BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:47 AM

You may have missed this editing comment. As it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Yes, there were about eight threads, all started by the same people. They had their say - and then I deleted all of them.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:39 AM

Just an update - as these things do change very quickly in a 'system' of censorship that appears to be a cross between the F.B.I and the W.I.

The link to this thread that I said had been inserted into has now been removed. That thread has been moved to the BS section and was then subject to imposed closure.

It is now open again.

But be quick..........for things may yet change.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:21 AM

A thread called Do you need to be censored has been subject to imposed closure but a link has been inserted without my knowledge or permission by persoans unknown to this thread.

So I will try again to ask the question and hold the discussion - in this thread.

Do you feel that YOUR posts to the Mudcat Discussion Forum need to be subject to this form of censorship of one poster's judgement being imposed upon another?

The above is simply an example of where we appear to be heading - the point is NOT if you judge the individual judgement - made publicly in this case - is correct or not. It is the larger question of censorship in general on our forum.

If you don't think your posts need to be censored in this form - perhaps you will be brave enough to have your say in this thread now - for it may be your last chance to do so.

I would have re-opened an older thread called Censorship on Mudcat for this discussion - but this has been subject to imposed closure.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:29 AM

So you have it from Joe himself

The following from the above thread. Which has been now subject to imposed closure.


Subject: BS: So there you have it. From Joe himself.
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:45 PM

These are the rules of the Mudcat, from the horses mouth. Just wanted to make sure everyone had an opportunity to see this for themself. Anyone who shares a computer, take note... you are now responsible for the behavior of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:18 PM

The problem is someone is attempting to provoke trouble by baiting Martin Gibson, and the problem is coming from the computer that both Jack and Carol use. I would suggest that if Jack is clouding Carol's reputation by posting anonymous messages from their computer, that they settle it at home. All I know is that it's a problem, and it's time for it to stop. If it continues, I will block the IP that is the source of the anonymous messages, and the users of that IP can settle it among themselves - whoever they are.
The self-righteous prigs among us are a far greater problem than are the aggressive trolls.
I don't like either of them - the trolls OR the prigs. Most of us are here to enjoy each other's company. There are a very few who are here to cause trouble.
-Joe Offer-

(I note that no one has threatened to block Martin Gibson's IP.)

The discussion is over, Carol. I did not threaten to block your IP. I said I would block the IP that is the source of the anonymous troublemaking. If that doesn't apply to you, then you have nothing to worry about.
Martin Gibson has had his IP blocked on occasion, and has had hundreds of messages deleted. I have spent hours upon hours dealing with Martin Gibson.
And I'm done dealing with you. The discussion is over.
-Joe Offer-

There was an entire thread called Joe Offer but this along with all the posts to it seems to have been deleted……………… By Joe Offer?

---

Yes, there were about eight threads, all started by the same people. They had their say - and then I deleted all of them.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:20 AM

If you don't like the manner, spelling, grammar, punctuation or any other aspect of the way a fellow poster chooses to contribute to our forum - perhaps it is better to accept the reality and set the example that this (no matter how irritating you may judge it or how many others may post to share this judgement) it really is none of your (or anyone else's) business? For we are ALL invited guests.

The options are either post to respond to what your fellow poster is trying to say - or ignore it. Any form of personal judgements made about the worth of named fellow posters, conversations about them or jokes made at their expense - made publicly - will only mean that others on our form will be subjected to it and encouraged by this example.

It will only risk a response in kind and increase the chance that you to may be subject to such treatment and will then have no justification for asking for or expecting any protection from it.

Mainly the setting of this example just clutters up any attempt at a sensible debate or discussion with personal comments and judgements that if there is real need for - can be made privately and not inflicted upon all of our fellow posters.

The fact is that the only posts which you will ever have any real control over on our forum are your own.

How our forum appears - will always be entirely down to what you may choose to post.

And what you may choose not to.

The responsibilty is with all of us, the reality is that despite the intentional attempts of individual posters to shape it to their tastes - it always has been. And as long as our forum is not further changed and turned into a private members club - it always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bert
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 04:00 PM

Problem with members only in BS section is that the trolls and the usuall suspects will then take all of their garbage over to the music section.

Joe was saying way back up in this thread

... I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one...


Well here's a few suggestions that might improve this place a little.

1. Limit message size to 22 lines for any posting that is not a song or a story. This would make threads much easier to read.

2. Zap ALL postings from trolls AND the usual suspects, for they are just as much to blame for all this shit by encouraging the trolls. A few days of that and they might all go away.

3. Set up a Troll section which everyone else can ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:04 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:54 AM

For the record - I am asking Max if Joe Offer and the unknown number of anonymous fellow posters can be relieved of the responsibility of their edit buttons (Shambles)

Any response yet?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 12:04 PM

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you).
So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change.
Joe Offer

Joe-

Is there any answer from Max yet to your proposal?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:49 AM

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: MMario
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:46 AM

WOW! Confuscious knows Joe Offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:44 AM

you know, I noticed back in college that a lot of kids couldn't count up to 70 without giggling.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:43 AM

Bugger, I meant 269. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:42 AM

277!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: number 6
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM

69 does suck ... but certainly not as bad as spellng mistakes.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:43 AM

I think 69 sucks.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:42 AM

68.I owe you one.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:41 AM

When one pauses to consider how thoroughly corrupted our censors must be by this time, it is difficult to have any faith whatever in their judgement of what is and is not corrupting to others.
If to the pure all things are pure, it may well follow that to the corrupted all things are corrupt.

Judith Wright

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: number 6
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:47 PM

96

That's me, doing a back flip.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:43 PM

By three methods we may learn wisdom:
First, by reflection, which is noblest;
Second, by imitation, which is easiest;
and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

Confucius

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:07 AM

69

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 06:25 AM

Roger, did you mother never tell you that it's considered rather naff to play with yourself in public?
Now cut along and play some music or something. I'm sure it would be better for you to anything (even to beat the bishop in private) rather than clutter up bandwidth with your personal obsessions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 06:20 AM

Confucius say, virginity like bubble. One prick - all gone
Confucius say, man who do business in whore house get jerked around
Confucius say, baseball wrong. Man with four balls not able to walk
Confucius say, panties not best thing on earth, but next to it
Confucius say, war not determine who right. War determine who left
Confucius say, woman who put husband in doghouse soon find him in cat house
Confucius say, man who fight with wife all day, get no piece at night
Confucius say, it take many nail to build crib, one screw to fill it
Confucius say, man who keep feet on ground have trouble putting on pants
Confucius say, if you want pretty nurse, you got to be patient
Confucius say, passionate kiss like spider web, soon lead to undoing of fly
Confucius say, better to be pissed off than pissed on
Confucius say, man with hand in pocket feel cocky all day long
Confucius say, couple on seven day honeymoon make whole week
Confucius say, woman who go camping must beware of evil intent
Confucius say, squirrel who runs up woman's leg not find nuts
Confucius say, man who run before bus get tired
Confucius say, man who run behind bus get exhausted
Confucius say, man with tool in woman's mouth not necessarily dentist
Confucius say, man who make love on side of hill not on level
Confucius say, sex is like the army, the closer you are to discharge, the better you feel
Confucius say, man with tight trousers is pressing his luck
Confucius say, man who stand on toilet high on pot
Confucius say, man who eat crackers in bed wake up feeling crummy
Confucius say, man with hand in pocket all day not crazy, just feeling nuts
Confucius say, man who sleep in bed of nails is holy
Confucius say, do not drink and park, accidents cause people
Confucius say, man who put pea in soup very unclean
Confucius say, man who run through airport turnstile backward going to Bangkok
Confucius say, boy who go to sleep with sex problem on mind wake up with solution in hand
Confucius say, man who fishes in another woman's well, often catches crab
Confucius say, to meet girl in park is good, but to park meat in girl is better
Confucius say, squirrel lay on rock and crack nuts, man lay on crack and rock nuts
Confucius say, butcher who back into meat grinder get a little behind in his orders
Confucius say, man who live in glass house, should change in basement
Confucius say, man who shoot off mouth, must expect to lose face
Confucius say, man with big mouth beware of foot
Confucius say, man who fart in church, sit in own pew
Confucius say, woman who fly upside down have crack up
Confucius say, man who leap off cliff jump to conclusion
Confucius say, man under wheelbarrow playing with tool, not necessarily mechanic
Confucius say, house without bathroom is uncanny
Confucius say, foolish man give wife grand piano, wise man give wife upright organ
Confucius say, man who sits on stool smells like shit
Confucius say, man who throws dirt is losing ground
Confucius say, woman who go to man's apartment for snack, get titbit
Confucius say, man who lay woman on ground, get piece on earth
Confucius say, man who get kicked in testicles, left holding the bag
Confucius say, man who kisses girl's behind, get crack in face
Confucius say, girl who ride bicycle, peddle ass all over town
Confucius say, man with penis in peanut butter jar, fucking nuts
Confucius say, man who buy drowned cat, get wet pussy
Confucius say, man trapped in pantry, have ass in jam
Confucius say, learn to masturbate - come in handy
Confucius say, girl who sit on jockey's lap get hot tip
Confucius say, girl who sit on judge's lap get honorable discharge
Confucius say, waitress who sit on lepper's lap, keep tip
Confucius say, man who snort coke, get bubbles up nose
Confucius say, cow with no legs, ground beef
Confucius say, two wrongs not make right, but two rights make U-turn
Confucius say, baby born in car with automatic transmission, grow to become shiftless bastard
Confucius say, finding old man in dark, not hard
Confucius say, man who smoke pot, choke on handle
Confucius say, OK for shit to happen - will decompose
Confucius say, man with head on railroad track, listening for train to come, get splitting headache
Confucius say, man who sneeze without tissue take matter into own hands
Confucius say, secretary become permanent fixture, when screwed on desk
Confucius say, man who drive like hell, bound to get there
Confucius say, man who sit on tack, get point
Confucius say, man who put cream in tart, not always baker
Confucius say, woman who spend much time on bedspring, may get offspring
Confucius say, sex on beach like American beer - fucking near water
Confucius say, man who masturbate, only screwing himself
Confucius say, woman who dance wearing jock strap, have make believe ballroom
Confucius say, man who chronicle every Joe Offer utterance is asshole
Confucius say, man with athletic finger, make broad jump
Confucius say, man who sit on upturned tack, rise above all
Confucius say, wash face in morning, neck at night
Confucius say, man who have last laugh, not get joke
Confucius say, man who sleep with old hen, find it better than pullet
Confucius say, man piss in wind, wind piss back
Confucius say, man who eat pussy, do lip service
Confucius say, girl who marry detective, like to kiss dick
Confucius say, men may have more hair on chest than woman, but on the whole, women have more
Confucius say, woman wearing G-string, high on crack
Confucius say, virgin with thimble on finger, never feel prick
Confucius say, man who pull woman's bra strap, may get bust in face
Confucius say, woman who pounce on dead rooster, go down on limp cock
Confucius say, man who fall in vat of molten glass, make spectacle of self
Confucius say, man who jump through screen door, strain self
Confucius say, man who push piano down mine shaft, likely to get A flat minor
Confucius say, man who put face in punchbowl, get punch in nose
Confucius say, woman who sink in man's arms, soon have arms in man's sink
Confucius say, man who put cock on stove, have hot rod
Confucius say, man who fuck in cemetery may end up fucking dead
Confucius say, man who jizz in cash register come into money
Confucius say, man who drop watch in toilet have shitty time
Confucius say, man who eat too many prunes, get good run for money
Confucius say, man who finger girl having period get caught red handed
Confucius say, man who go to bed with itchy butt wake up with smelly fingers

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 06:14 AM

We are willing enough to praise freedom when she is safely tucked away in the past and cannot be a nuisance.
In the present, amidst dangers whose outcome we cannot foresee, we get nervous about her, and admit censorship.

E. M. Forster

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:46 AM

Subject: RE: BS: anyone seen my vagina thread ?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:42 AM

You may have missed this editing comment which was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Generally, I move the copycats to the thread they're copying...
Didn't work on the Vagina/Viagra thread, I guess.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:30 AM

When someone declares that something has to be done - what is done is usually the wrong thing.

Eric Ledbetter Wormold

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 09:35 AM

Our Lord said, "Feed my sheep"; he did not say, "Count them."

Dora Chaplin

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 09:24 AM

13

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 08:57 AM

I am still against any kind of censorship. It's a subject in my life that has been very important.

Bernardo Bertolucci

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 08:34 PM

Censorship, I believe, is the most dangerous enemy to all human communication, and piety of intention is probably the most dangerous, the most virulent and the most self-satisfying.

Chuck Jones

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:38 AM

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done.
Joe Offer
In this thread

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:34 AM

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you).
So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change.
Joe Offer

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:20 AM

"This bloody past suggests to us that enemies cease hostilities only when they are battered enough to acknowledge that there is no hope in victory - and thus that further resistance means only useless sacrifice."

