As far as moderation of this place goes, you and I are equal and we both occupy a place equal to that of dinosaur shit....completely irrelevant! If your opinion mattered really, Max would have responded to you by now jackass.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 05:18 PM

er...thank you Spaw....I was going to say something along those lines but I would have probably used more letters, while meaning the same thing....

Cheers - you saved me a job....

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 01:41 AM

I first started posting to this forum in 1999, and I stuck around because there was an ongoing and intelligent discussion of music, a spirit of fun, and frankly, a sense that anything short of obscenity and personal attack was acceptable. Mainly though, I kept coming back because of the type of people this forum attracted. Mudcatters were about as accepting and non-judgemental a bunch as I have ever known. I have developed lasting friendships here, even though I have met very few of you in real life.
Those I have had the pleasure of meeting have uniformly proven to be everything they seemed to be in the Forum. These people include Roger and his wife, who came to my house for dinner some years back. I can't claim to be interested in all of the things Roger has passionate opinions about, but over the years I have enjoyed the times when we have conversed in these threads, and I would certainly miss his presence here.
His point, for those of you who are having trouble following it, seens to me to be concerned with censorship in the Forum, and more particularly with the conditions in which that censorship is applied. In addition, it is concerned with an atmosphere of personal attack which has always been an element here, even if a suppressed one. I have witnessed personal attack used against several people whom I like very much, and frankly, it pisses me off. Many people who are confronted by these attacks will simply ignore them, or stop posting altogether.
Obviously, Roger won't do that. Roger has the need, relentless as he may be, convoluted as he can be, to air his feelings and opinions. What he is saying is : Don't fucking respond if you object to it. Don't post! I am certain that what some see as deliberate trolling by Roger is, in fact, a heartfelt concern and burning desire to make his case. You can't tell me that, with thread titles like "What Time is it where You Are?" or "The Shatnerization of North Carolina", Roger's threads are extroardinarily inane or are using up critical bandwidth, or that their titles need to be altered for clarity. I don't know or care what the issue was with the interruption of the "Closing Threads" thread.
I just think its time to stop acting like a band of third graders throwing rocks at Roger during recess.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 03:39 AM

Lonesome - with all due respect, Roger did not start this thread with the intention of being the sole contributor, or to only be joined in it by people who agreed with him. It is meant to be 'a debate'. Granted, it may not be the most structured debate, but you have to allow people with opposing views to have their say too - not just tell them to not say anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 06:17 AM

In creating the following thread BBc/PBS 26 September No Direction Home I made a typo in the first post and I received a very polite PM from a named volunteer fellow poster - offering to correct this. I readily agreed to this and I see that this correction has taken place.

I also find that a change to my chosen thread title has once again been imposed by some anonymous volunteer fellow poster - again without my knowledge or permission!

I am sure that the important fact - that this change was needlessly imposed will again be ignored by many posters and the case made that this thread title is now clearer. I would have readily agreed to such a change so there was no need for its bad-mannered imposition. In fact I had originally tried to include the words 'Bob Dylan'. But there were not enough characters available to an ordinary poster like me to fit it in the box.

Perhaps an apology for this needless imposition can be provided to our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 06:33 AM

If you had tried adding Bob Dylan but couldn't and they added it, as far as I can make out, they did you a favour.

Or did you try to add it because you felt it needless?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 06:51 AM

I am sure that the important fact - that this change was needlessly imposed will again be ignored by many posters and the case made that this thread title is now clearer.

Jon - The practical solution is rather simple. If the same amount of characters available to those anonymous volunteer fellow posters - were to be made available to us ordinary posters - we would all be able to create longer and perhaps clearer titles.

The answer to how to prevent all this needless, selective and unfriendly imposition on our forum and to encourage our volunteer fellow posters to communicate with one another - appears to be rather less simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 07:04 AM

Well shambles, I don't consider the change needless, unfriendly etc. but...

Not that it troubles me, I don't understand the reasoning for some having more characters to play with than others - any sequence of characters wii take the same space regardless of who enters it. One thing's for sure though, the volunteers can not have coded the system to work that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 07:29 AM

This title change (and perhaps many others) may well have been urgently needed - the imposition of this change in this case was plainly needless.

What is the point of pushing someone before you have established if they are prepared to jump anyway? Unless you just wish to push your weight around and be be seen to be unfriendly?

There was no real need for the named volunteer to PM me first - but this move was polite, friendly and was appreciated.

And all the good relations gained by this - were lost immediately by another anonymous volunteer fellow poster's needless imposition and failure (or inability) to communicate with me or their fellow volunteers.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 07:39 AM

Lonesome EJ,

Shambles' points are clear enough and not the problem. His way of arguing is it with me. I have lost all of the not small respect I once had for him. The combination of asking for a reasonable debate on the one hand with the complete refusal obvious in his posts to engage in it on the other hand makes it impossible for me to take him serious anymore. Third-grader would be a flattering description.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 08:28 AM

Yeah, Leej, what Wolfgang said. Between you, him and I, we have been in these precincts for a lot of years. That is germane only in that you know a lot about us. I feel very similar on this issue.

Having said that, I find some validity in your post, specifically as it relates to how people react to this poster. He has demonstrated time and again that his intent has nothing to do with debate, and everything to do with manipulation. So what do others here do? Allow him to manipulate them. And then he chuckles. He is certainly not the likes of Martin Gibson, but his tactics are similar.

Roger's positions and refusal to do what he asks others to do are an annoyance. Those that feed his plan are endangering a pretty cool place. IMHO.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 11:17 AM

In creating the following thread BBc/PBS 26 September No Direction Home I made a typo in the first post and I received a very polite PM from a named volunteer fellow poster - offering to correct this. I readily agreed to this and I see that this correction has taken place.

I also find that a change to my chosen thread title has once again been imposed by some anonymous volunteer fellow poster - again without my knowledge or permission!

*Apology time.*

It has correctly and politely been pointed out that I did not read the PM properly. A request was also made in this PM for the named volunteer to add the words 'Bob Dylan' (if they would fit). So I did in fact agree to this change - if unknowingly and I aplogise to our forum for the incorrect information I supplied. There was no imposition in this case.

Our volunteer would have been able to make these added words fit into the box - as it is possible for them to use more characters and create longer thread titles.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 11:24 AM

Amen!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 11:41 AM

What is the point of all of these repeated public posting only of personal judgements of fellow posters with the danger only of a possible response in kind?

What is the point of posting such judgements when it is clear that none of these will ever illicit a response in kind from the poster being judged and abused - but will only set a poor example and encourage others to feel that such posts are now acceptable on our forum?

Can it be finally accepted that our forum is now the loser and everyone suffers when it is cluttered-up by such totally pointless personal judgements - whoever is making them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 11:47 AM

Gee - Roger - I don't know. why don't you stop doing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 12:19 PM

Can it be finally accepted that our forum is now the loser and everyone suffers when it is cluttered-up by such totally pointless personal judgements - whoever is making them?

Any serious contribution posted to the debate will be read by me and I may even respond (in my usual convoluted way).

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 02:21 AM

Not that it troubles me, I don't understand the reasoning for some having more characters to play with than others - any sequence of characters wii take the same space regardless of who enters it. One thing's for sure though, the volunteers can not have coded the system to work that way.

I am not sure that there is any reasoning for this. From what I was given to understand - it was just something that happened. When the difference was discovered - it just remained. When a request was made for this disparity to be addressed - it still just remains

Would it cause great technical problems to the running of the site - to provide the increased number of characters available in the thread title creation box - to all contributors and not just those trusted with edit buttons?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 03:48 AM

If everybody has the same number of characters to use for thread titles then I can make sure that I use them all in every thread I start, and then nobody can add anything to them because there'll be no space; so there!!
G.¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 08:31 AM

There are 50 spaces available for titles - period.
~ The 'edit' space has 50 in one block.
~ The 'create thread' has 50 in the form of up to 10 for the prefix. I belive 'Tune Req: " has 10.

If you want the options to be exactly the same, it means an end to prefixes. I think more people like having that than not and prefixes are available because people asked for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:15 AM

Any serious contribution posted to the debate will be read by me (Shambles)



It is a simple suggestion - that if posters were permitted to have the same number of spaces available to them as our volunteers do - posters may be able to make as informative titles as our volunteers impose. Perhaps this measure may prevent the need for any future title changes to be imposed as a matter of routine? The length of the imposed title above does demonstrate the sort of title that ordinary posters could not create.

It may very well be that a poster - would make a more informative title - if they could use the few extra spaces that our volunteers can.

It is a simple suggestion - that if posters were permitted to have the same number of spaces available to them as our volunteers do - posters may be able to make as informative titles as our volunteers impose.

My point is simply that if ordinary posters were able to use as many letters as out volunteers are - they may be able to produce more informative titles - without the need for any inposed change.

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

How come this new (imposed) thread title can be so much longer than the ones that ordinary posters can put in the box?

Perhaps part of the problem could be solved by enabling ordinary posters to make longer and more informative thread titles?

If I am right - perhaps if us ordinary posters were given - even the extra three or four spaces that appears to be available to you and your anonymous volunteers - more informative thread titles could be given by ordinary posters?


Would it cause great technical problems to the running of the site - to provide the increased number of characters available in the thread title creation box - to all contributors and not just those trusted with edit buttons? (Shambles)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 02:09 PM

And, just to show you how unequal things are - it appears to me that some spaces are different sizes, so the lowercase letter "i" does not get as much space as the letter "M." If I want to fit more words in, I am forced against my will to use lowercase letters and lean toward narrower letters.

This is patently unfair.
Write a letter to your congressmember or MP.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 02:39 PM

It's an ideal thred title for certain contributors
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Catchy isn't it?
G ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 02:47 PM

The final choice of a thread title is limited by a number of factors. The final choice of the originator - limited by these factors - will probably not be thought to be the exact one that any other poster may have created. Like most things - this is matter of taste - for which as we know - there is no accounting for.

You could get a committee to decide on the best choice, have a vote or many other methods could be tried. But it is probably best to accept the limitations and accept the originator's title.

Any imposed change will imply that the originator's choice was judged as lacking in some way. This feeling may be added to - if those imposing this judgement are able to create longer thread titles.

The forum is divided into music-related and non-music related sections. One for non-music related subjects will be probably all the prefixes that will ever be required.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 04:08 PM

"One for non-music related subjects will be probably all the prefixes that will ever be required."
Shambles, are you trying to say you know better than those who asked for the other prefixes and now use them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 04:47 PM

One for non-music related subjects will be probably all the prefixes that will ever be required (Shambles)

Shambles, that's an uninformed and ill thought suggestion. I remember the bad old times with thread titles like

Desparate! (nearly exclusively spelled this way)
Please help
Lyrics?
Irish song needed
Do you know this?
lyrics needed
Looking for song.

Humans sometimes need a tiny bit of guidance to do the correct thing. The introduction of the simple lyr req prefix has helped tremendously to reduce uninformative thread titles. The matter-of-taste argument is completely wrong here. 'Desparate!' is a worse thread title in many respects than 'Lyr req: Daintee Davie'. Usability is the word here and not just personal taste.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 07:12 PM

Generally, we leave non-music thread titles alone because threads like that are of a temporal nature. (The "In the UK...." threads was an exception, because it gave no clue of the thread contents whatsoever). And since non-music threads are of a temporal nature, they sometimes get closed.

The music threads are a different matter. They have become a valuable library of music information, so it is important to index that information in a consistent manner so it can be found - and so it isn't duplicated over and over again. And sometimes that means that music threads get closed so discussions don't get repeated.

So, yeah, we index music threads by title changes and cross-indexing, so people can tell at a glance which threads contain which information. If people can't find the information here with reasonable ease, they ask for it again.
And again.
And again.
And so forth.

So, we index.

And yes, we realize that Shambles doesn't like it, but we truly hope that one day he will see and acknowledge and embrace the the Purity of our Hearts and the Wisdom of our Ways.

So far, Shambles shows no sign whatsoever of being converted.
Such is life.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 09:21 AM

There are 50 spaces available for titles - period.
~ The 'edit' space has 50 in one block.
~ The 'create thread' has 50 in the form of up to 10 for the prefix. I belive 'Tune Req: " has 10.

Perhaps this can be translated and the following clearly explained to our forum?

The volunteer fellow poster who contacted me - was able to fit the words 'Bob Dylan' into the title creation box and create a far longer thread title than I was. Is it really not possible for the same ammount of characters for thread title creation - to be given equally to all posters?

There was no prefix in this case but what seems to be suggested here is that the (so-called optional) use of prefix (which is used to clarify what the thread's subject) limits the ammount of letters that can be used in the threads title.....is this the case?

How much imposed 'clarifcation' is required - when even with a prefix and original title - the title is still judged to be unclear?

But even at this point - is it really proportionate on our forum to anonymously judge a title wanting in some way and impose any change to a fellow poster's contribution - without their knowledge or permission.

Why should the obvious repect, concern and consideration given by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - to their fellow posters - when these posters are reading threads - not extend to these same individuals when they are creating them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 10:26 AM

There are 50 spaces available for titles - period.
~ The 'edit' space has 50 in one block.
~ The 'create thread' has 50 in the form of up to 10 for the prefix. I belive 'Tune Req: " has 10.

Perhaps this can be translated and the following clearly explained to our forum? [You mean YOU, don't you? Our forum isn't asking - you are.]

The volunteer fellow poster who contacted me - was able to fit the words 'Bob Dylan' into the title creation box and create a far longer thread title than I was. Is it really not possible for the same ammount of characters for thread title creation - to be given equally to all posters?

There are 50 spaces available for titles - period.
~ The 'edit' space has 50 in one block.
~ The 'create thread' has 50 in the form of up to 10 for the prefix. I belive 'Tune Req: " has 10. These 10 spaces are reserved for the prefix, should you choose one. You didn't, so you got the 40 reserved for the part of the title you have to type in.

It's not possible to have an equal number of spaces unless the prefixes most people seem to want and use are done away with.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 10:53 AM

Humans sometimes need a tiny bit of guidance to do the correct thing.

Was that quote from some alien like Mr Spock? Why does it now sound so sinister?

We have ways of making you do the right thing.

Can anononymously imposing a change without the originator's knowledge or permission on our forum really be described as "a tiny bit of guidance"?

If five posters were asked to come-up the most informative thread title for the same subject - there would probably be five different suggestions. Given enough prefixes to choose from - they may even disagree on the choice of these....?

The matter-of-taste argument is completely wrong here.

