BS: Non posting of judgements week.

Subject: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:59 PM

When you publicly posts things like - 'I think that sucks' or 'I think that is wonderful' - does this really add much to a discussion?

As the posting only of personal judgements (good or not so good) of what our fellow posters choose to contribute does not appear to serve any useful purpose and can be counter-productive - perhaps it would be good idea for us to try and resist only posting such things?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: number 6
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 11:00 PM

Right on Shambles !!

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 11:20 PM

How about "That would be a great idea if only it didn't suck so much."?

It doesn't further the discussion, but it gives everyone an opportunity to go "Huh?".

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 11:21 PM

OK, Shambles. One week.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: number 6
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 11:22 PM

Good point!

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John O'L
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 04:19 AM

In a conversation between an unknown number of people who are coming and going constantly (or not), I think something like 'I think that sucks' or 'I agree with that' may be valid comments.

I don't usually make such posts however, and am therefore happy to refrain from doing so for a week. What happens then? Do we assess what we have gained against what we have lost and set guidelines for the following week?

Man, that really s... Oh, that's right.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 05:42 AM

I think it's a crap idea.

Well, you knew there had to be one. Might as well be me!

I think it's a great idea realy. Oh hang on... Perhaps I had better not be so judgemental. Arrggghhh. There I go again, judging myself. Maybe I shouldn't be judgemental at all? Tell me, what do you think? Or is that asking you to judge?

Disappears in a puff of flawed logic...

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 06:13 AM

Making a value judgement entails evaluation.
Choosing not to make a value judgement entails wilful failure to evaluate.
IMO failure to evaluate creates more problems than it resolves.
But, then again, who am I to judge?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 06:43 AM

But won't it have to start next week, since this thread inherently includes a judgement of the posting of judgemental remarks?

(Just being fascetious, of course, and only suggesting that a judgement may be required: not actually intending to make one.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 06:56 AM

Also no criticizing of spelling mistakes. We don't want to engage in judgment (though I understand that now "judgment" and "judgement" are both OK.) Of course that is a totally objective statement and does not mean to imply any personal opinion. Is the week over yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:05 AM

Ron,you ask if the week is over yet,which is a perfectly reasonable question.
However answering it requires a judgement so I'm afraid nobody can help you with that one.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM

I'm sorry I made a shambles, so to speak, of my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:11 AM

As no one can determine when the week ends it will continue for all eternity.
In my judgement.
Now I'm doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:12 AM

Is Mr. Bush going into Iran looking for a dog? (seems a safe enough question for the week--and it's how the thread titles run now).

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:19 AM

Another important question from the threads--Who designs HP sauce?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:22 AM

I've read that thread.Apparently it was Michael Caine.
Not a lot of people know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:23 AM

Spelling mistakes suck.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

Gee, since that answers the question, this could be a short thread. But you didn't mean to imply that it was your judgment that Michael Caine had designed HP sauce, I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:27 AM

IMHO the majority of conversation comes down to personal opinion and judgement, unless one sticks to the banal.

Sometimes a few words of encouragement for an idea or pronouncement is all that is needed. Sometimes, maybe, a post only merits a short ctiticism, hopefully of the subject matter, not the poster.

I shall continue to be 'judgemental' where I deem it appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:28 AM

Good thing I have to go to work now-otherwise I might be sorely tempted to make a judgment on the sense of this thread. Wow, that was close.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:30 AM

Not in the least. The information is culled from the HP thread.
I opened it & read right through it.
Which is unfortunate because I was only supposed to blow the bloody door off.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM

Because we know that the originator of the thread only wanted to eliminate all hard feelings on Mudcat (while, of course, preserving the wit, spirit, and general rambunctiousness of Mudcat). Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 07:45 AM

Your first post here, Shablesis full of implicit judgement of others. I still wait for the time you follow just once and just one of your endless stream of advices to others.

Could you not make the point by setting an example by your actions (something which you are always quick to remind others)? You could have made that easily by not starting this thread for instance.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM

I can't hold out any longer.....

You will be taken from this court to the prison whence you came, and thence to a lawful place of execution, where you will be hanged by the neck until you are dead; and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul!

(is that a complete sentence?)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 08:30 AM

Not using our judgement in our posting is not what is being suggested.

However, we all can prevent a lot of nastiness on our forum by not simply posting only what is just a personal judgement of another poster or the worth of their contribution or indulge in public conversations about them.

For why or what anyone else may choose to post is out of our control and any form of personal judgement posted on this subject will only result in many responses in kind. None of them adding much to any discussion.

This is (still as yet) a discussion forum that is open to the public. What is important in any form of discussion is enabling and encouraging people to feel they are free and safe to make their contribution.

Who may be saying it - matters little and any public speculation on what another poster's motives may be, or passing public judgement on their spelling or grammar etc - is pointless and adds nothing to the discussion exempt the possibility of inhibiting and limiting it.

Our forum was not always conducted in the form we see now. Sadly a different example has been set, where passing judgement on one's fellow posters would appear to be the only game in town.

It is not too late for a return to the lack of judgement, division and spirit of tolerance that our forum was founded on.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 08:32 AM

"Is that a complete sentence?"
No,Paul it's a suspended sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:05 AM

For someone who thinks his every word is sacrosanct to suggest that the words of others are of a lesser value, and should be limited to suit him is a bit along the lines of 'Don't do as I do, do as I say'
Sorry Roger but if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen mate.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:05 AM

LOL PF

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:11 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 08:30 AM

... Our forum was not always conducted in the form we see now. Sadly a different example has been set, where passing judgement on one's fellow posters would appear to be the only game in town.

It is not too late for a return to the lack of judgement, division and spirit of tolerance that our forum was founded on....


Subject: RE: BS: Copy Cat threads....??
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:28 PM

... will you accept that what other posters choose to read, post or ignore remains no one else's business but theirs?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:16 AM

one week, huh? Gee, now I have to figure out where to save 'em up till the week is over.....and whether to do a core dump on day 8, or parcel 'em out slowly for a few weeks.

This could be a problem for me...ooops!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:17 AM

Thank you Susan..........

Confucius said, "The gentleman calls attention to the good points in others; he does not call attention to their defects.
The small man does just the reverse of this."

Confucianism. Analects 12.16

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:24 AM

Oh fudge!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:25 AM

Would whoever bought him that book of quotations and aphorisms for Christmas please own up?
Giok.☺

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:28 AM

Just interpret it all subjectively as you go through the available evidence. Sift it into what you consider reasonable and what you don't. The conclusions you will come to will support your established view of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:28 AM

Thumper's mommy says "If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing at all."

therefore:∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:30 AM

Judge not, that you be not judged.
For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

Matthew 7.1-5

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM

and anyway, people who get an ego boost out of criticising
the grammar and spelling of 'lesser' mortals
well, they are just a bunch of petty minded pedantic cnuts !

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:38 AM

Do not judge thy comrade until thou hast stood in his place.

Mishnah, Abot 2.5

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:39 AM

Righty ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: MMario
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM

Why does "Practice what you preach" come to mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:52 AM

Happy is the person who finds fault with himself instead of finding fault with others.

Hadith

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 10:08 AM

"It is not too late for a return to the lack of judgement, division and spirit of tolerance that our forum was founded on."

Are we supposed to refrain from judging this sentence? I wouldn't even know how to begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM

"You will be taken from this court to the prison whence you came, and thence to a lawful place of execution, where you will be hanged by the neck until you are dead; and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul!

(is that a complete sentence?)"

It's four of 'em. But as they say, no noose is good noose.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

Nah. I still think the originator of this thread is a devious little man who gets jollies out of creating circular arguments and playing the martyr. I believe that I will hijack this thread and start cutting and pasting his own contradictory posts. .........Nah, too much work. I will just give my judgement that he and most of his posts have very little worth to anyone but him.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 10:34 AM

Tough thing though when the guy has a neat idea and he gets shot down for it before the fuckin' horse is out the gate.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 10:36 AM

I always thought that a sentance started with a captital and ended with a full stop. Or is it capital punishment that ends with a full stop? Or seeing as that can only be decided by a judge is that too judgemental?

I give up!

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 10:51 AM

The vile are ever prone to detect the faults of others, though they be as small as mustard seeds, and persistently shut their eyes against their own, though they be as large as Vilva fruit.

Garuda Purana 112

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:12 AM

OK. I guess that I just don't understand. Is the request being made that no one give just their opinion without first explaining their reasoning? Is "I don't agree", or "I agree." no longer acceptable? Isn't "I agree" a judgement?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM

it's purty murky waters, Ebbie. Philosophers call it getting into meta-debate. (trying to define the conditions under which the definitions can BE defined)

"I can't decide whether to have octopus soufflé for lunch." Is not deciding a decision?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:26 AM

Yes Bill & not choosing is a choice.
Which is bad news for people who can't be bothered to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: number 6
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:31 AM

"Spelling mistakes suck."

I certianly agree wiht that statment.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:32 AM

I'm one of the few people, probably, who has not yet eaten calamari. (I hope that is not too judgmental.) One of these times I think I will choose to try it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:35 AM

It's good at Christmas Ebbie.
If you have a large family everyone can still have a leg each.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:35 AM

Every conquering temptation represents a new fund of moral energy. Every trial endured and weathered in the right spirit makes a soul nobler and stronger than it was before.

William Butler Yeats
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OK. I guess that I just don't understand. Is the request being made that no one give just their opinion without first explaining their reasoning? Is "I don't agree", or "I agree." no longer acceptable? Isn't "I agree" a judgement?

If someone posts only to judge you to be a c**t - or that what you have posted is judged by them to be shit and a public conversation about you takes place - is that a pleasant judgement to inflict upon you or a pleasant thing to read about yourself and a good example to set or add anything to a discussion?

If someone then posts only to say that they agree with this judgement or that they do not - is that a good example to set or add anything to a discussion?

If you or someone else responds in kind - is this a pleasant thing to inflict upon the rest of our forum, setting a good example or adding anything to a discussion?

