BS: Responses to bullying

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:57 PM

No Rozinante was Don Quixote's horse, or it may even have been a mule, I can't quite remember!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:56 PM

I'm so glad you respect my judgment, Roger.
Now, what was it I was supposed to delete?

But whatever the case, this sort of stuff is unpleasant and unconstructive - no matter who the target is, and whether that person deserves it or not. When we are mean to one another, we make the whole world mean. I don't see how this nastiness does anybody any good. Can we talk about music, for a change?

-Joe Offer-

---

I think it's time to close this thread. Reason: bullying, which constitutes a gang approach to a personal attack. I'm glad you suggested it, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:44 PM

Cervantes: Rocinante was Don Quixote's horse.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:44 PM

I am sorry - the following was Joe Offer's first post to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:04 PM

Well, I could delete it...

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:37 PM

wrong, Giok. You are a scottish bully. You can always be counted on to make an ass of yourself when Roger jumps on Rocinante. shriveled buckeyes, on the other hand is just another crankcase

mcm

and it's Stein, NOT Steinbeck

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:35 PM

Ron, I have a natural ability to be confusing that I thought might be amusing to explore. If you weren't trying to be funny, I apologize

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:33 PM

Does ANYbody agree with him?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:23 PM

Roger you are not being bullied you are being hectored, and you are being ridiculed, maybe even a little urine is being extracted 'en passant', but you are NOT being bullied.
Unless everybody who disagrees with you is 'ergo' a bully in your eyes!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:55 PM

Roger, gimme yer lunch money!

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:49 PM

LMAO.........like I said.....the funniest stuff on the 'Cat!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:49 PM

motor city mama

I think I know who you are. Steinbeck fan if I'm right.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:29 PM

Time for a recap?

The general view would seem to be that there was no bullying (there is no bullying) and even if there were any bullying - it would all the victim's fault.

As this is plainly nonsense - the so-called decency of Mudcat would seem to be a thing of the past.......

As now does the ability of the public to freely contribute the The Mudcat Discussion Forum.....Not that this would appear to matter much.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:22 PM

it's good to see something in the un-ambiguously 'maybe' category...☺

*Bill D sits on his hands to avoid puns on "bully pulpit"*

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:15 PM

Well done shambles. You got them to discuss something totally different because it is easier than discussing what joe has called bullying. Because that means joe thinks they're bullies too. And heck that's something they are never gonna discuss.

Point proven m'lud.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:09 PM

Well, thanks for that definitive statement. That clarifies the situation completely. Have you been studying long with Mr. Greenspan?

My favorite was his supposed statement on death: "I look forward to the next world, while remaining cognizant of the downside risks."

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 01:59 PM

Hi Ron, maybe almost, but I feel more inclined to state emphatically that it might possibly not.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 01:51 PM

Jeri--

I've seen that combination before--does it have something to do with typing letters and numbers sequentially?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 01:37 PM

[Giok] "...when you put the letters �L� and a number �7� together they look similar to a square."

[Me] "On this planet, not so much."

Oh sure...somebody had to go and fix it so it makes sense now, and my comment looks like I smoked something. Really, it did look like that previously.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 01:16 PM

Thanks, Amos. Avoiding being square was a major preoccupation in pop music, wasn't it? e.g. "Donja be no square--if you can't find a partner, use a wooden chair."

Not that we want to be distracted from the subject at hand, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 01:11 PM

When you make the L and the 7 with your fingers (thumb and index of each hand) they make a square, and this became slang so teenies could hide what they were saying from grownups.

Who are often triangles -- squares with something missing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 12:58 PM

Old Jewish proverb: "If a man calls you an ass, ignore him. If TWO men call you an ass, buy a saddle."

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 12:44 PM

Hey Shambles-- b'leev ah saw one of them ee--vangelist fellers--- or some other varmint behind the barn last night. Didja get'um?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 11:37 AM

hey Shambles! How come you respect Joe's judgement when he says you are being bullied - but at virtually no other time will you accept his statements at face value?

When I did I say I respected Joe Offer's judgement on this? But that is his judgement........

Hey MMario ! - What practical use is making this or any other personal judgement?

Especially when those who tell me I must accept Joe Offer's judgement - are trying their hardest to ignore Joe Offer's judgement that this is bullying and ignore this thread's subject altogether?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 11:33 AM

Hipster--that would fit perfectly---thanks for the info. I learn something from Mudcat every day.

Hope Shambles is fighting off those evangelists.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 11:30 AM

"...when you put the letters �L� and a number �7� together they look similar to a square."

On this planet, not so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 11:21 AM

"For those curious about the infamous line "let's not be L7", it is a hipster's way of saying "let's not be square." (when you put the letters "L" and a number "7" together they look similar to a square.)"

Found this explanation in my travels, sounds almost plausible.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 11:19 AM

Lesbian?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 11:07 AM

And while you're away, if you could find out what L-7 in "Wooly Bully" means, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. I don't think Spaw is around.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 11:04 AM

Shambles--

Hot tip--an evangelist has just entered your town. This needs your attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: MMario
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 10:56 AM

hey Shambles! How come you respect Joe's judgement when he says you are being bullied - but at virtually no other time will you accept his statements at face value?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 10:47 AM

It beggars belief that your attitude towards Joe Offer is so schizophrenic that you use his remarks to back up some of your points, while using other remarks of his to castigate him as an advocate of something you disagree with.
Now if I was in Joe's position I would have ignored you, because whatever he says he can't win, (not that any of us can), and as the person in Loco Parentis for Max his words carry more weight.
We're all lucky he's so tolerant I suppose, or quite a few of us would be inhabiting the outer darkness where the light of the Cat don't reach.
That in a way is why I get cross with your constant whining against a man who spent so many years working for an organisation one of who's mantras is 'Turn the other cheek' that he's gotten that way himself.
He's doing a good job on the whole, and I for one wish you'd stop picking on him.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 10:39 AM

Yawn

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 09:24 AM

The pity is that it can never come out of this tantrum of a thread. That's a shame.

Where there is a will - there is a way. What in fact was ever - or is now preventing a real discussion actually about---

genuine bullying - how it comes about, what people get out of it, how to deal with it, how to recognise it, how bullying can be misinterpreted as something else, and vice-versa - that would be interesting.

What then is considered by you to be false bullying as opposed to genuine bullying?

For once again it IS Joe Offer's judgement that the examples in the thread referred to WERE bullying - do you disagree with Joe Offer's judgement on this? Perhaps the opinions of the victims of the bullying should be a little more valid that those ganging-up and inflicting, justfying and excusing the bullying?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: jacqui.c
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 09:17 AM

I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 09:12 AM

Why do you think that you alone on the forum get picked on?