There is no right thing in the respect of thread titles no more than there is in the contents of a post. The fact that must be faced - is that whatever you may think - is that it will always remain a matter of personal taste. Perhaps the thread's title can now also be left to personal tastes of the thread's originator and only changed - with their agreement?

What other posters choose to post and in what form they choose to post it - no matter how unhelpful or irritating you may find it - is not a matter for any other poster to judge, try to control or for you to 'guide' them to do what you consider to be the right thing. The choice is only for ALL fellow posters to respond to what they are trying to say - or just ignore it.

Those of us who may judge others wanting (the the choice of titles or anything else) but always judge that they do the right thing - are able to exert the only control they have on our forum - over their own postings and thread titles. Hopefully others may agree and choose freely to follow this example.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:08 AM

It's not possible to have an equal number of spaces unless the prefixes most people seem to want and use are done away with.

I am just getting more confused by these explanations - perhaps I am not alone? The fault may well be mine but I will try again.

Can it be clearly explained to our forum how - when in a case where there was no prefix involved - how it was possible for our named volunteer to add the words 'Bob Dylan' to the thread's title - when the originator was not able to fit these words in and why the same ammount of spaces available for title creation cannot be equally provided to ordinary posters and our anonymous volunteer fellow posters?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:29 AM

Why of course we can explain it Dumbfuck!!! It's a commie plot! There's a space gap!!! We had the missle gap and now it's this!!! Quick Sham, go blitz the Ruskies with your unending and idiotic questions!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:33 AM

Was that quote from some alien like Mr Spock? Why does it now sound so sinister?

We have ways of making you do the right thing. (Shambles)

Nonsense, Shambles. That's only sinister in your ears. That comes from my background in software ergonomics. Sometimes tiny changes like a prefix or a different positioning or a colour make people do things differently than they would do without. The mere introduction of the prefixes even without other interference has changed the way people title the threads to the better in my eyes. That's why I want them to stay.

You're still using the pompous sounding 'our forum' instead of a simple 'me'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:42 AM

My grandson has an imaginary friend.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 11:49 AM

You're right, Shambles.
Thread titles are neither right nor wrong.

However, they can be misleading.
And if they're misleading, we try to make them more useful.

Gig thread titles are more useful if they include name, date, and place.

Song thread titles are more useful if they include song name and songwriter name (if applicable).

PEL thread titles are more useful if people know they're about PEL's.

Obituary threads are more useful if they include the "Obit" tag, the person's name, and date of death.

Titles in general are more useful if they contain complete, correctly-spelled words. Search engines have a hard time finding incorrectly-spelled words.

And so forth.

It's purely a matter of function, not morals.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:06 PM

199

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:08 PM

200

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:50 PM

Hey Joe....YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!!!

Here at our forum we need an unlimited supply of everything and access to everything not just what you want to give us. Only God is allowed that. For instance, only God gave Shambles a half-inch willie, YOU could not......well maybe if you had a big knife.

We want it all. We want spaces! We want names....DO you hear me? WE WANT NAMES! And don't pretend to hide behind your 5th amendment privilege.....Who are the clones and why do they keep fucking over poor Shambles? And who are you to take a knife to his tallywhacker?

We're all sick and tired of reason and common sense and things like logic. Give us the real dope for our forum.....er,uh.....I mean the real truth.....Shambles already is a dope and we only need one of him. I'm sure his wife thinks that is one too many and I would agree but we seem to be stuck with one and sorrowfully so is that poor woman. C'mon Joe.......No more truth and logic. Give us lies and complete bullshit!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:53 PM

And now he's tampering with the validity of my threads when I post them where I want to post them but he thinks that he knows better where to post them when he probably does not but he will never admit he does not because he thinks he is Max or that he representa all that Max wants when even Max isn't sure what he wants when he thinks about wanting anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:58 PM

It's purely a matter of function, not morals.

If the way you achieve - what some may judge to be more useful thread titles - is by volunteer fellow posters anonymously and selectively imposing changes to some of them (mainly it would appear - those titles created by me) without the originator's knowledge or permission - becomes purely a matter of morals.

For as has been pointed out here - the lack of such routine imposed judgement and pedantry was to some contributors - the aspect that attracted them to our forum and this freedom of expression was what separated our forum from the other ordinary sites.

Those sites where those posters who now wish to see such judgement and pedantry imposed upon some of their fellow posters here - would surely be more at home?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:00 PM

EXACTLY SINS!!!!!

..........I think...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:05 PM

SHAMBLES SAYS:

If the way you achieve - what some may judge to be more useful thread titles - is by volunteer fellow posters anonymously and selectively imposing changes to some of them (mainly it would appear - those titles created by me) without the originator's knowledge or permission - becomes purely a matter of morals.

For as has been pointed out here - the lack of such routine imposed judgement and pedantry was to some contributors - the aspect that attracted them to our forum and this freedom of expression was what separated our forum from the other ordinary sites.

Those sites where those posters who now wish to see such judgement and pedantry imposed upon some of their fellow posters here - would surely be more at home?

Congratulations Shambo......Not only is there not a single sentence in the entire post, it's authentic gibberish as well.

Well Done!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:26 PM

You're still using the pompous sounding 'our forum' instead of a simple 'me'.

It is only your judgement - posted publicly - that this is "pompous sounding". Yet another pointless personal judgement of a named fellow poster - that will change nothing. To my mind - the use of this term is just recognition that all of our forum can read everything that is posted on our forum. And which can be retrieved at any time......

I tend to view the introduction of prefixes as some Governments are now beginning to see the introduction of yet more rules and laws - as opportunities to create yet more rulebreakers and criminals for society in general to pass yet more pointless judgements upon.


Can anononymously imposing a change without the originator's knowledge or permission on our forum really be described as "a tiny bit of guidance"?

---

Roger, Roger, roger - the editing actions are not anonymous - I take the responsibility for ALL of them. If you want to blame somebody, blame me. I'm your personal scapegoat. And while thread name changes may be made without your permission, they are never, never made without your knowledge. Boy, do I know that for a fact....
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:27 PM

Yeah, Joe! What he said!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:43 PM

And a comfort blanket.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 02:34 PM

"It's not possible to have an equal number of spaces unless the prefixes most people seem to want and use are done away with."

I am just getting more confused by these explanations - perhaps I am not alone? The fault may well be mine but I will try again.

Can it be clearly explained to our forum how - when in a case where there was no prefix involved - how it was possible for our named volunteer to add the words 'Bob Dylan' to the thread's title - when the originator was not able to fit these words in and why the same ammount of spaces available for title creation cannot be equally provided to ordinary posters and our anonymous volunteer fellow posters?

If the forum asks, I'll expain to it, but just now I prefer to explain to you, because you're the one who asked. It's probably hopeless, but I can try:

The 10 spaces are reserved for a prefix. You have the option of selecting a prefix or not, but the 10 spaces are reserved anyway. The prefix block is assigned 10 and the type-in-the-title is assigned 40. The page is written that way and if you do a 'view source', you can see where it says 'SIZE="40" MAXLENGTH="40"'. It's the code. As far as I know, there is no way to say write code to "make the type-in block 10 spaces longer if a prefix is not selected."

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:11 PM

As far as I know, there is no way to say write code to "make the type-in block 10 spaces longer if a prefix is not selected."

Perhaps there is someone who does know enough to inform our forum? If I and our forum understand correctly - it would appear that the introduction of the so-called optional prefix seemed to have caused the discrepancy between the number of spaces available for title creation for anonymous volunteer fellow posters and us ordinary posters - in the first place.

So it must be possible to also now include the prefix block for in the editing screen which will result in all posters having an equal ammount of spaces available for thread title creation?

Or indeed to remove the prefix block from us ordinary posters - which would also have the end result of all posters having an equal ammount of spaces available for thread title creation. The concern - after all is only for clearer thread titles and for all posters to be seen to be treated equally on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:13 PM

?? As far as I can remember there were prefixes here the first time I ever visited - which wasn't all that long after inaguration of the board.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:39 PM

In the beginning - there was the prefix......Before those who are supposed to have asked for this?

jeri said.
Shambles, are you trying to say you know better than those who asked for the other prefixes and now use them?

Perhaps someone who knows can inform our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:43 PM

yes - there were prefixes in the beginning - or shortly thereafter - and then people asked for more prefixes - because they do help in the searches - I know one *I* asked for was the Tune request and the tune add

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 04:23 PM

What I've said is fact. Anybody who would 'know more' is someone who could change the code, and I believe you're attempting to bait me. I think what you're up to is pretty clear to 'our forum, because your pretense at not understanding is a bit beyond believable.

In any case, Max would be the one you want to talk to. I'd hazard a guess that the feeling wouldn't be mutual.

Oh well. I've answered your question and that's all I really needed to do. Let me know if you have further incincere questions that you intend to disregard the answers to. I'll ignore them and wait for someone honest and reputable to ask. *smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 04:55 PM

It is only your judgement - posted publicly - that this is "pompous sounding". (Shambles)

My, my, Shambles, did you really not realise that I was using your own words on you? You did start this time with -posting publicly- what was only your own judgement that one argument from me was 'sinister sounding' when I was posting a serious argument which you pretend to read.

You are the one to tell us ad nauseam that we should not pass judgement upon others' posts. And what are you doing? You pass judgement. You are not doing what you are preaching. You behave here in a most hypocritical way.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:03 PM

When I post something that is thought to be too difficult to understand - the fault is mine.

When I do not understand something - the fault is again mine.

Am I being told that in order for a three letter prefix to be chosen for a thread title - 10 spaces have to be reserved for it? If I am - could not these 10 spaces be better utilised by being used for the title? Perhaps then the titles would be clearer and there would be no need to anonymously impose any changes in order to clarify them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:08 PM

Yet another pointless personal judgement of a named fellow poster (Shambles)

Shambles,

Another untrue statement. Could you please start doing what you pretend to do and read the posts. I have very carefully not made a judgement of you, the person, but a judgement of one particular expression used by you.

I expect you to know the difference between "you have used a stupid argument" and "you are a stupid person".

Your posts give me the impression that in this particular situation (was that clear enough???) you do not understand what you read.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:10 PM

And I am still interested to understand, Shambles, why you use the expression 'our forum' when there is no evidence yet that anyone else but you claims to want to know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:11 PM

How's about them Cubbies??????

Philly speak; "Jeet?" "No, djou?"

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:13 PM

Am I being told that in order for a three letter prefix to be chosen for a thread title - 10 spaces have to be reserved for it?

You are being told that the space reserved for the prefix has to be the space that the longest prefix occupies.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:20 PM

Jon whatever I and our forum are being told - it is as clear as mud.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:21 PM

In the beginning, there were no prefixes and that was the time of the many uninformative thread titles.

Jim Dixon does a very good job in tracking all the newly added lyrics. His job would be much more difficult without the lyr add prefix. Several people are on record to have said they sometimes only load the threads with 'lyr' in the title line. I don't want the old MC times back in that respect even if someone thinks the use of prefixes puts us on the slippery slopes leading directly to the concentration camps.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:40 PM

You can call people names
And post only flames
Abusing is now - merely amusing
And they say around here
You can post without fear
But don't make your titles confusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 05:22 AM

This is strictly taboo
And the outcome for you
Is the change of your title by force
We will not falter
In leading horses to water
Even when drowning the horse.

For these days
We have our ways
Of making you do the right thing
Humans only need guiding
Not a damn good hiding
Moderation's a jolly good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 05:53 AM

The most prolific, and immoderate, poster of cut & paste nonsense on the site, talks about moderation.

Get with it mate. NOBODY cares what you think of the actions of Joe and the clones, except you.

For the rest of us, MAX's forum is running just fine.

That's the bottom line. WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:32 AM

You may have missed this editing comment inserted into an existing post and not refreshing this thread.

Roger, Roger, roger - the editing actions are not anonymous - I take the responsibility for ALL of them. If you want to blame somebody, blame me. I'm your personal scapegoat. And while thread name changes may be made without your permission, they are never, never made without your knowledge. Boy, do I know that for a fact....
-Joe Offer-

Our forum is fast becoming like a hospital where the only remedy for every problem - is surgery. No matter what the problem may be on our forum - the only solution from our volunteer fellow posters - is imposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:35 AM

No need to say thank you,
Me old merchant banker,
The king of the old cut and paste.
You do really well with the html,
But mostly your words are a waste

About one little item,
You rant ad infinitum,
And acres of bandwidth abuse.
You really should try, to ask yourself why,
Not many agree with your views.

Your raves and your rants,
Your cans and your can'ts,
Your ifs, and your ands, and your but,
Give me indigestion, leaving only one question.
Is he either half paste, or half cut?

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:44 AM

Usual procedures were followed. I reviewed the action, found it to be an unnecessary closing, and countermanded it. I didn't find out who did it and why until yesterday, but that's neither here nor there. I think that's all you need to know, and I fail to see how you could use additional information for anything other than causing a Big Stink about it. Big Stinks are usually counterproductive, not to mention the fact that they're downright unfriendly.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps it can be explained what is so friendly and productive about the now usual procedure of anonymous volunteer fellow posters selectively judging and imposing their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters and of fellow posters intentionally witholding additional from our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 08:48 AM

And on........and on....... and on.............Give us a break. We DON@T care.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 09:08 AM

BTW Roger,

Last time I looked, additional was an adjective, not a noun.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 09:09 AM

Don, I think he's pretty much shot his reputation with regards to honest, genuine concern with anyone who's been posting to or reading his crusade threads. If anyone disagrees and trusts him or what he says, you're free to disagree. Frankly, I'd be interested in posts from anyone who trusts him to represent their point of view.

Most people don't put quite so much effort into missing the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 11:24 AM

$900 (bet you thought I'd forgotten ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 12:43 PM

HOSPITAL BULITIN
Usual procedures were followed. I reviewed the action, found it to be an unnecessary amputation, and countermanded it. I didn't find out who cut the patient's arm off and why until yesterday, but that's neither here nor there and they still have one good arm remaining. I think that's all you need to know, and I fail to see how you could use additional information for anything other than causing a Big Stink about it. Big Stinks are usually counterproductive, not to mention the fact that they're downright unfriendly

What's important here
I wish to make clear
Is although I can't put back the arm
Is that it could have been worse
It could have come off a nurse
That would have been cause for alarm

For the important thing now
Is not the why or the how
Or how we prevent it again
But how to convey
That everything is OK
And the fault is in those who complain

They may have lost some bits
But don't it get on your tits
When they want to know too
If it was taken with intent
Or simply just went
When really I haven't a clue

However it ends
We should shake hands as friends
I'm sure it will work out fine
Although shaking that hand
May not go as planned
It may all go better – next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 01:13 PM

Well, Wolfgang, I gotta tell you - the "Lyr Add" prefix for threads drives me crazy, and I've tried for years to get Max to remove it. Trouble is, with that tag on the thread, every message in the thread comes up on a search as an ADD. Jim and I try to tag messages with the song titles, and that's more helpful.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 01:33 PM

Joe, can't you UN-select "Re:" in a supersearch?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 02:54 PM

Hi, Jeri -
That won't work in our current configuration of SuperSearch, which searches just the message text. I'm sure Jeff could design something that searches just message titles.
If I ask for something like that, he usually seems to be able to come up with a perfect solution in about twenty minutes. The guy's phenomenal.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 07:22 AM

Most people don't put quite so much effort into missing the point.