Are such examples liable to encourage anyone to feel free and safe to join a discussion or liable to encourage the idea that this is the sort of online behaviour that is now required on our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:44 AM

Doesn't seem to stop new people coming in, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 12:01 PM

The majority of posts above have shot Shambles down. The intent of what he said in his first post is clear, IMO. People are doing to Roger what they say he is always doing. So, who does that say what about?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 12:02 PM

For every original thinker there are a thousand lesser fools only too happy to parrot her utterances, lacking the wit themselves to coin a pithy phrase.
Me, just now

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 12:16 PM

The best way to win against the intolerable is to tolerate them, for this they have seldom dealt with.
Your indulgence may soften their malice and open their eyes to more honorable ways.

Bryant H. McGill

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 12:21 PM

Shambles - would you be so kind as to share the address of the website where all of these quotes are listed ? It looks like an interesting place. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 12:36 PM

http://www.google.co.uk/

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 12:39 PM

Here come da Judge! Here come da Judge! Order in da court 'cause here come da Judge!

Sammy Davis Jr.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 01:01 PM

When a person's spelling and or grammar are so bad that the reader has no clue what they are trying to say, I think of the statement , "Language was created so we can converse, and understand each other." Now, if you tend to talk backwards, (Throw Mamma from the train a kiss..." or you leave out connecting words, you should expect some heat from those who are capable of clear thinking. Don't blame them for your own shortcomings. Try to rise to their level of education, instead of expecting them to sink to yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 01:04 PM

Worrying about setting an "example", to my mind, has value mainly when one is teaching youngsters. Surely peers don't need permission?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 01:07 PM

Choice of attention - to pay attention to this and ignore that - is to the inner life what choice of action is to the outer. In both cases, a man is responsible for his choice and must accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

W. H. Auden

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 01:24 PM

It is easy to ignore responsibility when one is only an intermediate link in a chain of action.

Stanley Milgram

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 01:37 PM

"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself."

Guest Geust, my head has spent considerable time in books. That's where I learned to spell, and to use correct grammar.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 01:52 PM

Example has more followers than reason. We unconsciously imitate what pleases us, and approximate to the characters we most admire.

Christian Nestell Bovee

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:08 PM

Needing 'permission' from Example frequently stems from cowardice. Bontrager

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Martin gibson
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:09 PM

yes this thread does suck, but Big Mick was pretty arrogant about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:09 PM

"If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, only the one it hits will yelp." Conficius

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM

No, I think that quote's from Kendal Morse.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM

It's a favorite of mine but it is not mine. It sounds more like George Carlin.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:32 PM

Guest 12:02, that was very good!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:32 PM

"...only the one it hits will yelp."

but a lot of them will run.....

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM

I'm going to be like Bill D and save mine up 'till next week, THEN I'll let them assholes know what I think of them;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:50 PM

Hey, Bert. Let's you and I save it for a week and then start a thread wherein we give each other shit for stuff. OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 03:27 PM

010100110110100001100
etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

Am I supposed to delete dyslexic personal attacks, too?
-Eoj Reffo-

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,going deaf
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM

eh? what's that? you say Mick's nuts are the size of mustard seeds?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

That sounds good Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 04:45 PM

well, well, well..

my last remark has been deleted.. what a surprise !?


now no-one will ever know the reason why GUEST 01:01 PM /01:37 PM


is ******* up his/her over-inflated sense of self-importance,
and being such a contemptous **** !

oh well...

[check the ***s for spelling if you like..
I did, with the Oxford Dictionary,
and they're correct enough
to satisfy the most pedantic of supercilious ********* !]

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 04:48 PM

OK then Bert.

We'll take other names for that period of time. Would you prefer to be Ralph or Sam?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 06:49 PM

"From: Paul Burke - PM
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM

I can't hold out any longer.....

You will be taken from this court to the prison whence you came, and thence to a lawful place of execution, where you will be hanged by the neck until you are dead; and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul!

(is that a complete sentence?)"


I have given this matter considerable thought, and have reached the conclusion that the sentence, complete or not, is a capital sentence.

I hope that this conclusion will not be considered too judgemental, but I do have an unfortunate tendency to become mental when I judge.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 03:40 AM

Rule 1: Remember the human.

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule1.html

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:05 AM

Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone

John 8:7.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:38 AM

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem, Roger.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:50 AM

Timmy O'Daniels ate Donna Ferranti.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:55 AM

I ate Doner Kebab!
G. ☻

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:01 AM

Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι ουδὲν οἶδα
            (Σωκράτης)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:07 AM

This is becoming a "Classic" thread.
Sub specie aeternitatis.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:10 AM

I would start a "Non-posting of quotations week" thread, but it might upset the copycat thread police.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:24 AM

Each person must live their life as a model for others.

Rosa Parks

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:12 AM

Everyone knows that personal attacks are NOT permitted here. If you can't make your case without resorting to attacks, shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:30 AM

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Luke 18:11-12

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:07 AM

"When every man is a prophet, does anyone have anything worth saying?"

unknown..

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:54 AM

Rule 2: Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule2.html

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:08 AM

Shambles, my 8 year old neighbor can use Google and come up with quotes that prove about any point and its antithesis in about 1 1/2 minutes. Surely this does nothing to enhance your reputation.

As to the poster who thinks I came on in an arrogant way, you haven't been putting up with this since 1998 or so. This man sets himself up to get shot down, then attacks for shooting him down.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:14 AM

Thank you Mick for alway being so willing to oblige.

But would you think that I or any other poster would be interested in your judgement of another poster?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:15 AM

quack, quack, quack, quack

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:18 AM

Rule 3: Know where you are in cyberspace

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule3.html

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:30 AM

glub, glub, glub, glub

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:38 AM

self explanatory

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:55 AM

Now that (most of) the usual suspect have had their usual fun - perhaps they will finally accept that any personal judgements made publicly in any form about any other poster on our forum is a totally pointless exercise when the site's owner is making few if any value judgements about what is posted or who may be posting it?

Is anyone here really interested in reading posts containing only one poster's personal judgement of another?

If anyone is really interested in this - can they please join a site that is set up for such things rather than insist on inflicting such things upon every other poster on our forum?

Or asking for our public forum to be turned into a private members club where their freedom to do and say what they wish without censure - which they take for granted and abuse - would be denied to others?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM

I may disagree with what you say-

So does this entitle me to post only call you vulgar and offensive names, question your sanity and motives, to hold public conversations about you, mock your spelling and grammar and to generally gang-up with others to bully you in the hope that another member will get upset with all this personal judgement and leave?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:16 AM

"you haven't been putting up with this since 1998 or so"

To hear some folks tell it, the Mudcat has been a centre of calm and brother/sisterly love since its inception, and the troubles only started in the last year or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

We cannot be kind to each other here for even an hour. We whisper, and hint, and chuckle and grin at our brother's shame; however you take it we men are a little breed.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM

..anyway, I'm a named member now

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:34 AM

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:38 AM

its a slow weekday afternoon,
and nothing better to do for a few minutes..
besides its no great bother humouring the anti-guest brigade..

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:44 AM

Hey Geust, welcome aboard. Now, help me understand why you think it's ok to attack a guest, but not ok to attack a member? Or did I mis understand you?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:47 AM

would whoever deleted my earlier 2 posts from this afternoon
please PM me with your reasons;
and also kindly provide a copy
of what I wrote,
as you deleted so swiftly I did not realise it had happened
before I could save that version of this thread for my own records.

thank you

[..maybe some benefits to being a member ?]

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 11:55 AM

ok.. as I've been asked by another member to account for the intention
of what I 'impishly' posted here..

how about as a gesture of considered reason, good humour and goodwill,
you reinstate the first of the posts I wrote this afternoon ?

you know the one that demonstrates I at least spent a little time
carefully thinking it out and drafting
with some delicacy and diplomacy..!?

[sure would be helpful if I had a saved copy to refer to..]

Afterall, the reason I split the post over 2 entries
was to allow for the possibility of the 2nd part being deleted
[for probably the same reason [?]as yesterday's]..

[but how are any of us to ever know,
when censors leave no evidence
of their judgement and interaction in public affairs ?]


so surely, thats not too much to ask considering the context of this thread subject,
and its associated issues..??????????

..but on the other hand, no point making mountains out of molehills
and provoking unintended escalation of otherwise unimportant concerns..

even though that does seem the norm for mudcat 'debates'

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 12:02 PM

Is anybody here interested in reading posts by recidivist posters, stating ad nauseam their own personal opinions on how the Mudcat should be run?
These are value judgements and as such have no value other than to the person who posts them.
Should we have to listen to them when it is patently obvious thay are in the minority, and in certain aspects of their OCB a minority of one to boot?
Should we listen to their homilies and aphorisms whether thay are stolen or god forbid, self penned?
Should we leave and go to another site if we don't like it, when we are happy with this site barring a couple of exceptions, one of which is the person with the bee in their bonnet?
Would it not be a better solution for the cause of this irritation, the stone in our shoe, the grit in our vaseline, the pain in our posterior, to cease forthwith tout suite or even sooner?
Desist and disappear sounds attractive too!

Giok

[Could have said all that in two words but it wouldn't have been half as enjoyable!]

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM

I hated having crabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:03 PM

Ah! So I'm a horse's ass? "Nay!" I say. I beg to differ!

You see, a horse's ass is the source of horseshit. I neither create nor spread horseshit. I create and spread bullshit. There is a big difference.

Horseshit is created and spread by those who take themselves and this place too seriously. I would include in that group a couple of people who have figured prominently in this thread.

Bullshit, on the other hand, is created and spread by those of us who take neither this place nor the horseshit spreaders seriously. One of the aims of spreading bullshit is to try to get the horseshit sources to take themselves a bit less seriously.

But, there will always be those who interpret any attempt at gentle fun, intended to get them to lighten up a bit, as an insult. Well, you know what they say should be done with people who can't take a joke, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM

Someone starts a thread asking everyone to be nice and it's amazing how the assholes spring out of the woodwork.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:24 PM

Hey, Bert. Next week, you wanna be Sam or Ralph?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Geist
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM

Geust, your postings get deleted when you make mistakes with the buttons, or when a clonehead feels like deleting them. Live with it. You can't make sense out of rules that don't make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM

When a control freak asks me to do something I get suspicious Bert!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM

Giok,

Problem is that Shambles is the only one among us who is concerned about big business trying to stop us singing.

He is quite correctly passionate about the subject and we're all too stupid or lazy to listen to him. I for one am prepared to admit that I have done very little that has been of practical help.