Victor David Hanson

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:07 AM

My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order.
The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it's founded on no judgement on anything.

Victor David Hanson

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:39 AM

62........Clickety duck!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:53 PM

88 - two fat ladies

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:47 PM

86

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:41 PM

It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them.
Tiberius Caesar

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:01 PM

42

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM

I always keep a supply of stimulant handy in case I see a snake--which I also keep handy.

W. C. Fields

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:23 AM

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.
Henri B. Stendhal

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:23 AM

22

Sorry couldn't manage to read the whole post as boredom set in.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

Given what Joe Offer has had to put up with, I stand by what I said Ebbie.

Is anyone forcing anyone else to 'put up with' anything?

Most of us would consider that our judgement would be as good or as bad as any other. However, if you are a person who considers your judgement to be better than that of others, you may feel qualified to impose your judgement upon your fellows. And when you encourage everyone to make personal judgements of everyone else, by this example. In such a case – should you really expect to be generally loved and praised for this?

If what you have to put up with in this role becomes too much for you to control, to your satisfaction – I would see only two choices.

You either plough on, as before – or if you can't stand the heat, you get out of the kitchen. An option that is now readily suggested, mantra-like, to other perceived malcontents.

But the whole point of the discussion in this thread – is that after making a public admission of failure - what is proposed is neither of these but a third option. Not a minor one but one that will forever change the nature of our forum – if Max accepts it and one that now places him in a difficult position whatever he does.

Perhaps we may not agree on many things but I would expect agreement when I say that our forum is bigger and more important that the wishes of any individual poster – whoever that poster may be?

If you have a game of knockabout football and if you don't like the way it is going – you can threaten to impose your own rules or finish the game altogether by going home with the ball– if the football being used is yours. But in this case, all though many may be led to believe that the one seen to be holding the football does own it – this football remains the property of this site's owner.

The malcontent in this game is of course free to leave the pitch - but not to take the ball with them.

In political terms, the current situation would be seen to be what is called a 'lame dog' government. One admitting the inability to deliver what is required – without a change. But with little real support for such a major change and with little possibility of it happening.

Should the requested change not be granted by Max – things can only limp-on and with what little authority may have been seen by some – being terminally damaged by this admission of failure and the need for this proposal to ever be publicly requested.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 09:08 PM

Given what Joe Offer has had to put up with, I stand by what I said Ebbie. You may think it unworthy of me to point it out, but it has happened, and continues to happen.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:40 PM

Bontrager: Now THERE'S a philosophiser I could read all day.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:39 PM

"Even the suggestion of passing judgement on the activities of other posters could result in YOU becoming the target of a three year "Let's get rid of him" campaign." Don T

poo That isn't worthy of you, Don T.

"If paranoia is bad, it is doubly so when you try to instill your own into another." Bontrager

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM

You using Bartlett's?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:27 PM

Hypocrisy in anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised.
Leo Tolstoy

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 12:59 PM

The food in such places is so tasteless because the members associate spices and garlic with just the sort of people they're trying to keep out.
Calvin Trillin

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:29 PM

No need 6. You weren't the target. It was a (probably over obscure) reference to the likely response of A. N. Other.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: number 6
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 11:36 AM

Don T. I don't beleive I was passing judgement ... I was stating an issue that seems to be the latest complaint here in the Mudcat. I guess I am guilty of 'thread drift' with that post. In that case I apologise.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 11:05 AM

14

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 11:02 AM

In every author let us distinguish the man from his works.
Voltaire

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 04:29 AM

Careful 6. Even the suggestion of passing judgement on the activities of other posters could result in YOU becoming the target of a three year "Let's get rid of him" campaign.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 11:49 AM

"Or indeed if it can - as this duel standard has been the only example that our newer posters have ever been presented with........."
{My underline}

Interesting and possibly Freudian slip there, substituting a contest of arms for a duplication of posts.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: number 6
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 11:41 AM

I think the big concern now is not Guests posting, but Copycat threads ... it must certainly take precedentover anything else here at the Mudcat.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 10:56 AM

Catspaw, your insults work with most people, but not at all with Shambles. He needs them, they are his elixir of life, he collects them to show them at later times proudly as a substitute of an argument. If it makes you happy to call him names so be it but you should think of the orgiastic feelings he gets out of each new insult. Do you really want to serve that masochism?

What do you mean by insults working with most people? And if you wish to address another member to gossip and speculate about another - why do you not do this privately?

When have insults ever achieved anything postive? For whoever they may be from - all they do is result in more and more insults by setting an example that such things are aceptable on our forum. The prentence by those who enjoy indulginging in such things - that they are undertaken for some noble purpose must surely by now be seen for the counter-productive sham that it always was?

It is quite easy to ignore all online insults and not respond in kind to any of them.

But if this sort of posting is your choice - why inflict it upon the rest of us? If this private member's only club is your ideal - why not go and form one where you can congratulate each other on your clever insults and personal judgements until your heart's content?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

Now, we've learned how to deal with hatred and cruelty by trying to become just as scary as those who seem to hate us. Hasn't worked very well.

There does seem to be the glimmer of hope here. In a view that would appear to finally accept that setting and defending the example of indulging in the tactics of vandals only turns everyone all into vandals, bullies and worse.

The question now is how this can be changed? Or indeed if it can - as this duel standard has been the only example that our newer posters have ever been presented with.........

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 06:13 PM

222 posts? Unreal!!! I just read a bunch (not all). Unreal. Especially since this has been batted around on a thousand other threads. Max allows the freedom of anonymity... true freedom of speech. Why are some afraid of this? Now, I understand that personal attacks or vulgarity or whatever should be considered for censorship, but, true freedom of speech? No way.

Thanks Max. You are one in a million.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 05:28 PM

What really ironical is when someone repeatedly posts quotes that undermine a position, evidently under the impressioin that they reinforce it...

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST,potbelly
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 11:18 AM

you mean make us elite, well well.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 01:14 PM

A total waste of your energy Guest, oh no a guest on BS.

For the closed mind no reasoning is possible, for the open mind none is necessary.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST,oh no a Guest on BS
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM

Roger for the love of God would you drop it.
It REALLY is a very boring broken record you play here at times.
Go outside, have walk, take a look at the spring trying to push it's way through. Then come back and write something about that.
Give us ALL a bloody break would ya ever.
Sad, sad, sad behaviour from what appears to be a bright man.
Give it a REST, NO-ONE, NO-ONE cares anymore about your obsession about this topic..NO-ONE.
There are Threads, that at times, I wish would just drop off the page and stay that way.
This is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 09:51 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Are all bigots male?
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 01:41 PM

No, Roger. You are confusing intolerance with bigotry. It is not a male thing, but you knew that when you set the bait in this thread. And intolerance is not always a bad thing, where bigotry is always bad, IMHO. For example: I am very intolerant of your manipulative, whiney, pathetic need to be abused and abusive. I am intolerant of your need to cry, piss and moan that you don't get the respect that you seem to think you deserve in spite of your penchant for disabusing anyone who doesn't agree with you. You give no respect, yet you demand it. In short, I am intolerant of you and wish you would seek counseling and leave this place. All of this does not make me a bigot. It makes me dislike you and all of your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 09:43 AM

I'm not sure if it was posted as something the poster agreed with or the other way round. The latter I'd rather assume, since the modest changes Max introduced at the time seem to be the very aspects of the Cat that have persistently been sniped at by the poster.

You seem to have missed the irony of that post.

It was concern for this poster was the cause of the introduction of imposed editing by fellow posters. And also the fact that what you describe as 'modest changes' have not succeeded in preventing the public posting of personal judgements of fellow posters.

When all posters are finally encouraged (by example) not to indulge in this practice - instead of the very opposite - there will be no need for a members only forum.

But if that is what the few usual suspects do wish to indulge in - there is nothing stopping them from starting such a site and leaving the rest of us in peace and free from such judgements.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 06 - 04:03 PM

Perfectly expressed, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Feb 06 - 03:58 PM

I always wonder that there are still people trying to argue with Shambles as if he was engaging in a real conversation with a point. On the surface it ´may look like it but it is just self serving pompous hollowness.

Catspaw, your insults work with most people, but not at all with Shambles. He needs them, they are his elixir of life, he collects them to show them at later times proudly as a substitute of an argument. If it makes you happy to call him names so be it but you should think of the orgiastic feelings he gets out of each new insult. Do you really want to serve that masochism?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 06:25 PM

Something similar was said on a thread in 2002. It was a thread title something like

'why is there so much bitterness'.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 05:57 PM

There were a couple of persistent anonymous 'snipers' here who wanted Mudcat to be the way they wanted it to be and attacked anybody who didn't post according to their wishes. They were frustrated, I guess, and took it out on everybody else.

'Everybody else' didn't really know what to do, since Mudcat hadn't ever been home to people who were intentionally cruel and just seemed to hate them. It was a big deal. Now, we've learned how to deal with hatred and cruelty by trying to become just as scary as those who seem to hate us. Hasn't worked very well.

Some of the folks we used to joke with and meet in the chat room for Mudcat Radio shows, or in Paltalk, or traded PMs with have gone anon and spend time here trying to intimidate others...because it felt SO good when someone did it to them. These days, I think some of them come here only to be nasty.

As to my opinion on the subject - and I'm actually surprised to see I haven't posted anything yet - I'm torn. If there wasn't a small number of consistently cookieless folks out there I enjoy having around, I'd advocate members-only BS posting VERY strongly. If there were a way those individuals could be allowed to post (and Max probably knows what/who I mean), I'd still advocate it very strongly. As it is, on bad days, I'd want it, and on good days, not so much. We just seem to have an ever-increasing number of bad days.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 03:56 PM

Never saw that post from Max, because I out found the Mudcat a few months later. Well balanced stuff.

I'm not sure if it was posted as something the poster agreed with or the other way round. The latter I'd rather assume, since the modest changes Max introduced at the time seem to be the very aspects of the Cat that have persistently been sniped at by the poster.

I'm hoping that the members only bit doesn't come in (though I'd welcome a requirement that GUESTS had to use a minimal label when posting). If it does I think that a significant factor in that happening will be what seems to me a campaign of harassment against Joe and Co carried out by the gentleman who started this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 03:52 PM

oh, you'd REALLY have enjoyed gargoyle at the top of his form.....or "ttmc" (true concience of Mudcat)...or several others back in 'the good old days'. Trolling of classic proportions!

Shambles, at least, is not vicious or stalking anyone. He just has this overdeveloped sense of righteous indignation ....and stamina!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 02:31 PM

"I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view."

This is from a post in 1999. It is 2006. I understood that the place never had any problems prior to fairly recently. Interesting bit of trivia, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 02:27 PM

While some saw only the "I cannot allow another fine person to leave" bit, and assumed it meant them!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 01:31 PM

There's a lot of stuff in that old post from Max, Roger...it's like the Bible...you can find something there to support many positions.

What *I* see first is "... I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers...to identify people who "cross the line". and also.."Membership and even participation to this site is a privilege."

Maybe that's not what you would emphasize.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST,Rhino 20/20
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 01:17 PM

try this

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 01:15 PM

Subject: Max is taking action
From: Max - PM
Date: 22 Jul 99 - 02:55 PM

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view. For one thing, I have marveled at the comradery and love and knowledge and friendship that the Mudcat has been. I have felt safe in meeting new people here and inviting them into my home. But something is changing.

To get to the point, I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers and communication with all Mudcat members to identify people who "cross the line". Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white. It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation. I cannot let another fine person leave, and I cannot support a community where people are not comfortable sharing who they are and what the love, and I will not continue publishing the Mudcat if we cannot find a way to control it.

Last night, after discussing the situation with a few fellow catters, I have suspended a member's account. We will see where my theory leads us soon.

Just remember. Membership and even participation to this site is a privilege. I cannot control everything (believe it or not) but I can make it very difficult for people to use this site if I do not want them to.

Anyhow, I love all of you and am trying my best to maintain what I think was a miracle the first place. Please feel free to send me a Personal Message any time you think someone has crossed the line (please be thoughtful and tolerant though), for I cannot read every thread. Also, feel free to share with me any ideas you have to keep the peace. That's all for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 12:55 PM

http://www.nobully.org.nz/advicek.htm

Have fun................

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST,BS stifler
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 12:33 PM

Good job, fellows! We got one, now we wait till the really tedious one comes on!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 12:31 PM

well, *daylia*. all of those questions seem to be to be examples of an ontological presupposition in which the very form of the question gets.......uhhh,

hey! no....let me finish, I was just trying to....*mmmppff...ughhhh...stop, this a free forum, and I have the right to.....unnngggggg....mmmmmmmmmppppppffffffff...gllllk*


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 11:58 AM

"And while we're at it ... do chickens have lips? Do fishies have fingernails? Do beavers have bellybuttons? Quickly quickly .... I just gotta know!"