Those who post almost as many times as they complain that I do - to refresh threads to only say they do not care - are perhaps the ones who are putting the most effort into missing the point?

Is the point something like - why worry as long as long as it always happens to someone else?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:07 AM

Awa an' bile yer heid ya wee nyaff, ye're like a christmas caird; ye're aye greetin'.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:30 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:01 AM

I see Jeri's still lobbing insults. Predictable.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 06:13 PM

I'll do the deciding
Humans only need guiding
To do want I want them to do
Justifed by the means
The end - seen in my dreams
May become a nightmare to you

The point that some posters are appear to be putting so much effort into missing - is NOT if things like whether "informative thread titles" are desirable on our forum.

Things like this may well be thought to be desirable. But the point is - are these things now so desirable - to the extent of having them (rather selectively and anonymously) imposed?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:53 PM

Shambles 7:22 AM.

"Those who post almost as many times as I do - to refresh threads to only say they do not care - are perhaps the ones who are putting the most effort into missing the point".


At last, a direct answer in your own words. That's one small step towards understanding what is meant by debate. Well done.

What a pity that the response should be so factually inaccurate.

1. I do not post almost as often as you. It would take more time than I have left on this earth to post a significant fraction of your output on this subject.

2. I do not post simply to say I do not care. I post to point out the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of members do not agree with you, and do not care if Joe and/or the clones make minor changes to titles, or edit out contentious, or repetitive contributions.

If this forum were a democratic institution along parliamentary lines, your supporters would assuredly lose their deposits.

As it is not a democracy, but the property of Max, your concerns are of little importance, the point which almost all of us have acknowledged, and which you have missed, or decided to ignore.

A sensible man will usually decide at some point to stop banging his head against a brick wall, if only to get rid of the headache.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:02 PM

242 posts so far on this thread alone.

Shambles 71 posts (29.3% of total)

Don T 4 posts (1.65% of total)

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 06:02 AM

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 08:28 PM

Watching 'No Direction Home' tonight. There was footage of Bob Dylan being heckled on stage by some members of the audience. These noisy few presumably knew what to expect and would have payed for admission but were not apparently enjoying the performance.

However, they were still staying in their seats and repeatly shouting-out for Bob Dylan to 'get off', calling him names and noisely indulging in other such unfriendly banter. They seemed to think that there was something wrong with him trying to continue with his performance because it consisted of material that obviously was not to their personal taste. And they seemed to think this amounted to something of a betrayal - which gave them some right to try and shout-it down.

The rest of the audience did seem to be enjoying the performance (or may have quietly left) or were at least trying to listen to it. In any case the majority seemed to be happy for the performance to continue or were too polite to join in with the shouting-out of insults.

Despite these few audience members insisting on inflicting these poor manners on the majority - this poor example was not generally followed and - in the venue designed for this purpose - the show went on.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 05:11 AM

You're not comparing yourself to Dylan now are you Roger? My god man you're adding delusions of grandeur to paranoia now!
BTW as per your stated method of avoiding facing up to life by not answering abusive or judgmental posts, [nice way of not answering difficult questions]I do not expect or want, any response to this post.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:52 PM

When a poster starts a new thread and where there may already have been existing threads on a subject – they risk being judged by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters of needless duplication. The thread creation screen does rather suggest that re-opening any existing thread on the subject is the preferred one.

But if you then re-open older threads on this subject – you risk being judged by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters as 'flooding' our forum with old threads. This is assuming that you can refresh them and these threads have not been the subject of enforced or automatic closure – a fact that will usually not be established until the poster has scrolled all the way down to the submit box.

The result of either judgement by our (undoubtably well-intentioned) anonymous volunteer fellow posters is the same rather unfriendly approach – imposed editing action – without the poster's advanced knowledge or agreement. There is a risk of being damned - either way.

Many new posters who are not hardened to the skewed alternative reality that our forum now appears to be subject to - may decide that the safe course for them - and the only one certain not to result in them receiving accusations like them wasting precious bandwidth or being subject to many other personal judgements - is for them to decide not to post at all.

It would appear that the starting of new threads is not now the preferred option and the re-opening of older threads appears now to be the preferred one. In order to make this clear to our forum and encourage a consistent approach – perhaps it would be a good idea to ensure that all threads can remain open for new contributions - especially as our forum is now informed that the closing of threads presents no technical advantage to the efficient running of the site?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 04:49 PM

Oh, no, Roger. Our editing is never unfriendly. We editors always keep a friendly, non-judgmental attitude. Please don't read unfriendliness into our editing. We're all as friendly as puppydogs.
-Joe Offer, Head Puppydog-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:27 AM

Like many other things - that is perhaps not a matter for you to judge.

Many people are perfectly happy to do the kicking - some are even happy to see others being kicked. None of this makes kicking someone a very friendly thing to do.

Very few of us are happy when we are the ones being kicked.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 05:59 AM

Subject: RE: BBC2/PBS Sept 26 No Direction Home
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM

It is hard to remenber just how seriously things were taken back then.

A good example was the rather intense young man who was asking Bob Dylan about the deep meaning of the cover photo for Highway 61 and thought the choice of clothing for it - was of great significance.

Even when he was told by the man who should know - he was not prepared to accept the answer.

******************************************************************

LMAO!!!! PUH-LEEZE!!!!

Simply unbelievable...............

The irony in that post is so overwhelming that words to express it escape me. I can hardly wait for the next chapter in "The Pot Calls the Kettle Black."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:47 PM

shanmbles-you are rubbisdh and bloody moaning, i suprised you still m,oaning, i didnty look at mudcat for 1 month, i look now, and your , moany threrads are still here, you bloody moan all time, wyhy not shut up for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:58 PM

"The rest of the audience did seem to be enjoying the performance (or may have quietly left) or were at least trying to listen to it. In any case the majority seemed to be happy for the performance to continue or were too polite to join in with the shouting-out of insults. " The Shambles

Roger, if I understand you correctly you are intimating that those who sit here quietly are either "enjoying the performance" or "happy for the performance to continue".

They is none so bland as those who will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:43 PM

I have tried valiantly to resist reposting....but...but.....

I can't help myself...I asked this simple question on another thread, and got no clear answer.


who knows, maybe it will be deleted by volunteers imposing their onerous judgements on me.





"Shambles...don't you realize that posting reasoned responses to your recapitulative exhortations requires us not only to consider the contextual parameters of the indicated isssue, but also to analyze the temporal framework of the argument so as not to introduce irrelevant personal judgements which have already been judged by the majority of the respondents to not focus on the current situational aspects of all the NON-judgemental impositions which may have been earlier, or at least in different threads, already rendered valueless in the minds of those whose concerns regress to the former devalued impositions of judgement by not only anonymous volunteers, but also, rightfully, by other members (who, posting under their own names, might also BE one of the judgemental volunteers) who decide not to enter the debate without knowing whether the subject at hand has, in fact, been imposed, whether in the thread title or merely during non-judgemental editing which I am led to understand that you also disapprove of in most cases where previous permission has not been sought(from the original poster (or originator of the thread) prior to the perviously mentioned discussion, which, by virtue of its temporal priority, ought to supercede ANY subsequent discussion of judgements, whether anonymously imposed or merely parenthetically referred to , either by you, as 'chief inquisitor' of the investigation, or by newer members of the forum, many of whom have not had the experience of BEING improperly edited or their words censored, and thus who might, perhaps, be reluctant to join the majority whose previous experience has been inevitably affected by repetitious reduncancy relating to the incessant verbosity inundating the very foundations of the entire issues of whether, in consideration of the best interests of our forum, the anonymity of the volunteers (most of whom did not actually volunteer, but were, I am given to understand, recruited,)should be compromised due to the unmitigated Gall of one dissatisfied member who evidently has little other hobbies than to compose interminable and self-referential posts which intrinsically relate to one individual concept of discussion and the overriding value system thought to be, by our moderators, not essential to the more central core of the entire point of having an open forum where dissimilar viewpoints could BE discussed without being left vulnerable to extraneous digressions about imposition of personal taste by those who have no interest in the inveterate balderdash which usually accompanies such digressions and causes many entirely incomprehensible paragraphs to be perpetrated on an unwilling readership anyway?

Wouldn't you agree?"

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 12:27 AM

I know I certainly do Bill. Very astute on your part, a tremendous post and one worthy of inclusion. ALSO IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUE SHAMBLES POSTING STYLE---The following you might have nissed;

Subject: RE: BBC2/PBS Sept 26 No Direction Home
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM

It is hard to remenber just how seriously things were taken back then.

A good example was the rather intense young man who was asking Bob Dylan about the deep meaning of the cover photo for Highway 61 and thought the choice of clothing for it - was of great significance.

Even when he was told by the man who should know - he was not prepared to accept the answer.

******************************************************************

LMAO!!!! PUH-LEEZE!!!!

Simply unbelievable...............

The irony in that post is so overwhelming that words to express it escape me. I can hardly wait for the next chapter in "The Pot Calls the Kettle Black."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:36 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5


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.

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:46 AM

"I will ignore these, not respond in kind"

Isn't that cut and paste a response ?

Isn't MY cut and paste a response ?

When is a response NOT a response ?

When is ignoring a response NOT ignoring a response ?

What WAS the meaning of the motorcycle on the t-shirt anyway ??

And what was the meaning of "I don't want a pickle" ??

Please respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:53 AM

I am 82

Wolfgang thrown out


http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1277273

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 11:03 AM

The Motor Sickle Song
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:05 PM

"This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate."

There have been many, many attempts at a reasoned debate in between the sarcasm and jokes, but I get the feeling that Shambles will never feel that there IS a reasonable debate until and unless everyone up to & including Max agrees with him....(or at least surrenders!).

It just goes on and on and on. Joe has explained it, many others have agreed with Joe and have tried everything from pleading to sarcasm to reason to ignoring to .........well, other things.

It is, simply, hopeless. It is a case of "I want it MY way and no amount of explaining the 'management rules and procedures' will convince me why I can't have it my way."

It is a case of subjective 'righteous indignation' run amok, and unlike the PELS issue, where there was an obvious infringement on freedoms, and MANY sympathetic ears, this crusade seems to have almost no fellow crusaders.....Yet it goes & goes & goes with relentless, tedious hair-splitting over who said what and claimed which and did what to whom.....and whether any of it really mattered.

I'll swear, if Samuel Beckett were still writing, he could do a tour de force sequel to "Waiting for Godót" with the material from all these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:20 PM

"This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate."

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.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

In practice - as the rather chaotic and counter-productive actions evidenced below above would tend to show - the BS rules would now appear to be made-up as they go along and are readily imposed upon our forum by a unknown number of (well-intentioned) fellow posters.


This BS thread – about censorship - contained a post (claiming the 100th post) that was anonymously censored (and this thread has now been subject to imposed closure) Censorship on Mudcat

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-

This BS thread – about the anonymous imposing of thread titles – had a change to its title imposed. In the UK

Subject: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:55 PM

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.

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-

And this Tech thread – about thread closures – was relegated to the BS section – subject to anonymous closure – re- opened and then for reasons that were equally as unclear as the first time- subject to final closure. Closing threads

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 01:09 PM

OK, so now I know which volunteer closed the thread, and we've discussed the matter.
And as I've said earlier in this thread, it's an internal matter and has been resolved internally. That being said, I can't say anything more. Shambles has his honest answer, so I think it's time to close this thread.
-Joe Offer-

If you really see a need to join Shambles in discussing this subject further, see Opening threads a debate which is really about closing threads.


[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 few well-intentioned fellow posters now seem to feel themselves qualified to impose this judgement upon their fellows but do not feel they or their actions should be judged in turn.

They do not seem now able or very willing in the future to contact posters before imposing judgement nor to communicate to each another very well – before or after these actions.

Nor to have any clear overall objective other than to loyally ensure that some of their number can continue to impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of their fellow posters – but in the process - still remain anonymous (and unaccountable for their editing actions to our forum).

My view is that if things don't change – they will stay the same - as in some respects on our forum, they sadly and stubbornly have. It is also my view that if these actions are not to continue to just 'stumble along' and the attempted justification and defence of these actions are not to become even more chaotic, judgmental and nasty - that improvement is urgently required in response to those actions evidenced in this post (and elsewhere).

Surely any editing action imposed on our forum deserves to be seen to be open, fair and needs to have a clear objective? When such imposition is limited to this – it can then be defended as such – and I will be the first to be seen to defend it.

As this current judgement, secrecy and imposition is supposedly being undertaken only for the benefit of our forum – perhaps it is time for our forum to have a reasoned discussion on the current benefits and extent of these measures? To decide and establish if the direction we are currently 'stumbling' along in – is in fact the direction that our forum wishes to go.

To enable our forum to suggest ways in which these benefits can be best provided, without any more needless division and how new posters can be best encouraged to contribute to our forum. And probably most importantly - by not placing at any further risk the traditional freedom of expression, provided for all to post on equal terms - on the part of Max's website that he has kindly set aside for contributions from the public.

If there is any crusade - is seems to one of some fellow posters wishing to prevent free and open debate on a discussion forum set aside by the site's owner Max - for that very purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:29 PM

Roger -

"fellow posters" is totally incorrect and irrelavant when they are acting as proxies for Max. As it the term volunteer as they were all recruited by Max.

You have stated that you wish to have no say in the way this forum is run.

why not practice what you are preaching?

You have objected to editing of posts - yet you post quyotes out of context and partial qoutes.

Why not practice what you are preaching?

You claim people only post to your threads with personal opinons - yet you do exactly the same thing.

Why not practice what you are preaching?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:46 PM

Because sometimes, dude, ya just gotta do something guided by your better judgement.

You have stated that you wish to have no say in the way this forum is run.

MMario - You know that I have stated no such thing as you have re-posted my quote. Perhaps you should actually read it.