Others find it easier to jump all over him when he posts a reminder, 'cos it reminds them of their own failure to act.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 03:21 PM

Bert I am 100% behind Roger in his crusade to rid England and Wales of the iniquitous PEL farce, and that's from someone it doesn't even affect.
What I am against however is his wrong headed crusade against Joe Offer and those who run the Mudcat, and his advocacy of a nil editing policy for the site.
He is only a member of this site by the kind permission of Max Spiegel, and as such he is also Max's guest, and is extremely rude to talk to your host in the way that Roger does.
I will continue to resist his wrong headed and repetitive postings on this subject, and will continue to applaud his work against PEL.
He reminds me of the story about the mother of a soldier watching his regimental passing out parade, she turned to her husband and said; "Look George everybody's out of step except our Tommy".
Well I think that on this subject Roger is very much like Tommy.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 03:33 PM

He is upset with the editing that goes on here because he has been on the receiving end of some very rude behaviour by some unidentified editor.

I think that if you had received such treatment here then you might react in the same manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:00 PM

Problem is that Shambles is the only one among us who is concerned about big business trying to stop us singing. (Bert)

Bert, please try to keep things apart that have nothing to do with each other. Shambles' fight in that domain deserves respect for its good aim.

It is a completely other side of Shambles that elicits well deserved critique. Though he has tired at least in one thread to mix these two different domains one should not fall for his trick.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:03 PM

"It is a completely other side of Shambles that elicits well deserved critique."

What was 'wrong' with the first post to this thread? Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:10 PM

If I recall correctly the main issue in recent months that "Tommy" had with Joe O was when Joe expanded Tommy's thread title to include 'UK'. The addition imo was valid because the title said something like: Minister says Music OK. In the US, 'minister' meqns something totally different from what it does in the UK; it is as if someone had posted a thread saying: Pastor says Music OK.

I have not EVER heard of Joe or any clone changing Tommy's text in any post.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM

The fact that as usual it has a hidden agenda, what he is asking us to do is to leave him alone, but he's cleverly couched it in all encompassing terms, to share the blame.
Roger is very good at this, and it is yet another of his ploys along the lines of 'our forum' which is another trick, along with saying 'we want/we think' when what he really means is, Roger wants/Roger thinks.
He is nothing if not clever and devious in his use of words Bruce, that you must admit.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:23 PM

I thought Tommy was a rock opera.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 04:56 PM

Giok,

At times his use of the language has left me confused. But the same thing I posted to Wolfgang holds true here: What was 'wrong' with the first post to this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:10 PM

Nothing if taken at face value Bruce, however very little of what Roger posts is simple and straightforward, he couches his posts in very ambiguous terms.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:30 PM

It goes back to what a lot odf people say around here but nobody takes any notice. If you don't like what someone says you are quite welcome to ignore it.

...I have not EVER heard of Joe or any clone changing Tommy's text in any post.... Actually several messages have been wholly or partly deleted without the courtesy of a Personal Message explaining why.

If you want that kind of behaviour from those with editing capabilities just keep taking their side until it's your turn to get zapped.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:46 PM

Bert, I hate to sound like an apologist for a Big Brother type of operation - in this world we may get there soon enough - but I guess it comes down to trust. If a post of mine got 'zapped' and I objected, the first thing that would occur to me to do is to PM Joe and ask why. I would trust him to either defend the action or tell me that he would investigate a clone's action.

So far as I can tell, NOT ONE of the moderators and helpers is acting out of malice. They are human, so I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that on occasion one or more had acted out of frustration. But malice? No.

Let me give you an analogy:

A couple of years ago I was housesitting for a friend. One morning I was walking her dog on a trail close to Juneau's version of a "busy highway", our only four lane.

Idly I started counting vehicles in each segment of stop lights. The average - in two lanes - was 14 vehicles. (And we complain about our traffic!)

Then I had an epiphany. I suddenly recognized not only our common humanity but realized that I knew many of those drivers personally. They were not my enemy.. Each one of those drivers and each of those passenger had the same hopes I had, the same frustrations, the same desire to be happy, the same inevitable end.

I haven't felt the same about strangers since.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:55 PM

Another thought:

Once my garbage truck didn't pick up my garbage cans, even though I'd had them on the sidewalk in good time.

As soon as their office opened, I called them and I was spouting off about it to the dispatcher, ranting that my garbage cans were full and now I would have to pay extra for them to come back, that they had picked up the neighbors' cans, in general acting as though the guys were just the worst.

Then she said, I'll tell them to swing by agaim and pick them up. It isn't as if they did it on purpose, you know.

I'm a slow learner, I think. It truly had not occurred to me that it was just a simple mistake and not worth an upset.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 06:30 PM

Mackenzie just loves to have a target for his rage. He's an angry guy. Loves to spread it all over Roger. Gives me the shudders.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 06:39 PM

Giok is a fine person, great sense of humour and a gentleman. AND, he's Scottish.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 06:42 PM

Too right Peace. Having met the gentleman I can say that he is one of my favourite mudcatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM

I have never had the pleasure of meeting John. It is something I hope to do one day because he's someone I have admired for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM

You'll have to get to the Getaway - I think he'll be there again this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: autolycus
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:34 AM

Roger, Peace, Bert and others - I suspect there is NOTHING anyone can say/post and which might be very wise or true that won't be shat on, misunderstood, twisted around, ignored, red herringed or raged against by someone (or even somemany ).

There is nothing that will be responded to by one and all with "So right" or equivalent.

On the one hand , I agree that abuse, personal attacks add nothing to any discussion(and people will continue to do so for aeons)

On the other hand, everything we say involves judgement/choice - which quotation to post, which question to ask, what to count as facts or as relevant.

One set of judgments perhaps worth making is which posters to bother to read and which to scroll past automatically.

Finally, Roger, what's your opinion of making statements rather than quoting and asking questions? (if you don't mind me asking)



Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:51 AM

What was 'wrong' with the first post to this thread? Huh? Peace)

I thought the final answer to that question has been given already by number 6 in the second post above. That was really a post to make me laugh aloud by its short and to the point implicit critique of the opening post.

Giok,

Problem is that Shambles is the only one among us who is concerned about big business trying to stop us singing.

He is quite correctly passionate about the subject and we're all too stupid or lazy to listen to him.

Bert, as a comment to that:

so this would then appear to entitle me ... to hold public conversations about you,

Or perhaps there is a better example to be set and followed on our forum? (Shambles)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:23 AM

Finally, Roger, what's your opinion of making statements rather than quoting and asking questions? (if you don't mind me asking)

Not too sure what the answer to this one is, other that what Bert has already referred to. No one is being forced here by me or anyone else to 'put-up with, read, pass judgement on or respond to any other poster's contribution.

What any poster chooses to post is surely only a matter for them? And as no posting containing only a poster's judgement of another's worth is going to result in anything other than posts in kind - in a purely practical sense - such posts would appear to be rather pointless and counter-productive to our forum. For example - does a post containing only - 'me too' or 'f*** you' add very much to a discussion?

In my view the real danger to our forum that we see here is that posts containing only personal judgements of another (or jokes aimed at them or conversations about them) - are seen by many of those who choose to indulge and encourage others to post only such things - to have a point. The point being to encourage others to gang-up and try to drive other posters away when the whole point of our forum was to encourage all posters to feel safe and welcome to contrubute.

Using our judgement is not the problem. The use of our judgement is always to be encouraged. It is posts containing ONLY personal judgements of each other's worth and the encouragement of this by example that is the problem.

It was suggested that the fact that all this passing of judgement would appear now to be 'the only game in town' was not preventing new posters from joining. I don't know whether it is preventing this or not. But if it is not - the question would be - are those attracted to join in with all the judgements of each other really in the right place? Are there not better places for simply insulting each other?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:57 AM

If one of your posts is deleted, more than likely it is because it contains a personal attack. That is about as firm a rule as we have here, and everyone knows it, therefore, it shouldn't require an explanation via a PM.

There may be other cases for deleting a post that I'm not aware of, but Joe does.
Now, I have met Joe, and I have met Giok. Both of them are welcome in my house anytime, and I have close relatives that I don't say that about.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:03 AM

Me too. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:05 AM

Yes, Jacqui, you are also welcome in my house.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:36 AM

Problem is that Shambles is the only one among us who is concerned about big business trying to stop us singing. (Bert)

Bert, please try to keep things apart that have nothing to do with each other. Shambles' fight in that domain deserves respect for its good aim.

It is a completely other side of Shambles that elicits well deserved critique. Though he has tired at least in one thread to mix these two different domains one should not fall for his trick.

Wolfgang

For the record - the start of all this was the inability to keep these things apart. Those that had the power to impose their personal tastes and judgement upon what and how other posters choose to post - felt that it was correct to do so in this case. And have posted to publicly explain and gain support for their personal judgement of this poster and speculate on their assumed and suspect motives at great length - but to little positive end. But this episode has set the example of encouraging everyone to feel that they are also entitled to express their personal judgements of their fellow posters.......As if somehow their fellow posters will magically change to suit as a result.

There was not and really could not have been any quibble about the aims of whole PEL issue or its relevance. But despite the concern and involvement of many posters (many of whom took action even when they were not directly affected) for good or bad, the issue came to be personally indentified with this poster. And as the suitability of issue itself could not be questioned - public judgement of the posters was thought and encouraged by example to be acceptable (if futile).

The difficulties (and frustration perceived by some posters) resulting from having to look at the titles of the many different PEL threads being started by different posters on many different aspects over a long period was rather judged publicly to be down to me and squarely laid at my door. Quite why everyone seems to feels or is encouraged to feel that what others choose to post is open for posts containing only their judgement - rather than being encouraged to simply ignore them is open to question.

The answer being that those with the power to impose their judgement and censor the contributions of others are also trying to combine this with being ordinary posters and the same time. And that those who perhaps should be just concentrating only on being posters - rather now appear to fancy the idea of also being judges and censors of the contributions of their fellows.      

Is what is being said on our forum really the most important thing to comment on - and the manner in which it is expressed or who may be saying it not really important enough to comment on at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:17 AM

The methods and standards of censorship imposed here by unseen and 'unknown' clones
hiding under a cloak of secrecy
would not be tolerated on many other forums.