Fuckin' right.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 09:11 AM

Do I detect possible thread creep there daylia?
Giok ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 08:09 AM

200!   HA!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 08:09 AM

And do his winners wrangle?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 08:08 AM

And does his dinner dangle?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 08:07 AM

Does Shambles have shingles?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 08:06 AM

Do platypi have pimples?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 08:06 AM

Are all bigots male?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 08:05 AM

Do tapeworms have tootsies?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 08:04 AM

Do earwigs have rings?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 08:02 AM

Are all bigots male?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 07:59 AM

Sorry try again ... do snakes have armpits?

And while we're at it ... do chickens have lips? Do fishies have fingernails? Do beavers have bellybuttons? Quickly quickly .... I just gotta know!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 07:50 AM

There are female snakes

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 07:48 AM

Do snakes have armpits?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 07:32 AM

Are all bigots male?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 07:24 AM

"...It's my view, that I'm entitled to and its true I'm 'gonna' speak my mind
Present company excepted, they think that they're 'high fliers',
It's understood, that they're no good and should be known as cheats and liars
Present company excepted, you're the only one, that I might trust,
It's clear to see, you're a lot like me and nearly could be one of us."


What Gall!

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 07:10 AM

The Bigot's Song

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 06:28 AM

Lookie here Shambles --- it's your own personal private theme song!

And here's some very special lyrics, posted in your honour. Might even fit in with your theme song too.

(With apologies to Lennon and McCartney ...)

"I'm looking through you
Where did you go
I thought I knew you
What did I know
You don't seem different
You haven't changed
I'm looking through you
You're just the same ...

... You don't sound different
I've learned the game
I'm looking through you
You're just the same"

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 05:10 AM

Bit early in the day to go stalking Scotch Roger, tonight however I'm sure I can scare up a bottle or two from the drinks cupboard, and drink a toast to OCD as manifested by my favourite lightship.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 04:58 AM

Well said.

Just trying to get a post in before my resident Scotch stalker does.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 04:57 AM

You know it is still possible to make a point and even to violently disagree with another's view - without making any personal comments about the poster you may disagree with or without conducting any public conversation about them. These are the sort of good manners that perhaps need a little more general encouragement online?

Online it is always possible to ignore anything you may not care for and to make no comment at all. This would not be thought of as bad manners and in this way other posters will have no choice but to respond in kind............

And for personal comments like 'me too' or 'well said' or 'bollocks' - that are of little or no public interest and only tend to ensure that there will be a public response in kind - members always have the option of PMs provided for very purpose of these personal exchanges.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:23 PM

Or US president with a few less!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST,Rhino 20/20
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:22 PM

tasty mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:20 PM

Who could have been the prime minister of Canada with just a few more votes...

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:15 PM

That's my old mate Neil!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST,Rhino 20/20
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:15 PM

Back off, ya losers. He's mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:03 PM

Ok you win then, sugarbunny. Please, sit on it. And rotate!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST,smoke and mirrors
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 01:49 PM

She describes herself perfectly:

LOL! And those with thickest skin seem to have thickest skulls as well. Thickest of hides = thickest of heads = getta brain, getta life! (the walrus said)

and proudly tells us

That's because my vision is 20/20, sweetie.

Perhaps you should change your Mudcat logon to Rhino 20/20 as an ironic name, darlin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 12:55 PM

That's because my vision is 20/20, sweetie.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST,smoke and mirrors
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 12:33 PM

Whoa!

Having a thick skin ought to save people from getting provoked when other people disagree with them, even when this is expressed a bit pointedly. It ought to be a safeguard against feeling obliged to throw out unbalanced abuse.

It doesn't always seem to work out like that though. Sometimes we come across the Rhinoceros Syndrome, where a very thick skin, which means that no criticism ever gets through, is combined with an ugly and very easily aroused temper.

*LOL! And those with thickest skin seem to have thickest skulls as well. Thickest of hides = thickest of heads = getta brain, getta life! (the walrus said)*

*daylia* is looking in the mirror, but does she see herself in this perfect reflection of her behavior here at Mudcat? I think not!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 07:36 AM

Having a thick skin ought to save people from getting provoked when other people disagree with them, even when this is expressed a bit pointedly. It ought to be a safeguard against feeling obliged to throw out unbalanced abuse.

It doesn't always seem to work out like that though. Sometimes we come across the Rhinoceros Syndrome, where a very thick skin, which means that no criticism ever gets through, is combined with an ugly and very easily aroused temper.

LOL! And those with thickest skin seem to have thickest skulls as well. Thickest of hides = thickest of heads = getta brain, getta life! (the walrus said)

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:43 AM

A drowning man clutches at straws they say!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:51 AM

In the absence of any brown editing comments explaining this editorial judgement - this was posted in the linked thread - in reference to this one.

No, it does seem like recent messages in that thread are bullying Roger, and that probably isn't right.>Snip<
Joe Offer

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:48 AM

Responses to bullying

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:30 PM

actually roger only a few of the people who used to be really mean to you are still making sadistic remarks. At any rate, I think you must be riding Rocinante at this point. I think I'll go kayaking...

motor city mama

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:14 PM

No, we don't have that many troublemakers - but it's amazing what trouble a few people can create...or perhaps the trouble is caused by the outraged response of the many to the few. I dunno.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:00 PM

do we really have that many troublemakers? Ok, maybe the odd raning maniac and troll. The BNP in effect doesn't really cause any problems here. in fact the last time hannam posted i think was sometime back? and even then he was never saying anything outlandish as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 11:40 AM

I'll give you all a chance to make a choice; is this crusade by Violet Elizabeth Bott [hope you were all paying attention] AKA Aunt Sally because of her habit of putting herself up to be fired at.

a. A plea for unmoderated postings on the Mudcat

or

b. A vendetta against Joe Offer

Take your pick folks, let's hear it from the gallery.

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 10:23 AM

Well Ebbie, that's a hard call.
I will give your question some thought and ask the various species of Fish in my 50 gallon tank for their views on the subject..***BG*** (I think paper ballots might pose some problems as would a keyboard in the case of underwater voting don't you?)
Love Jude:)

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:58 AM

Should goldfish vote on how often their water is changed, Jude? *G*

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:53 AM

Maybe it is it time for this "proposal" to be voted on:)
I mean if People are reading this thread and commenting on it and the Thread itself seems to indicate some kind of Democracy here at the Mudcat by the Thread Starter perhaps a yes or no vote might be posted by Members for the record? Putting an end to the need for discussion?

Please make no mistake - putting and end for any need for free public discussion IS what Joe Offer is now proposing. It is this proposal that I am suggesting IS discussed in this thread and which some posters have tried to discuss in this thread. Hopefully they can be allowed to continue this discussion - as it may be the last opportunity to do so?

As has often been pointed out - our forum is NOT a democracy. So calling for a vote was not the intention of this thread. The whole purpose of this thread and the whole purpose of our forum is open discussion.

The subject for discussion in this thread is not for personal judgements to be made of any individual poster - it remains Joe Offer's proposal to Max (detailed in Joe Offer's own words in the first post) to the effect that the public freely contributing to the Mudcat Discussion Forum on the basis that it has always been - should now be ended as Joe Offer has admitted that he cannot impose the peace that he requires.

Perhaps you would care to express your views on this proposal? Or indeed vote - if this is your wish but there is no guarantee that any vote cast will mean very much. However, I would hope that our views would still mean something......

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:49 AM

Cheer up Guest.
This too shall pass.
It's only a Forum after all.
When one puts a sign on top of their head saying 'Victim here' and has the audacity to speak for everyone then, you may call it bullying, some may view that as their right to defend their personal opinion.
Words are a strange thing. It's all in how one uses them.
Don't worry be happy. You should see how I use words when my care and attention slips due to my dyslexia...lol.
If one does not want opinions then one shouldn't seek them perhaps IMO

Sometimes another person's cause is another person's pain in the arse.
Have a great day Guest.
J

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:35 AM

Sad to see so many so called mature adults still enjoy bullying.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:56 AM

Yes McGrath.
I have a thick skin when it's words...for they are but words.
The intent behind the words (even the most basic) can pierce at times however when they are used as a weapon.

Maybe it is it time for this "proposal" to be voted on:)
I mean if People are reading this thread and commenting on it and the Thread itself seems to indicate some kind of Democracy here at the Mudcat by the Thread Starter perhaps a yes or no vote might be posted by Members for the record? Putting an end to the need for discussion?

I will not be voting however as I have made my view clear on the subject:)

So..Vote anyone? ( would Guest Votes be excluded due to the fact that posting anon means the same Guest could vote over and over again. A thought that's all?)


J

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:56 AM

" ...you-know-who has been quiet for 18+ hours"

busy last night, perhaps

The Cove House Inn Sessions (every Thursday) 8pm at Chiswell, Portland (Near Weymouth) - ***** ****

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:47 AM

But on the subject of "intestinal fortitude": It can also be another way of saying "retentive". I knew someone once, who had such intestinal fortitude that he could blow out a candle at 10 paces with just a spoonful of beans.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:45 AM

Well, The Poster Formerly Known As The Shambles you-know-who has been quiet for 18+ hours. Perhaps he is following my advice, so let's not prod him for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:39 AM

Having a thick skin ought to save people from getting provoked when other people disagree with them, even when this is expressed a bit pointedly. It ought to be a safeguard against feeling obliged to throw out unbalanced abuse.

It doesn't always seem to work out like that though. Sometimes we come across the Rhinoceros Syndrome, where a very thick skin, which means that no criticism ever gets through, is combined with an ugly and very easily aroused temper.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:31 AM

"intestinal fortitude" comes in many guises.

An old columnist, Sidney J. Harris, used to do a routine of "subjective comparisions"

i.e.

*I* have the courage of my convictions.
*You* are a bit stubborn and set in your ways.
*He* is an obsessive, hard-headed fanatic.

Hard to tell 'em apart, except by looking at the context.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:03 AM

I'll speak up.

To a degree The Shambles is a man who sticks to his guns and deeply believes in what he is saying, albeit and no more obsessive than perhaps Amos in his campaigns.

I believe he has more intestinal fortitude than many here he is addressing.

Nice in a way to see someone get more heat then me, but to tell you the truth, people who have thick skin do seem to irritate those with much less here. That pattern is well established.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 07:42 AM

How about shortening that to 'Thick'?

Beware of those who cannot laugh at themselves.......

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 07:34 AM

Kevin may I suggest that as you are now barred from uttering the name of a certain person, may I suggest that instead of using *** ********, that you use the pseudenym Violet Elizabeth Bott for him instead.
After all the most famous words she ever uttered were "I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick - I can, you know". Which would in this instance seem to be more apt than all those asterisks.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 07:17 AM

I see noone has indicated any disagreement with that suggestion El Greko made up there, which I touched on in my last post here.

I like to think that I'd have found spaw's scatological post acceptibly humorous if it had been directed at me. There's an art to such things which very few people can achieve in my experiance, and spaw carries it off every time, on the rare occasions when he feels called to exercise his skills in this way these days.

I don't think the example *** ******** suggests in the last post but four has quite the same quality. Pungency is not quite enough in this context. A light touch is required, and a light touch is what is currently - and I hope temporarily - absent.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 04:06 PM

You are confusing scatalogical humour with a practical joke Roger, like you confuse so many other things, and people!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 03:38 PM

Hmmmmm............Sounds as if Roger is working up another rare Brown Diamond.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 03:11 PM

Roger. Roger. Roger. Roger.

(I'm not addressing you at all. I just like saying the name.)

Roger. Roger. Roger.

OK, so my humor is third grade level. Yours, my friend, is sophomoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 01:27 PM

I'd describe that as a good example of how I'd describe that as a good example of how scatological humour is possible which is not in fact offensive.

If next time I visit Harlow I bring with me a bucket of very smelly turds to throw over you in public - I do not think that you would judge that to be a good example of how scatological humour is possible which is not in fact offensive?

I am beginning to think that if were to throw the bucket of turds over someone else in the audience - that you would laugh along with the crowd and you would describe that as a good example of scatological humour that is possible which is not in fact offensive.

Kevin I would greatly appreciate it if in future that you did not mention my name in public at all and not address me either publicy or privately.

Thank you.

Roger

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 12:49 PM

Is there an equivilent German expression, Wolfgang? (I remember us discussing once "quatch mit sauce", and that might be applicable)

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 12:31 PM

oh, right...

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 12:23 PM

SOS

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 12:07 PM

Are rhetorical questions redundant, or simply boring?? Can we continue this for a few more interminable years? Does my continuing to respond to what has come to look like a Turing program indicate a masochistic nature? Will the circle BE unbroken? Should Auld Acquaintance be forgot?


What was the question?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 10:50 AM

Perhaps it isn't your objectives that are the issue, but how you pursue them.

Or it could well be that my objectives or how I may pursue and what personal judgements are made about them and what names I am called are not the issue at all?