There is a difference between wishing to having a say in shaping our forum by contributions to it and by expressing an opinion on this - which Max has encouraged posters to do - and having a say in the way in which Max chooses to run his website. That remains his business.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 02:00 PM

you have indeed made that exact statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:01 PM

I admit to having a very good time often at Roger's expense on these threads as it is impossible for me and many others to take the whole thing seriously. The subject matter that is so troubling to Roger is so trivial and minute that it is hard to see why it has become such an issue to him.

Max's refusal to respond when he knows what is going on speaks volumes as well. Roger has received the answer and he refuses to accept it. Instead he continues to rag on Joe and others who have given him their best answers but are now well fried from his constant harping. It is sad that this will all end badly for everyone but that is where we are headed.

I have been sent recently a PM from Roger entitled "Polite Request." I have found 4 pretty fair ways of angering Sham AND I have had fun using them. In his polite request Roger ask that I cease and desist one of them and that I should as he was asking politely for the second time. But I have to ask ...... Roger, why should I do what you refuse to do?

Granted things have not always been polite, but sometimes they have and Roger you have had literally hundreds of nice folks asking in the best ways for you to cease and desist. Why can't you do as they request?

And of course then I read this:

Subject: RE: BBC2/PBS Sept 26 No Direction Home
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM

It is hard to remenber just how seriously things were taken back then.

A good example was the rather intense young man who was asking Bob Dylan about the deep meaning of the cover photo for Highway 61 and thought the choice of clothing for it - was of great significance.

Even when he was told by the man who should know - he was not prepared to accept the answer.

You ask that of "others"............Ask it of youself.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:30 PM

you have indeed made that exact statement.

Then please provide it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:44 PM

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM

...

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 04:01 PM

It's starting to pile up now ain't it Sham?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 05:55 PM

Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death?

Well you don't have to try to be the same,
I know it's hard, not to play that game.
But we are all different it's true,
It's only you can do the things you do.

Stand up proud, don't try to hide,
Say it loud, don't keep it inside.
It's better to fail, than to never have tried,
It's better to fail, than to never have tried,

Roger Gall 1996.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 06:34 AM

Head Waiter Excuse me monsieur and madame. (examines the fork) It's filthy, Gaston ... find out who washed this up, and give them their cards immediately.

Man Oh, no, no.

Head Waiter Better still, we can't afford to take any chances, sack the entire washing-up staff.

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5


Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 01:09 PM

OK, so now I know which volunteer closed the thread, and we've discussed the matter.
And as I've said earlier in this thread, it's an internal matter and has been resolved internally. That being said, I can't say anything more. Shambles has his honest answer, so I think it's time to close this thread.
-Joe Offer-

Has a totally honest answer in fact been provided to our forum? You judge. Closing threads

Was that thread closed for the first time - accidently or was its imposed closure intentional or personally motivated - The the final imposed closure was intentional. What is the justification for the imposition of this final personal judgement when the first closure was judged to be incorrect and the thread re-opened as a result?

Perhaps it can be explained exactly what damage would have been caused to our forum by leaving that thread (or any other thread) open?

You may agree with some posters and judge that ordinary posters now have no right to know the answer to such questions. I hope not - but would I hope that you agree that ordinary posters still have every right to post and ask such questions - on what still remains our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:19 AM

It's not our forum! We use it thanks to the generosity of Max, who has the right to do with it whatever he wishes, including setting up volunteer monitors.

Get with the plot. We have only those rights which Max chooses to allow us, and I for one think the guy shows almost superhuman forbearance in putting up with your constant attacks on his management of his property.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:57 AM

You obviously consider this forum to be undemocratic Roger, if you consider it to be so, why do you continue to participate?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:09 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.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

When Max explains to our forum something different to the above - I will expect the posting of BS on our forum to be undertaken on a different basis to what he has stated here.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:13 AM

From: Max - PM
Date: 10 Mar 00 - 12:54 AM

OK, gargoyle, you got it. I tried to give your membership back months ago, but you apparently never got my message. Your tactics are crude, you are often inappropriate and rude, and I obviously cannot ever agree with you for the simple fear that anyone would think that your type of efforts could or should be effective, but you are undoubtedly a knowledgeable member of our community. My motive for your membership? People want to be able to talk to you. and as ambiguous as I may seem here, my sole function is to facilitate that. because that is what The Mudcat is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:13 AM

Roger if you are going to quote an answer to a question you must also quote the question too, and the complete answer not just the bit you prefer.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:50 AM

There are not hundreds of people disagreeing with Shambles. I only count thirty one. The same people keep posting over and over.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:40 AM

Guest, you have to go back over the last several years and read all the non-consecutive chapters in Shambles' crusade to get to hundreds. Honestly, I believe there is a far greater number, a HUGE number, who have dipped into one of these and thought "Oops," and un-dipped.

There are enough people left though, who support him by providing him inspiration to keep going. More like a village than a city. Everybody knows "it takes a village..." But we HAVE that village here! Click Me.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 02:03 PM

Honestly, I believe there is a far greater number, a HUGE number, who have dipped into one of these and thought "Oops," and un-dipped.

Can you accept that the attempt to hold this debate is to try to ensure that all posters on our forum continue to be able to have that choice? Rather than to have some of their anonymous volunteer fellow posters - who now feel themselves qualified - to make this choice for them?

To try and ensure that all threads remain open to enable all posters to make this choice for themselves and are not subject - at the slightest excuse to personal judgements and imposed closure, deletion or any other forms of editing action - by their fellow posters.

To try and ensure that the word 'we' refers once again - to all contributors to our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM

Sham, the 'debate' IS being held here. It's you arguing against whatever happens you don't like and for nothing and other people arguing back that you're annoying them. I don't have any problem with it, and I won't unless you start multiple threads on the same thing.

I really DO think you should be given your own permathread so you and your pals can carry this on forever. Those of us who don't want to read it can easily filter one thread out, and you're guaranteed it will never close and you won't feel forced to apply your agenda in other places (but you will).

I don't have anything against honest debate. I just don't believe you're honest and I don't believe one guy standing on a soapbox dodging rotten tomatoes contitutes a debate. There are people out there who like weirder stuff than this though.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 03:12 PM

Well some people really nurture a grudge, some even keep blowing on the embers to keep it alive, some day maybe they will run out of hot air!
G.

Q. If hot air makes a balloon rise how come he stays on the ground?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 03:24 PM

Jeri, I thought that this was the Permathread!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:06 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:09 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.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

When Max explains to our forum something different to the above - I will expect the posting of BS on our forum to be undertaken on a different basis to what he has stated here.

And he of course has spoken repeatedly over the ensuing years adding in rules as needed through Pene or Joe or the addition of Clones.......But you reuse to accept these things even though they are his answer and in your face.

Subject: RE: BBC2/PBS Sept 26 No Direction Home
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM

It is hard to remenber just how seriously things were taken back then.

A good example was the rather intense young man who was asking Bob Dylan about the deep meaning of the cover photo for Highway 61 and thought the choice of clothing for it - was of great significance.

Even when he was told by the man who should know - he was not prepared to accept the answer.

You ask it of others.....ask it of yourself. You have the answer, try to accept it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:55 PM

Spaw, I hope you don't think he actually wants a resolution! It's fairly obvious to me that he sabotages any possibility of amicablility by switching to different bait when whatever he's using goes stale.

Having met Max and knowing him just a bit, I figure if he reads Shambles' comlaints at all (or when they were fresh - sometime last century) he shrugs and thinks, "Oh well. Tough shit."

Then again, he might have given Roger a "Fuck off" response to PMs (he's done that before and I think Roger is capable of being way more of a PIA than Jon) and this is his method of retaliation.

I don't think it's working, unless the shifting whine is only intended to keep Shambles in the spotlight. We seem to be helping him become who he's destined to be. It's nice this little community is so willing, but you know what they say: "It takes a village..."

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:04 PM

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.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

When Max explains to our forum something different to the above - I will expect the posting of BS on our forum to be undertaken on a different basis to what he has stated here.

Until then - posts containing judgements and imposed actions like the following example from a fellow poster upon a BS thread - will be thought by many posters to have no rightful place on our forum. Until when or if Max does decide to publicly explain a fundamental change in the traditional friendly and welcoming values of our forum and of the status of BS threads... Sadly there is no shortage of similar or worse examples of such imposed judgements.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=72136&messages=60&page=1&desc=yes

I'm getting damn tired of trolls, and of the people who respond to them. I'm going to close this thread at least temporarily, and see if somebody can think of something else to talk about.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:31 PM

I don't have anything against honest debate. I just don't believe you're honest and I don't believe one guy standing on a soapbox dodging rotten tomatoes contitutes a debate.

Perhaps if a certain few posters stopped only throwing rotten tomatoes - we could then have a debate here about the issues?

Can you accept that the attempt to hold this debate is to try to ensure that all posters on our forum continue to be able to have that choice? Rather than to have some of their anonymous volunteer fellow posters - who now feel themselves qualified - to make this choice for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 04:12 AM

Hiya Jeri! No, I know he doesn't care about resolution and I am sure you're right about Max, probably on both counts and as I posted before MAYBE even Max is enjoying this. I think the most likely sceanrio is that he wrote Sham off long ago and could give a shit less what he says!   I wish we had the old radio programs available. I remember Max making a number of cutting digs one night at Roger's expense and it would be fun to keep linking those back. But with Roger's trollability at changing the subject every time he gets nailed it would just be more of the same.

What I'm looking forward to is the day we can just number the arguments and counter-arguments and commentary about the arguments:

SHAM: 12A, 123
SPAW: 421, 1387/B2
JERI: CS211b75 (that's kinda' long but really great)
SHAM: 14C27.1
JOE:   M/C Clo.e45
jeff: 876.2 & CD114
Mick: SB//df14
SHAM: 14C27.1 & Re-333
MARIO: FO//op67-7


Now there is some spirited debate for you right there!!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 04:26 AM

" Perhaps if a certain few posters stopped only throwing rotten tomatoes - we could then have a debate here about the issues? "

Once again Roger you repeat the same old canard, there is no ISSUE to debate, except in your head.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 06:25 AM

A resolution?

The trouble is that some would consider a resolution be have been reached if or when they had managed - seemingly by any means and at any cost to our forum - to prevent me or any other poster from trying to discuss and debate the issue on our forum?

Rather than simply choosing the option of ignoring a debate they claim does not interest them and not opening the clearly titled threads on the subject.

When in fact the resolution would only have been reached if and when all posters are once again able to freely discuss this or any other issue on our forum.

And to be able to freely do this - without fear of judgement and editing action being imposed upon their contributions by some of their anonymous fellow posters.

Or without being subject to name-calling and personal abusive attacks by those who should know better and this form of posting now being thought to be setting an acceptable example to our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 11:07 AM

For those who may not have seen it - this (complete with the unwelcome editing judgement from one of our anonymous volunteer fellow posters, that was inserted into it) is from the first post in this thread.

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 07:24 PM

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM

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.


Then please stop posting your debate topics!(:<)) Nobody gives a shit Sham.....or is that a Shamshit?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 09:33 AM

For those who may have not read it - the following is from the first post in this thread.

As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread.



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

Every poster is entitled to their opinion on our forum. However, are they now entitled to try and prevent others from expressing theirs?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:54 AM

"fellow posters" is totally incorrect and irrelavant when they are acting as proxies for Max. As it the term volunteer as they were all recruited by Max.

There may be some truth in some of this but the practical difficulty here - that you do not address - is when our anonymous fellow posters insist on their right to also express their persoanal view as well as claiming to be acting as Max's proxy.

How are their fellow posters to know when one of these anonymous fellow posters are speaking for Max - and with his authority - and when they are expressing their own view. A personal view that may well be totally different to Max's and being made in posts which can be retrieved at any time.

And like the following examples - these personal views are anonymously inserted into the existing posts of their fellow posters - without these poster's knowledge or permission.


The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone
From Opening threads

Or from Max what about Shambles requests

Yes, Rog-o, as you can see it was redundant and covered by this thread. And no one was talking turds over there, so I exercised editorial control so that we can talk about turds. Stay on subject please. Mudelf

I am closing this. It is redundant and deals with the same issue as two other threads. It will just become another 1000 post thread with nothing new to add. Please use the existing threads.
Thanks, Mudelf

I see you have arrived first. Blessings upon you Mudelf....I have your back!.......FatClone


All posters are entitled to post their views but until there is another clear way of informing our forum exactly which hat is being worn - perhaps all personal views can be contained only in coventional posts using the volunteer poster's usual name - and not made anonymously?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 10:51 AM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 08:10 PM

shamnbles-you post always rubbish, and moany shite, i bet you are a real miserable arseole, you are one of people that sit in park, or stand at bus stop, moaning all day, and make every body fed up.

if this was my webvsite=i would tell you to fucvk off ages ago, becase you moan too much, i would even make you banned, so your moans wouldent get printed, and serves you right.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 02:16 AM

Thank you you for posting and refreshing this thread. It is perhaps a shame to post yet make no contribution to the debate and to rather carefully ignore the issues involved. Such posts do however ensure this thread goes back on the top and that others will be able to read it - and perhaps they will post and make a contribution. Hopefully this debate may help ensure that posters will still have that choice and not have some of their fellow posters make it for them.

Judge What do you mean, no further questions? You can't just dump a dead body in my court and say 'no further questions'. I demand an explanation.
Counsel There are no easy answers in this case m'lud.
Judge I think you haven't got the slightest idea what this case is about.
Counsel M'lud the strange, damnable, almost diabolic threads of this extraordinary tangled web of intrigue will shortly m'lud reveal a plot so fiendish, so infernal, so heinous ...
Judge Mr Bartlett, your client has already pleaded guilty to the parking offence.

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 02:23 AM

Let me say this about that:

295

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 03:43 AM

Main Entry: pon·tif·i·cate
Pronunciation: pän-'ti-f&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin pontificatus, past participle of pontificare, from Latin pontific-, pontifex
1 a : to officiate as a pontiff b : to celebrate pontifical mass
2 : to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way
- pon·tif·i·ca·tion /(")pän-"ti-f&-'kA-sh&n/ noun
- pon·tif·i·ca·tor /-"kA-t&r/ noun

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 05:13 AM

There may be some truth in some of this but the practical difficulty here - that you do not address - is when our anonymous fellow posters insist on their right to also express their persoanal view as well as claiming to be acting as Max's proxy.

How are their fellow posters to know when one of these anonymous fellow posters are speaking for Max - and with his authority - and when they are expressing their own view. A personal view that may well be totally different to Max's and being made in posts which can be retrieved at any time.