Even music forums catering mainly for adolescent membership
seem to have higher regard and respect
for the individual responsibility and self discipline of members;
administering clear-cut fair & open sanction systems for those
considered too immature to abide by agreed forum rules.


Some of the problem areas probably arise from limited functionality
of the archaic software this board runs on;
but mudcat does not compare well to other forums that work effectively
on the more acceptable disciplinary interventions
of 'named' moderators & admin,
fair warning, appeal and arbitration procedures..
and permanent record on the threads when and by whom a contribution has been deleted.

not much time to write at the moment, but this issue probably merits a new thread of its own..

seee ya later...

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:17 AM

If you publish anything on a public forum you invite criticism in so doing!
You do not criticise those who write supporting your views albeit that is as much a comment on your posts as the critical remarks of others.
All contributions have their own validity, whether you or I like them or not is not really germane in this context.
Finally if responding to anothers posts in a totally non critical way either for or against was a rule on this site, there would be a lot less posts, and a lot less of interest to those who frequent this site.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:20 AM

What I am against however is his wrong headed crusade against Joe Offer and those who run the Mudcat, and his advocacy of a nil editing policy for the site.

Are those (some of whom ane anonymous) who feel themselves qualified to impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of their fellow poster above judgement themselves?

From many posts I have seen - this would appear to be what they - and those who would blindly support this current situation on our forum but feel free to pass judgement upon everyone else - feel should be the case.

And if one poster does not agree with another's views - does this then entitle them to post publicly only to call the other poster vulgar and offensive names, question their sanity and motives, to hold public conversations about them, mock their spelling and grammar and to generally gang-up with others to bully them in the hope that another member will get upset with all this personal judgement and leave?

And if such behaviour is tolerated or encouraged - where is their any protection that this same nastiness will not in time be used against others or even you?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM

When a control freak asks me to do something I get suspicious Bert!
G.

Do real control freaks ASK you to do anything? I would suggest that a true control freak is only interested in obtaining a position where they can impose control over you.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:30 AM

- in a purely practical sense - such posts would appear to be rather pointless and counter-productive to our forum. For example - does a post containing only - 'me too' or 'f*** you' add very much to a discussion? (Shambles

Last week thread with Shambles posting to say nothing but 'Me too'

Shambles, I've read your last post twice and I still don't understand you at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:36 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Copy Cat threads....??
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:28 PM

... will you accept that what other posters choose to read, post or ignore remains no one else's business but theirs?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:53 AM

will you accept that what other posters choose to read, post or ignore remains no one else's business but theirs?

~Susan

Yes Susan - amongst other things - this question was contained in that post.

Is there any chance of you answering it?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:13 AM

Shambles, I've read your last post twice and I still don't understand you at all.

Wolfgang - Why is this?

What exactly do you not understand in my last post? I can certainly try and make it clearer for you if you tell me what you are having so much trouble understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:31 AM

If you publish anything on a public forum you invite criticism in so doing!

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule1.html

Writer and Macintosh evangelist Guy Kawasaki tells a story about getting email from some fellow he's never met. Online, this fellow tells Guy that he's a bad writer with nothing interesting to say.

Unbelievably rude? Yes, but unfortunately, it happens all the time in cyberspace.

Maybe it's the awesome power of being able to send mail directly to a well-known writer like Guy. Maybe it's the fact that you can't see his face crumple in misery as he reads your cruel words. Whatever the reason, it's incredibly common.

Guy proposes a useful test for anything you're about to post or mail: Ask yourself, "Would I say this to the person's face?" If the answer is no, rewrite and reread. Repeat the process till you feel sure that you'd feel as comfortable saying these words to the live person as you do sending them through cyberspace.

Of course, it's possible that you'd feel great about saying something extremely rude to the person's face. In that case, Netiquette can't help you. Go get a copy of Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM

Well yes Roger I would say anything I write on here if it concerns another Mudcatter's postings or whatever to their face.
This immunity from critcism quest that is being indulged in is the obverse of the 'Blame Culture' coin. It's along the same lines as not letting children play competitive games, as losing makes them discouraged; sheesh!! Well of course it does, but we seem intent in bringing up a generation of kids unable to deal with life, unable to deal with failure or as in this case unable to take criticism.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM

Well yes Roger I would say anything I write on here if it concerns another Mudcatter's postings or whatever to their face.
This immunity from critcism quest that is being indulged in is the obverse of the 'Blame Culture' coin. It's along the same lines as not letting children play competitive games, as losing makes them discouraged; sheesh!! Well of course it does, but we seem intent in bringing up a generation of kids unable to deal with life, unable to deal with failure or as in this case unable to take criticism.

The generation you intend to bring up should perhaps expect to be given lots of black eyes and bloody noses?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 12:18 PM

It'll teach them to duck, which is a very usefull life skill mate!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 12:20 PM

It also teaches them to note the old sticks and stones adage.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 12:28 PM

Tell me something, you who are always complaining about censorship, do you really think you should be allowed to post anything you wish, including nasty personal attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 12:48 PM

I don't see a lot of difference between Roger and Martin Gibson when he is acting up. Their styles are completely different, but the intent is always to promote their agenda for their own ends. That isn't necessarily a bad thing in many cases, but in these instances it is always to assert that they have the answer and no one else does. When the great majority of folks express anger and frustration at having to hear the same circular arguments expressed a hundred different ways over 7 years, then Rog starts a thread about why we should be civil.

Bert, I have great respect for you and consider you a friend. But it seems to me that you are mixing two arguments up. When Roger first raised the PEL argument, I was among the first to send an email and express my disappointment. That has nothing to do with this thread. Anyone who doesn't see the motive is either ignorant of Roger's tactics, or disengenuous.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 01:29 PM

I answered it when it was asked of me, and my Mudcat posting history supports it. Now it's YOUR turn, Roger.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 01:40 PM

Tell me something, you who are always complaining about censorship, do you really think you should be allowed to post anything you wish, including nasty personal attacks?

You who appear to feel you should be allowed to indulge in posts containing only nasty personal attacks and post only to support others who also feel this - why do you do this and why do you think you should be allowed to do this on our forum but others should be prevented?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:00 PM

Hi Mick,

Thanks for your reasoned response and affirmaation of friendship, yes you are a good friend.

I'ts not that I'm mixing up two arguments, it's that someone, probably a while back now, went out and zapped some of Roger's threads and messages. It would have been polite to have sent him a PM first to explain what they were going to do and why. They should also have copied the other clones so that they would know what is going on.

But this didn't happen, and as a clone I feel personally affronted that whoever it was took such drastic and one sided action without the courtesy to inform us. Whoever it was made a mistake and should come out and admit it, and apologise, then maybe this mess will go away.

What little editing that we have on Mudcat has always been for the good and I for one don't want to see a situation arise where a clone can anonymously wage a personal vendetta against a member.

If I was in Roger's position I'd be highly pissed about it as well. So I kinda get mad when people jump all over him. I think it just makes the situation worse.

Cheers,

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:12 PM

Mick,

"the intent is always to promote their agenda for their own ends. That isn't necessarily a bad thing in many cases, but in these instances it is always to assert that they have the answer and no one else does."


Most of us here would probably find quite s few posters here that we think are described by your comment.




"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively
calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree but freedom for the thought that we hate."

--- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

US v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 655 (1928)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:16 PM

Bert, not only do I not recall Roger's messages being zapped, but I don't recall him ever saying one word about that, specifically. Usually it's been about closed threads and other people's messages.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

My question is still unanswered.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:30 PM

That's what worries me Jeri, whoever did it is being very closed mouthed about it and making it look like Roger's faault.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:32 PM

Yes to what Bert said.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:35 PM

Problem is Bert that Roger is waging a personal vendetta against Joe, who I'm sure is not the guilty party, and seems to be saying that clones should not be able to post on threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:37 PM

Kendall, Is this your question?

...Tell me something, you who are always complaining about censorship, do you really think you should be allowed to post anything you wish, including nasty personal attacks?...

When editing first started on Mudcat the only problem was personal threats. then it grew to written personal attacks, then some one decided to delete long cut and paste messages, then some decided to delete 100th. post messages. Then someone decided to delete messsages complaining about censorship.

No nasty personal attacks shouldn't be allowed, but somone is taking us down a slippery slope here and the problem needs to be addressed in some way other than jumping all over Roger for having the audacity to complain about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:43 PM

Some nasty posts are deleted; others are not. Guess it depends on who the nastiness is directed at and whether or not the clone shares the feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:47 PM

Well if it did happen the powers that be can see which clone does what, so it should be easy to find out, but then again what purpose will it serve now.
Recriminations and blame games will solve nothing, and they only create ill will, no way could the person be named on the threads either, the person would never be left alone, and they'd get the blame for every unidentified edit that a poster got annoyed about.
IF it actually happened then an apology, and a reassurance that it will not occur again should set matters right.
There is no way we can go down the no clones route, otherwise it would be back to the bad old days of personal threats, as mentioned above.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:09 PM

Bert, that doesn't fly with me. I can see deleted threads and deleted messages, and I can't figure out what you're talking about. On the other hand, I could claim that half of all my posts in 2002 were deleted, and there would be no way you could prove that's not true.

Bert, you say "Then someone decided to delete messsages complaining about censorship." I don't believe that's true. Why is it you and not Shambles who claims this?

It's not Roger's complaints that get jumped all over. It's when he doesn't get his way and does what passes for mail-bombing on a forum, and he does this to the innocent as well as those he perceives as guilty. I don't understand how a rational person could do any of this, but then I don't understand why he started going after me simply because I once, POLITELY, criticised him.

So if you've dedicated yourself to being his advocate, just try to understand the hurt of someone who knew him before Mudcat existed and once believed he was a friend, only to discover he'd treat anyone as an enemy if they didn't agree with him and were visible enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:21 PM

The only posts that I know of, from my own knowledge, that have been deleted are the ones with nasty personal attacks.

This is not a democracy, and no amount of complaining will make it one. I've been to other sites and this is by far the most civil. One reason for that is the rule about no personal attacks.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; if your command of the language is so poor that you have to resort to foul language and name calling, then maybe you would be happier elsewhere.