It could well be that Joe Offer's proposal to Max that he brings an end to The Mudcat Discussion Forum in the form that most of us appreciate it - is the issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 09:41 AM

Is there anyone out there who disagrees with what El Greko wrote in that last paragraph? Leaving aside the person the advice was meant for...

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:46 AM

...And no, I don't agree with Roger's original proposal.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:44 AM

Why do these things happen to you, Roger? What Power From Above throws obstacles like Joe Offer (or your local newspaper editor, or your MP) in your path? There are others on this forum with much more radical ideas than yours - yet you are the one that sticks out as being variously the most maligned, disagreed with, ridiculed, sworn out, made fun of, ignored and so on. Can life be so unfair?

Perhaps it isn't your objectives that are the issue, but how you pursue them. This can't be good for your health, man - give it a rest. For a while at least. Go on a posting-fast for a couple of months. Just read without replying and don't start any more threads. My guess is you will feel much better in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:37 AM

Joe has not always subscribed to the idea of members only posting to BS, and I think that he would not have changed his stance on that were it not for the fact that the standard of behaviour has deteriorated to some extent.

The number of posts which merit deletion has markedly increased of late, and part of the reason for that is the degree of provocation that single minded campaigns such as yours have caused.

This increase does not constitute a good argument in favour of increased freedom, rather the reverse.

If the contention that - The number of posts which merit deletion has markedly increased of late, has any factual basis - please could you explain the logic of this argument?

For Joe Offer has stated that the current measures, that have been extended steadily over the years, cannot now deliver the peace he requires. Where is there any evidence that a further increase in imposed restrictions called for on our forum will succeed in imposing Joe Offer's required peace upon us, any more than all his other attempts?   

One thing is sure - the Mudcat Discussion Forum that we have all freely been able (in theory) to contribute to as we wish - will be finished if Joe Offer's proposal is accepted by Max. And if Max does not agree with Joe Offer's proposal - there is no certainty that the status quo will continue.

If would seem a good time for some fresh suggestions to be made and considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:06 AM

Spaw and Kevin - made me laugh anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:02 AM

I'd describe that as a good example of how scatological humour is possible which is not in fact offensive. Well polished in fact.

Not too many people can manage that though. (No, please - that is not meant as a challenge...)

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 07:58 AM

So Roger, how much did Charlie pay?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 07:47 AM

Subject: RE: BS: How many 'regular posters' do we have?
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 04:50 PM

Although he posts a lot I would have to say that The Shambles is not a regular poster. I seriously doubt that Roger has had a good, healthy shit since maybe 1998. He's such an uptight-tight-ass that his turds go straight to a jewelery store for polishing and cutting. I hear that Prince Charles recently acquired a Shambles Brown Diamond for Camilla.
Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 07:43 AM

"So perhaps at least part of the answer would be to encourage THE Park to be thought of as being OUR park and for all of OUR park's users to feel they have the responsibilty to value and look after it. Rather than for them have fun trying to dodge and tease the park keepers and abuse it themselves."

Maybe Roger should take a bit of time off from posting, and sit down and read his posts and consider whether that second sentence doesn't all too accurately sum up what he's doing much of the time.
.......................
I have a horrible feeling that the move to a Members' Only BS section would fail to achieve the intended effect, and might have all kinds of undesired results.

It could turn out to be a challenge to the trolls who infest us. I can envisage a plague of racist and abusive music threads, and of multiple memberships, and very likely some members having their passwords hacked, so that trolls can log in under false names.

I know the present set-up must be a real pain for the long-suffering park-keepers, with a constant need to weed the flower beds and pick up the litter, andn the dog-dirt, and deal with the louts and vandals, but I feel it's probably better than the alternative. (And being constantly teased and insulted by Roger the Dodger can't really help...)

If it's felt that some change along these lines is really needed, I'd suggest that a restriction on non-members starting new BS threads might be worth considering.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 06:39 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Troll spotting
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 09:07 PM

Well, dianavan, this situation is different, both in quantity and in the nature of the offense. Read what I said. No other Mudcatters post anonymously to this extent, and no other Mudcatters post both racist and anti-racist posts.
The compulsive posting is another matter. The 50 posts in the last day is usual - I've seen up to 30 posts in half an hour. It's time for Mr. Murdoch to stop.
And yes, I have noticed that you've been posting anonymously lately, for whatever reason - but so far, I haven't noticed you going anonymous to cause trouble. Anonymous posting for the purpose of causing trouble is not a right.
-Joe Offer-

Where for example is it written that there is limit to be imposed on the number of posts that any individual can post and if do written what this limit is? Was anyone - apart from Joe Offer - aware that there now appears to be such a limit?

It is well-intended on Joe's part - I think. But how would I or anyone know if this the case? Such selective and arbrtary judgements offer no protection to individual posters. Nor any protection to those enforce them - from any accusations of dishing out bias, unfair or special treatment.

Anonymous posting for the purpose of causing trouble is not a right

Again whose judgement is used and expected to be trusted here? When the anonymous imposed judgement upon the named postings of their fellow poster is about as guaranteed to cause trouble as I can imagine - yet this form of anonymous posting by members not using their usual posting name - is currently defended!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 05:48 AM

well, how many pages do you imagine it would require to set out all the "clear rules" necessary to cover the possibilites? There is only ONE basic rule that can be applied:

You can have as a few or as many rules as you wish. However, the important thing is that all posters clearly know what these rules are BEFORE they start posting.

I hope I do not have yet again to copy and paste the public answer given by Max in reference to a question about BS - to the effect that there were no rules?

Perhaps you would accpt that there is only one result if rules are seen to be made-up as you go along - by and mainly to suit the preferences and tastes of one poster? And when other posters can see that these rules are not consistently enforced upon all contributions equally?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 04:03 AM

None of us see all the offensive posts that are deleted, so asking for chapter and verse on how many go, and who writes them and who deletes them is an unanswerable question. I suppose Joe Jeff and Max are the only people who have an overall view of posts.
I know that I have asked Joe to remove posts which I have found offensive and he has refused to do so, so there is a degree of consistency there, inasmuch as he is the final arbiter. Not only that but if you read his post, he also says that he has restored posts deleted by junior clones, so again the same yardstick is being applied over all.
You will not impose your views on this forum Roger, nor will your contributions become immune from logical and reasonable editing where necessary. So get over it, we all operate under the same rules.
YES WE DO!!!

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 03:30 AM

(as to catspaw....he HAS had posts censored, and probably should have a few more deleted...but even if they were, that would not satisfy you, would it? You have no interest in 'equal & fair' censorship....just total elimination of ANY interference with your precious (but non-existant) freedom of blather ....ummm, speech.)

That judgement is based on little evidence and ignoring what evidence there is.

The whole point of everything I say on this subject is that when I first started posting here - all animals were thoughr to be equal and the attempt made to respect and treat all posters equally. I see no good reason for any change to this principle, as tinkering with it only ever results in chaos.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: michaelr
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:50 PM

The number of posts which merit deletion has markedly increased of late.

Says who?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:31 PM

Oh I see the Sparticus I go out with is not the Spartacus Wesley wishes to call the Mudcat or the Spartacus you claim to be Don!

Different spelling of the name, perhaps related somehow, somewhere??!

He told me he was Thee SPARTACUS. What a difference an 'I' makes. He and I are so over.....

Not so smug now:(
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:31 PM

"... is that it is not based or on any clear rules or consistently enforced."

well, how many pages do you imagine it would require to set out all the "clear rules" necessary to cover the possibilites? There is only ONE basic rule that can be applied:

Max feels that judicious editing/moderating is necessary, and he has designated Joe as the head of a small group to 'try' to deal with things....as part time volunteers, they can not catch every problem immediately, but they do what they can. Joe can overrule a 'clone' and Jeff or Max can overrule or fire Joe.

   Max is happy with the arrangement so far, as are most of the members, so far as I have read in the **several YEARS** this debate has gone on! You, Roger, seem to relish this "struggle against oppression and censorship", even though almost no one agrees or appreciates your efforts. You have created a string of buzzwords ("impose their will"..etc..) that beg the question of just who is in charge here. You don't seem to comprehend that the total absence of moderation/editing that you would prefer would allow anyone to "impose their anti-social behavior" on the membership at large! It is just a question of who's "imposition" serves the greater good...and Max is the judge of that....that's IS.

   as to Joe's 'proposal'...well, hey! *grin* Joe gets the job of mop-boy around here, and I'm not a bit surprised that he, after years of cleaning up nastiness, would prefer to eliminate some of the messes before they happen. No telling how that idea will work out....it's not a perfect solution for anyone, but as long as temporary anonymity allows abusers (members or not) total freedom to be as vulgar, hateful, vindictive, racist, combative and provocative as they wish, problems will continue.

(as to catspaw....he HAS had posts censored, and probably should have a few more deleted...but even if they were, that would not satisfy you, would it? You have no interest in 'equal & fair' censorship....just total elimination of ANY interference with your precious (but non-existant) freedom of blather ....ummm, speech.)

I should know better than to argue this....Don Quixote was convinced that those windmills were his enemy, and hundreds of explanations of why it ain't so won't convince Don Shambles to put his silly lance away.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:18 PM

Sorry Lads I go out with Sparticus and neither of you are He.
Smugly:)
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:10 PM

No, I'm Spartacus.

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:08 PM

And I choose to call the Mudcat Forum - SPARTICUS !!!!

It doesn't change what it actually is however.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:06 PM

OUR forum does indeed imply some degree of ownership, so would seem to be unusable. The correct pronoun would be MY forum, and only Max has the right to use it. Let's agree to call it Mudcat, or the Cat and remove one bone of contention.

The website that Max's owns is called The Mudcat Cafe. Like most websites it is devided into various sections. One of these sections is (currently) set aside for contributions from the public and called The Discussion Forum.

In my posts I will choose to continue to refer to The Discussion Forum as our forum. As far as I am aware, other posters are currently still free to call our forum what they choose.

Including that - despite many well-intentioned and a few nor so well-intentioned attempts to **** it up - it just about remains a very fine place.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:02 PM

I know Jude, I'm expecting the usual three posts, each containing an unrelated cut-'n-paste, followed by references to "anonymous fellow posters on OUR forum"........same old same old.

Perhaps if we club together and buy him a new stylus?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:56 PM

The reply to your post Don should be interesting...but I think I might know what the answer will be.
Best Wishes
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:34 PM

Joe has not always subscribed to the idea of members only posting to BS, and I think that he would not have changed his stance on that were it not for the fact that the standard of behaviour has deteriorated to some extent.

The number of posts which merit deletion has markedly increased of late, and part of the reason for that is the degree of provocation that single minded campaigns such as yours have caused.

This increase does not constitute a good argument in favour of increased freedom, rather the reverse.

You have waged this war of words for years without, as far as I can see, gathering any new adherents to your POV.

Perhaps if you (and certain others) stop attacking, and provoking attack, Joe would feel inclined to leave things as they are. On the other hand, if you continue, this forum is likely to lose valuable contributions from guests and members. Contributions, I might add, which are much more interesting than your cut-'n-pastes and your opinions (tho' we only get one of your opinions here...ad nauseam).

OUR forum does indeed imply some degree of ownership, so would seem to be unusable. The correct pronoun would be MY forum, and only Max has the right to use it. Let's agree to call it Mudcat, or the Cat and remove one bone of contention.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:00 PM

Example

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:10 AM

Christ on a fuckin' crutch Roger, can you really not see the forest for the trees or are you simply a simpleminded asshole?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:53 PM

So, OK, it's a terrible thing to do editing and deletions - but what do we do about all the discussions that are waylaid by people calling each other "cunt" and "asshole"?
-Joe Offer-

Well perhaps the one's to ask are members like Catspaw who set the example and post and respond in kind to such things and other favoured members who would always appear to be safe from any imposed censorship?

Or even yourself, who sets the example that similar abusive personal attacks and judgements made by you on fellow posters in public is acceptable.

Are you really surprised when other posters follow such examples and really baffled about what measures would be setting others a better example to follow? Are why certain posters seem to delight in pointing out and mocking such duel standards, selective and anonymous censorship, and other general hypocrisy demonstrated and defended by you and other favoured members?

The major problem with the censorship we have imposed upon us here now is that it is not based or on any clear rules or consistently enforced. But it is only based on personal judgement (or taste) and one person's judgement will be seen to be as good (or as bad) as anyone elses. It will be open to abuse and impossible to defend from accusations of abuse, even when none has occured.

It is the unaccountable manner that the censorship here is currently undertaken that is so 'terrible'. Censorship and restrictions of essential freedom of expression are sensitive issues. My main objection has always been is that our forum is being shaped to the personal preferences of some posters - under cover of changes and measures that are justified to our forum as being something else.

It is not a conspiracy - not even a cock-up - but far more damaging and difficult to deal with and bring an end to than both of these - It is honest good intentions................