I think the answer to that is it is Max's problem (if indeed it is a problem - I don't believe the volunteers here are unreasonable).

I'd think the odds are high that not every single comment made in brown text (etc.) reflects exactly how Max himself might have done something (and Max might have been more or less polite for all I know). To suggest it would be, to me would be like thinking a shop assistant may have dealt in every case with customers exactly as the owner of the shop would. It's not (to me) really likely.

I believe what you look at is an overall satisfaction and I would assume for example that as Joe Offer has an edit button that there is general satisfacion in his carrying out of duties from Max.

The only other way I could read it would involve Max for one reason or other keeping people (he can grant or deny the edit powers) to upset him (or his wishes for the forum). That anyone might do that does not make a lot of sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 05:44 PM

That anyone might do that does not make a lot of sense to me.

*Smiles*

None of this anonymous judgement, thread closing and other forms imposed editing makes any sense to me or appears to have any clear object - except parhaps to defend itself at all costs. Does any of this make any real sense to you?

Max has stated that his role is only to facilite - why do some of our volunteer posters now see their role as to insult their fellow posters? And impose their judgement upon (some of) their fellows on the slightest excuse and feel themselves qualified to do this?

But the question of how ordinary posters are supposed to know when a volunteer's views are their own and when they are official policy - remains unanswered. Perhaps it is best for them to assume that unless the words are Max's own - that all other views from fellow posters on our forum are as valid as each other - and are seen as just more personal opinions in a discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:04 PM

299

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:04 PM

300!

The devil made me do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:21 AM

Counsel M'lud the strange, damnable, almost diabolic threads of this extraordinary tangled web of intrigue will shortly m'lud reveal a plot so fiendish, so infernal, so heinous ...
Judge Mr Bartlett, your client has already pleaded guilty to the parking offence.


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.
Joe Offer

Has Max asked you to judge and call your fellow poster's names? What do you think will be the long-term effect of such an example now being set on our forum? Or is that not a concern?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 03:36 AM

So, yes, Shambles, I guess that's proof that you are sometimes able to drive our patient and friendly volunteers to distraction.
It takes a really obnoxious idiot to drive me to calling him such.
Are you proud of that?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 09:46 AM

Interesting tactics Shambles. To win the war....if you find yourself losing a battle, pick another battle.

OK, debate? If that's what you'd like, I'll entertain the debate. Pick a subject from the many listed in this thread that you do not think has been answered properly or at all. I'll debate you.

I am not in any way representing the Clones or Joe Offer (I can hear them breathing a sigh of relief now!) but I am willing to debate you one on one. So what exactly is our subject? I'm ready...

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:12 AM

There are enough people left though, who support him by providing him inspiration to keep going. More like a village than a city. Everybody knows "it takes a village..." But we HAVE that village here!

A village like this one?

Deep in the Peak District, towards the north of England, is the village of Royston Vasey, a seemingly picturesque spot but one populated by dangerous lunatics, social misfits, sinister grotesques and psychopaths. A sign reads 'Welcome to Royston Vasey. You'll Never Leave!'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/l/leagueofgentleme_66602120.shtml


Frank - as you said there are a range of points for debate contained here. You have chosen to post and ignore them all. The choice of which subject to debate or indeed to ignore will remain yours not mine. But how would you consider that this choice of yours can best be ensured and facililated on our forum - free of the following assumptions and personal jugements being imposed in the following example?

Judgements made in this example - like "going overboard" "tantrums" "control" "fighting for turf" etc are all just personal opinions based on assumptions about the possible motivations of fellow posters. Grounds for posting to disagree but never grounds alone to impose editing action. For in this case all of these paranoid suspicions listed were groundless anyway and as they are used for justification - say a lot about some of our volunteer's mistaken idea that they have been appointed by Max as judge and jury over their fellow posters..

For if you read it carefully - you will find that the essence of this is really just one of taste - of one poster judging the personal style or "technique" of another and imposing that judgement. The PEL issue should not have been judged and personalised as being mine by our volunteers in the way demonstrated. There was never any need for it to be judged at all.

Some of our volunteers feel that they are entitled publicly do this and be the final arbiter on difficult concepts like - when things are to be considered as "too much" etc. Our volunteers imposing their personal judgement on the postings of others is justified in this example on the grounds that this was to protect other less wordy posters from being "crowded out". Given its format -is it really possible to crowd any one out on our forum?   

Subject: (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
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: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:35 AM

WHIPLASH!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:05 PM

Have fun, Frank.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:21 PM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. (Shambles)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:44 PM

OK, the subject is mine. I think I'll talk about the renaming of the PEL threads. I read the post from Joe that you included in your last post and the reasoning behind the renaming of those threads is very understandable to me. some of us don't have the time to go through all of the threads so a clear understanding of what's inside helps me decide which threads to look at. Living where I do, I am not affected by that issue so I would seldom open those threads. It's not that I don't empathize but with the limited time that I have, I would select another topic. I would assume that you would want people who are interested in the subject to be the ones opening and contributing to the threads. To me, it was a win-win bringing those interested in, and keeping those not interested out.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:23 PM

Just to let you know, I'm heading out of town for the weekend so I may not be able to respond to you until then but I look forward to your response.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 03:46 PM

OK, the subject is mine. I think I'll talk about the renaming of the PEL threads.I read the post from Joe that you included in your last post and the reasoning behind the renaming of those threads is very understandable to me. Some of us don't have the time to go through all of the threads so a clear understanding of what's inside helps me decide which threads to look at. Living where I do, I am not affected by that issue so I would seldom open those threads. It's not that I don't empathize but with the limited time that I have, I would select another topic. I would assume that you would want people who are interested in the subject to be the ones opening and contributing to the threads. To me, it was a win-win bringing those interested in, and keeping those not interested out.

On the information available to you - that is an understandable position and a common sense one that if taken at the time by some of your fellow posters - would have prevented any of the very little imposition that did take place in PEL threads. For in all truth any problems around the issue were largely sorted-out by the posters themselves.

But would you accept that stating such imposition may be understandable to you – is a judgement that will not change anything or make anyone - who has actually been the victim of such imposition and who does not judge it to be understandable – feel any better? That may well be your intention – it does appear the intention of others. However, more importantly it does not prevent any more such needless disagreements in the future.

For the re-naming of these threads for practical purposes was not the issue then or now - the issue remains one of some posters judging and imposing their tastes upon the contributions of the fellow posters. You can see some of the assumptions about another poster's motives that these personal judgements were made on. How can anyone know such things about their fellow posters and why should any such groundless speculations form any basis for imposed editing action on our discussion forum?   

For the judgmental attitude then and now that is engendered by our volunteer fellow posters - rather encourages the idea that if something that a fellow poster contributed was not to their taste or has angered or irritated in some way - that it was up to them to make a fuss. And to try and to control the postings of others. Rather than just ignoring it – and being encouraged to accept that it was none of their business and the only real control that any posters has (or should have) – is over their own posts.

It was rather like a group of nosy neighbours getting themselves all indignant about matter that were none of their concern and deciding that 'something' must be done and getting someone to feel that they must be the one to be seen to do something.

Is it really too much to expect - unless your permission is first sought and given - that your own posted words remain as posted on our discussion forum? Or is this too much and thought to be trying to run Max's website for him?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 03:52 PM

A few more villagers.

Elsewhere, there is the butcher Hilary Briss, whose under-the-counter sales of 'special stuff' feeds the habits of certain carnivores in the village, especially those people in authority (Councilman Samuel Chignell being a regular customer). Then there's vet Matthew Chinnery, cursed with an uncanny ability to accidentally yet gruesomely slaughter any animals under his 'care'. There's job-restart officer Pauline, whose contempt of her unemployed charges is obvious and vindictive. More venom is dolled out (beneath a veneer of politeness) by Mrs Judee Levenson and her cleaning lady Iris Krell, each taunting the other: Mrs Levenson with tales of her luxury lifestyle, Iris with lurid stories of her sex life. Al and Rich are the dominated sons of hideous, violent Pop, a Greek immigrant who has built a tiny news-stand empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 02:24 AM

And a few more villagers.

A scenario like Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? is played out by married couple Stella and Charlie, who use their prospective son-in-law Tony as a pawn in their ongoing bitter war of words. Then there's Barbara Dixon, the local minicab driver, midway through a sex change (from male to female) and more than willing to share the visceral details of his/her operations with passengers. Seemingly the most normal of the residents is Les McQueen, one-time member of the progressive rock group Creme Brulée, now sadly reliving his past glories (which certainly do not seem that glorious) while dreaming of renewed stardom. Although not local, the touring community theatre group Legz Akimbo, with their dreadful stage productions, demonstrate enough angst to blend in perfectly, and another visitor is the German tour operator Herr Lipp, an oily individual who makes homosexual advances and mouths crude double entendres.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 05:22 AM

""It was rather like a group of nosy neighbours getting themselves all indignant about matter that were none of their concern and deciding that 'something' must be done and getting someone to feel that they must be the one to be seen to do something.""

Nope! It was rather like the owner of a website shedding some of the load by appointing representatives to act in his behalf, supervised by him.

It's called delegation of authority, and many senior people use it to enable themselves to have some free time.

I think it self evident that the owner is satisfied with the manner in which he is being represented.

Bottom line? IT'S HIS BUSINESS.

And would you for Christ's sake stop insulting our intelligence by using parables as if you were talking to a class of six year olds?

We understand what you say (well, the more comrehensible bits), we just DON'T agree.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 05:50 AM

I think Shambles is taking inspiration from the remak by ??? [possibly Disraeli] "Every time the English find the answer to the Irish question, the Irish change the question"
I believe you live around the Portland area Roger so let me just say one word, RABBITS!!

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 08:14 AM

It was rather like a group of nosy neighbours getting themselves all indignant about matter that were none of their concern and deciding that 'something' must be done and getting someone to feel that they must be the one to be seen to do something.

The above was in reference to the PEL threads.

What exactly were the crimes that required someone to be feel they needed to be seen to be doing 'something' about? Let us look at the accusations.

That I was the first poster to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression?

I was attempting nothing other than to post to our forum. But if there was an attempt to use our Forum Menu as a platform for free expression – would that be a crime or such a terrible thing to attempt?

That I was 'working hard to ensure that several PEL threads were on the forum at the same time? That I would refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep 'MY' PEL campaign in the people's eye.

While it may have appeared that the PEL threads were the same – there were many different aspects and many posters started threads on what they saw as these different aspects (as is their right). My intention was to try ensure that any poster who was interested – was provided with the information in as few threads as possible and to cause as little irritation to those posters who may have not been interested.

As all of the threads were clearly titled – it is difficult to see why anyone should feel irritated. I have no wish to do this as it is not possible for me (or anyone else) to control the posting habits of others but where the threads subjects overlapped – I did try to ensure that all the relevant information was available. It seems to be a difficult concept for some on forum to grasp – but every time you post to a thread – it refreshes it. Is contributing to a thread that our volunteer fellow posters don't wish you to – now a crime or such a terrible thing to attempt.

That I even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. That I worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion.

Had I done these things – would this have been a crime or such a terrible thing to attempt? Is there not enough room on our forum for all of this – without a fellow poster feeling they had to be seen to be making imposed judgements and confusing their personal motivations and personalising the important issue at the heart of all this?

That 'MY' PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but my technique got to be too much. That I was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. That I 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.

Too much for whom ? Had I done these things – would this have been a crime or such a terrible thing to attempt for what is accepted as being such a worthy cause?

That a number of things were done to hold me back a bit, since I didn't seem to be able to control myself. 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.

There was very little imposition as they was never any need. For the use of threads clearly titled PELs was welcome – if only to prevent some posters from feeling that they were justified in complaining about what their fellow posters contributed – rather than just being told by our volunteers to ignore them and control their own posts.


Is it really such a concern to have more than one thread on the same or similar subjects? What is the harm in having many – if that is what posters to our forum want? For it is obvious that if they didn't want this – the situation would not occur. Max has publicly stated that sees his role on our forum as to facilitate the poster's wishes. Why do our volunteers now seem to see their role as to sit in judgement upon every aspect of the postings and assumed motives of their fellow posters and feel themselves qualified to do this? All supposedly for the benefit of our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 08:32 AM

Ready to gybe? .......... Gybe O!!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 07:50 AM

I'd think the odds are high that not every single comment made in brown text (etc.) reflects exactly how Max himself might have done something (and Max might have been more or less polite for all I know). To suggest it would be, to me would be like thinking a shop assistant may have dealt in every case with customers exactly as the owner of the shop would. It's not (to me) really likely.

I believe what you look at is an overall satisfaction and I would assume for example that as Joe Offer has an edit button that there is general satisfacion in his carrying out of duties from Max.

Jon- As assumptions are the mother of all cock-ups - it is is safer for us never to assume anything. I am guided by the words of the sites owner expressed publicly on our forum and copied in this thread.

I have also contacted Max to express my appreciation for the part The Mudcat played (and is still playing) in the struggle to ensure that the right of everyone to freely express themselves musically is established in legislation here. Max did not respond with the sort of personal judgements, assumptions and accusations that we see here from some of our volunteer fellow posters. An attitude based on a lack of real information of the subject and one that has sadly become identified in many poster's minds with the PEL issue on our forum. A sad fact to be regretted and one which has not helped anyone.

It is difficult to see how any struggle for freedom of expression anywhere can now be debated or assisted on our forum when obtaining freedom of expression itself here is subject to the personal tastes of some of our fellow posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 10:27 AM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. (Shambles)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 01:07 PM

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.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

When Max explains to our forum something different to the above - I will expect the posting of BS on our forum to be undertaken on a different basis to what he has stated here.

Is it really too much to expect - unless your permission is first sought and given - that your own posted words remain as posted on our discussion forum? Or is this too much and thought to be trying to run Max's website for him?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 04:35 PM

Roger, just one more time: Your posted words were not changed. The title was amplified .

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 04:57 PM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. (Shambles)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 05:51 PM

Meanwhile - elsewhere in the village.

Into this malevolent melting-pot arrives young Benjamin, who has arranged to meet a friend for a walking holiday in the area. Unfortunately, Benjamin's friend has met a sticky end at the hands of Tubbs and Edward, and Benjamin is forced to stay longer than planned with his aunt and uncle, Harvey and Val Denton, a toad-obsessed couple given to pathological cleaning bouts and living by petty, but unbreakable rules. Benjamin is virtually held prisoner in the Dentons' home, reeling from one humiliation to another and increasingly terrified by their daughters Chloe and Radcliffe, sinister twins who simultaneously speak the same lines and seem able to read minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:07 PM

Ho, hum...just dropped in after a week or two to see if anything new had been added. No.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:09 PM

I'm puzzled now, Shambles...are you describing life in Dorset? Cos I went there for my holidays and had a lovely time. Perhaps I got off lightly!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:51 PM

I saw the following description and thought that it might be the sort of village that Jeri was referring to.