Some time back I got into a pissing contest with a certain member and Joe cut it off giving the other guy the last word. That irritated me, but he felt that it had gone far enough and he had to stop it. Probably the other guy was pleased that he got in the last word. So what? At least I never resorted to gutter language. Furthermore, I still like and respect Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:28 PM

Peace, that may be the case that some have fallen through the cracks. One solution would be to hire a group of Gestapo to do nothing but monitor the BS threads and delete such attacks as they are posted. Who of the handful of clones we have has the time to keep up with everything that is posted?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:38 PM

Can you give an example of a thread with a nasty attack that is still up?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:44 PM

Bert, I've checked a fair amount of Shambles' posting record, and the only messages I see deleted are duplicates - and even most of his duplicate messages were left standing.
Yes, he may have posted to one or two threads that were deleted because they became a brawl. In that case, he may have suffered the deletion of a message.
Don't give us a bad rap unless you have facts to back it up.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:11 PM

You're right, Peace. Some nasty stuff is deleted, and some is not.

We generally don't do a 100 percent review of all posts and pass judgment on every message posted.

We handle problems when they arise, or when we see a problem situation forming. Lots of nasty posts get by because they don't appear to be causing a problem. Our job is to keep the peace - not to censor the Mudcat Forum.

If you see a post you object to, don't respond to it. That will do a lot to help keep the peace. Thank you.

-Jode Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:47 PM

Joe, with all due respect, sometimes people have to disturb the peace to achieve justice.

rarelamb's posts that he {or she}is a racist are offensive to meas an African American and as a human being. I registered my contempt for rarelamb's racism by submitting a blank post with my name.

I also wrote a post in one of rarelamb's threads in response to your comment Joe that people should disregard those posts that they don't agree with. Because I believe my post is pertinent to your last comment in this thread, I will take the liberty to repost it here:

Subject: RE: BS: Hello to all my liberal friends
From: Azizi - PM
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:12 PM

IMO, in this text only medium it's necessary to experiment with ways to convey what would be communicated with direct sight, visuals and body language.

My blank post was meant to convey my contempt for the person starting this thread. I wanted to register this contempt without communicating to him [or her].

And in submitting that blank post-and my explanation for it-I am also communicating without words to others reading this thread so that they know that rarelamb and his or her cohorts are not worthy of my wasting my breath to attempt to engage them in any conversations.

This may or may not be the reasons for others posting blank posts or binary statements.

The point is that I speak for myself in more ways than with words.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 10:32 PM

Azizi, posting a bunch of blank messages is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly. It's passive-aggressive and serves to let the instigator know you read his message and had the desired reaction.

Not wasting your breath means not wasting your breath. It doesn't mean telling him "I read that and it bothered me so much that I'm not going to respond. Nope, you won't see me responding. Now, can you see that by posting this I'm not responding? I can not respond a bunch more times, too."

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 10:55 PM

Examples and full details of the all the later censorship actions that Bert refers to are already well-documented elsewhere on other threads. The most important aspect that he mentions and which is largely ignored - is the increase in the number of things that are being subject to censorship on the grounds only of personal taste and preference. The latest example for public judgement being so-called copycat threads..........Which as with every other contribution from other posters - no one is being forced to read or respond to.

The following is the public explanation of the personal judgement made and resulting imposed action re the PELs threads. Remember this is only one person's account of this. The point being that such public explanations of this imposed judgement encourages other poster to post only to judge this judgement as being correct or not.

I suspect that in response to this - we will see even more post expressing whether these judgements were correct or not - which we could argue forever, when in fact every poster's judgement is as good or as bad as everyone else's.

The most important thing is that all this avoids the main issue - which is the problems involved by the imposition of any posters judgement upon another's contribution. Especially when these are based on purely subjective concepts like what they may consider to be 'too much' or 'too often' etc etc. If such judgements are to be imposed - they should not be by someone who is and wishes also to remain as a poster themselves and whose impartiality and motives will be under question in these dual roles. Especially when some who are able to impose their judgement can do so anonymously.

Subject: (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM

Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index.

Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion.

His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them.

So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads.

So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted.

Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted.

So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair.

So, that's the story.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 10:57 PM

Jeri, I appreciate your response.

However, I stand by my statement. I do not consider the one blank post that I submitted with my name to be either a waste of breathe or a waste of bandwith. I consider it to be a message without words.

And btw-I prefer to consider my blank post to be the equivalent of the contemporary street gesture of "talk to the hand" as opposed to the imagery of sticking my finger in my ears and singing la la la la la or some such nonsensical lyrics.

But as far as I'm concerned, to each her {or his} own.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 01:28 AM

Azizi, long experience has shown that the best way to respond to a troll is with silence. Your blank message is not helpful at all. It only serves to call attention to the troll and prolong the life of the thread. Please do not do it.

Shambles, I was talking about deleted messages. I can't see any evidence that any of your messages have been deleted. I have no wish to discuss a 2005 thread title change that has been discussed countless times already.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 02:12 AM

I am struggling to find the best Responses to Racism and other offensive posts.

It troubles me that there are instances when these posts are left standing in a thread but responses to them, including blank posts with a member's or guest's name, are deleted. If racist and otherwise offensive posts are not deleted, it seems to me that ignoring their existence and failing to respond in any way sends the message to "trolls" and other persons reading the thread {including those who might happen upon it through Google and other search engines}that this forum is soft on such postings and/or accepting of racism. Again, my struggle with this issue was the reason for me starting the Responses to Racism thread.

Joe, {and Joe Clones},if blank posting by me {and I assume others} is frown upon or is outright prohibited, what do you consider the best way for members & guests of this community to register our distaste and opposition to racist and other offensive posts?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 02:55 AM

Abusive personal attacks and name-calling are supposed to be what our anonymous volunteer fellow posters are protecting us from but you will see many such examples of this in this thread alone (and the following threads) – many of them being posted by those who are supposed to be protecting us from this.

Censorship on Mudcat
Max what about Shambles requests
In the UK
Closing threads

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 04:36 AM

It's not Roger's complaints that get jumped all over. It's when he doesn't get his way and does what passes for mail-bombing on a forum, and he does this to the innocent as well as those he perceives as guilty. I don't understand how a rational person could do any of this, but then I don't understand why he started going after me simply because I once, POLITELY, criticised him.

Jeri - Perhaps you would care to supply some evidence of what you judge is me 'going after you'?

So if you've dedicated yourself to being his advocate, just try to understand the hurt of someone who knew him before Mudcat existed and once believed he was a friend, only to discover he'd treat anyone as an enemy if they didn't agree with him and were visible enough.

Jeri we have never met - I did speak to you once on the voice chat thing and we both posted on uk.music.folk. That we were ever what could be described as friends is questionable. But for you to suggest that I would now view you as an enemy because you may not agree with me - would appear to be rather more than questionable and an exagerated use of language that is not really very helpful in in a situation which simply boils down to a difference of opinion on a public discussion forum.

Why would you think such a thing? And why would think that any other poster would interested in reading your personal judgement of a fellow member? Do you consider that they are not able to make-up their own mind from the same evidence?

The whole point is to try and ensure that agreement is not a reqirement of posting but that it is possible to disagree without feeling that this entitles us to pass (or impose) our personal judgement upon the worth of our fellow posters or their right - as a general rule - to have their choice of words to remain as posted. Is that such a terrible objective?

Would you agree that if or when censorship action is reqired that it would better and less contentous for this to be undertaken by moderators who could be seen to be objective and working within clearly stated limitations, and who were not also trying to express their personal views as posters?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM

No one is to be called an enemy, all are your benefactors, and no one does you harm.
You have no enemy except yourselves.

St. Francis of Assisi

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 08:51 AM

And the beef goes on, and on and on ad nauseum.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

Shambles, it started with the PEL issue and I think, in the Help Forum, and the thread is no longer accessible. I could provide something similar to your 'evidence' or just tell people to read the whole forum and look for copy-pastes of me, by you. These appear, often with no explanation as to WHY you pasted them, and I think you do it for no apparent reason other than harassment.

This is about my perception. This is how I feel about how you've treated me here, and I'm not going to debate with someone who doesn't value logic. I posted hoping that people who cared, including Bert, will look for evidence and not base opinions on what others tell them and who they want to believe.

I don't really care that much about Shambles' mission to tell people how to behave properly. What really bothered me is that Bert posted something I believe is untrue, although I'm sure he believed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM

I saw a bumper sticker the other day, it said, "Annoy a conservative, think for yourself." Seems appropriate here.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 11:05 AM

Don't give us a bad rap unless you have facts to back it up.
-Joe Offer

Perhaps this could apply generally and not just to who Joe Offer considers as 'us'?

The list of terrible things that many people lead others to believe I am responsible for is a long one. If they was any truth in any of these accusations and judgements - all the evidence is here and it should not be too difficult to provide. And if evidence cannot be provided - such accusations should perhaps been seen as the groundless nonsense it is. Especially when it is contained in a post that is itself demanding evidence from others?

The list of deeply personal attacks that I (and others) have been allowed to be subjected to - for which sadly there is plenty of evidence for, speaks for itself and does no credit to our forum. Perhaps Jeri you may consider giving me some credit for resisting the temptation to respond in kind to all of these personal judgements, name-calling bullying and insults rather, than continuing to suggest something that is untrue and for which you can provide no real evidence of?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 01:33 PM

Responses to bullying
[This thread has been subject to imposed editing action and is now closed]

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 03:40 PM

Well Joe,

I know for a fact that certain messages, posted just for humorous effect, have been arbitrarily deleted without making any contact with the person who posted them. Or letting other clones know the why's and wherefore's.

There is no way anyone, other than an administrator, can check up on this or any other allegation of suspect editing.

That is not what editing privileges were given for. There should be a certain ettiquette established for editors so that we are all on the same page and so that allegations of wrongdoing can be tracked and soundly refuted.

Let's stop this brawl immediately and bring things out into the open; then I won't have to take sides for or against any Mudcatter, all of whom I consider my good friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 11:18 PM

MUDCAT is the only musician's / music related forum I visit
which does not operate a system of identifiable 'mods & admin',
implementing an open and defined set of agreed rules & disciplinary measures.