Where have I said that this is the case? I have however, just demonstrated the bullying in the thread referred to where I happen to be the easy target this time. Do you agree with Joe Offer's judgement that this was bullying?

Do you think that it might have something to do with the fact that people do not agree with your single handed vendetta against Joe, a vendetta which does not seem to be supported by any other member who posts to these threads.

Vendtta is a big word. It is not my word. Joe and I have different views. Should I have to be in agreement with him or does this disagreement entitle the holder of a different view to be the subject of the group bullying and personal judgements in the thread referred to?

If you will set yourself up as an Aunt Sally you must accept that others will try to knock you down. If you do not respond to reasoned arguement and just keep on repeating the same old mantra over and over and over again then you will test the patience of others and we just don't have any saints on this forum.

All the saints are dead but again if I am not convinced by the few arguments - must I change my view or does thing mean that I should be bullied if I do not? No one is being forced to read anything I post are they?

When such general opposition to a point of view is seen it behoves the person making that point of view to go away and look closely at their own motivation. You might save yourself a lot of the grief that you seem to suffer here if you could do that.

I remain open to persuasion. But I really don't care too much about any grief I may receive - mainly from the usual suspects. I am concerned that bullying like this now is thought to be a acceptable on our forum. Should it happen to anyone on our forum and be justified?

I would think that it is highly unlikely that you will take any notice of this post, apart from maybe twist it around and try to come up with cut and pastes to show that I am wrong and you, as always, are right. However, it did me good to say it!

I have honestly answered your post - you may not like the answers but I have at least managed to do it without making any personal judgements of you or any other poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 09:10 AM

No, we NEED an answer on the L-7 question.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 09:01 AM

Be careful folks you are beginning to froth. I don't think shambles is the one who should be worrying about his health. Those of you who are poking the stick have serious problems though. And no, you won't recognise them.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:57 AM

But, Spaw, let's get to the important questions. What does "L-7" mean in "Wooly Bully?"   And where did it come from? I've always wondered what they were saying there.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:50 AM

I agree Kevin. We should talk about what it is.



What is bullying?


motor city mama

and anyone who doesn't know who I am after nine years, hasn't been paying attention

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:44 AM

My enemies enemy is my friend apparently!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:43 AM

A real discussion actually about genuine bullying - how it comes about, what people get out of it, how to deal with it, how to recognise it, how bullying can be misinterpreted as something else, and vice-versa - that would be interesting.

Perhaps some time we can get round to it, because it's an important topic, and a discussion here could be a way of helping sort our own ideas out about it.

The pity is that it can never come out of this tantrum of a thread. That's a shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:34 AM

okay roger, I see it is all the same people with the notable exception of katlaughing. to her credit. but you are still riding Rocinante. Max isn't going to change anything because he is too busy and doesn't care enough. He let's the cloneheads make up their own rules. ad nauseum

have a nice day, roger. I'd like to meet you sometime

motor city mama

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:09 AM

Roger, I said it in the other thread, and will say it again: This can't be good for your health. Step back, and refrain from posting for a period. After all, if you feel bullied, you know that the best response is to ignore the bully.

The more you refuse to ignore them, the more you're flagging to them "Victim - kick here".

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:08 AM

Usually, I don't even open a thread by Shambles because I have seen it all before and I'm not fond of re runs.
Jeri said it, and Jacqui said it. 10 to 1 he won't absorb it but he will turn it into bullying, and go on and on ad nauseum.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:01 AM

We're alright Jack, so don't bother us
It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss
I can see you are wounded
Not in the best of health
But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself

Am I not entitled, just like all of you
To speak from what I see, my personal point of view?
I'll question those who try to get the problem solved
And criticise those who would get me involved

We're alright Jack, so don't bother us
It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss
I can see you are wounded
Not in the best of health
But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself

These fears of mugging are simply overblown
Didn't get mugged, when I went out alone
Ignore the statistics, ignore the traumatised
In my opinion, its over dramatised

We're alright Jack, so don't bother us
It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss
I can see you are wounded
Not in the best of health
But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself

The victims of this crime may not think I am right
Many now, if able, would not go out at night
My support may give some consolation
I'll leave them in their lonely isolation

We're alright Jack, so don't bother us
It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss
I can see you are wounded
Not in the best of health
But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: jacqui.c
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 07:44 AM

Roger

Why do you think that you alone on the forum get picked on?

Do you think that it might have something to do with the fact that people do not agree with your single handed vendetta against Joe, a vendetta which does not seem to be supported by any other member who posts to these threads.

If you will set yourself up as an Aunt Sally you must accept that others will try to knock you down. If you do not respond to reasoned arguement and just keep on repeating the same old mantra over and over and over again then you will test the patience of others and we just don't have any saints on this forum.

When such general opposition to a point of view is seen it behoves the person making that point of view to go away and look closely at their own motivation. You might save yourself a lot of the grief that you seem to suffer here if you could do that.

I would think that it is highly unlikely that you will take any notice of this post, apart from maybe twist it around and try to come up with cut and pastes to show that I am wrong and you, as always, are right. However, it did me good to say it!

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 07:31 AM

Then there's 'To a Haggis' as well.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 07:22 AM

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion...

I have a nasty feeling that this may be taken as another instance of bullying, but honestly I'm not intending to imply that the whole of the poem this comes from, with its title, is relevant. But these lines are, I feel. (From To a Louse, by Robert Burns)

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 07:19 AM

"Is it correct that everyone - regardless of their race-sex-religion-sexual preference etc has the right to be respected and the responsibilty to respect others?

Even if you may judge that someone may not have respected others - even or especially when others are seen and encouraged to share that judgement- does this really give anyone the right to disrespected and bully them or attempt to deny that what you are seen to be doing and supporting is bullying?"

The joke is - that the above - which you claim not to be able to understand - was taken mostly word for word from an Anti - Bullying campaign booklet.

As for me missing the point of your post - you seem to have missed the whole point of this thread. Which remains 'responses to bullying' rather than the judging the writing style of fellow posters.

If I do not see the need to publicly post personal judgements about you, your family and speculate on the contents of your toilet bowl or what you do with your genitals and encourage other to follow this questionable example and to indulge in online conversations that do not address to you but are about you and make crude jokes at your expense - is it really too much to expect you to respond in kind? Or if you can't do this - to simply ingnore anything that I may post?

This is what is called showing respect regardless of anyone's race-sex-religion-sexual preference or even if they just happen to to be me.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 06:25 AM

I dunno' Sham.......Maybe it's me who is twiddling his dick. What you should have read in that last post was that I have no idea what the question is. I guess that is only partially true as there are actually two questions.