But these honest good intentions have brought our forum to a position where Joe is now proposing to Max a change where - freely being able to contribute to the Mudcat Discussion Forum in the form that the public have been able and encouraged to do since the start - is to end.

And why? Because Joe now feels he cannot impose upon us - the kind of 'peace' that he requires...........

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:52 PM

JOE - Say it ain't true !! You've been - gasp - DELEATING words like cunt and asshole ????

Im shocked - shocked to find that this type of behavior has been going on here in this bastion of freedom. SHOCKED !!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:30 PM

So, OK, it's a terrible thing to do editing and deletions - but what do we do about all the discussions that are waylaid by people calling each other "cunt" and "asshole"?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jeffp
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 02:53 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: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 02:30 PM

Similarly, when many men speak of "my wife", you get the feeling that it implies ownership instead of a description of a relationship.

It is possibly a cultural thing but in the UK the negative term that implies total ownership of a partner (rather than any form of shared ownership of a park) is more likely to be reference to THE wife - or THE Husband.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 02:21 PM

Gosh Roger you really don't like Joe Offer, do you?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 02:17 PM

What editing Joe & the clones do is minimal...sorry, Roger, but it is that 'minimal' that keeps it from excessive nastiness & anarchy.

That is your opinion, but based on what evidence exactly?

But it not an opinion that I share nor it would seem now - is it Joe Offer's any more. Or are you unable or just unwilling to accept such things even when you read it stated clearly in Joe's own words?

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done.>snip<

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Bill the horse that you are backing - is NOT even a runner....The status quo never has been on offer. Joe has been a great supporter of the music related posts but will never be comfortable with anything less than total control over all aspects. Not because he is a vandal and does not care, but because he cares.
   
But perhaps you will finally accept that Joe is not now proposing that our forum stays as it is - he does not like the way things are and is proposing to Max that a change is imposed? A change that will mean the end of Max's open invitaton to contribute The Mudcat Discussion Forum as you and I have known it at least since 1998?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: DougR
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 01:20 PM

Not a good idea I think.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 01:11 PM

Roger is, implicitly, indulging in the philosophical error known as Equivocation in his use of our.
He is using the word in an ambiguous way.
Similarly, when many men speak of "my wife", you get the feeling that it implies ownership instead of a description of a relationship.

Here, the Mudcat is a 'relationship'....Max owns a site, and it is 'our' site ONLY so far as we use it responsibly under the conditions set out by the owner. One of those conditions is that it will be **MODERATED** by certain folks designated by the owner. People have noted for years that Mudcat is way MORE free & open than most sites. What editing Joe & the clones do is minimal...sorry, Roger, but it is that 'minimal' that keeps it from excessive nastiness & anarchy.

(As I posted above "If you owned a club, and patrons came in and caused uproars, and talked so you couldn't hear the music, YOU would certainly see the need to 'manage' their attempts to assert their right to disturb others.")

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:40 AM

Well Roger that certainly raised boredom to an art form!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:22 AM

I could refer to our forum as THE forum.

Public parks are usally referred to as THE park - rather than OUR park. But the use of the word OUR implies a kind of ownership. And when things are seen to be owned - they tend to be valued and looked after.

I may have use of the THE park but probably and partly because it is not seen by those who use it as OUR park it tends to be thought to belong to no one and is vandalised.

Appointing park keepers just seems to underline the fact that it is THE park. They may help to limit some of the damage or at least be there to try and repair the damage that will be inflicted. But it does not prevent those who have a mind to from vandalising THE park.

In a way the use of park keepers may make things worse as others who may be able to help may feel that it is not their responsibilty and expect the park keepers to do it all and possibly this just creates more targets for the vandals?

So perhaps at least part of the answer would be to encourage THE Park to be thought of as being OUR park and for all of OUR park's users to feel they have the responsibilty to value and look after it. Rather than for them have fun trying to dodge and tease the park keepers and abuse it themselves or just allow others to abuse it.

If this were the example set on our forum - perhaps those who judge it curently as 'being shittier' would as a result, find our forum more to their liking? And as he now admits that all of the rest of Joe Offer's well-intentioned efforts have not brought him the peace that he requires - perhaps he can now step aside and give this idea a chance?

Possibly the first steps would be for all posters to be encouraged to avoid giving the impression that our forum was a place to name-call and post insults and other personal judgements or respond in kind to them?

For us to feel as adults that the freedom we may take for granted - to have our posts appear as worded should not be denied to others.

And to encourage each other to concentrate on the only thing we will ever have contol over - the style, content, spirit, imagination, decency etc of our own contributions.

And to finally accept that we have no control and should have no control over the posts of others and to try to avoid making any form of judgement of their posters but address what is being said in these posts.

That a public discussion forum remains a simple concept. We have the freedom to either choose to respond to a post or we can ignore it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:01 AM

What Alba said. (That list of exclusions on Roger's posts could get mighty long).

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:47 AM

Nah, I'll take that one...............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Gervase
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:42 AM

OK. but the 300th is still anyone's.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:37 AM

Go and plaster something, the 200th will be mine too!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Gervase
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:31 AM

Bastard!
But, given that Shambles NEVER gives up, I'll bagsie the 200th posting now...

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:29 AM

100. It's mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:24 AM

"Is it perhaps a double standard for you to take issue with me for my use of the word 'our' which includes you but not take issue with Joe Offer's use of the word 'we' which excludes you?"

No. Not at all.

I see this a Public Forum, public in the sense that I can come and in and read and post and search the DT and interact.
I do not, however see it as MY Forum.
What is decided regarding what goes and what stays has nothing to do with me. I am glad to be free of that responsibilty. If I felt the driving need to have that kind of say I would start my own Forum!
When a Tech problem arises. I don't fix it.
I had nothing to do with concept of the the Mudcat Forum, I mearly joined after the fact and reaped the benefits of other people's hard work.
It is public, in the sense that it is pretty much inclusive about who can join and interact with others, a community. If I leave I won't have to resign or sell my share. I am here by choice, that's all. If at anytime I feel that I find myself disagreeing with the policies of the Owner or the Administration then I will simply, look at that and perhaps come to the conclusion that I should find another Forum that better suits my views. It's that simple for me Shambles. Really.

Unlike you Shambles, I am not on 24/7 watch here for the things that seem to come to YOUR attention about THE Forum.

Talking of double standards
"Perhaps if the likes of you and Joe do not like it - all you have to do is go through the door?

And not feel the you have any right to impose your judgement upon others.... "
Take your own advice Shambles.
So. For the last time.
Again I ask you. When you feel the desire to use the word OURS in a statement please add an aside which states that I do not wish to be included in your opinion.
Example: Our Forum (excluding Alba)

YOU can say what you like but just don't speak for me Shambles. I do not recall voting for you as a spokeperson. I do recall you asking me if I wished to be included in your abuse of the word OUR and I find it interesting that you would deny my request.
I use one standard here. My standard. If my ONE Standard bothers you. Well that is no importance to me.
You can play the "our" advocate. I have, however, no wish for you to do so on my behalf. Simple.

YOU do not speak for ME Shambles.
Please remember that.
Thank you
J

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:22 AM

I LIKE MUDCAT THE WAY IT IS!

There, I've said it......(sorry about shouting).

Most of the aggro on this forum could be dealt with very effectively by removing about eight or maybe ten members. Nasty guest posts are more than offset by those that are germane, and intelligent contributions to debate.

The most serious flaming and personal attacks are the work of one little group, who are easily identifiable by their inability to contribute to discussion, which leaves them only personal abuse as a means of getting involved.

As I see it, Joe is looking at members only posting as a means to control MEMBERS which would not give them the opportunity to re-appear as anonymous guests. Given the personal attacks that are constantly heaped on Joe and the clones by one member in particular, I can understand his feelings.

IMHO, however, to follow this course would destroy the very thing that gives the Mudcat its unique appeal.

Far better to leave it as it is, and accept two premises:-

1. There will be posts which may offend some people. Learn to live with this, and don't open threads that might offend.

2. Accept (at last) that what Joe and the clones are doing at the moment is in the best interests of all, and represents the bare minimum of responsible moderation.

It's not rocket science. It is the system which has kept the forum alive and interesting, and IMO will continue to do so if we leave it alone.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:10 AM

Christ on a fuckin' crutch Roger, can you really not see the forest for the trees or are you simply a simpleminded asshole?

You can post that same definition of forum forever and it means diddly-squat because this isn't ancient Greece or even 21st century real world. This is the internet and as I and others keep trying to explain to you, "rights' and "freedoms" and "liberties" have fuck all to do with it........nada....zip....zilch....nothing.

Do a head count and it's obvious that you are the lone voice crying in the wilderness and it is you that needs to move on and go set up your utopian forum where all are equal, the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are above average.

JOE: I would rather see a completely open forum as Shambles describes for the "Mudcat Music Forum" with free and open posting by Guests and Members alike. No BS threads whatsover and THAT would be the only real "rule." Then set-up the "below-the-line" BS section in what is the generally accepted internet manner: mandatory membership with a couple of fulltime mods with the ability to delete freely with no discussion whatsoever. Frankly Joe, that's a job you couldn't do because you really don't have it in you to be so completely detached as a Mod needs to be, contrary to anything Roger might think. This would eliminate most of the problems with the nastiness in the BS section and make the Music section as much fun as it used to be. The BS section would be a lot mellower as well. The Mudcat Music Forum would retain all of it's needed functions and be the unique place on the net it has always tried to be.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Gervase
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:56 AM

Word Web could equally say the earth is flat. It doesn't make it so. I'm with the Red Queen on definitions.

This forum is public only in the sense that we, the public, wander in here unfettered. If Max wanted to make it a $10-a-week subscription-only site there's nothing we can do to prevent it.
So stop repeating yourself. Get a grip. Get a life. Go and put the kettle on and change the tinfoil on your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:42 AM

You are trying to impose your views and ergo your judgement on others, why is it wrong for us and right for you?
Or is it the cry of all tin pot dictators every where, "Do what I say, not what I do"?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:27 AM

I'm inclined to agree with what Joe's just posted. This place has become shittier of late, so maybe the door policy needs review.

Perhaps if the likes of you and Joe do not like it - all you have to do is go through the door?

And not feel the you have any right to impose your judgement upon others....

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:22 AM

Word Web gives: Forum

A public facility to meet for open discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Gervase
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:21 AM

I'm inclined to agree with what Joe's just posted. This place has become shittier of late, so maybe the door policy needs review. I see no problem with having to log in to post stuff - I'm happy to have my posts appear under my real name, even when I'm stating that I couldn't give a flying fart about the incessant, Shambolic whinging here.
It's a privately-owned web site. There is no constitution. The plug could be pulled tomorrow. We're here because someone has said we can be. No-one here has any rights. Live with it. Enjoy what you've got. And stop this pompous grandstanding about liberty - it really is rather pathetic. I'm minded of a hamster in its cage standing on a little soapbox and pontificating about its 'right' to go round and round in its wheel.
The price of freedom? Don't make me bark, you silly little man!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:15 AM

It's not a 'Public Facility' Roger it is Max's facility, and you simply appear to be blind to this. The fact that it is open to 'the public' is due to Max making it so, it is a privilege and not a right!
Unless by 'Public facility' you are comparing it to a toilet in which case your shit should be at home, along with all the other pissing and moaning that you do.
I know you won't do it, but I suggest you stop the pointless vendetta against Joe Offer and any other clones real or imagined, because you really are getting nowhere, and you never will get anywhere.
Still I suppose in an odd way I'll miss you when you go, I'll have to find something else pointless to do in the mornings.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:13 AM

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.>snip<
Joe Offer


Say what? Roger, do you fail to see that YOU are the one who dislikes "the way Max has the forum and wish it to be changed?"

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:07 AM

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.

-Joe Offer-

From all your past and current efforts - the answer is plainly that YOU cannot do anything to bring what you would judge to be peace to our 'public facility to meet for open discussion'. So please stop trying to achieve what is impossible - and in the process managing to ***** UP everything that is good about our forum.

Please finally leave the rest of us - in what we may judge to be peace. And with my best wishes Joe please go and find or impose your kind of peace somewhere else.............

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:53 AM

I have no say in what happens here so... if you are making the same statement again I ask that you word it something like "ours" (excluding Alba) ok!

Is it perhaps a double standard for you to take issue with me for my use of the word 'our' which includes you but not take issue with Joe Offer's use of the word 'we' which excludes you?

For make no mistake - Joe's in his proposal to Max is not just asking for some minor adjustment of his preference to be imposed upon the rest of us - if Max accepts Joe's proposal - our 'public facility to meet for open discussion' will be finally turned into a private members club.

This will be the end of the Mudcat Discussion Forum..

Is this really about the cost of peace as Joe sees it - or is it about the price of freedom? You have this chance to have your say - you may not get another opportunity, if your face is not judged (by Joe Offer) to fit.   