Deep in the Peak District, towards the north of England, is the village of Royston Vasey, a seemingly picturesque spot but one populated by dangerous lunatics, social misfits, sinister grotesques and psychopaths. A sign reads 'Welcome to Royston Vasey. You'll Never Leave!'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/l/leagueofgentleme_66602120.shtml

You are right - there is nothing like this village in Dorset...Thankfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 10:43 AM

See what happens when you go away for the weekend?

OK, you said that I could pick the topic. I picked the renaming of the PEL threads. It was MY choice, you said it was. Your only response to MY choice was that the renaming of the threads was never the issue. Well, it WAS the issue of the debate. Care to join me or should we move on to another topic of YOUR choice?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:22 PM

Your only response to MY choice was that the renaming of the threads was never the issue.

Your response was just what we are not short of - yet another personal judgement that will not add to the debate or provide a solution.

And no that was not my only response. The issue around the PEL threads remains the way they and the issue itself were used at the time as an excuse for posturing by some of our volunteer fellow posters. And for which dubious purpose they still are being used.

The issue is the assumptions that were made at that time and listed by this fellow poster here - about another poster's possible motivations. And the paranoid judgements behind the limited imposed editing actions and the effect of these personal value judgements upon what even the fellow poster making them agrees was a perfectly valid issue for our forum. Assumptions, suspicions and judgements that four years later are still providing the justification for the selective imposed editing of my contributions.

Does the fact that a person expressing a valid view that you agree with - maybe thought to be a rough cove with suspect motivations - likely on its own to result in you disagreeing with this view?

Or does the person expressing this view have to be thought a perfectly respectable character - before you feel you can agree?

Or is always the view that matters more than the assumed personality of the person expressing the view?

You may not like the look of Bob Geldof and you may not like him swearing at you and demanding that you send some money and you may think there is a better way. But your assumptions about his possible motives are not really likely to stop you caring about scenes of children starving to death. Unless perhaps you wish to use this as some form of excuse or justification for not caring or Bob Geldof makes you feel guilty or perhaps even a little jealous?

The bottom line is that the PEL issue was and still remains a serious concern to many. I feel that it should have just been recognised as that and not personalised in the way that it was and used as justification for a campaign and exercise in control over the postings of another poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:49 PM

Listen you bloody lot, either we play this game by my rules, or we don't play at all; RIGHT!!!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 03:25 PM

I offered a debate. You said that I could pick the topic. I did. the topic was "The Closing of the PEL threads". I realize you had other issues with the PEL threads. The only thing you said about the topic was that it wasn't an issue. This is not a personal judgement. If you want to pick another topic, pick one but there are too many different ones in your last post. A debate should have a topic. I'd like you to pick one or let's debate mine. There's a lot to choose from in your last post, just narrow it down to one.


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 06:14 AM

If you want to pick another topic, pick one but there are too many different ones in your last post.

It may be a fact that there many topics in my last post. It is a personal value judgement for you to state that there are TOO many. Too many for what?

Just as all the justifications listed and provided by the Head of the Mudcat Editing Team for their assumptions about another named poster's possible motives - are matters of personal taste and judgement.

We all make these judgements but posting only to express them is not helpful - for all that happens a response in kind. And volunteer fellow posters basing any selective imposed editing action upon these assumptions and personal judgements - whilst trying to maintain to our forum that there is no personal motivation for them - even less helpful.

More importantly - this judgement is not following Max's guidiance that he sees his role as only to facillitate.

From the first post in this thread.

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1277273

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 06:28 AM

Shambles meets someone who is more than happy to debate and and what does he do? Avoid any exchange of views like the plague.

Shambles - you treat so many of the rest of us with little respect in your responses to our posts. I am surprised you have the gall (no pun intended) to continue. You complain when people make flippant posts; you sidestep honest attempts at debate; if no-one posts you refresh the thread anyway, by repeating something you have already said.   

Following this thread is like watching Big Brother - mildly interesting at first as a piece of people watching, but quickly becomes obvious that it has no real substance and is trdious beyong belief. That is my personal judgement. Debate is not invited.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 06:37 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5

The choice of what issue another posters chooses to debate or if they choose not to debate at all - is not one for me. There is no shortage of topics here. Just - it would appear - a shortage posters willing to debate them.

No shortage of those just posting personal judgements however.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 07:26 AM

Pseudolus, I know how you feel my friend. Many of us have offered debate with the same degree of success (none).

Even when asked to choose a topic, the result is more cut'n paste, or more oblique and obtuse parables.

This is a lost cause. Shambles does not want to debate. He wants us all to agree with him, and rise up to Smite Joe and the clones, hip and thigh.

His is a biblical campaign, backed by faith (misguided) and righteous wrath. You might just as well try to debate existence with a brick wall.

I for one have had more than enough. The respect I once had for Shambles has been eroded out of existence, and I don't intend to read any more of his nonsense.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 07:43 AM

The cook comes in; he is very big and comes 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)


Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:31 PM

I don't have anything against honest debate. I just don't believe you're honest and I don't believe one guy standing on a soapbox dodging rotten tomatoes contitutes a debate.

Perhaps if a certain few posters stopped only throwing rotten tomatoes - we could then have a debate here about the issues?

Can you accept that the attempt to hold this debate is to try to ensure that all posters on our forum continue to be able to have that choice? Rather than to have some of their anonymous volunteer fellow posters - who now feel themselves qualified - to make this choice for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 10:08 AM

Thank you Don, it is a little frustrating.

Shambles, it is not a personal judgement to say that there are too many topics in a post to debate at one time. A debate needs a topic. I'd be glad to debate them all with you, one at a time. If you're interested, let me know. If the conditions under which you are willing to debate include discussing all of the topics at once, then I am unable to do that. I'm not unwilling, I'm just not capable.

The only thing I ask is that you stop saying that no one is willing to debate, there are planty of us willing to debate.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:08 AM

Then what pray is preventing you?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:16 AM

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:17 AM

Q:   WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M:   Well, I was told outside that...
Q:   Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M:   What?
Q:   Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M:   Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q:   OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M:   Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q:   Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M:   Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q:   Not at all.
M:   Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:32 AM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. (Shambles)

For there appears to boredom among some of those anonymous ones who perhaps could be better employed currently (or if I had my way - not employed at all). (Shambles)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:48 AM

What is preventing me? A debate has two sides, a debate has a topic. I asked you for a topic, you said it was up to me, I gave you a topic and you responded with many opinions but none that were specific to the topic I chose. I'm willing to debate, I'm waiting for one to start. How's this for a topic...let's debate whether or not it is possible to have a debate here on this Forum. I believe that we can. What do you think?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:26 PM

What is preventing me? A debate has two sides, a debate has a topic. I asked you for a topic, you said it was up to me, I gave you a topic and you responded with many opinions but none that were specific to the topic I chose. Frank

OK, you said that I could pick the topic. I picked the renaming of the PEL threads. Frank

I offered a debate. You said that I could pick the topic. I did. the topic was "The Closing of the PEL threads". Frank

As none of the PEL threads were either renamed or closed (when current anyway) - I have pointed out that there was really little mileage in debating any of those topics. And you had already made the judgement that I read the post from Joe that you included in your last post and the reasoning behind the renaming of those threads is very understandable to me.

Are you saying that you think it not only understandable but acceptable on our forum - for anonymous fellow posters to impose judgement and editing action - based not on what is being said but only on their many listed assumptions about what a fellow poster's possible motivation for their postings may be? When it has already been agreed that the PEL issue was a perfectly valid one for our forum.

Would you still consider it understandable and aceptable when these assumptions were wrong?

And would you consider that after four years these groundless assumptions should still be motivating the selective editing actions still being imposed upon this poster's contributions? Not to mention the continuing personal abuse and name-calling from our volunteer fellow posters - which I suspect you would also consider to be understandable? When Max has stated that he see his role only to facilitate?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:32 PM

I suspect there may be a pushing of the boundaries, in order to provoke editing, and thereby justify the original complaint. If the bait is not taken and no editing takes place then the objective of being able to post unedited is achieved, it's a sort of heads I win tails you lose situation.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:40 PM

We're caught in a trap
I can't walk out
Because I love you too much baby
Why can't you see
what your doing to me
When you don't believe a word I say
We can't go on together with
Suspicous minds
and we can't build our dreams
on suspicious minds

As there is no way of telling for sure what a fellow poster's motives may be - it is probably better to take what they post at face value.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:54 PM

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Think Again (Dick Gaughan)
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 05:13 AM

Susanne -

I am not so sure about urgency. For there appears to boredom among some of those anonymous ones who perhaps could be better employed currently (or if I had my way - not employed at all). And who - when they are not busy looking to impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters - would appear to be scatching around offering to undertake even less urgent tasks. In order to make them happy - like the following example.........


Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in...
From: GUEST,One of the JoeClones - PM
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 06:29 PM

I'd be happy to delete some of those lengthy articles and replace them with links. It's usually easy enough to find where they were copied from. Trouble is, I seldom read BS threads about controversial issues any more, so I don't see them.

Tell ya what: Post links here to threads that have long articles in them, and I'll see what I can do. The thread number would be sufficient. I don't guarantee that I won't get bored after a while, though.

Think again - indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 01:01 PM

See? Now we have something to debate! OK, Joe himself said that a "PEL tag" was added to the threads so that others would know what the thread contained. I for one appreciate that because as I said before, sometimes I don't have a lot of time and I like to know what I am getting into before I open teh thread. To me, that is a reasonable thing to do not to mention helpful. As far as the editing of the threads goes, it is my understanding that the clones took lengthy posts that were posted in several threads and consolidated them into one. This is also reasonable in my opinion because if someone was going to read all of the PEL threads why would they want to read the message over and over. what is the purpose behind putting it in so many threads? No post was deleted unless it was a duplicate of a post in another thread. He explained that it was due to the duplication and always left one post in there. If he was editing out your opinions, wouldn't he have deleted them all?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM

to be scatching around (Shambles)

What does that mean?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 06:47 PM

The following was posted on another forum I frequent just the other day. Just for reference sake it's good to remember just how free and easy Mudcat really is and that Joe and the Clones are so relaxed in their moderation. The fact they remain in the job is obvious proof that Max is satisfied with the work and decisions. The post below appeared AFTER 1bout a dozen threads on the subject in question had already been deleted along with probably well over a hundred postings. Needless to say that none of those involved as the posters and thread originators were notified. All other posts had been consolidated into one thread. Sham may have a heart attack about this type of thing but it is common as dirt on the net as anyone who is out there knows.

**********************************************************************

Civil opinions and posts are welcome here.

http://insider.speedtv.com/viewtopic.php?t=97713

New duplicate threads, and uncivil comments will be immediately moved and/or deleted.

The old threads have been shut down and will be deleted, as the changes are made, and you now have opportunity to post your comments on this new thread.

Please express your thoughts and emotions in a courteous or at least a civil manner. You post here as a privilege.

Thank you.
_________________
Speed Monitor

**********************************************************************

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,One of the JoeClones
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 07:50 PM

Since someone thought my offer (to delete copy-and-pasted articles and replace them with links) was important enough to copy and paste to two other threads, I figure you might be interested in knowing the outcome of that offer.

Fact is, no one took me up on it. No one ever named a thread they wanted an article deleted from. So I didn't delete anything. I concluded that the whole controversy is much ado about nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 02:30 AM

Fact is, no one took me up on it. No one ever named a thread they wanted an article deleted from. So I didn't delete anything. I concluded that the whole controversy is much ado about nothing.

I would suggest that all instances of posters complaining about the posts of their fellow posters should be thought to be much ado about nothing as they should be informed that the only postings that anyone has any control over - is their own. The idea that one poster may judge another's to be 'obnoxious' should be seen as a opinion - not as justification for imposed editing action.

Meanwhile as a result of recent crashes - many interesting older threads are still messed-up and the posts contained in them are still remain out of sequence.

Perhaps setting our unknown numbers of volunteer fellow posters to work on this task may be more useful to our forum than having them sitting around waiting to judge and impose their anonymous judgement upon their fellow posters for the slightest excuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 10:35 AM

350

See? Now we have something to debate! OK, Joe himself said that a "PEL tag" was added to the threads so that others would know what the thread contained. I for one appreciate that because as I said before, sometimes I don't have a lot of time and I like to know what I am getting into before I open teh thread.

Yes Frank - Joe Offer did say this. It is difficult debating the PEL threads when you have already posted to support everything in the justification given as being understandable even when the assumptions behind this attitude it may not be true. Do you accept that by doing this you are also accepting all of the assumptions made in this list of justifications that formed the basis for these actions and attitudes?

Should imposed editing action be based on one poster's assumptions about what a fellow poster's motivations may be? You may think it understandable – under the current circumstances – but is it really necessary or desirable? Would you think it so understandable if I was the one imposing judgement and editing upon your contributions based only on my assumptions of your possible motives?

Do you think that any of our anonymous volunteer posters would be happy if I were doing the imposing of my judgement upon their contributions on this basis (or any other basis) and attempting by this imposition – to shape our forum to my personal tastes? And posting abusive personal attacks calling them names for not being in agreement with me and encouraging others to do this?

For these justifications seem presume that posters have lost their traditional (and understandable) right on our forum - to have their words remain as posted? Or that the whole purpose of our forum is to enable certain posters to impose judgement, name-call and speculate on publicly on their fellow poster's possible motivations, spelling, grammar and mental health etc. Pedantry that was so refreshingly absent from our forum here and which made it the fine place that it now struggles to be.

For the reasons I gave – the PEL threads were clearly titled to enable our anonymous volunteer fellow posters to provide links in a list which appeared at the top of each thread. To my knowledge none have been the subject to imposed re-titling – despite the hysterical reaction to mere existence of these threads from some quarters.

No one is saying that it is not perfectly understandable to wish to know what a thread contains by its title. It is only how such understandable aim is achieved and at what cost. Would a PM from our volunteer fellow posters to the originator, proposing a change achieve the same end - at less risk of offence and with a style more in keeping with the site owner's wishes?