The first is, "Is it correct that everyone - regardless of their race-sex-religion-sexual preference etc has the right to be respected and the responsibilty to respect others?" To that I would respond that respect is an earned thing so I feel no need to respect others simply because they exist. On the other hand, it is quite possible to respect someone in a specific area while not respecting them in all areas. "Rights" are a concept as is "freedom." Rights and freedoms go only as far as you can push them, ie., I have a right to life but if someone shoots my ass and kills me (through a nasty wound to the ass) my right to life doesn't seem to carry much weight!

Your second question is a total mystery to me since I can't make hide nor hair of what you are saying. That is the part I referred to as a "Shamblism."

And btw.....You once again missed the entire point of the post! I love that.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 06:20 AM

If you wish to criticise others while remaining immune from criticism yourself then I suggest that this is the wrong forum for you.
With the greatest of respect I suggest that what would fit the bill for you is a site where you are the owner, the moderator and the only poster.
That ought to get you the Cyber Utopia you seem to crave!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 06:10 AM

"Is it correct that everyone - regardless of their race-sex-religion-sexual preference etc has the right to be respected and the responsibilty to respect others?

Even if you may judge that someone may not have respected others - even or especially when others are seen and encouraged to share that judgement- does this really give anyone the right to disrespected and bully them or attempt to deny that what you are seen to be doing and supporting is bullying?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
That's a joke Roger......or maybe it isn't and you are twiddling your dick.

Well we have had the usual personal judgement on the poster of the question - is there any chance of actually answering or even addressing the question that so much time was spent quoting?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 05:55 AM

"Is it correct that everyone - regardless of their race-sex-religion-sexual preference etc has the right to be respected and the responsibilty to respect others?
Even if you may judge that someone may not have respected others - even or especially when others are seen and encouraged to share that judgement- does this really give anyone the right to disrespected and bully them or attempt to deny that what you are seen to be doing and supporting is bullying?"

Ah yes........A lovely example of a "Shamblism" and one to perhaps cut in stone. A convoluted sentence relating to not much of anything and leaving the reader confused and drowning in a pool of incoherent blather. Truly a work of art.

I long ago gave up any anger or aggravation at Roger's long-running and long reading treatises. I follow these threads and post to them because this has now become some of the funniest stuff on the 'Cat. So I suppose in that respect it would be correct to judge my reponses to him as bullying although it has no venom to it. Lord Byron once wrote, "If I laugh at any mortal thing, 'tis that I may not weep," and gawd knows some of Roger's stuff has led me to tears of one sort or another.

I think the true beauty of these "discussions" lies in the fact that Sham never takes a post in the way the writer means it. Now I can understand that at times as it is hard to read tone and inflection in the written word. What makes Roger so unique is his ability to take a relatively clear and concise post by one of his "fellow posters" on "our forum" and turn it on it's side, swap it end for end, scramble the words, and then explain what he now thinks it says. It is a rare talent especially when coupled with his ability to be completely incoherent through his writing style. Many times I sit and read his posts to Karen and see if she can figure out what he is saying. She can't......but then again, she isn't too bright since she was dumb enough to marry me.   

Okay, quick quiz Roger.......Did that last sentence in the previous paragraph show A) a lack of respect for my wife, B) low self-esteem for myself, C) Both A & B, D) Neither A nor B because it's just a joke line, or E) You have no idea because you really aren't reading any of thses posts unless they can provide quickie cut and pastes and are twiddling your dick instead. That's a joke Roger......or maybe it isn't and you are twiddling your dick.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 05:51 AM

Here is Joe Offer's entire first post to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:28 PM

No, it does seem like recent messages in that thread are bullying Roger, and that probably isn't right. None of those message is an outright personal attack, so we usually leave borderline stuff like that alone. If the entire tone to the thread turns toward bullying, then we might close it. If the entire Forum has a nasty tone - which happens at times - then we tend to be a little more ruthless in deleting entire threads if they're contentious. It's a matter of judgment and balance and timing - rigid rules don't really work very well in forum moderation.
Trouble is, the thread started out with a bullying, badgering tone - and we let it continue in the name of free speech, to honor the sensitivities of the thread originator. If we did any editing on that particular thread, we'd have to put up with another half-dozen 600-message threads telling us what tyrants we are.
So, it's a hard call to make. In cases like that, we usually step back and hope the whole thing goes away.
-Joe-

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

Dang. And I woulda sworn I said I cannot control the tone of a thread or the Forum, that I can only do damage control by deleting messages that are clearly personal attacks. I can often predict the tone of a thread from the way it starts, but I sure as heck can't control it.
Nobody understands me....

But yeah, I guess I do have to admit that the proposal for members-only BS posting does have a significant impact on anonymous Guests.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 05:41 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Alba - PM
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

I am interested in this almost exclusively Mudcat concept of how and why signs saying 'victim here' are generally perceived on our forum and in the permission to justifably bully them, that this sign is supposed to impart. And in the name of defending the bully's personal opinion.

Are all those of different race - sex- religion - sexual pursuasion etc also thought to be wearing such a sign when they ask for their views to be respected and addressed on its merits?

In what way exactly does being collectively encouraged to judge, mock insult and ridicule every aspect of any poster's assumed personality in public - result in defending anyone's personal opinion or ever justify supporting this form of bullying?

As always - such bullying conduct especially even when attempts are made to justify it - say more about how inadequate the bully is and about the climate in which the bullying allowed or encouraged to be taking place, than telling us any thing about their victims.

The bully here always has the choice to respond to the points being made with their personal opinion on these points or to simply ignore any thread or any post. Perhaps this course is the one that should be encouraged?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 05:02 AM

Is it correct that everyone - regardless of their race-sex-religion-sexual preference etc has the right to be respected and the responsibilty to respect others?

Even if you may judge that someone may not have respected others - even or especially when others are seen and encouraged to share that judgement- does this really give anyone the right to disrespected and bully them or attempt to deny that what you are seen to be doing and supporting is bullying?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 04:58 AM

Well folks, I guess my case is proved.

After a direct request for a response to reasoned argument, no such response.

The only post in that time from Roger is a cut-'n-paste of a remark from Joe, taken out of context.

For a man who repeatedly claims to be interested in discussion, this does not make much sense.

It seems that his only real interest is in provoking unpleasant responses, and establishing victim status thereby.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 04:03 AM

One could wish it was a closing statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:56 AM

Hee Hee! Now was that a recap, or a summary, or was it a synopsis?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:43 AM

Those who do not consider this to be bullying should perhaps now take issue with Joe Offer whose has judged in this thread that it IS bullying.

For no one else's' judgement matters remember? And as I am told (mostly by these bullies) that Max has appointed Joe as final arbiter of such things - perhaps those who judge that this is not bullying - should stop arguing with Max's appointed judgement and stalking other posters or find another site where such conduct is NOT judged to be bullying? For it is clearly, officially and finally judged to be bullying here - so please live with this fact..........or go away.