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
- Benjamin Franklin

Can it be explained why those like Joe Offer who wish to have a private members club can't just go and start one? What is stopping them?

Why would anyone feel they had any right to ask for this proposal to be imposed upon those who wish to continue to use a facility provided by Max to enable them to meet for open discussion?

Can those of us who are prepared to be crapped on by the occasional passing pigeon whilst being free to engage in open public discussion please be left to finally do so in peace?

And can those who are not prepared for this please go away and find something that is more to their requirements and stop trying to **** up the 'public facility to meet for open discussion' of those who are prepared to pay the price and are very grateful to the site's owner for this opportunity?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:34 AM

hmmmmmmm......the real trouble is that we just ain't all the same. some of us DO have strong opinions about this and that. and many of us are a certain age. and the opinions we have, tend to describe the parabola of how our lives screwed up.

of course if your life didn't screw up, then you have NO EXCUSE AT ALL - and you should be generous and nice to all of us who are less fortunate.

Mudcat can't be that bad a place to come - seeing as we all keep coming here.

If a particular thread or contributor is being a vexatious spirit, be of good heart. wish the world in general and your assailant in particular a merry and happy life somewhere else (preferably) and grant him no further incursions into your busy schedule.

as far as I can remember I only ccomplained about one guy ever - and I wouldn't do it again. He felt lonely , isolated and bitter at the time of saying the things that upset me, and he didn't mean what he was saying.

if we can't rub along, what chance the arabs and the jews, the proddy dogs and fenians, the martins and the yamahas, the apple macs and the pcs....god gave noah the rainbow sign and all that malarkey.

better the mudcat that we've got with its occasional fits of pique and footstamping, than a sort of Stepford Wives version thereof.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:27 AM

Well I did suggest a Guest section where visitors can request or supply information, this could be along the lines of the Mudcat Help & Trouble Forum, the rest of the site apart from the DT to be members only
Usefull information could be co-opted into the main threads, and the Secret Santa could run there too. All other useless unimportant or possibly abusive posts could be edited or deleted.
Surely if it is possible to post on the threads as a guest, but not use the Mudchat it must be possible to achieve this two tier solution.

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:59 AM

Well, I actually get more flak about what what we don't delete, than about what we do delete. Generally we follow the same guidelines we've always followed - we delete personal attacks, threats, racism, and Spam - but we do our best to allow people to express their thoughts and opinions freely. I suppose some of those opinions are objectionable, but if they're not outright hateful, we usually don't delete them - much to the chagrin of some Mudcatters.

For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:02 AM

I have been a member for less than 12 hours & have already encountered 2 contributions to threads that were clearly maliciously racist.(one of which had the temerity to imply the support of the entire population of the U.S. for it's authors "view")
I see my membership as having equivalence with being invited to engage in conversation as a guest in someone else's house rather than a licence to set up my soap box in the town square.
I think members need to be mindful that editing is not the same as censorship,that tolerance of Nazi ideology is never reciprocated, that,given that far right forums are hardly uncommon, editing does not deny anyone a platform for their views.
I believe that a failure to address this matter will cost you members.
What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 02:02 AM

Word Web gives: Forum

A public facility to meet for open discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 10:08 PM

What if he didn't let us use it?

Would he just like to look at the pretty pictures?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jaze
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 10:02 PM

UMM, Shambles, I think it is Max's forum. He kindly lets us use it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 07:05 PM

"proposed change to our forum?" (exluding Alba)
J

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 07:01 PM

The site should be members only. Most sites are. Recently had a run in with a member who was able to sign in as a guest.


Luckily there was ample evidence to prove this, but unpleasant for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 06:17 PM

Max is able and willing to make his own decisions. Note, Roger, that in that link he specifially says so. I would imagine that Joe Offer throwing ng up his hands and asking Max for a change in the format may carry some weight. Not so my opinion or yours.

I also don't understand the sudden clutching at what we have here- when some - not naming any names- were so unhappy with how the Cat is being run.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 06:07 PM

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you).

These are Joe Offer's words. I gather from these words that he is wanting and asking Max for a specific change to be made to our forum. Perhaps this can be accepted and we can have some discussion on the merits or otherwise of Joe Offer's proposed change to our forum?

Sensible discussion on Joe Offer's proposed change to our forum may help Max to decide what action - if any - to take.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 05:24 PM

Shambles did you READ what Max said. No. Selective reading I think.
This "OUR" sh** is wearing me out it's on nearly every thread now.
I have no say in what happens here so... if you are making the same statement again I ask that you word it something like "ours" (excluding Alba) ok!
Please stop speaking for me or asking questions for me. I can, if I feel the need to, do that myself.
Thanks
J

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 05:22 PM

Should those who do not seem to like the way that Max wants our forum and wish it to be changed - go elsewhere and start their own and leave this one to those of us who like it and do not wish it to be subject to yet more changes?

Say what? Roger, do you fail to see that YOU are the one who dislikes "the way Max has the forum and wish it to be changed?"

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 05:10 PM

In 2002 Max considered but obviously decided not to make the whole site members only.

In 2006 Joe Offer does not seem to like the staus quo and is now proposing to Max that he makes the BS section members only.

What do you think of this changed proposed by Joe Offer?

Should those who do not seem to like the way that Max wants our forum and wish it to be changed - go elsewhere and start their own and leave this one to those of us who like it and do not wish it to be subject to yet more changes?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 04:40 PM

Thanks for putting that up Jeri. I hope that it is read and UNDERSTOOD!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 04:34 PM

That's a **YES** to 'some' sort of restriction to stop some of this before it starts. "Members only" would also prevent innocent, non-agressive anonimity, and then even William Shatner would have to join.

But I'd prefer 'members only' to abuse by anti-social trolls who take advantage of a nice place to project their own nastiness under the guise of 'freedom'..

doesn't make much difference, does it? There's only one vote that counts on the matter. I'll still be here even if Max changes NOTHING about the current system.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 04:33 PM

Giok,

You know Roger always foams at the mouth when the supermarket advertises a SPECIAL OFFER.

It's a waste of breath talking to him, just more irrelevant cut-'n-paste in response.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 04:24 PM

There you go Roger trying to put words into peoples mouths, you make too many assumptions.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 04:04 PM

For the record, Joe's request to Max is more lenient than Max's original idea to make the whole site members-only.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 03:38 PM

So can we take it that's a yes to Joe's latest proposal from you also?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 03:14 PM

such a sentence!...You start to read it and find that after agreeing with the 1st half, the 2nd half slips into a "have you stopped beating your wife?" format!

One more time, Roger..this is not an issue of 'freedom'!!!
If you owned a club, and patrons came in and caused uproars, and talked so you couldn't hear the music, YOU would certainly see the need to 'manage' their attempts to assert their right to disturb others. Yes, it IS similar to what we have here. The argument that folks can just ignore what they don't like doen't wash...obscenity and personal attacks ARE problems, whether in print or in person!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 02:40 PM

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change. >snip<
-Joe Offer-

Pat - So we take can it that it is a yes from you to Joe's latest proposal made to Max for the next change that he requires to shape our our forum to his personal requirements?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 01:12 PM

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 11:01 AM

Roger, have you noticed that this is a website? Now I am actually a member of the ACLU but I also realize that this is a website. As such it has no responsibility or duty to advance the cause of freedom. It's the web man.........Max owns the site and whatever he wants to do, he does.......or he doesn't, as the mood strikes him based on I am sure his personal life and time available to devote to the site.

Now we all feel a bit of "ownership" here and that's nice. But we have no real ownership or control over what happens here. For the past 8 or 9 years you have complained about the 'Cat and the changes that continue to happen and will continue to happen. In all that time I am sure that Max has probably done a thing or two that you favored and I know he's done a thing or two I favored too. He does read some of what is posted and sometimes his PM's as well but the reality is that Max pretty much decides what he wants to do and then tries it out. After ten years I'd say he's got something pretty decent still going here even though the web has changed drastically.

For most of those ten years, Max has trusted Joe to handle some daily and weekly chores along with a number of other tasks he has asked Joe to take on. From all appearances it seems that Max is well satisfied with Joe and the others he has given some control to over the years. It's nice that you can voice your opinion here but it is simply that.....your opinion, and no amount of beating your chest in the hair shirt will net you any more than what you have already stated.....and stated ad infinitum.

Why do you not see that all of this constant complaining is going nowhere? Moreover, why not just say you hate the way things are and leave it at that? You put it on a personal level for some reason with a continuing vendetta against Joe. Now why? Joe is obviously doing okay or Max would have canned him by now doncha' think? You also want to put this thing on a "personal freedom" level and once again I tell you, THIS IS A WEBSITE and "rights" and "freedoms" have nothing to do with it!

You are also fond of suggesting that those who disagree with you go off and start their own website and others suggest this would be a good idea for you as well. This place is going where it's going and it isn't going backwards to those thrilling days of yesteryear either.........So why not give it a break and stop all the carping. Try to enjoy the place as it is. Make a suggestion now and then but don't continue the perpetual bitching which seems to be your wont. Or go set up that website of your dreams.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 08:41 AM

Still advocating anarchy under the guise of liberty I see Roger!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 08:37 AM

However, I continue to belileve that the minor and generally courteous frictions of the current scheme are an EASY price to pay for not having to put up with the madness of whinging self-gratification from a thousand points of view, the somewhat anarchistic (or at least communistic) alternative proposed by some.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
- Benjamin Franklin

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 08:25 AM

Mudcat is a strong and thriving forum, composed of two sections, which seems to satisfy the needs of the majority of users, whether members or guests.

Whatever Mudcat may be - the part of it that is our forum has never been broke (although there are a few technical giltches form time to time) but that has not prevented it from suffering from a number of 'fixes'.

It is those (now two devided sections) which do not seem to be strong or thriving enough to satisfy Joe Offer's requirements - that we are currently suffering the effects of.....Our forum was and is still a simple concept. We are invited by the site's owner to contribute what we will.

The worst fix has resulted in various fellow members - some of them anonymous who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon the invited contributions of their fellow posters.

Now even this is now enough power for them to exert in order to shape our forum to their requirements. - so the intention is for them to profess to still like our forum but to press Max for yet more change and yet more fixes that will make it unrecognisable to the original simple concept. Whilst at the same time encouraging others posters to go away if they do not like what their current fix and indended change is.

But their intention for more imposed rules and more fixes won't stop at this point - despite the fact that each fix to complicate a simple concept only bring with yet more unforseen and unwelcome side-effects. But the concern of Joe Offer and Co appears to be not where the vehicle is going but only whose hand is on the wheel.

Not only don't fix it if it is not broke - but why not take the chance to unfix it so that the original simple concept can survive all the well-intentioned attempts that have been made to fix it in the past. And those who don't like this simple founding concept can go away and create something of their own - rather feeling they have any right to keeping imposing their persoanl requirements upon the rest of our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 07:52 AM

Don T.

I think many of the Guests are already members.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 05:41 AM

I recently have been having a run in with a guest who then joined.

He then accused me of being the author of all his guest posts, some of which were very nasty.

Luckily there was ample evidence that it was a lie, but unpleasant for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 05:31 AM

Mudcat is a strong and thriving forum, composed of two sections, which seems to satisfy the needs of the majority of users, whether members or guests.

The music section is arguably the best repository of folk music and culture in existence.

The BS section is a mixed bag of thought provoking discussion, and light hearted nonsense, with a certain amount of rather more unpleasant stuff that nobody here is forced to read.

True that some people engaging in posting to BS threads do wind up with hurt feelings, or bruised egos, and it's not nice to come out of a chat feeling battered.

I have been following the Guest thread, and most of the unpleasant comment seems to be coming from members. On many other threads, it comes from a few (not all) guests.

The first thing I look at is the content of the posts, not the identity, or lack thereof, of the poster.

It has ocurred to me that all the sarcastic, nasty guest posts could conceivably be the work of just one prolific troll, not likely I know, but possible. How could we know?

I would like to see many of the guests join up, but for different reasons. It would be nice to know that a series of incisive, erudite posts came from a particular persona.

I guess the bottom line is this, IMHO Mudcat is not perfect, but it ain't bad, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 02:48 PM

Further more... I would like to implement certain rules for certain people.
In Shambles case, I would like to initiate the mandatory policy of him wearing his underwear outside his pants so we can check for cleanliness more efficiently.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 02:35 PM

ALL management set-ups are inherently unfair, by nature, and the wise manager tries to take this into account. In my dealings with Joe I have see him strive consistenty -- sometimes at great personal inconvenience--to be as evenhanded, minimalist and rational as possible.

However, I continue to belileve that the minor and generally courteous frictions of the current scheme are an EASY price to pay for not having to put up with the madness of whinging self-gratification from a thousand points of view, the somewhat anarchistic (or at least communistic) alternative proposed by some.