Why does a title change have to be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission? Why does this imposition, at this stage of our forum's development now appear to so many posters be so understandable? Perhaps because it is not happening to them (yet)? Or that the expectations for our forum have been lowered by comparisons with plainly inferior sites? And by some strange wish from some - for our forum to be as poor as these others are and not to work together to try and ensure that our forum is the special place that Max's vision and hard work entitle it to be?

It would indeed be nice if everyone else conformed to our idea of order. No amount of imposed judgement upon our fellows is ever going to make this happen is it? Perhaps our forum should be encouraged to accept that in reality – this is never going to be the case – rather than encourage the idea that such order and control can be (selectively and increasingly) imposed?

Will you accept that I am trying to ensure that posters continue to have control over their own postings and not be subject to the control, judgement and imposed personal tastes of a few (anonymous) fellow posters? This right is now routinely taken away at the slightest excuse. How can it be understandable for you to expect to have the right to judge that another poster's chosen thread title should made be clear for you? Is this understandable wish for you or others to have or impose this judgement - greater than the original poster's right to be control over the words of their own posts?   

Are you saying that the end will always justify the means? Surely every thread is individual just as every poster is an individual and worthy of individual respect?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 10:40 AM

From another forum:

About.com Forums are intended for discussion related to the topic of the site.

Please use the Forum responsibly, and in accordance with the User Agreement.

Your About.com Guides may read and post to the Forum, but it is likely that most postings will not be reviewed or monitored. Therefore, neither the Guide nor About.com is responsible for any posting. About.com reserves the right to remove any Guide- or user-created content, once it is brought to our attention, if we find in our sole discretion it violates these guidelines or if it is in violation of the law. However, About.com will not be held under any obligation to do so.

You are welcome to post, but please do so responsibly and remember that there may be minors reading the Forum.

About.com's Forums should not be used to advocate or promote the following:


Any illegal activity.

Activities that support or espouse non-consensual and/or extreme violence or sexual aggressiveness towards another individual or group for any reason.

Activities that support or espouse hatred towards another individual or group based upon any criteria (including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, etc.).

Activities and input from individuals that violate our inclusive standards.


For a complete description of our content policy guidelines please refer to About.com Content Policy Guidelines.

It is at the discretion of the Guide or About.com as to how these guidelines are met.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:00 AM

Shambles - you keep referring to the "right" of posters. This is a private site. The posters (aside from Max himself) *have* no rights. This is not an opinion, it is a legal fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:15 AM

Shambles - you keep referring to the "right" of posters. This is a private site. The posters (aside from Max himself) *have* no rights. This is not an opinion, it is a legal fact.

MMario - Perhaps it is you who needs to talk to Max?

Perhaps you would accept that IF there is no 'right' on our public forum for poster's words to remain as posted - there would be even less 'right' for others to impose their judgement upon these words?

If 'right' is not the word would you accept the word 'expectation' and would you accept that the essence of our forum has always been based on mutual respect and not on pedantry and judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:17 AM

Only if you will accept the *fact* that those doing the editing are appointed by Max as his proxies and conforming to his wishes as to their duties.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:36 AM

To me, that is a reasonable thing to do not to mention helpful. As far as the editing of the threads goes, it is my understanding that the clones took lengthy posts that were posted in several threads and consolidated them into one.

I think your understanding in this case is wrong. It may now be the wish of our anonymous volunteer fellow posters to control every aspect of what their fellow posters contribute. And this form of imposed editing may have been undertaken elsewhere and other subjects – but as far as I am aware none of the PEL threads have been subject to this form of imposed editing action.

Lumping individual threads together may appeal to a tidy mind who does not appreciate the subtle differences but the originators should perhaps been consulted first. It may be understandable to you that every thread title be subject to imposed change - to enable you to clearly understand their contents. It may be understandable – but is it very practical to do this for every thread? And if it is not – is it fair or effective to selectively to only do this to certain contributors and not others – which may be equally unclear?

This is also reasonable in my opinion because if someone was going to read all of the PEL threads why would they want to read the message over and over.

They may not want to but there are many things we may prefer not to have to read on our forum? Is the rather remote possibility of reading a message twice really the worst and worth such fuss, judgement and imposition? From the list of justification - you may consider the result of such imposition to be understandable but would you really consider it to be proportionate?   

Abusive personal attacks and name-calling are supposed to be what our anonymous volunteer fellow posters are protecting us from. But you will see many such examples of this in this thread alone (and the following threads) – many of them being posted by those who are supposed to be protecting us from this.
Censorship on Mudcat
Max what about Shambles requests
In the UK
Closing threads


Look everyone. You have to understand that I am talking about behavior that is carefully controlled borderline crime. Unless you are used to making threats and using the information and technology within the Mudcat to stalk, hurt or scare people you have no fear of crossing a line.
Max22 Jul 99

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 think it understandable if our forum's posters are not sure if our anonymous volunteer fellow posters were now singing from the same hymn book as our site's owner?

what is the purpose behind putting it in so many threads?

I fear you have been given and accepted a rather false and exaggerated picture from the justifications given.
If you specify what particular message and in exactly how many threads – I may be able to provide a further answer to the one I have already given? But even if there were no purpose to this – in the grand scale of things – why on earth make such assumptions and judgements about such small things? For example what is the purpose on our forum of a thread with 10,000 posts about nothing?

It is about all posters being encouraged to accept what others post on our forum – not the futile attempt to judge and control the postings of others and shape our forum by this vain attempt. Our forum has traditionally been shaped by the needs, wishes, talents, knowledge, opinions etc of ALL it posters – perhaps you can help ensure that it continues to be?

No post was deleted unless it was a duplicate of a post in another thread. He explained that it was due to the duplication and always left one post in there. If he was editing out your opinions, wouldn't he have deleted them all?

You have to be careful when repeating such claims in this list of justifications - as if they were true. It is now quite obvious from the following that Joe Offer has no idea how many or whether my words have been deleted or not. But he is still not prepare to apologise for wrongly and emphatically informing our forum – not once but twice – that not one word of mine has been deleted.

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-

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. It's not an all-encompassing check, but a quick check shows nothing. You're back to quoting out-of-context remarks from 2003 - comments that make very good sense when read in context. You've gone looney again. It's time to go back into your hole. Goodbye, Roger. 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-

This list of assumptions was given by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff - to justify the continuing special treatment that my postings have selectively been subject to in the last four years. I will leave our forum to judge if this special treatment is really proportionate to my supposed terrible 'transgressions' or whether this special treatment is simply personally motivated. Or indeed whether any poster should receive special treatment.

The only telling words in the list of justifications are the following. His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause. A worthy cause that was not helped on our forum - by the identification of this worthy cause with personal judgements of an individual poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Pseudolua at work
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 01:10 PM

Well, it seems that the only explanation you have for claiming that you are right is the clones reason for making changes as much as the changes themselves like they are out there conspiring to annoy you and only you. I posted a thread about Casey at the Bat. I put it in the BS section and the next day I couldn't find it. Turns out it was considered a recitation and the thread was renamed (without my permission) and moved to the top half! where as you may have taken this personally, I took it as a promotion and a helpful way to get the thread to where the most interested people would see it. My "permission" wasn't asked for because it wasn't needed. they're not out to get me.

Does it occur to you that in all of these threads, not one clone, regular poster or even Max has posted a message that agrees with your point? No one has come out and said, "ya know that Shambles is really getting the shaft from the clones." Personally I think that says as much about this debate as anything else. That's not a judgement, for I have no right to judge. But if I was trying to explain my opinions over and over and was asking questions about the same point continuously and NO ONE even once said, "ya know, you might have a point there", then I would take a hard look at my side of the story and what's driving me to go to great lengths to make the forum understand that they're all out to get me.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 02:37 PM

Does it occur to you that in all of these threads, not one clone, regular poster or even Max has posted a message that agrees with your point?

Perhaps because like many of the things you appear to accept, repeat believe and post publicly and do not bother to check or attempt to evidence - it is not actually true.

Bert also happens to be long term volunteer fellow poster. But even if what you incorrectly state were true - what difference would this make?


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: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 03:39 PM

OK, maybe I wasn't clear. I was confining my comments to this thread in which I haven't seen any overwhelming support. Looking back I shouldn't have said "in all of these threads" since I was only talking about this one. I apologize. In either case, I wasn't saying that no one ever agreed with you, I was saying that no one has come to your defense that the clones are making personal judgements about you by making these changes. Not everyone is going to agree with the actions that are taken to keep the forum running smoothly.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 06:10 PM

May I make a sugggestion? Frank as you are willing toactually debate this and as Roger says he is as well, then let's lay it out in actual debate form. First you need a question to debate and then you need to agree on term definitions. Perhaps the first question should be:

Since Max has selected and asked for the help of Monitors (individuals to aid him in the administration of The Mudcat Forum), should Max be the final arbiter of their function and performance?

TERMS: Max...The site owner; Monitor...Most common terminology for those perfoming various editing functions on internet forums. Please note that other terms for this job are used but you both must agree to them.

PSEUDOLUS takes the agreement and SHAMBLES takes the disagreement.

Each may make one opening statement. After each has made an opening statement each then may make a rebuttal statement followed by a second rebuttal. Then each makes a summary argument for their side.

It would be nice if we could follow the standard format where the Agree begins and the statements come in order.

Ready to try this?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 08:26 PM

I agree...oh, wait you probably want more than that. OK, here goes...

Max is in fact the owner of the Cat therefore he had the right to select those folks that aid in the admin duties for the forum. Since it is his site and since he has handpicked his helpers, he should be the one and only one to decide if they are functioning in the manner in which he would like them to. He should also be the one to pass judgement on their performance and render any decisions necessary when issues arise.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:52 AM

I wasn't saying that no one ever agreed with you, I was saying that no one has come to your defense that the clones are making personal judgements about you by making these changes.

Again - what you are saying is not factually correct. And as I have said, Bert has long been trusted by Max to have an edit button and unlike some of his fellow volunteer posters - sees no reason to undertake his role anonymously.

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


Frank - Would you aree that most posters would consider that being called name like 'idiot' by the Chief of The Mudcat Editing Staff would constitute a "personal judgement".

In the light of this - and the many other assumptions and public speculations made by our volunteer fellow posters - about the possible motivations behind a fellow poster's contributions - how can any poster to our forum really be expected to accept that any selective changes imposed upon my contributions were not personally motivated?

Would you agree that over the assumptions contained in the justifications over the PEL threads alone - that there would at least be some doubt that these subsequent and selective imposed editing actions were as free from personal judgement?

My view has always been that any imposed editing is censorship and that any censorship is a serious matter. There should NEVER be any question that any censorship is free of any personal motivation on the part of the censor.

The current situation where a fellow poster can express their personal preference on the forum - as is their right - but then (in some cases anonymously) insult and impose this preference upon their fellow posters - is one that is open to abuse.

Just as importantly - the secrecy and division involved make it impossible to honestly defend from any accusation or suspicion of abuse.

Would you agree that to enable it to be honestly defended - that any imposed censorship needs to be seen to be open, fair and to have a clear objective?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:07 AM

OK, I give up, you have an overwhelming amount of support, from Bert.

You said, "Frank - Would you aree that most posters would consider that being called name like 'idiot' by the Chief of The Mudcat Editing Staff would constitute a "personal judgement"."

Calling someone an idiot is a personal judgement, I agree, but the editing actions are not. Joe has explained at length what his reasons are and if you think he's not being up front with you then that is your opinion. But the bottom line is that he makes the decisions which are blessed by Max whose opinion frankly is the only one who matters and he is the one and ONLY person who could step in if he thought there were inappropriate decisions being made.

You also said "Would you agree that to enable it to be honestly defended - that any imposed censorship needs to be seen to be open, fair and to have a clear objective?"

What makes you think that any of this has to be defended at all? we're all playing in Max's house. He doesn't have to defend anything that goes on here by him or the people that he entrusts with the running of this site. Now THAT is really what is at the heart of my argument. As someone said earlier, we're not here because we have the right to be, we're here because we have that privlege.


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:33 AM

What makes you think that any of this has to be defended at all?

It reamains a fact that there are constant attempts on our forum to defended and justify all of this (selective) imposed judgement. Why not ask those who make this attempt - why they feel they have to do this? Why do you appear to feel this need? Should this not be a matter for Max rather than you?

we're all playing in Max's house. He doesn't have to defend anything that goes on here by him or the people that he entrusts with the running of this site. Now THAT is really what is at the heart of my argument. As someone said earlier, we're not here because we have the right to be, we're here because we have that privlege.

Someone may have said this and we all may agree to some extent and be grateful but you seem to accept that it is the site's owner Max that should be our guide? Should we then take notice of Max's public words - rather than just ignore them and be encouraged by others to ignore them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:38 AM

What makes you think that any of this has to be defended at all?

It remains a fact that there are constant attempts on our forum to defended and justify all of this (selective) imposed judgement. Why not ask those who make this attempt - why they feel they have to do this? Why do you appear to feel this need? Should this not be a matter for Max rather than you?

we're all playing in Max's house. He doesn't have to defend anything that goes on here by him or the people that he entrusts with the running of this site. Now THAT is really what is at the heart of my argument. As someone said earlier, we're not here because we have the right to be, we're here because we have that privlege.

Someone may have said this and we all may agree to some extent and be grateful but you seem to accept that it is the site's owner Max that should be our guide? Should we then take notice of Max's public words - rather than just ignore them and be encouraged by others to ignore them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:58 AM

What sort of a debate would this be?

I think G.W. Bush is the best job of everthing. And those he has appointed are also carrrying out his wishes and are also doing a great job of everything. And if they were not and abusing their positions - we could trust G.W. Bush to deal with it and leave it to him. END OF.

Not much room for debate there. Perhaps we should remember that even a good leader's intentions are often compromised by some of those they appoint.

I have very little trust or respect for most politicians but I do have a great deal of respect for Max. I trust that he will address any issues that are raised on our forum for the best interests of ALL on our forum.

The best way to bring those these issues to Max's attention is through free and open debate and to try and ensure that our forum remains a place where all views are considered equally.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:26 AM

I'm not defending anything since I think there is nothing that needs to be defended. I'm debating the issue with you. there's nothing wrong with that. My issue with your opinion is that it sounds like you believe that you are owed something. that we ALL are owed something by Max and the Clones. We aren't. this is HIS site and forum. Which, by the way, is very different from your example of George Bush or any other president. A president is an elected official to run a country that is in no way his and his alone. It belongs to all of us. The Mudcat is NOT a country, it belongs to MAX and the rest of us are just visiting!