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

So perhaps except from asking posters not to hold and express views that may not be acceptable to the bullies and cause them to make every kind of personal judgement, insult and joke at the expense of the poster in public - or closing or deleting the thread - some other sensible sugestions could now be made to the question posed in my original post?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 01:21 AM

Shambles has some strong views, but then so do many other people. Reminds me of a German Shepherd I had once. I shove a birch log (fairly fresh cut) into a lake and she went to fetch it. The bole was bigger than her bite, so she got hold of the nub of a branch that had been cut off. That dog eventually brought it into shore, but she damned near drowned doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 12:10 AM

I don't think its a matter of bullying so much as a matter of listening to a boring record.

Shambles was here before me, so I just ignore most of it. Never really cared to enter into this long-running fued with Shambles.

I just choose my battles more carefully. I mean who really cares. Shambles is not an enemy to me, he is just sorta like a resident troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 11:53 PM

Author! Author! (thank you, Jeri)

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: JennyO
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 11:24 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: jacqui.c
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 11:12 PM

Nicely put Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 10:33 PM

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 10:14 PM

Thankyuhverramuch...
My job involves scoring standardized test essays, and I'm getting pretty good at over-extending my sentences. Fragments next.

JennyO, asstoot analysis!

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: JennyO
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:55 PM

Yes Jeri, that's it in a nutcase - er- shell. You do have a way with words!

I think Roger should be well pleased. He's been the "butt" of Spaw's jokes, and that's the height (or is it depth?) of recognition. I should aspire (or something) to sink so low :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Alba
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:42 PM

Damn Jeri,
That was gooood. I mean it says it all really..
Applause:)
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:27 PM

The short version is that Shambles is driving certain people nuts, and they're letting him know he's succeeding, and he's calling criticism and a bit of humorous ridicule 'bullying' because it's referring to his ass and its effectiveness in retaining and compressing objects, and everybody knows his stalking of Joe Offer isn't 'bullying', because he didn't talk about Joe's ass or shit or anything else scatalogical or profane, because you have to have naughty bits for it to be bullying. So anyway, Shambles is trying to convince people he's being bullied and asking what should be done to stop/prevent it, but we all know he doesn't want anything deleted, ever, and he's probably not going to leave, so maybe he wants all the 'bullies' (people who don't agree with him and say so) to leave, but that's not going to happen either, so maybe he just wants a nice thread where people pay a lot of attention to him.

And that's the short version. Any questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:08 PM

Never mind. I'll get the Reader's Digest version.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:37 PM

He's written some good songs, mind.

A relevant analogy: When you see a loose thread in a knitted garment, and it annoys you, if you startb pulling it and it just keeps on coming away, it's best not to keep on pulling till the whole garment gets unravelled. If you can't sew it back in, you cut it off short or leave it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:30 PM

Just another endless thread. sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:19 PM

It's not nice to bully people. (I don't have three hours to read the thread, so a short answer would do. Sorry to impose.) Who's getting bullied?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 07:56 PM

It is futile for a man to complain about being bullied when he spends his time hitting people in the fist with his face.

I have posted numerous messages attempting to conduct a reasoned debate without receiving a single reasoned response to any of those messages.

I have also been guilty of making personal comments, not about Shambles the man, but about his inability to discuss issues, and his sublime insistence, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that his is the only opinion of value.

I also find it frustrating that the Shambles anti authority diatribe turns up in a multitude of threads where it is not germane to the thread subject, thereby stifling debate on said subject.

Perhaps, Roger, you would like to respond to this post, and explain the grounds on which you would consider it an example of bullying.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 07:16 PM

Sham, just try to imagine the line being said in an incredulous way with a humorous tone........Like someone has just told you a whopper of a fib and is acting completely serious. Your reaction would be a grin and a "Come on now" tone with a grin......Well, try to imagine the line like that. If you can't do that, then let's just sing..............Say, are you "Sam the Sham" of Pharoahs fame?

Uno, dos, one, two, tres, quatro
Matty told Hatty about a thing she saw.
Had two big horns and a wooly jaw.
Wooly bully, wooly bully.
Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.
Hatty told Matty, "Let's don't take no chance.
Let's not be L-seven, come and learn to dance."
Wooly bully, wooly bully
Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.
Matty told Hatty, "That's the thing to do.
Get you someone really to pull the wool with you."
Wooly bully, wooly bully.
Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 07:16 PM

Look at the same people arguing with each other over the same issues. If this fool wants free speech let him have it and just ignore his damn posts. You people can not stay away. Like a bunch of flies attracted to a pile of shit you are. We have the queen of the shit pile describing the behaviour that we can clearly see for ourselves and her royal suckups. Oh a thousand pardons. That should have read her royal subjects. I can hear the tsk, tsking from here.

The rest of you are doing the same thing without the self appointed crown. So what if Roger is the crazy guy on the corner preaching his message. Go about your own damn business.

And Roger:

You really are the crazy man on the corner. Your ass is firmly planted on the yellow line in the middle of the road. Pick a side or at least be upfront enough to tell all these poor ruffled feather souls that you are f*cking with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 06:57 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: The Shambles - PM
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

And you're complaining Roger?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 06:36 PM

Calling that plea from spaw "bullying" is somewhat devaluing the term, I'd say. And I rather doubt I'd be alone in thinking that.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 06:35 PM

Shambles,

I can't remember ever responding to you but, hey, dude, chill...I've read this entire thread and can't see one instant where anyone has bullied you...

Oh, you say that Spawzer said some not-so-nice things??? Well, consider yerself lucky... There's a world of people out there who haven't been blessed by a Spaw-shot... Ain't nuthin'!!! Did he threaten to send some folks around to hurt you??? Heck no, he didn't...

The rest of these folks are just trying to jump-start you out of yer paranoia so in the words of the prophet: "Turn the radio up..."

And, for the record, life's too shorty to drink bad wine...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 06:10 PM

I bet you he doesn't Janie.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 05:47 PM

Well, I DID say that I could tell from the tone of this thread that it wasn't going to be constructive.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 05:39 PM

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

Bullying 'probably' isn't right? ………..Is it said that racism is 'probably' not right?

The only solution suggested to combat this bullying, is that the thread may be closed.....If the bullying in it gets worse. As it would seem to be currently judged that none of the current bullying posts are direct personal attacks…..

Now if the object of the bullying posters were for the thread to be closed or deleted and the open discussion in it prevented – these posters now know exactly what to do……………….

A few more posts to that thread like the one that started with the following – should do it.

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: Responses to bullying
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 04:55 PM

" Who have I asked to stop the bullying?"

For starters, stop doing it yourself....