My 2 cents' worth. YMMV.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 02:23 PM

"Max has set-up the BS section so that you do not have to be a member to contribute"
No. Max set up the BS section to keep BS out of the Music threads. Guests can and do post to the Music threads.

"what is the point of ALSO have an unfair form of 'regulating' like we have now"
You think it is unfair, Roger. I don't. And my opinion is a valid as your. Nor does it become less valid because you choose to voice your opinion more often that I voice mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 01:28 PM

The site owner has appointed Joe to oversee the site. Joe is making a suggestion to try and make the forum a little more pleasant than it can sometimes be. He has made a suggestion - it is now back to Max for the final say. Joe is not making the changes - that will be up to Max.

And no, Roger, I was suggesting that if you don't like the way things are run you, in common with the rest of us, have the option to go elsewwhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bert
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 01:02 PM

You make a good point Roger.

It appears to me that the edit responsibilities that some of us have, have not always been used fairly.

It has been years since I have deleted a post of any kind. I decided it was not worth it because it always upsets SOMEONE.

A good proportion of Mudcatters just love the trolls and the contentious threads. Look at the response they get. If we didn't like them we would ignore them, but we don't, we keep posting to them and feeding the trolls.

So it might be an idea to go back to the old days and just let them be. Then perfectly reasonable arguments would not be able to be deleted by someone who happened not to like them or the person posting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 12:31 PM

Consequently we either have to accept that there will be 'flame wars' on some threads and just avoid those that have become pissing contests or we must have some way of regulating the content of the threads. As I said earlier I'm on the fence about that one - there are advantages and disadvantages both ways.

If we accept the reality there will be the same old flame wars and pissing contests as we currently have - what is the point of ALSO have an unfair form of 'regulating' like we have now where others judging for us what words of ours will stay and what words of others we are allowed to see?

This does not work so obviously is not presenting any advantage but it is presenting a big disadvantage to anyone who feels themselves adult enough to make and be allowed to make these choices for themselves.

As has been said many many times before - if you disagree with the way in which the site owner has set up his site you don't have to come in here.

Max has set-up the BS section so that you do not have to be a member to contribute and this has been the case for all of our forum. It is Joe Offer who is now stating that he wishes the change and making this proposal - are you telling Joe Offer that he does not have to post here if he does not like the way Max has set it up?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 08:18 AM

It has been suggested that we, as a group, ignore posts from Guests and those which are racist etc.

Problem is, we have some members who find it impossible, for one reason or another, to ignore those posts. IMHO that is never going to change. I can understand it because I have got angry at some of the things that get posted here. I've just trained myself to sit back and reflect for a few moments before even thinking of whether I want to reply, let alone doing it. For those who have passionate feelings about a particular subject I can see how that course of action could be well nigh impossible.

Consequently we either have to accept that there will be 'flame wars' on some threads and just avoid those that have become pissing contests or we must have some way of regulating the content of the threads. As I said earlier I'm on the fence about that one - there are advantages and disadvantages both ways.

I know at least four clones personally and know that they and Joe are not attempting to exert more power over the rest of us. What they are doing WITH MAX'S APPROVAL, is trying to make the forum a more pleasant place to visit as well as making it easier to negotiate, by tidying up thread titles etc.

We are all free to use or not use the forum as we wish. Contributions to the upkeep of the site are voluntary so, if you don't agree with the system you don't have to pay for it. This site is not even a democracy, although if it were I'm pretty certain that the majority would not vote to change the system in any real way. As has been said many many times before - if you disagree with the way in which the site owner has set up his site you don't have to come in here.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 07:16 AM

Roger you do have the right to say what you think, if only you were doing that, but your posts are couched in evasions and prevarications.

You want to know who the clones are, so that you can harass them if the alter one iota of your deathless prose.
or
You want to get rid of those clones in order to remove any chance of yout posts being altered

You want no editing of posts whatsoever, because you object to people sitting in judgement on other people. Many of the posts I've seen before they were removed are just that, judgemental, and often abusive about other posters.

Make no mistake about it Roger if all posts were allowed to stay as posted this place would lose most of those who use it at the moment, and it would become the sort of kindergarten that the copycat thread of this one has become. Read it and weep Roger for as far as I can see that is what you are advocating.

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:45 AM

If Guests can only post above the line then you will get a lot more BS appearing there.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:26 AM

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 04:01 AM

"But you do make the point well but are perhaps unaware of the many harmless things that have been subject to anonymous imposed judgement that very effort has been made to leave alone?"

That condescending sentence in your reply to Lynne betrays both your arrogance, and the personal nature of your crusade. That coupled with your insidious use of the possesive adjective 'our' in most of your posts in an attempt to make yourself appear non exclusive, when in fact exclusion is at the root of your crusade.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 03:40 AM

We were taught at school the quote "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

That quote was almost the unsaid (and said) founding principles of the early days of our forum.

It now tends to be (offically) viewed as dangerous, outdated and idealist left-wing and liberal propaganda.

But you do make the point well but are perhaps unaware of the many harmless things that have been subject to anonymous imposed judgement that very effort has been made to leave alone?

And you are judging harsly those who have not the guts to say who they are - when certain favoured volunteer fellow posters are now allowed to imposed their judgement upon their fellow posters but remain anonymous...............This seems to be 'nasty' enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 03:13 AM

I've always been impressed by the amount of stuff which is allowed to go uncensored. And I DO mean that in a complimentary way. As far as I've been aware since I've been on here (Initially as a Guest) Joe seems to have tried very hard to leave threads alone and let everyone express their opinions and have their say. It mostly seems to be the very unpleasant that have been deleted, and threads that have deteriorated into NOTHING but a slanging match. There's no benefit in them at all. While I deplore the activities of people who haven't the guts to say who they are when they post something nasty, or purposely stir trouble because they are anonymous, I can't see any way of getting rid of them other than making it Members only, and I don't think that would be a good move at all, for all the reasons quoted above.

As soon as you start to say.."Right, we'll censor this or that type of posting" you could easily start a landslide...like so many other things, where to draw the line becomes a problem.

We were taught at school the quote "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 02:31 PM

If there was ever anything that was obvious in the context of censorship - it would not be the sensitive and difficult issue that it is and accepted to be, just about everywhere else but on our forum. Where it and our essential freedoms are encouraged to seen in such embarrassingly simplistic terms.

As for "snuffing out racist/hate/abuse", most of us would be in favour of this but perhaps we have to be realistic on our forum? If "snuffing out" means preventing such things from being posted - there is no way of doing this.

All that current reactive measures can do is trying prevent such stuff from remaining after it has been posted and any damage already done. But the answer to 'snuffing it out' starts with accepting that such posting cannot be prevented and not indignantly over-reacting to it when it inevitably does appear.

All of this righteous judgement and indignant over-reaction does is provide the attention that these things crave and should be denied. If threads they appear with such things - ignore them - without fuss and let them die. If such posts appear in existing threads - simply ignore them. It is not too difficult - we do it with graffiti, so just treat it here in exactly the same way.

Leaving things that are posted univited on our forum in place but ignored is neither tolerating such propaganda or endorsing it. It is a show of strength not weakness. It is simply accepting the fact that there is no more way of preventing those with a will to do this - than there is of preventing graffiti. It is simply demonstrating acceptance of that fact and not indulging ourselves in making useless judgements.

Washing off graffiti does not solve the problem it only gives temporary respite and provides an irresistable open space to be filled again with bigger letters, brighter colours and more extreme opinions. The challenge is the same online and only increases with any clumsy measures to combat it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 01:42 PM

Michael--

If racist postings are made, I'd shut that thread down immediately--regardless of who made them. Obviously then you get into the definition of "racist posting". Probably should err on the conservative side. If it seems racist, kill the thread--and if it was a Mudcatter, pull the offender's cookie. (It certainly is true it's a judgment call--and I'm glad I don't have to make it.)


But there really are enough topics that we don't have to tolerate racist propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 01:32 PM

I originally posted as a guest, until I got a bit the hang of things, so that has been the way in for at least one.

When I posted as GUEST, it was because I was a new boy and a guest.

Until the thread question is decided, perhaps we could devise a strategy or tactics to snuff out racism/hate/abuse etc. Or perhaps the sheer openness and discussion-on-the-wing-at-the-time about getting rid of the shit that works well.

Auto/Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:26 PM

Well members could register more than one name surely?
G

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:26 PM

When the BS and the Music were edited into two that was an improvement.

In what way was this any real improvement? Did it result in any less of the silliness that some posters complain about? Did it limit the ammount of imposed judgement to deal with this silliness?

All it might have done is to stop some posters from complaining about having to read the BS titles. Surely that could have equally been achieved by ignoring those who made these complaints or telling them to go elsewhere if they did not like it?

And so it would be with this proposal and like the original introdution of the 'guest' - it would most probably introduce some totally unseen and equally unwelcome side-effect.

Some of the worst offending culprits are already members or anonymous volunteers or such firm supporters that they are already safe from any censure and still would be if/when Joe's request for yet more power to exert over the rest of us is granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:23 PM

There are a few alias names that would be gone if members only were to happen.
Goodbye Chongo, Shane, freds, ralphs, William Shatner for god's sake! Of course I am refering to mostly one thread but I will confess, on that thread I have had a few alias names myself (I may have just given myself away here...or not).
Anyway, I think doing a member only would take away a lot of the fun also.

Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:05 PM

This thread should have been under the one already going as the "Crockpot recommendations"!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:00 PM

...Mudcat members who make stupid vulgar attacks. Somebody who does, should, in my opinion, have his cookie yanked--that would, as Samuel Johnson said, concentrate his attention. But the attack itself should stand--so everybody can see what was said.

That is one of the better suggestions I've heard. But would you also let racist propaganda stand, Ron?

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jaze
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:59 AM

I guess I don't understand why people who seem to be so unhappy with this site and how it's run, just don't go off and start their own. Then they can say whatever the f*ck they want. As Kat said in another thread, a lot of good friends and good contributors have left because a few people want to stir up shit all the time. I think Joe Offer does a good job. What he does and how he does it is needed here. If Max makes any changes, I wish he would just ban people who's sole purpose is to cause trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:40 AM

In the same way as the BS section was invented to save those who disdain such childishness as is indulged in downstairs. Could we not have a 3rd [Sorry management] Non Members section, This would mean that members could still log out for SS and other nefarious activities, but at least we would know that all Guests outwith the Non Members section were Mucatters.
The DT would of course be accessible to all.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: number 6
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:29 AM

Joe Offer has done a pretty decent job here so far ... with all the madness and different opinions everyone has here how can he please us all ... and that's what I commend Joe for, he tries to do the impossible in a pretty near impossible situtuation.

As to what is going to be done here, all I can say is let what ever has to be done.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:26 AM

It should be possible--for all Mudcat members, at least, to ignore any post by anybody who only posts as "Guest"--no handle at all. Mostly these are in fact trolls--and richly deserve to be ignored. It's much more difficult to ignore Mudcat members who make stupid vulgar attacks. Somebody who does, should, in my opinion, have his cookie yanked--that would, as Samuel Johnson said, concentrate his attention. But the attack itself should stand--so everybody can see what was said.

Making posting below the line only available only to members would close a possible entrance to good contributors--thus impoverish Mudcat needlessly.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:24 AM

Hmmmmmm. I find myself opposing the at-the-moment prevailing side.

I say, Yes. (The name at the masthead of a newspaper, Roger, doesn't say 'Censor, Joe Blow'.) When the BS and the Music were edited into two that was an improvement. This would be a further improvement. I love the fact that any and all subjects can be - and are- introduced. But it is opinion. And Anonymous Opinion means very little.

The Secret Santa threads and others of like nature could be installed above the line. 'Obit' is already there. As could be technical stuff, as well as temporary, seasonal subjects. It should be possible to come up with a title that invites posting in a specific place.

I would guess that most of us came here in pursuit of music and discovered the forum only later. That will continue to be. (There is word of mouth, of course, but WOM in future would include the information that part of the site is Members Only.)

Picture this ("Sicily. 1926"): A newbie comes into the Mudcat, gets information and then is intrigued by the Members Only segment. The FAQ would be in a highly visible color to draw the eye, and the FAQ would explain the rationale that below the line is Opinion and therefore accountable.

I admire Joe Offer and the Clones; their 'job' is one I wouldn't take on but I'm grateful that they do. My hope is that the recrimination and distrust that is sometimes heaped on them is somewhat offset by their knowledge that without them we'd be slogging through even deeper muck.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: leftydee
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:16 AM

After all this talk, does ANYONE believe guests are actually guests? I'm not that bright but it appears to me that guests are either (1) members hiding their identity or (2) regular contributors using the name Guest. Either way, they are not really "guests". Excluding them will only make them take a different tack to get their posts submitted. What's the diff if they are called guest or make up a new name to summit under. How much better do you think you know me if I'm called Lefty or Bob. The reality is that people who know me call me Duck, Ducky or Duckman.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:16 AM

Okay... Think about censorship this way... When Bush went around the country talking up his private accounts in "town meetings" and only loyal Bush folks were allowed in, this, IMO, was a form of censorship...