..I'm quite certain that if any member of those other boards
were to suggest that it would be preferable
to revert to a system whereby:

..the rule enforcers and censors are an unknown secretive 'elite'
with powers to ammend and delete members posts without any warning or explanation.

..there would be no permanent public record of when a post has been deleted, by which mod/admin,
and for what reason.

..there would be extremely limited options to appeal against an individual mod/admins decision,
request accountability, & reasonable arbitration for disputed edits
& deletions.

..that mods/admins could act arbitrarily without knowledge of, discussion and agreement with,
or disclosure to other mods/admin.

..that a culture of self-rightious self-apointed interfering petty-minded 'busy bodies' & informants
would be tolerated
by the 'secret elite rule enforcers';
who could encourage their 'grasses' to target and monitor other members
who displease them,
granting special direct channels of communication to report offenders' for any perceived 'transgressions'.

..etc..etc..


yes, I'm quite certain that if any member of those other boards
were to suggest such an alternative vision of how their music forum
should be administrated and controlled in the 21st Century..

well, it would not be a very pleasant response to say the least !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 11:26 PM

Our forum currently has guests, named-guests, members without edit buttons, members with edit buttoms and anonymous members with edit buttons and the Chief of the Editorial team, who is also a member who wishes also to be accepted as a regular poster.

This is a mix that has and will just create even more division.

A return to forum where all posters and all of their judgements were equal - would perhaps be better?

If or when this was thought necessary - any imposed censorship could be undertaken by moderators - who were not expected to undertake the plainly impossible dual roles of wanting to be free to express their own views and tastes as a poster and at the same time expecting their editing actions (especially those imposed on the fellow members) to be generally accepted as being objective.

The responsibilty for the conduct of members and what appears on our forum has always been up to them - for they are the only ones who ever have any real control over what is posted. Posters and new posters especially will only follow the examples set of what is acceptable and if they are encouraged to follow this example and to concentrate on their own posts - rather than to feel they have any right post only judgements of their fellow posters - peace will at least have a chance of breaking out.

This is the time to review all of this – as the Chief of the Editorial team has publicly declared that this current system is unable to keep the peace.

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 threadhttp://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=88940&messages=275&page=1&desc=yes

The something that is suggested by the current Chief of the Editorial team is nothing less than the end of the open public involvement in our forum that has always been the case and to turn this into a members only club.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 01:45 AM

"is nothing less than the end of the open public involvement in our forum" from Shambles post above.

I quite agree, Roger. People like you have damaged The Mudcat badly. Have you noticed that all the great musicians that used to inhabit this place now just cruise through occasionally, if at all? Have you noticed that the place has lost its magic and turned into a place where you whine, a handful of GUESTS continue to have their fun, and the same (but shrinking) group of posters go on and on about the same subjects? Hell, joHN from Hull doesn't even bother to respond to your shit anymore.

Based on what I see, and thanks in a large part to the drivel you and others like you incessantly post, the type of folks that made this place something special don't even give this place a look anymore. If it were then what it has become now, I doubt that most of them would have ever stopped in the first place.

This site has become an archive, in fact a damn fine one. Tt contains wonderful musical history, phenomenal perspective changing debates, and whole communities of friends on three continents that jelled around its discussions. It spawned folks travelling great distances to meet 3D. And it holds the memories of a wonderful time in my life and others. But the vibrancy is gone. I lay that at, in large measure, to those that consistently attack and destroy, whine, bitch, and moan. Were I in charge of its "urban renewal" plan, I would severely limit the ability of unnamed GUESTS to start and post to threads, and I would ban cut and paste postings altogether.

And I would ban you.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 03:42 AM

This site has become an archive, in fact a damn fine one. Tt contains wonderful musical history, phenomenal perspective changing debates, and whole communities of friends on three continents that jelled around its discussions.

There is agreement with this at least but do you not accept any blame? A look at the music section will show that this is still the case with our forum. But the change that is proposed will only encourage those who you judge - to do so on the music section. And we will be back where we started.

I also agree about those who 'consistently attack and destroy, whine, bitch, and moan' are responsible. But these posts are only seen as this or thought to be a problem when what is being moaned about is not what the usual suspects want the hear. If this public moaning is what they want to hear - for example what could be judged as your attacking, whineing bitching, moaning about and judgement of your fellow posters in your above post - this will be seen as encouragment for others to join in.

The division we now see is because imposed censorship action that will shape our forum will now be taken against things like copycat threads, 100 posting claims, birthday threads, in direct response to some posts moaning about having to see what other poster's choose to post. Rather than these posters being told that it is none of their business. As they are not being forced to read or respond. And if the moan coincides with the personal tastes of one poster - who is not above leading the public moaning themselves - they will impose censorship action.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: gnu
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 04:56 PM

Ah, well, just read it...

"Since I am banned (denied access to anyplace but the help thread and therefore cannot read or respond to personal messages people have sent), please be informed of such. I know there were 5 unread for me. Thank you."

The above is from a buddy of mine who just wanted to let youse all know he is sorry he can't respond to your PMs. He is a peaceful lad and I don't know why he was banned... don't care. Just hope that this let's youse know he is thinking about youse.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 05:36 PM

Roger while no one can doubt your sincerity in the quest to fight against the PEL fiasco, one question keeps occurring to me.
Why did you choose an American owned and run site, a site where the PEL doesn't affect most of the members, to run your campaign?
Why did you flood a site where Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Germans, Argentinians,and Scots post regularly, none of whom are affected by this new legislation?
Why in view of these facts did you object to the letters UK being added to your post title, when it didn't relate to the majority of those who use this site?
You yourself keep saying that if you don't like a specific post don't read it, yet when these letters were added to save people reading something which was of no moment to them, you object.
I'm sorry Roger but you have gone beyond reason on this one, and in so doing you have alienated people who might otherwise have supported you.
Did you conduct a similar campaign on any other site, or were there rules on them that prevented you doing so?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Teela
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 06:10 PM

Life

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Cd
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 06:11 PM

wot?? - a cababaret?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 08:20 PM

Ok folks. So, you want to avoid getting deleted? Seems to me the answer is quite simple; control your urge to post things that you know will be deleted. We all know the rules. Abide by them. Simple.

As I used to tell my kids, "Sure you can climb that tree if you wish, but if you fall and break a leg, don't come running to me."

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 09:25 PM

...We all know the rules...

Ah! but the rules are changing Kendall. Posts are now being deleted simply because someone finds them "annoying". If you support that kind of behaviour then don't come running to me if that someone finds some of your messages annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,mystified Phil
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 09:26 PM

kendall, you obviously know your "the rules" that abide alone
in your head.

.. but should we all be singing along to your tune ?


Is that not a fair comment ??

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 11:10 PM

The week is over. It's time to close this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 11:24 PM

Nah! 2 more days to go before we can start being nasty again.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:43 AM

AT LUNCHTIME
by Roger McGough

When the bus stopped suddenly
to avoid damaging
a mother and child in the road,
the younglady in the green hat sitting opposite,
was thrown across me,
and not being one to miss an opportunity
i started to make love.

At first, she resisted,
saying that it was too early in the morning,
and too soon after breakfast,
and anyway, she found me repulsive.
But when i explained that this being a nuclearage
the world was going to end at lunchtime,
she took off her green hat,
put her busticket into her pocket
and joined in the exercise.

The buspeople,
and there were many of them,
were shockedandsurprised,
and amusedandannoyed.
But when word got around
that the world was going to
end at lunchtime,
they put their pride in their pockets
with their bustickets
and made love one with the other.
And even the busconductor,
feeling left out,
climbed into the cab,
and struck up some sort of relationship with the driver.

That night,
on the bus coming home,
we were all a little embarrassed.
Especially me and the younglady in the green hat.
And we all started to say in different ways

how hasty and foolish we had been.
But then, always having been a bitofalad,
i stood up and said it was a pity
that the world didn't nearly end every lunchtime,
and that we could always pretend.
And then it happened . . .

Quick asa crash
we all changed partners,
and soon the bus was aquiver
with white, mothball bodies doing naughty things.

And the next day
and everyday
In everybus
In everystreet
In everytown
In everycountry

People pretended
that the world was coming to an end at lunchtime.
It still hasn't.
Although in a way it has.

.......................................From The Mersey Sound, 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:30 AM

I know that certain threads have contained nasty posts and vicious name calling, ie: ..fucking asshole, etc. and in my opinion they SHOULD have been deleted. If you don't know the difference between a spirited debate and a personal attack, then you are going to meet a clone who will educate you.If you are looking for a "dust up" then post a personal attack and you will get it.Just don't come running to me.

I've never posted anything that was deleted because I contradicted Joe, so I can't comment on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:56 AM

If you don't know the difference between a spirited debate and a personal attack, then you are going to meet a clone who will educate you.

Yes I agree - some of them will really teach you by example what a nasty personal attack is and exactly how to go about it. It has certainly been an education for me...............

Yes I do know that is not what you meant to say Kendall but what you say does not make sense when it is (some of) the clones who are posting only these nasty personal attacks and judgements and encouraging others to follow this example.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:39 AM

Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Deleting a long rambling cut and paste is not a personal attack. Suggesting that someone go away is not a personal attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

"then you are going to meet a clone who will educate you"


so would that be the mysterious rogue vigilante clone !?

..as rumoured to be running amok

and deleting
any other mudcat member's written contributions
on personal whim ?


the rogue clone hiding in the shadows taking full advantage
of his / her secret identity,

abusing the power & authority of the the "DELETE BUTTON"
he / she has been granted..

deleting without warning, discussion with, or consent from clone peers,
any material that personaly displeases or 'disgusts' him / her ?

..and in so doing, abusing the trust of Joe & Max, and all other clones ?


the rogue clone apparently conducting a petty personal crusade
to impose his / her
personal agenda and moral beliefs on all other mudcat members ?

the rogue clone who enjoys the thrill of power and control
over mudcat community..

who demonstrates, by his / her arbitrary deleting actions,
scant regard or respect
for the ideas and opinions and 'moral education standards'
of fellow diverse international mudcat members ?

the rogue clone who might thrive most effectively
in a negative cultural climate of suspicion, mistrust,
resentment & paranoia ?

the rogue clone who may be personaly resposible for,
and perpetuating,
much of the escalating unpleasantness here at mudcat ?