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 04:42 PM

No Mc Grath he is highlighting hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: MMario
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 04:38 PM

Can you do so then Roger - starting from the beginning - by not assuming to know what goes on in Joe's mind, of the clones minds - since those are personal judgements being made by you.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 04:32 PM

The man is asking for NO interference, in a persistant and somewhat harassing and personally targetted manner - but at the same time complaining about the lack of interference by the targetted person to stop what he perceives as bullying directed at himself.

It is possible to address the issue without making any kind of personal judgement - if you really want to.

Who have I asked to stop the bullying?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 04:26 PM

It's a pretty simple pattern-- Roger objects to Mudcat policies, especially as they pertain to him. He starts thread after thread on some old aspect of a long-running rant, instead of simply living with the reality of the place which includes Joe Offer doing the job Max gave him to do.

Of course this will justfy all the resulting personal judgements and bullying from the usual suspects - who could of course just ignore it or even address the issue.

It doesn't work, but Roger does it over and over again. He must simply want the attention. He snags new people into it each time who think that they can actually explain something to him or persuade him through debate. Roger doesn't want explanations, nor-- I agree with you Mmario-- debate. He wants to posture about free speech in a place that allows him the free speech to do it.

Well places that allow free speech tend to be the ONLY places where you have the right of free speech. Is free speech such a bad thing?

The usual suspects are as usual ignoring the issue and being encouraged to gang-up to make the same old insults and personal judgements and saying if you don't like it go away. But the difference of course this time is that the change to the status quo is being proposed to Max by Joe Offer.

This change is no less than the end of the public's free speech on our forum. And the reason for this is that Joe Offer now admits that he has failed in imposing the peace that he requires.

Perhaps it is time that it is finally recognised that those who want a private members club are quite welcome to do this and without imposing it upon those who do not want this? Simply by going away and starting a private members club of their own where they can suck-up, judge, bully and moderate each other to their heart's content.

Peace will descend very quickly when they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Janie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 04:23 PM

If people would stop playing with him, Roger would pick up his toys and go home. At least for awhile.

When Roger gets responses or reactions to his posts and threads of this ilk, he is getting positive reinforcement for the behavior.

(and yes, that includes this post and this poster also.)

J.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 04:13 PM

There seems a certain inconsistency here.

The man is asking for NO interference, in a persistant and somewhat harassing and personally targetted manner - but at the same time complaining about the lack of interference by the targetted person to stop what he perceives as bullying directed at himself.

And I suspect this post is only too likely to be perceived as a further instance of that bullying...

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:49 PM

>>If a moderator is seen to use their judgement they cannot be seen to have a view<<

part of the reason for anonnmity of moderators - (to the best of my understanding) is so that their actions can be seperated from the percieved opinions of their public persona.

Pretty obviously the reason a moderator cannot be seen to have a view is that is that their judgement will be questioned.

Perhaps you are suggesting that for the reasons you state - we only have our current anonymous moderators and do away with those whose name, view and judgement we know only too well?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: MMario
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:40 PM

No - you've been accused of making personal attacks on Joe and those whom you have identified by name in previous posts. You have *ALSO* made spurious suppositions about people you cannot identify.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:34 PM

You are claiming to know the mindset and the rational for the actions of people whom you admit you do not know the identiy of. If you don't know who they are, how can you know their mindset and the rational of their actions?

I am also accused of personally attacking these who I do not know the identity of......You work it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:33 PM

alba thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:31 PM

instead of simply living with the reality of the place which includes Joe Offer doing the job Max gave him to do.

joe has admitted he wants to change the set up because the job max gave him isn't enough anymore to maintain his idea of 'peace.'

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Alba
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:30 PM

Guest 03:21 PM Thanks for the advice:)

I appreciate it but,

1. I am not fretting
2. Stick to the point. Actually #1 cancels out #2 in my case.
There is no point imo.
Thanks for dropping in. Maybe you are related to Guest 02:34PM.
Hope you stick around and you might even decide to join the Mudcat....along with all the other Guests on this Thread.
Have a great Day
J

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:26 PM

School children...exactly. Can't adults discuss without hurling personal insults. Why should shambles get out of the kitchen because of others immaturity.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:25 PM

It's a pretty simple pattern-- Roger objects to Mudcat policies, especially as they pertain to him. He starts thread after thread on some old aspect of a long-running rant, instead of simply living with the reality of the place which includes Joe Offer doing the job Max gave him to do.

It doesn't work, but Roger does it over and over again. He must simply want the attention. He snags new people into it each time who think that they can actually explain something to him or persuade him through debate. Roger doesn't want explanations, nor-- I agree with you Mmario-- debate. He wants to posture about free speech in a place that allows him the free speech to do it.

In any event, his view is not up for debate. It always boils down to a point in the FAQ he thinks ought not apply to him or that he thinks ONLY applies (and unfairly) to him. I've never seen one of his "positions," yet, that didn't have a clear answer in the FAQ.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: fat B****rd
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:21 PM

From where I sit in the UK "Bullying" is what causes schoolchildren to hang themselves and school payouts in compenation to escalate. Generally speaking I find the Mudcat pleasurable but lately far too heavy going. If you insult anybody here they're hardly likely to come round and punch you out. Obviously some of us take Cyber hostility to heart. I really believe that in these cases it's quite simple, if you can't stand the heat etcetc.
All the best from Charlie fB

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:21 PM

Then again you could always stop fretting and stick to the point?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Alba
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:15 PM

It's hard John. Confusion may arise because Guest 03:03 PM may not be Guest 02:49 PM or even Guest 02:03 PM or come to think of it Guest 01:32 PM may have nothing to do with Guest 02:49pm or
Guest 01:35 PM and it is possible that Guest 02.03pm is the same Guest as Guest 12:34 PM...

Good grief!

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:12 PM

Good.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:05 PM

I refuse to get into a discussion with someone who doesn't have the guts to put their opinion under his/her own name!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:03 PM

Guest - in asking for *NO interference* Shambles is trying to impose his desire of how the forum should be run on the owner of the site - who has set it up in another manner. In fact - he claims it is his RIGHT to have no interference - on someone else's private site. You do not see this as interference and the desire to impose his will on others?



The interference that the clones currently undertake according to joe is not enough to keep the peace. If someone who is resposible for part of the interference has admitted it isn't working Shambles is more than within his rights to suggest an alternative ; just like Joe has.

Joe wants to change the set up of the site to suit his idea of peace. Based purely on how he percieves the tone of a thread. Pretty tenuous don't you think? Unless you also think we all have the identical perceptions.

Shambles wants to see how it runs with no interference. Without trying it out none of you know whether the current interference is merited or not. What exactly is so scary and radical about that?

---

Dang. And I woulda sworn I said I cannot control the tone of a thread or the Forum, that I can only do damage control by deleting messages that are clearly personal attacks. I can often predict the tone of a thread from the way it starts, but I sure as heck can't control it.
Nobody understands me....