Or perhaps "pre"censorship???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:12 AM

"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race."
        Charles BRADLAUGH
British social reformer (1833-1891)

The abuse dies in a day .... and with 'responsible editing', such abuse can die in a blink of an eye.

Is there anyone here who'd miss it at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:59 AM

The clannishness claimed by some of the less bright is more a natural evolution among people who communicate a lot -- but I have never seen any problem with new people who have something to say (I mean something constructive or valuable) coming in and finding their way around and making new friendships. That's not cliquery, it's human nature -- I came in a few years aago and wandered about in confusion, hoping my posts were okay and trying not to step on toes, and gradually made friends with a lot of people, and found it a fine home.

I have seen a many others, as well, arrive here and find it good, and establish friendships and decide to return, and they did it without too much pain. Two such are, just for example, Martin Gibson and Rapaire. They make an interesting contrast in how one comes to fit in as a regular poster and member. Rapaire acheived it by contributing intelligent, funny, insightful and helpful posts.

But there are many other examples. Many of those I thought of as the old-time regulars back then are not as much in evidence, partly because they feel the tone and liveliness of the place has been sadly diluted by slammers and bangers and such, and partly because they have already been through most of the conversations now being reincarnated.

I think the core flavor of the Cat goes through cycles, and sometimes extremes of ugliness break out, and sometimes extremes of creativity and compassion.

Oh, and my remark to Roger was supposed to be humorous, but I shouldna called him a ditz, and I apologize for it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:57 AM

One of the big pluses of Mudcat as well as one of it's biggest minuses, is the fact that, generally it's open and free for anyone to express whatever opinion or feeling they like.

I would broardly agree with this but I think that which ever way it goes - this from point in our forum's you can be sure that it is not going to remain as it is.

My suggestion is for it to become more free and Joe's suggestion is for it to become less so.............

My suggestion is most unlikely to be accepted................

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:50 AM

Thanks, Lynne.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:43 AM

Like Jacqui, I can see both sides of this. I get extremely annoyed by Guest posters who feel they can post the most awful, insulting, bigotted, shit-stirring rubbish only because no one knows who they are. I've ceased to read the Sidmouth threads because of this. In fact I don't come onto the Cat nearly as much as I used to, and to a great extent it's because I have enough problems and angst in my life without exposing myself to the sort of bickering and back-biting that goes on here so much of the time. But that's the point isn't it? I don't come in so often because I don't like it, but that is my choice. I don't think it should all be cleaned up and sterilised just because I don't like it. One of the big pluses of Mudcat as well as one of it's biggest minuses, is the fact that, generally it's open and free for anyone to express whatever opinion or feeling they like. And I agree with Martin.....again

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:41 AM

Funny thing that isn't it, how people heide and pretend to be out when they see someone they don't like coming to their door.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:21 AM

As much as I dislike Guest postings, a members only forum will end up being the downfall of this place.

Coming in as an outsider is already more difficult then many here realize due to the clannish/cliquish(sp) nature of this place.

Already, many with alternative opinions to the fused in mindset here are scoffed at by those with arrogance ("No, you ditz; but there is a difference between being pregnant and having a tummy swole up with gas.").

This place would have to be renamed the Mudcat Club. It's almost that now.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:14 AM

My vote...........NO!

Specsavers might be able to assist you with that tunnel vision problem Roger.

Once again you object to the forum being guided by sensible and responsible people, while setting yourself up as spokesman and telling the rest of us what we have "had to put up with".

Get the message, for God's sake! Most of the posters to this site do not agree with your complaints, or your suggested solutions, and it would not matter if they did.

The site belongs to MAX!

Why not listen to your own advice given above. If you don't like the way this forum is run, go find another, or set up your own.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 09:43 AM

No, but there is such a thing as being a little-bit misguided.

Say I were to post "Fascism is preferable to democracy. The electorate is so underinformed and misinformed they can't possibly make intelligent decisions about vital public matters. Jane and Joe Averagedemocraticcitizen absolutely need Big Brother to direct their every thought and action." Say Joe were to remove it. That would be censorship. And I would be PMing him immediately!

But if I were to post "Shambles, you and every other democracy-lover are nothing but imbecilic, disgusting, braindead vile mother -@@!!!##@@!!!! You NEED Big Brother to lead you about by the nose, same as every other democratic jack-ass. Furthermore, your music sounds like ##@@!!!!!, your repulsive drooling wife is a low-down 2-bit @@!!***! and your feet smell like ##@@!!!" and Joe were to delete it, well I'd call that 'responsible editing'.

And when I sobered up, I'd PM him to thank him.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 09:14 AM

No. I don't agree, Shambles. For a variety of reasons but mainly because regular members without cookies would then be barred from the BS section.
However - this is Max's sandbox. There are times when I wonder why he puts up with the constant abuse here when all he has to do is pick up his toys and go home.
Joe Offer does an amazing job, not perfect but amazing. When I disagree with him we hash it out in PMs and sometimes agree to differ. The EDIT button is in safe hands. I know that upsets you but you can always go to another sandbox or create your own.
I am glad when Joe and the other anonymous ones use common sense and delete threats, offensive remarks or attacks on any member. I also see the need to clarify thread titles (mine have been clarified too), combine similar threads, or delete a thread which is posted only to offend.
Be glad I don't have the "kill" button. I could never exercise the restraint that the current clones do. In fact, Joe has refused to delete posts that I found offensive - go figure.
These are my opinions not a jumping off point for debate.My vote is "No".

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: kendall
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 09:13 AM

Shambles, look up the difference between freedom and license.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 09:11 AM

"For the moment at least - we all at least have the choice of whether we continue to contribute to our {?*} forum on the current basis or not. Those who do not like it - are free to go elswhere"
* My brackets



And you Roger!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 09:09 AM

No, you ditz; but there is a difference between being pregnant and having a tummy swole up with gas. For one thing, the remedies are very different.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 09:05 AM

There's a difference between responsible editing and censorship.

Is there such a thing as being a little-bit pregnant?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 09:03 AM

I can see both sides here. A 'members only club' could mean that fewer new people come into the BS area and I think that would be counter-productive. However, restricting BS as Joe has suggested might just cut down the number of flame wars and areas of real contention and even allow for real troublemakers to be prevented from coming in, if enough complaint was made about them.

From a purely personal point of view I get pissed off with finding that an interesting thread has been taken over by those who wish to stir up trouble and those who cannot resist reacting. I, personally, come in to the forum to find out more about the people and subjects that come up, not to plough my way through the outpourings of over inflated egos and testosterone poisoning.

I have been personally attacked on a number of occasions but have chosen to deal with the matter through PMs or by ignoring it completely. I cannot see the point in perpetuating personal attacks just because someone wants to bruise my ego.

There are times, and I'm sure that I'm not alone, when certain posters seem to be using the forum to pursue their own personal gripes and that irritates me to the point where my fingers itch to tell them to go forth and multiply. I choose not to do that these days as I do not feel that it adds anything to the discussion. Most of the time I just don't bother with that thread again or I'll scroll down past that post.

Anyway - I can't give a definitive opinion here - the question is too involved for that to happen - all I hope is that this squabbling doesn't get Max to a point where he decides that the 'Cat, or the BS section, is more trouble than it's worth. That really would be a bummer as far as I'm concerned - and yes - I do have a life outside of this forum, but it is enhanced by the forum and the friends I have made here.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 09:01 AM

I'd appreciate such a change, but only down the line.

Perhaps the best solution is for those who prefer a members only forum (now or down the line) - to either find an existing one or create a new one that better suits their requirements?

After all this time - it does not really seem very fair for this proposed change to be imposed by those who are not happy with this current forum - upon those those who value the freedom of our forum as it is and are prepared to put up with the downside of this. Even though this sort of inposition of a minority view is what we all have had to become used to. Perhaps it is time for a change to this approach?

Those who are quite happy with (most aspects) of the public discussion forum that Max's has provided on his site for all of us - should perhaps expect those who are not happy - to go elsewhere?

For the moment at least - we all at least have the choice of whether we continue to contribute to our forum on the current basis or not. Those who do not like it - are free to go elswhere

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:51 AM

I vote with *daylia*

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:49 AM

Roger you are asking people to join you in advocating anarchy, you are also inviting foul mouthed trollery and flaming of unknown proportions.
We all know you have a bee in your bonnet about your precious threads being edited by a person or persons unknown, and I feel that you have a hidden agenda with regard to this crusade.
While it is a good idea to suggest to the owner of any given site that you think there is a better way to run all or part of that site, it is a totally different matter to try bypassing that person by appealing to others over his head to join you in forcing his hand.
There is an established system for sorting out problems on Mudcat, and the first step is to go to Joe, and the next step if not happy is to go to Max. If you do not receive an answer that suits you by this process then you have exhausted it. It is wrong thereafter to try to force their hand by force majeur in the thin disguise of democracy.
In the first place what gave you the impression that this is a democratic site, Max was not elected ergo it is not a democracy it is a private entity. Nor was he imposed on you, it was you that joined his site, and not him that conscripted you.
So whatever truths or untruths, sensible or stupid contributions, or good ideas you have regarding the running of this site, you are totally out of order in the way you are going about it.
I think you are a frustrated revolutionary, a sort of Don Quixote tilting at the windmill that is Max, and achieving exactly the same amount of success as the original character.
There is the old saw that goes, "Why are you banging your head against that brick wall?" answer "Because it feels good when I stop"
Time to leave the brickwork in peace Roger, and I mean that most sincerely.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:39 AM

There's a difference between responsible editing and censorship. Censorship, to me, means the removal of information/points of view that differ from, challenge or contradict the current prevailing, "accepted" beliefs/attitudes/mores/norms. Responsible editing means removal of offensive, counterproductive, slanderous and/or obscene language/personal attacks.

I don't see that Joe and the other moderators on the 'Cat "censor" a thing! I watch people post whatever they please here, as long as they remain within bounds of reason (ie simple public decency). ANd I am very grateful to Joe and the others for this. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here at all -- for exactly the same reasons I refuse to eat off filthy dishes. Both can, quite literally, make one quite sick.

So, many many thanks to Joe and Jeri and all the other good-hearted volunteers who help make this forum as welcoming, fun and harmless as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:38 AM

I am inclined to agree with Bobert.

But I wish there was some way that was less intrusive to manage the muck, as Kat calls it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:33 AM

I'd appreciate such a change, but only down the line.
That has nothing to do with censorship, unless that word is used in a sense that is new to me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:29 AM

As much of a pain that GUEST's can occasionally be, I vote no to "members only"... Has something to do with, ahhhhh, freedom... A members only forum is a form of censorship... Nuff censorship going on in this world...

("Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"???...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:24 AM

Yes you may say this - well at least currently you can. But have you no other contribution to make to the discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:21 AM

Now unlike the many wishes and suggestions of many other sensible posters - what Joe Offer wants will usually come to pass.

Roger, if I may say so I think this remark is snide and unbecoming.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Emma B
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:15 AM

I confess that I'm one of the people who have posted to the threads created by BNP members in the past but only, I might add, AFTER requests to delete them and in order to refute and debunk some of the insidious racism presented as "facts and perceived wisdom" and even worse as folk - song!
It is a common practice of this organization to use any opportunities to peddle their unacceptable doctrines wherever and whenever possible and I believe that anyone who has only seen this "public face" deserves to be informed of the hatred, thuggery and anti-semitism that lies behind it.
'Nuff said!

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:09 AM

I did suggest something similar ages ago - the main problem then is that then the Secret Santa threads cannot be BS prefixed.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:01 AM

It may not be my final decision but if one poster can ask Max for something - such requests are also open for every other poster to make - so is the right to express an opinion on the merits or otherwise these requests.............

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:53 AM

Not your call Roger.
G

Subject: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:48 AM

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change.

I don't like the Nazi threads, either, but if you can just resist temptation and not post to the Nazi threads, I can close or delete them quietly....
Making a big public deal of banning them and refuting them and all that, just serves to provoke them.
Yes, we are opposed to racism, and we are opposed to Nazis, and we don't like Martin Gibson when he's a bad boy. Or Tarheel, either.
So, PEACE, Peace.
-Joe Offer-

Now unlike the many wishes and suggestions of many other sensible posters - what Joe Offer wants will usually come to pass.

But perhaps the merits or otherwise of this proposal (while it is still a proposal or a request to Max) can be open to discussion in this thread before Max makes this final decision?

For the record - I am asking Max if Joe Offer and the unknown number of anonymous fellow posters can be relieved of the responsibility of their edit buttons. And that all contributors to our forum can finally be free to decide for themselves what to post - what to respond to and what to ignore - rather than only what Joe and his nameless ones will allow the rest of us?