..so who can that rumoured mystery rogue clone be ?

perhaps the clone we mere mortal squalid morally repugnant transgressors

must live in fear of one day "meeting and being educated by" !!!!???


any clues ?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

This is becoming surreal. First we had the Shambles complaining about a thread title of his being amplified. That translated into 'censorship'. In due course, we have Bert telling us that whole posts of Sham's have been deleted- arbitrarily and with malice. The Shambles does NOT join Bert; he doesn't even address it. He does NOT at that point tell us which posts or when or what the subject(s) of them were.

So we morphed on. Now we are being told of a 'rogue clone' who in the shadowss of anonymity is zapping everything that he or she does not like.

Is this all really true? Where does this end? Stay tuned.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM

Bert, my friend-- my dearly loved friend--

If you really know that something is amiss among the clones, I think that you know that the place to bring that up is in private conversation with Max, Jeff, and/or Joe. In fact if you even suspect it, that's where the matter belongs. It does not belong in a Forum thread.

Even if you still have editing authorization that allows you to see deleted material, which I don't think you do, this is not the place.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Inspector Clueso
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM

A mere week of pleasant interaction and posts of the caring, kind and grateful nature displayed on this thread hardly seems long enough. In fact the Thread's name itself hardly lives up to what is contained within.
Can you feel the Luvvvvvvvvv...Max, Jeff, Joe, Clones (including the 'rougue clone', now that is a particularly pathetic suggestion) It must warm your Hearts when you read some of these touching comments from people obviously not enjoying a Forum that you all run for no income and give of your time so freely in order to bring so much misery to a few.
It also must feel good to know that some of these People just keep coming back and back and back, unlike others who disliked the mudcat and therefore made the silly decision to simply go somewhere else more to their taste.
That would just be-----------(pick a word: sensible, simple, obvious, logical) It would seem however that it is better to stay around somewhere that offends and wounds and does all manner of terrible things and 'attempt' to ruin it for those who find the mudcat to be a great place to be a member of.
Perhaps Max could give some advice to all these poor hurt souls, that dislike the mudcat so much, regarding how to get a Forum of their own up and running.
It would be interesting to see how the current crop of mudcatslayers would handle, what would be, without a doubt, the avalanche of abuse their forums would receive.
Most of the whining is jealousy based simply because the negative few are not technically advanced enough to start their version of the mudcat. I find the mudcatslayers very silly people but entertaining in a 'noir' way.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Deleting a long rambling cut and paste is not a personal attack. Suggesting that someone go away is not a personal attack.

There is no shortage of this but do I really have to provide the evidence here of who called me what so YOU can judge if it is a personal attack - as defined by you?

The point is simply that you cannot expect to prevent such things - not that much really effort goes into this anyway as compared to protecting us from copycat threads and the like - if the example given is that such things are OK if the target is thought so terrible as to be fair game for such personal attacks.

Disagreeing (or agreeing) with anyone is not a nasty personal attack. Doing it by just posting I (or we) think you are a ....... and publicly suggesting that someone you have never met is suffering from poor mental health - is.

Deleting a long cut and past can be a nasty personal attack when certain posters are always safe from this and some are not. It would however, always be imposed censorship.

Suggesting publicly that another poster goes away because you may not like what they choose to post perhaps could be considred as a nasty personal attack as this is not a matter for anyone but our forum's host and site owner.

I suggest it is not how nasty we may judge a post but perhaps how nice it is or how much it adds to a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 12:57 PM

A rogue clone running amok? Come on, how long do you think Joe or Max would allow that? With a touch of a button, the rogue could be made powerless.

When we look into a mirror, we see two people. Our best friend and our worst enemy.

It's obvious to me that the clones are un named because if they were known, the personal attacks would only get worse, and God knows there are enough of those already. If you come at someone with your horns out, there can be only one predictable response.You don't need a PHd to figure that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 12:59 PM

Can't see what repetitive postings quoting the same 3rd party posts over and over again is adding to the discussion.
Nor for that matter pasting in quotations, sayings and poems from other sources. None of these is original and are just as much copycat stuff as that which people have complained about. At least there is a degree of originality in rewording a thread title while there is none in posting the works of others.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:07 PM

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 threadhttp://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=88940&messages=275&page=1&desc=yes

Our forum is still just about a pleasant place - despite the best efforts of a few to turn it into a private members club. As it is that same certain few who constantly judge, moan about and find fault with what their fellow posters choose to contribute, and intentionally try to shape our forum to their tastes - perhaps when they have finally formed their own private members club - the rest of us can finally be left to post in peace?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jeffp
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM

As it is that same certain few who constantly judge, moan about and find fault with what their fellow posters choose to contribute, and intentionally try to shape our forum to their tastes - perhaps when they have finally formed their own private members club - the rest of us can finally be left to post in peace?

Looking in the mirror at last?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:15 PM

Our forum is still just about a pleasant place - despite the best efforts of a few to turn it into a private members club.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:31 PM

Roger, I did not say, nor did I imply that such things as deleting posts with which the clone simply disagrees does not happen, maybe it does, but endless chirping about it on the forum is tiresome and pointless. Take it up with Joe or Max. Even if we agree with you, it means nothing. We can do nothing about it.
I'll tell you flat out that I seldom read your posts because they are so redundant and convoluted. I find your messages difficult to understand and not very interesting. However, if someone attacks you then one of the clones should put a stop to it asap.
No, I don't expect you to provide proof just to satisfy me, I have no authority to do anything about your problem.You don't have to convince me, so stop trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:06 PM

However, if someone attacks you then one of the clones should put a stop to it asap.

What would you suggest should happen when it is someone with an edit button themselves who is making the nasty personal attack and would you then be surprised if other posters feel that it is safe to follow and support this example?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:15 PM

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.

By the way, folks, I believe motor city mama lives in Florida if that helps you any.

Mick

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

Subject: RE: BS: Are all bigots male?
From: kendall - PM
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM

What Mick had to say didn't strike me as a personal attack, simply one man's opinion. An opinion that happen to agree with.

To me, a personal attack is when someone uses filthy language and/or calls someone nasty names.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:33 PM

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM

You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for.

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

Roger, I will respond this way, and for the last time, because you just don't get it.
Old Jewish saying, "If a man calls you an ass, ignore him. If TWO men call you an ass, get a saddle." Over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:37 PM

"Roger while no one can doubt your sincerity in the quest to fight against the PEL fiasco, one question keeps occurring to me.
Why did you choose an American owned and run site, a site where the PEL doesn't affect most of the members, to run your campaign?
Why did you flood a site where Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Germans, Argentinians,and Scots post regularly, none of whom are affected by this new legislation?
Why in view of these facts did you object to the letters UK being added to your post title, when it didn't relate to the majority of those who use this site?
You yourself keep saying that if you don't like a specific post don't read it, yet when these letters were added to save people reading something which was of no moment to them, you object.
I'm sorry Roger but you have gone beyond reason on this one, and in so doing you have alienated people who might otherwise have supported you.
Did you conduct a similar campaign on any other site, or were there rules on them that prevented you doing so?
Giok"


I thought I'd play you at your own game Roger and quote one of my own posts which I noticed you hadn't tresponded to.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:57 PM

I find it grossly offensive to cut and paste PMs. I thought they were supposed to be private. I would never consider posting someone's PM... even Shambles...

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:11 PM

Jerry,

nobody does that here, only Shambles' way of cutting and posting may give a wrong impression at the first glance.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:29 PM

...And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment... unless of course we find the message annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

Bert may I ask what you mean by your last post? Honest question.
Thanks
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:35 PM

I'd like to know too. Bert, I never thought you edited things like that. What a surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:38 PM

WAUGH!@ By God, that is a nice sky out there today....

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:44 PM

I guess I don't get it, Wolfgang: It appears to me that Shambles does post PMs from Joe. What am I missing?

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: number 6
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:46 PM

It is a nice sky out there ... then why are we sitting in here reading this continuious thread of verbal monotony?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:50 PM

I guess I don't get it, Wolfgang: It appears to me that Shambles does post PMs from Joe. What am I missing?

Jerry

Jerry I know I am supposed to be the devil incarnate but please don't assume this and try and find yet more terrible things to accuse me of.

If you look at any post - next to the name of the poster you will see PM.

It is a link and a click on this will enable you to send a PM to that poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:51 PM

Jerry, look at the header for each message. That's what he's copying

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM

Whiners.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 07:08 PM

Thanks for the clarification.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:22 AM

I find it grossly offensive to cut and paste PMs. I thought they were supposed to be private. I would never consider posting someone's PM... even Shambles...

Jerry

It has ben clarified and established to your satisaction that the message from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team was NOT a personal messgage but a public posting.

Now it has, do you have any similar judgement to pass on the example set by the nature and content of this and similar post's from those who feel qualified to sit in public judgement of their fellows but judge that they should be above judgement themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: JennyO
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 04:32 AM

Jeeziz Roger, the guy makes an innocent mistake and makes it clear that he understands now, and you go and jump all over him.

Sounds to me like you're making a judgment!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:21 AM

And you're trying to start an argument on 'When I first joined the 'Mudcat'. Is it any wonder that you get such bad press?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:42 AM

Is the week over!? Someone, tell me that a week has passed since the start of "non posting of judgements week" began .. Please .:)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: JennyO
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:07 AM

Well Alba, the good news is that the week will be over in about 14 hours.

The bad news is that we won't be able to tell the difference....

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:07 PM

OK guys, The weeks nearly over, let's start working on a truce.

Shambles, no more clone bashing.

Joe, no more deleting messages just 'cos you find them annoying.

Everyone else let us all keep quiet for a while and see if this goes away.

Now as my Dad always used to say "Kiss and make up"

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:15 PM

Seconded, Bert.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:19 PM

*meditating on the truces I have seen in recent years*

ah, well...we can hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:28 PM

Yeah, it's a bit like The Pirate Coast here at times, but if we all work together we can do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 04:31 AM

Shambles, no more clone bashing.

Not guilty. Never bashed one in my life, my lord.