But yeah, I guess I do have to admit that the proposal for members-only BS posting does have a significant impact on anonymous Guests.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: MMario
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:54 PM

Guest - in asking for *NO interference* Shambles is trying to impose his desire of how the forum should be run on the owner of the site - who has set it up in another manner. In fact - he claims it is his RIGHT to have no interference - on someone else's private site. You do not see this as interference and the desire to impose his will on others?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:49 PM

Once again you use weasel words to insinuate that you or I or any other ordinary Mudcat Member, hereafter known as an OMM, have a right to interfere in how this site is run.
Giok

Shambles is asking for NO interference.

Just can't help yourself can you? And you are the chief jumper up and downer asking for threads to be closed everytime someone posts an opinion that doesn't coincide with your own. Get a grip.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: MMario
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:40 PM

If a moderator is seen to use their judgement they cannot be seen to have a view

*IN YOUR OPINION*

part of the reason for anonnmity of moderators - (to the best of my understanding) is so that their actions can be seperated from the percieved opinions of their public persona.

You are claiming to know the mindset and the rational for the actions of people whom you admit you do not know the identiy of. If you don't know who they are, how can you know their mindset and the rational of their actions?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:38 PM

Not to bully anyone or to in any way try to intimidate them, but I must point out that once again Roger your analogy with policemen and judges is flawed.
The police and the judges uphold the law, which is made by our MPs who are ELECTED, remember that Roger elected. Now in a democracy they have elections and those thus elected run the country. On Mudcat nobody is elected, some are appointed, and some are proprietors, but in neither case are they answerable to you or anybody else on this forum, apart from Max who appointed them.
Once again you use weasel words to insinuate that you or I or any other ordinary Mudcat Member, hereafter known as an OMM, have a right to interfere in how this site is run.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:29 PM

It's a matter of judgment and balance and timing - rigid rules don't really work very well in forum moderation.
Joe Offer

If you are going to have any form of moderation - rigid and consistently enforced rules are the only way that protects both the poster and the moderator.

If a moderator is seen to use their judgement they cannot be seen to have a view.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:14 PM

One thing that has not been pointed out - and I am now pointing it forthwith - is that a good many of the posts are made not only in response to that individual thread but as an outgrowth of what The Shambles has written in PMs to the posters.

Ebbie the implication you have made here is that the few PM we have exchanged were suspect in some way. Perhaps you would care to correct this implication?

And perhaps also the implication of what other posters may have exchanged - which you would have little knowledge of - both the the content and the ammount of them - but which you describe as an 'outgrowth'.

PMs are there to be used. Perhaps if they were used more often for the purpose they were intended - there would less personal judgements made in public?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:14 PM

Yup, just as I recall-- if someone is being bullied, the thing to do it contact Joe or Pene Azul or Max (PRIVATELY as repeatedly asked) about it.

From the FAQ:

Heated discussions are generally considered "protected" around here, but if you find a post that is seriously offensive because it is a threat or a personal attack, let Joe or Pene (or Max) know about it and we'll take a look at it.

Generally, we expect people to settle their own differences, and we will ordinarily refuse to delete a message unless there is a serious reason for us to do it.

There are some people who use the Internet as their platform for hatred and racism. We will not allow Mudcat to be used as a vehicle for hate information, and we will delete all racist information as soon as it comes to our attention.

If you post a message and there have been no responses, we'll usually honor your request to delete your own message. Same thing if the message is a personal attack against you. If people have responded directly to the message, it may be inappropriate for us to delete it. We do the best we can, but at times we have to make unpopular decisions.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: MMario
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:09 PM

Roger - you say that:My view is that what are described as 'editors' really operate more as policemen and judges. Who honestly feel that their judgement - when imposed upon others should be unquestionable and as a result can only respond when this judgement is questioned, by assuming that those who are questioning this judgement are some form of enemy or rival. An enemy to be told that if they do not like things as they are that they should leave.

That is your opinion - but you base your whole aregument on that opinion - when you have now way of knowing if that is fact or not. In fact, you continue to base you aurgument on that opinion even though you have been told by people who are involved in the process that that opinion is contrary to the actual facts of the matter.

SPECIFICALLY - you have been told repeatedly - and by more then one person - that the joe-clones can and are overseen and that their decsions can be, have been and are sometimes over-ruled. that one fact (and it is fact, not opinion) negates your hyposthesis that "honestly feel that their judgement - when imposed upon others should be unquestionable " since it is a basic given that any decision they make can be overuled how can they be unquestionable?

That decisions and actions be subject to review and that they be unquestionable are mutually contridictory - both conditions cannot obtain.

Therefore your conclusion that "as a result can only respond when this judgement is questioned, by assuming that those who are questioning this judgement are some form of enemy or rival" is equally invalid.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Grab
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:08 PM

I have to say, if Catspaw had attributed that to me, I'd be in shits, sorry, fits of laughter...

Graham.

PS. Glad the "Responses to racism" thread *didn't* get deleted, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: number 6
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:05 PM

I'm not going to get involved in this ... just another Mad Tea Party here at the MudCat .... and yes, it is Friday isn't it?

But I will add that I think Joe is doing a pretty good job here ... regardless of all the crap that goes on.

Six (and that is my 2 bits to this useless squabble)

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:03 PM

Oh, I suppose there's certainly a lot of subjectivity in analyzing the tone of a thread, or the tone of the forum. Whatever the case, I think it's fairly clear that this "bullying" thread didn't have a constructive tone to start out with, and it went downhill from there. For that matter, it would have been far more constructive to confront the "bullying" head on, where it was alleged to have occurred, rather than starting a new thread to complain about an aspect of another thread.

But yeah, I think most people can make a fairly consistent judgment on whether the general tone of a message or a thread is constructive or destructive. Whether that judgment is objective or subjective may be a matter of opinion - but the judgment can be fairly accurate, nonetheless.

But anyhow, what's your point???

Three question marks? One would have done the job.

Again your personal judgement on the tone of a thread. So shambles posted in the wrong way? And his tone was wrong? And another thread was unnecessary? I am beginning to think he has more than a point.

Too many people jump in to criticise how/when and why others post. And some then delete what doesn't float their particular boat. While others jump up and down shouting "Delete this, close that."

There is NO consistency. Your opinion carries no more weight than shambles in reality. The only difference is you have the pack dogs to snarl for you. It was building up into quite a frenzy wasn't it?

I did point out the nasty nature of the bullying in the relevant thread. I also think if shambles thinks it warrants a new thread it is his right to post one.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:04 PM

Well, I could delete it...

Why don't you give it all a break and admit that the editors here are very careful about limiting their deletions to only the most troublesome posts and threads, and that they do so only to allow other people to carry on peaceful and enjoyable communication. When there's too much adversity in the forum, communication becomes impossible. We (we volunteers) seek to control the adversity, not the communication.