You keep telling me on many counts that I am "willing to accept" this or that. In the last question you said that I am willing to accept that the site owner, Max, should be our guide. Well yeah! HE OWNS THE SITE! I am either willing to accept it or I can leave. It is his. Nothing you or I can say will change that. In your next post you say, "I have very little trust or respect for most politicians but I do have a great deal of respect for Max. I trust that he will address any issues that are raised on our forum for the best interests of ALL on our forum." Sounds to me like YOU are willing to accept that as well. And if that is the case, why not just send a PM to Max and trust his judgement if what you asid is what you truly feel?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 11:24 AM

And if that is the case, why not just send a PM to Max and trust his judgement if what you asid is what you truly feel?

Why would you assume that I have not done this also? Why would you assume that I would refer to such an exchange or make any such private exchange - public?

But why should any contributor to our forum have any need for a private conversation - about our public forum - with Max? Has he not already provided all the requirements for such a debate publicly on our forum. If I wished to know the contents of his bank account - I may send a PM and ask him. He may reply - but his reply (understandably) may not be printable.

But why do you appear to think that Max is not perfectly able to read comments on the forum that he has provided on his own website?

The problem we have is one of assumptions. In the lack of a recent definitive public statement. Especially one that is radically different to those expressing the intentions for our forum that Max has provided publicly in the past - I think that it is perhaps safe for us all to accept that Max's vision for our forum remains as he has stated. To faciliate our forum's wishes - and not to sit in judgement upon them?

Other posters would appear to make quite different assumptions for a radical change in this approach - but with very little or no evidence to support any such assumption. Max may now be tempted (or even asked) to provide our forum with a statement expressing every confidence and full support for his appointees and structure. Rather like the one issued by Chairmen of soccer clubs about the club's manager - just before they are about to remove them. I hope not.

In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address. The rest - as it has always been - is really up to the posters to control their own postings and continue to bring any concerns about our forum publicly to our forum - for Max and the rest of our forum to debate and consider.

For assumption - they do say - is the mother of all cock-ups.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:02 PM

You too make assumptions - Like these...

1. But why do you appear to think that Max is not perfectly able to read comments on the forum that he has provided on his own website?

    I do not think that Max is able to read comments on his Forum. You brought these issues out publicly to the whole Forum when only Max is in a position to pass judgement.

2. Why would you assume that I have not done this also? Why would you assume that I would refer to such an exchange or make any such private exchange - public?

    I do not assume anything of the kind. I don't know if you did or didn't. My point was, if you did, and he is the only one that has the authority to make a decision, why not leave it at that? You clearly have issues with what the clones are doing and in particular with Joe. It sounds like you'd like some changes made and yet, more than one poster has posted a statement from one of your posts indicating "I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run". Is that not true, or am I just "willing to accept" this as well?

There is a statement in your last post that I absolutely, 100 percent, agree with and that is this... "In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address". Perhaps if this statement had been followed by everyone (including me) this thread would have been much shorter.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:03 PM

OK, typo, I typed "    I do not think that Max is able to read comments on his Forum. You brought these issues out publicly to the whole Forum when only Max is in a position to pass judgement.
"

I meant to say

    I DO think that Max is able to read comments on his Forum. You brought these issues out publicly to the whole Forum when only Max is in a position to pass judgement.

sorry Max,
Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:16 PM

Calling someone an idiot is a personal judgement, I agree, but the editing actions are not. Joe has explained at length what his reasons are and if you think he's not being up front with you then that is your opinion.

As you are willing to accept that this name-calling by a volunteer fellow poster is a personal judgement made publicly on our forum - how can you ever be sure that any subsequent imposed judgements are not personally motivated? When a volunteer fellow poster indulges in setting this example to our forum - can you ever really be sure that any of their subsequent imposed editing action are not also personally motivated?

Is it because your opinion is based upon the opinion of the person who is telling you this? The same person making the initial list of assumptions and indulging in the abusive personal attacks and name-calling and imposing their personal judgement and subsequent editing actions?

I am making no assumptions about my fellow poster's possible motivations for this but the evidence is there. It is a matter for you to decide from the evidence of the words provided.

Perhaps you will accept that under these circumstances there will always remain some doubt about whether the imposed editing actions were personally motivated?

Would accept that there is a need for these imposed actions to always be seen to be impartial And that if someone trusted to be impartial is seen to be suspect in any way - they should perhaps not be thought suitable to continue? Or perhaps should not even wish to for fear of compromising Max and our forum?

Would you like to provide some convincing explanation - other than personal motivation - as to why it was judged "time" for the imposed closure of this thread? Closing threads

It is only "time" for that thread because one fellow poster has judged (for some reason) that they have the right to prevent any other posters from making any further contributions to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:47 PM

It sounds like you'd like some changes made and yet, more than one poster has posted a statement from one of your posts indicating "I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run". Is that not true, or am I just "willing to accept" this as well?

Perhaps you need to read the whole post for the full explanation? Maybe now you would accept that there is a difference between Max's site and our forum.

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: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:51 PM

So are you saying that because someone is human and doesn't get along with you that he is incapable of doing his job? If you are, then I disagree. For whatever reason the statement was made, I've made worse. It doesn't make me a bad person and it doesn't make me incapable of doing a job. they are totally different things.

Now, several times you have made statements implying that I am willing to accept some things just because someone else has said it here on Mudcat. I have never laid doubt to the integrity of your opinions, please don't do it to mine.

Finally, what about the last statement in my previous post where I thought we agreed on one point. You said, "In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address". Are you prepared to do just that and allow MAX to deal with this issue in a way he sees fit?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 02:14 PM

Finally, what about the last statement in my previous post where I thought we agreed on one point. You said, "In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address". Are you prepared to do just that and allow MAX to deal with this issue in a way he sees fit?

Frank

Perhaps it is a good idea to provide all of what I said. Which rather natually - I do agree with. Do you?

In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address. The rest - as it has always been - is really up to the posters to control their own postings and continue to bring any concerns about our forum publicly to our forum - for Max and the rest of our forum to debate and consider.

Perhaps you would accept that how our forum appears has always been is up to all of us and what we all choose to post to it? A point that I feel from his public statements that Max is well aware of - as he tends to leave us to it. Perhaps you would like to help ensure that this remains the case and that the shape of our forum is not now determined by the imposed personal tastes of just a few posters?

So are you saying that because someone is human and doesn't get along with you that he is incapable of doing his job? If you are, then I disagree.

No.... I am probably saying that combining the dual roles of fellow poster with those of a judge - who can (anonymously) impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow poster - is an unrealistic and unfair expectation - both on them and the rest of our traditionally friendly and accomodating forum. It should be recognised that ALL posters to our forum are human (apart from the odd horse).

For whatever reason the statement was made, I've made worse. It doesn't make me a bad person and it doesn't make me incapable of doing a job. they are totally different things.

In the courts where the responsibilities of this judging business are taken more seriously - would you accept that certain standards are expected of those who would sit in judgement upon us?

That not only would these judges expect to be judged themselves but would expect their conduct to be judged even more more harshly? That these judges - if their conduct both privately and professionally fell short of these standards (especially on the grounds of any question of their impartiality) would expect their judgement to be severe and many would feel the need to resign long before this point? That these judges would accept that along with their privileges and rights - comes a greater responsibilty?

Some of those who would feel themselves quallified to judge the contributions of their fellow posters on our forum - appear to feel they should be able to impose judgement upon their fellows and remain anonymous. And some of those who are prepared to be known and accountable to our forum for their actions - do not feel they should be judged in turn.

Some of these seem to think that a correct response from them to any criticism or questioning of their judgement and resulting imposed editing actions on our forum - is for them to mount abusive personal abusive attacks, call their fellow posters names and encourage other posters to follow this example......

Some seem to think that everyone and everything is open to their personal taste and judgement on our forum - but they are above this. That they feel qualified to accept the privilges of their role but do not feel they themselves should accept any resonsibility for their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM

From another forum waht i use=
"if you are a moany basterd waht posts shite all the time=, your messedges could get delted, and if they do, then dont moan, just shut yup and stop moaning, or we ban you, [or with real moany nutters= we find out were you live, and cut your fuchking phone wires, so not able to post any more moany crap!".


jOhn

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:12 PM

This is what I believe...and it's not because anyone one else told me to...

1. This is Max's Site
2. Even the Forum belong's to Max
3. Max wants the forum to be open and free
4. Max asked the Clones to moderate the Forum
5. Max is happy with the job done
6. If he wasn't happy he would have made some changes
7. Mudcat including the Forum is a privledge not a right
8. The best thing for Pseudolus and Shambles is to agree to disagree

I started another thread "A (true) Jelly Fish story". I mention this debate in the thread so in fairness I wanted you to know that. I don't disagree with all that you say, in fact I agree with a lot. I will probably not continue to debate here since I really do think that number 8 in my list is true. I don't think that either one of us is gonna change the other's mind.

It's been interesting,
Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:19 PM

There is also a rather a lot of assunptions in your list Frank. *smiles*

The following thread is on the HELP forum. For those who do not usually venture there - it is worth a look.

Shambles

Hang the witch!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:58 PM

The following was in editing brown - when this thread Is anonymous posting to be encouraged was subject to imposed closure by one of our most willing combatants. All done (as the post says) in the name of 'free and open discussion' and to keep us safe from "sneak attacks". Don't worry for you will be judged and peace will be imposed upon you by your fellow posters. *Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 12:18 PM

Well, I have to say I'm getting very tired of all this animosity. It's great for Mudcat to be a place for free, open discussion, but lately it has seemed to be more like a jungle full of guerrilla warriors. How can discussion be free and open, if everyone has to keep a watch out for sneak attacks? This is a forum for exchange of ideas, not combat.

I get a lot of complaints from people about the conduct of so-and-so, usually an anonymous Guest. The trouble is, the people who complain are just as heavily involved in combat - and then they stick their tails between their legs and want me to protect them. I'm sorry, but if you insist on engaging in combat, I can't protect you. When you join the fight, you open yourself to attack, and what you receive is most often far worse than what you can give out.

So, I would ask everyone to help. If there is combat going on, stay away from it. Act as though the combatants were invisible - that's your best protection from them.

I'm closing this thread because it has become another hotbed of animosity. The topic of anonymous posting has been beaten to death the last few days, and I'm likely to delete or close anything else that gets posted on the subject for a while. Cool it - everybody.
Peace, please.
Thank you.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:01 PM

Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 03:19 PM

Two judges.

http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/hollywood-bowl/09-two-judges.html

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 03:29 PM

Judge Contempt of court. However, I'm not going to punish you, because we're so short of judges at the moment, what with all of them emigrating to South Africa. I'm going tomorrow; I've got my ticket. Get out there and get some decent sentencing done. Ooh, England makes you sick. Best I can manage here is life imprisonment. It's hardly worth coming in in the morning. Now, South Africa? You've got your cat of nine tails, you've got four death sentences a week, you've got cheap drinks, slave labour and a booming stock market. I'm off, I tell you. Yes, I'm up to here with probation and bleeding psychiatric reports. That's it, I'm off. That's it. Right. But I'm going to have one final fling before I leave, so I sentence you to be burnt at the stake.

Judge Kilbraken Blimey! I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 08:12 AM

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 08:33 AM

*I* don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/t1.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 08:38 AM

[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.

The following is a (brown) editing comment inserted into Bert's existing post and not refreshing the thread)

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-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 08:39 AM

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 09:52 AM

I get a lot of complaints from people about the conduct of so-and-so, usually an anonymous Guest. The trouble is, the people who complain are just as heavily involved in combat - and then they stick their tails between their legs and want me to protect them. I'm sorry, but if you insist on engaging in combat, I can't protect you. When you join the fight, you open yourself to attack, and what you receive is most often far worse than what you can give out.

So, I would ask everyone to help. If there is combat going on, stay away from it. Act as though the combatants were invisible - that's your best protection from them.
-Joe Offer-

Who "protects" those posters who are subject to abusive personal attacks, name-calling and the encouragement of general public animosity and gossip and from selective and personally motivated imposed editing actions - from those volunteer fellow posters who feel themselves qualified to judge their fellow posters but are not prepared to follow their own advice and who indulge in this "combat"?

How can peace ever be expected to break our on our forum with the hypocritical example now being set by some of our (anonymous) volunteer fellow posters (and their supporters)? Probably just as damaging is that many posters who do not think it acceptable – still quietly tolerate this hypocrisy and bullying. All of this threatens to compromise all of the traditional values upon which our fine forum has been based?

It has long been clear that the only way to avoid abusive or offensive postings on our forum – is not for posters to be encouraged to judge and complain about what their fellow posters have already posted. For it is a fact that reactive imposition does not avoid or PREVENT anything.

It is for posters to be encouraged (mainly by the example set) to tolerate the postings of others. For what fellow posters contribute is beyond their control. And not to indulge publicly in personal judgements of their fellow posters or to respond in kind to those that are posted. And for us all to be encouraged to ignore such posts and concentrate on the self-control of our own posts.

Under great provocation and over a long period – I have managed to avoid responding in kind to many such posts and to continue in the face of these – to try express, evidence, discuss and debate my concerns on our forum. Which remains its purpose – until Max publicly states otherwise.

I would appreciate some help to try and ensure that all posters can continue to post on equal terms to our forum.

For them to always be able to see their words remain as posted (unless they first agree to any change) and not be subject to the imposed judgement and editing action of a few volunteer fellow posters (some of whom are anonymous).

And for this personal taste and prefence of just a few posters - (no matter how well-intentioned) - NOT to be allowed to shape our forum - but for our forum to continue to be shaped by the equally considered and respected postings of all contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 05:19 AM

Thread proliferation control

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 06:08 AM

Thread proliferation control

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: RichM - PM
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:15 AM

Good idea!
Carry it further though:
Forbid the messy notion of allowing uncontrolled new threads-- Every morning, or once a week,or whenever-- publish a pre-approved list of acceptable new topics.

So that we (as member or guest) can only post to an existing OR pre-approved thread. And NO more threads containing the word Ir** !


Rich McCarthy

I don't think I want to do that, Rich. One of the beauties of this place is its spontaneity, so I want to be careful not to exercise too much control
-Joe Offer-

With the insertion of the editing comment (in brown) quite obviously the irony of Rich's post was wasted. And also wasted on some of our posters at least – for he felt he had to later respond with the following explanation…..

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: RichM - PM
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:49 AM

- My comments were meant as irony, Spaw. I guess I was unclear, because I am reluctant to be sarcastic!

To state more clearly, I would say that I feel all topics should be allowed--by guests or members, unless they are personal attacks or insults to others in the forum.

A nasty or contentious topic will run it's course and die a natural death.

Rich

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:21 AM

A (true) Jelly Fish story