Because that is NOT my experience and NOT my honest view so why should I need to be bullied by you and your supporters until I finally see the light and accept this view?

My view is that what are described as 'editors' really operate more as policemen and judges. Who honestly feel that their judgement - when imposed upon others should be unquestionable and as a result can only respond when this judgement is questioned, by assuming that those who are questioning this judgement are some form of enemy or rival. An enemy to be told that if they do not like things as they are that they should leave.

Is is right that the impartiality and identity of those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters should be open to question. And to do this without the posters who are brave enough to make this attempt being subject to the form of collective bullying with persoanal judgements being made about every aspect of their personality that we see now almost daily?

I just hold, and try to express and evidence a view. Disagreement is not adversity but the idea that the view held and expressed by our policemen and judges is a correct one and that anyone who does not agree is an adversary - is what is making this bullying look as if it is being encouraged and to encourage those who are doing the bullying

Real policemen and judges may have their personal views, preferences and tastes but must put them to one side to enable them to their jobs and to be seen to be impartial. It is obviously that over this issue - our policemen and judges are not impartial.

When as now - our policeman and judge is admitting that they are now unable to produce the peace they require can now only propose to Max that the whole way we have contributed to our forum must end - my view is that it it those who hold this view who should go and finally leave the rest of us alone. That this is seen by some as only as a personal attack upon Joe Offer is demonstrating my view.

I don't think that my or any other poster's bowel movements, sense of humour, marital status, social life, writing ability, spelling, grammar etc etc should be encouraged to be the subject of public conversation, jokes and judgement.

But it is entirely the result of the form of policing our forum, that is only done by personal judgement of individual posters and their merits. For everyone is now encourged by this to make similar judgements of every other poster. So as everyone's judgement is as good or as bad as anyone else's - everyone is encourged that making all these personal judgements (both good and not so good) are what our forum is now all about.

It is not. Our forum about discussion and views freely expressed from the public. It is not possible for our policemen and judges to be seen to both have a view on this and to be seen to be acting impartially.

It is both ammusing and pretty obvious from the thread in question that those who historically see that they should be seen to be unquestionably supporting our policemen and judges and feel they are encouraged to see any poster with a contrary view as an adversary - are torn by this proposal.

Even those who are posting against the proposal are terrified to be seen to be wording it in a way that looks too much as if they may be agreeing with anyone who holds a different view to our policemen and judges. The only way out is to indulge themselves in bullying and attempt to justify this.

There can be no justification for any form of bullying?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:50 PM

Oh, I suppose there's certainly a lot of subjectivity in analyzing the tone of a thread, or the tone of the forum. Whatever the case, I think it's fairly clear that this "bullying" thread didn't have a constructive tone to start out with, and it went downhill from there. For that matter, it would have been far more constructive to confront the "bullying" head on, where it was alleged to have occurred, rather than starting a new thread to complain about an aspect of another thread.

But yeah, I think most people can make a fairly consistent judgment on whether the general tone of a message or a thread is constructive or destructive. Whether that judgment is objective or subjective may be a matter of opinion - but the judgment can be fairly accurate, nonetheless.

But anyhow, what's your point???

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:48 PM

For some of the women on the Mudcat, true bullying has been much more subtle.

Shambles has written some good songs, but when he begins anew on his long-time campaign to dump Joe and the clones, he becomes ponderous, repetitive, and illogical. When you hammer away at good folks long enough, Shambles, they will hammer back.

katcleaningupthelitterinthebackgardenthatSpawkickedup

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:41 PM

"basic concept of respect for one's fellow man"

Respect is to be earned.... Shambles hasn't...

Or with his constant whining and sucking, has cashed what little he had, in....

"what The Shambles has written in PMs to the posters"
Continuing to send unwanted PMs is grounds for being banned on every single decent web forum on the internet....   Why not here too?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:35 PM

Joe the tone of a thread is how the reader interprets it. Purely subjective. Personal insults are easier to spot.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:32 PM

I doubt very much if his pm's contain the nasty peurile comments the pack dogs are dishing out with glee on the other thread. And some are continuing to do on this thread. Totally pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:30 PM

No, I just can't see the spaw comment that was served up there again as "bullying", not in context.

It had, oddly enough, a lightness of touch and elegance about it. A insult like that is something to take some pride in - the way you have public figures getting onto newspaper cartoonists to let them have the original of some well-crafted caricature.

I do recognise that bullying and mobbing can be a problem, and even when we may think the target has invited it in some way we have to be careful, because it can easily get pout of hand. And I think this is one of the main reasons why an element of monitoring and moderating is valuable - which, as JennyO pointed out, in this particular case, in the light of the precipitating preoccupation, is somewhat paradoxical.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:30 PM

Roger brings up an interesting question, though. I don't think bullying is the total problem here. I think the Forum turns sour when there's a general lack of respect and tolerance, when people aren't willing to give other people the benefit of the doubt, when people find a need to destroy other people. When the discussion turns destructive, instead of constructive, that's when we get into trouble.

Martin Gibson doesn't understand this. He thinks that as long as he doesn't say bad words, he should be left alone to attack people in whatever way he sees fit. That's why Martin gets most of his messages deleted. He doesn't understand the basic concept of respect for one's fellow man. I think he's on the verge of coming to that understanding, and I think he'll be a nice person to have around if he ever gets to that point.

That being said, I don't like the tone of this thread, or the tone of BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?, or the tone of almost all the Shambles threads. They start out with the implication that the Mudcat editors are dishonest people who are out to do evil - how can a thread be constructive when it starts out like that? I don't like the tone of Responses to Racism either - although it didn't start out being destructive. No, I'm not going to delete any of these threads, Roger.

I can't do anything to control whether the tone of the forum is constructive or destructive - that's a matter of the general attitude of the community. All I can do is damage control when Mudcat gets nasty. I hate that nastiness. I really do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:58 PM

One thing that has not been pointed out - and I am now pointing it forthwith - is that a good many of the posts are made not only in response to that individual thread but as an outgrowth of what The Shambles has written in PMs to the posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:53 PM

Your third paragraph above states that you are making no personal Judgement, I quote the following 'gems' from you own posts, most of which are indirect attacks on Joe Offer

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

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?

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?

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.


Read learn and inwardly digest as they used to say.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:50 PM

I stayed out of the other thread, having nothing new to say, but I was surprised by the some of the comments--I think that Roger is right--and I think that Clinton illustrates the point--

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: MMario
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:50 PM

BTW- Roger - based on the last few years of YOUR postings - 'Spaw's description of you seems to be pretty accurate. That *is* how you present yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:49 PM

Who proposed deleting which thread, Roger? I don't think anybody proposed to delete any thread, so what the heck are you talking about? When you take people's words and twist them into an argumentum ad absurdum, isn't that a form of bullying? Or badgering, at the very least.

And have people responded to you by bullying, or have they simply pointed out the inherent and constant absurdity of your argument?

Why don't you give it all a break and admit that the editors here are very careful about limiting their deletions to only the most troublesome posts and threads, and that they do so only to allow other people to carry on peaceful and enjoyable communication. When there's too much adversity in the forum, communication becomes impossible. We (we volunteers) seek to control the adversity, not the communication.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Janie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:47 PM

It may be reasonable to expect us to act like civilized adults. That doesn't, however, mean it is REALISTIC to have those expectations:>)

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: MMario
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:46 PM

Roger - you say 'I am expressing it in a civil manner, sticking to the point and not making personal judgements?

Many people have expressed their opinions that your manner is not civil, you demonstrably do NOT stick to the point and you constantly make personal judgements - as evidenced by you misqouting, qwouting out of context and other examples that you have posted repeatedly.

You also state: " This may indeed be your perception - but there is evidence in text of MANY people encouraging others not only to not respond in a bullying manner but to not respond to you at all! How is this encouragement?

Lastly - you reiterate that you are trying to promote open debate. Constantly and adamently repeating your own personal view - which a great number of people have refuted; is not debate. When presented with fact you either ignore them or change the subject. This is not debate. You take offense and demand apologies but when you commit the same offense you neither offer apologies nor admit to your offense. You present a prejudicial and demonstrably mis-interpreted viewpoint and then claim it to be for the greater good.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:39 PM

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: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:35 PM

Responses To Racism was not deleted - why would there be any question of deleting this thread?

?? Roger - in all seriousness - why is what people say to YOU bullying - but your comments about Joe, the clones, and various other people are "reasoned discussion"?

Because although you may not agree with what I am saying - I am expressing it in a civil manner, sticking to the point and not making personal judgements? If you are accusing me of anything else - please supply some evidence. But even if this were the case - would this justify the group bullying response that seems to be encouraged?

But are you saying that I am the only poster ever to be subject to this form of bullying or that no one else will or could be? My fear is that this bullying response by certain members is seen to be encouraged.

When you see abusive and offensive comments being made at a poster's expense in threads where they have made no imput - and no one espresses any concern about this - it is a sign that something needs addressing.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:34 PM

It HAS degenerated into a nasty little thread full of nasty little comments. They are personal and insulting. At least shambles is trying to put across an opinion and open debate. The grinning trolls that are currently pack hunting have nothing to offer the debate. Mudcat at it's finest. Well done ladies and gentlemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:31 PM

I really don't get where "bullying" applies much here... Yeah, sure, there will be times when no one agrees with you and times when lots of folks agree with you... When they don't agree with you it just means that lots of folks are going to jump on you.. Like who cares, really???

That's one nice thing about this joint... If you don't like what's going on you can step back from it, collect your thoughts and have at it, or not, some more... Yeah, I remember a few times when no one agreed with me and, hey, that's okay... Remember my "AID's" thread??? Boy, that was a hoot and a half... Not one person really chi9med in saying, "Well, maybe Bobert does have a point..."

No, it was a cyber-whuppin'... But like I said: who really cares???

This joint is entertaining and informative but it ainh't no life or death thing here in the Catbox... Just a bunch of folks scratchin' about...

So like I used to tell my dad when he would complain about various squeaks and rattles in his car: "Turn the radio up..."

(But, Bobert. Haven't you on at least a couple occasions asked that another member's posts be deleted???)

Well, yeah I have but that was because the posts were intended to highjack threads and not because I was intimidated by them...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:28 PM

No, it does seem like recent messages in that thread are bullying Roger, and that probably isn't right. None of those message is an outright personal attack, so we usually leave borderline stuff like that alone. If the entire tone to the thread turns toward bullying, then we might close it. If the entire Forum has a nasty tone - which happens at times - then we tend to be a little more ruthless in deleting entire threads if they're contentious. It's a matter of judgment and balance and timing - rigid rules don't really work very well in forum moderation.
Trouble is, the thread started out with a bullying, badgering tone - and we let it continue in the name of free speech, to honor the sensitivities of the thread originator. If we did any editing on that particular thread, we'd have to put up with another half-dozen 600-message threads telling us what tyrants we are.
So, it's a hard call to make. In cases like that, we usually step back and hope the whole thing goes away.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: JennyO
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:20 PM

Do you think that expressing what may be an unpopular view, entitles all aspects of a posters assumed personality to be open to personal judgements? And conversations, abuse and jokes about them should be encouraged to be made publicly and thought acceptable?

Well now, here's a nice little paradox! Shambles, your entire campaign has supposedly been about allowing free speech on Mudcat without censorship. SURELY you're not suggesting that Joe should impose his personal judgment and (shudder) delete some posters' comments on here, are you?

Can't have it both ways, ya know.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:13 PM

It does seem to me that it's Joe who's the target of any attempted bullying in that thread. Though perhaps niggling and nagging are better words.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:12 PM

The best way to deal with more than one bully is to offer them UNEQUAL tribute (ex. candy)
As they fight between themselves...brain them both.

When dealing with one bully, lure him to a location where he will expect tribute...and brain him.

When dealing with Shambles... _____ ___

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Janie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:09 PM

I agree Shambles. I think you should stop trying to bully Joe and the rest of the 'Cat immediately.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:07 PM

"Well, I could delete it..."

So what's keeping you???

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM

You WISH you had my life

You wish you had a life HALF a good as mine

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: MMario
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM

?? Roger - in all seriousness - why is what people say to YOU bullying - but your comments about Joe, the clones, and various other people are "reasoned discussion"? Your double standards are showing more and more.

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM

Clinton, you may not care for Shambles but he makes a lot more sense than you.

And...is you life as miserable as you make it sound?

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:04 PM

Well, I could delete it...

Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:02 PM

Oh will you sack the hell up....

Then do the world a favour and disconnect your internet connection

Fucking sobby little sucky-baby...

Subject: BS: Responses to bullying
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:00 PM

Proposal for members only posting of BS

On the thread linked to you will find an example of the bullying of an individual poster. This form of group bullying now seems to be thought acceptable by some members of our forum and largely ignored by the remainder. Perhaps for fear of being subject to this bullying it also?

This is not the only example but I would welcome some views on how this bullying can best be dealt with and how it can be prevented?

Or perhaps as suggested in this example you may think that - the 'victim' has only themselves to blame, even in case when the so -called 'victim' has not responded in kind but tried to stick to that thread's subject?

Do you think that expressing what may be an unpopular view, entitles all aspects of a posters assumed personality to be open to personal judgements? And conversations, abuse and jokes about them should be encouraged to be made publicly and thought acceptable?