Apart from the Chief of the Mudcat Editorial team - the only posters trusted with edit buttons that I know the names of are yourself, Mick, Jeri, katlaughing and (possibly still) Catspaw. The evidence will show that despite much provocation - I have resisted the temptation to respond in kind to any personal attacks from any of these posters. If any anonymous ones feel that I have knowing 'bashed' them – it is difficult to see how I can be held responsible for this by expressing my honest viws, especially as I do not know who they are.   

I am sure that they will post views that I may not agree with and when I post to do this – I would hope that they and everyone else will not judge this to be 'bashing' them or anyone else personally. I hope agree that simply not being in agreement and trying to express the reasons why – is not what you would consider as 'bashing'?

What those posters with edit buttons (and their supporters) may post in response to my posting views that may not be in total agreement with them – is not in my control. If some form of future peace is the object is it really helpful if any form of public disagreement over the nature and structure of imposed censorship action on our forum is be taken as personally as it currently appears to be encouraged to be taken by some of those posters with edit buttons? For when these sort of responses and those from other posters who would post in support – set this example – it is one that is generally going to be followed.

Posts from known posters with edit buttons or anonymous posters with edit buttons or those without edit buttons - who may wish to publicly judge the shortcomings of their fellow posters and to state which of their fellow posters they may wish to ban - are totally counter-productive. For our forum's host and the site's owner who was the one who issued the invitation for the public to contribute here - does not make such judgements.

I feel that it is now 'crunch' time. The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has now publicly admitted the failure of this current 'system' and as a result has proposed that the BS section of our forum becomes a member's only forum. This is a failure that many posters may be in agreement with but a proposal that many may not be in agreement with. But from this point - there is no going back.

One of the real pleasures of the forum that Max has provided for us – is the public's involvement. This does bring some problems but nothing that common sense measures and a realistic approach cannot deal with.

Those who think that a forum is for posting only public judgements of their fellow poster's worth as device to intentionally exclude anyone who may express a different view - are welcome to start a private members club of their own. One in which they can do just that and control every aspect. But despite what certain members appear to think - that place has never been The Mudcat Discussion Forum and I hope and trust that it never will be……………………….

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

BS, Members only, great idea, let's do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Now that is a Low move
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:27 AM

Well I don't see any clone bashing from the last Poster by my goodness nothing like 'outing' people that should have had the protection of remaining anon, if that was their wish.
The strange thing is that while Jeri and Big Mick have made no secret about their un-paid, giving of their free time, editing status, the other names mentioned, as far as I know, have never been brought up and the Members named now become a target for ridicule due to a Guess! I think that the last poster may very well be way off base with that particualr stab in the dark.
It may not amount to actually bashing a 'Clone' in the last posters eyes but it certainly setting certain people up to be verbally attacked on the Mudcat regardless of wether they are or aren't one of the people behind the Scenes. Bit of a cruel jab of the 'word sword' there I think. Unless they wish to make it Public, is a suspected Clone's identity supposed to flung around in the public arena or would it be more mannerly to PM the Clones that one suspects and ask if the wish their names to be made public as suspected Clones! Either way. Now most people reading the last Posters remarks will always wonder about the two people mentioned that have never publicly stated they are or are not Volunteers behind the scenes here. Good job Shambles. Bravo.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Now that is a Low move
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:29 AM

My Comments are not directed at you Kendall.

They are directed at The Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:31 AM

No offence taken. I'm innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:22 AM

Well to cheer you up Roger, when I was in the US asked Max how many 'clones' there are, he said "about 10", there may be more or less now, as that was last October.
I know a couple of names but that's all, and of course I wouldn't dream of repeating them to anyone else!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM

Thank God you aren't one!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM

So why still the need for secrecy ?

when most modern internet forums are run quite smoothly enough
by volunteer mods and admins
who confidently accept the responsibility and status of their role
by openly & publicly disclosing their position and "board ID"
to all other members subject to their authority ?

.. could it possibly be because the average age at mudcat
is possibly more 'senior' than most other public music forums,
and members here are of a generation that grew up
conditioned by the paternalistic culural politics, suspicion & paranoia
of the "Cold War" era ?????


..or maybe not !!??


Btw, in the ouside 3D world I have encountered many voluntary arts institutions
and shared interest 'hobby' groups
where the social interaction of members is manipulated and poisoned
by the furtive behind-closed-doors intrigues, plotting and backstabbings,
indulged in by elderly commitee office holders..

..seems there are always so many vain vindictive old monsters desperate to cling to power and influence
at any cost
to everyone else but themselves..

[ even in the most petty and insignificant local social groupings ]

..but as I said, thats just Btw........

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:16 AM

"Subject: RE: New Folk Club 9in Hull)
From: GUEST,Thornton Curtis - PM
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 11:15 AM

Mr Ted and followers - congratulations - you appear to have found another thread to inhabit. Just before you succeed in killing any interest in this one, perhaps you could continue your hilarious activities on your other masterpieces - threads that will no doubt allow you to maintain the highest quality and impressive quantities of fascinating dialogue for years to come.

There's a good fellow."

2 years 4 months and counting!

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:21 AM

The strange thing is that while Jeri and Big Mick have made no secret about their un-paid, giving of their free time, editing status, the other names mentioned, as far as I know, have never been brought up and the Members named now become a target for ridicule due to a Guess!

They know who they are, I know who I am - the only guess here is who you may be. I really doubt if any of those posters mentioned are at any risk of becoming targets of ridicule simply as a result of anything that I may post.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:31 AM

So Thornton Curtis was you then eh McKenzie?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall - PM
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

BS, Members only, great idea, let's do it.

Why would you feel that you have any right to expect our forum to be changed at this stage to better suit your requirements?

If you do not like public contributions to our forum in the form that it is and has always been - exactly what is stopping you from starting a members only site that will suit your requrements better?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:00 AM

I see the shelf life of this particulat Thread has been extended.
Now that's a pity.
Maybe a Mudcat Elf could oblige by changing the title in the Subject box to.."Extenstion of non posting of judgements week"
Purely in the interests of accuracy.
Thanks
Jude:)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:05 AM

It is forbidden to change the title of any thread started by The Shambles.
Transgressors will be bored to death ad infinitum, ad nauseam, and add salt and pepper to suit your taste.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:13 AM

That will learn em.........

All that was ever requested is that a thread's originator be first asked if they minded a change to their chosen thread title before any change was imposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM

All that was ever requested is that a thread's originator be first asked if they minded a change to their chosen thread title before any change was imposed.


A reasonable request. OK now, the week is over everyone be happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 12:47 PM

Shambles, if the bs section was open only to people with a name, you would have one less reason to piss and moan about nameless clones. That's reason enough to do it.
Furthermore, it would be an improvement, and it would not be a requirement of mine.
Notice how I stated an opinion without attacking anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:09 PM

BS, Members only, great idea, let's do it.
Kendall

Furthermore, it would be an improvement, and it would not be a requirement of mine.

Why would you feel that you have any right to expect our forum to be changed at this stage to better suit your requirements?

If you do not like public contributions to our forum in the form that it is and has always been - exactly what is stopping you from starting a members only site that will suit your requrements better?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:21 PM

Roger

'Why would you feel that you have any right to expect our forum to be changed at this stage to better suit your requirements?'

The same could and has been asked of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:27 PM

sheeeeeeeesh If an individual - and the three or four others who have enough respect for that individual's views to follow him- is unhappy with the ways thngs are, why shouldn't that individual be the logical one to start a website that would better suit his needs? Rather than perpetually proposing that every one else leave?

Another odd thing is that when changes are proposed, that individual suddenly becomes fond of the way things are.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:29 PM

Listen Mate, My opinion does not need your approval.
What I'm suggesting is simply a suggestion, not a right. Stop reading into it what is not there.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:53 PM

'Why would you feel that you have any right to expect our forum to be changed at this stage to better suit your requirements?'

The same could and has been asked of you.

And when it has the answer is clear. I do not have any expectation of any change to better suit my requirements. These requirements were perfectly met when I first started posting to our forum, which is why I continued to post here. Any changes have been imposed to suit the constantly changing requirements of others.....And these others are still not satisfied......

Now they propose to formally change our public discussion forum into a private members club - to better suit their requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 02:00 PM

It's not really OUR public discussion forum though is it Roger?
This is why you're on a hiding to nothing on this one, it is a private (owned by Max} discussion forum, in which we are allowed to participate.
If you take that as the starting point then you won't go far wrong.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 02:02 PM

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=14726&messages=56&page=1&desc=yes

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 02:05 PM

[PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 02:06 PM

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 02:13 PM

Issues of importance which can impact on an entire community,

eg. control and censorship of a 'public' forum

should not be identified with just one individual 'malcontent'.


We all should know by now how much easier it is for 'power elites'
to retain control and strive to defend a dubious status quo
by personalising issues.

Insecure and defensive institutional elites often seek to discredit and dismiss
progressive movements for positive change
by the expedient strategy of coniving to associate 'new & better' ideas
with the 'rantings' of 'known agitators & troublemakers'.

Any others who may pose a similar threat to destabalise or potentially directly challenge
the ruling order
will be likewise publicly belittled and disrespected
as simple-minded 'easily lead followers' of the higher profile
'mad extremist revolutionary ringleaders'..

.. and you know what.. this always works nearly every time !!!!!!


Now then, you over there in the corner hiding behind your computer monitor
with your eyes shut, and your fingers in your ears
chanting "la, la, la, la,la.."


..its ok, you can safely resume scanning through the posts
to only read the ones from friends you know you can agree with..

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 02:13 PM

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 Proposal for members only posting of BS

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 02:15 PM

God created the whole flippin' universe in six days. On the seventh S/he rested. Is this part deux?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM

GUEST GEUST I hope you're not accusing Roger of being a "known agitator & troublemaker"
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 03:44 PM

I have something positive and complimentary to say about Shambles.....I ...uh...suppose this is a judgement.


begin positive remarks
WOW....what a memory and cataloguing system! I will never understand how he manages to locate all those old threads & posts and keep track of relevant ones.
end positive remarks

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 04:16 PM

All you agitators should be glad this isn't a democracy. You would be voted off the island.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 04:58 PM

Kendall, don't you have a saying about knocking on a dead man's door? Do you have a saying about the sort of people who would keep knocking?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM

Has the makings of a song, Jeri . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 05:37 PM

All you agitators should be glad this isn't a democracy.

Your definition of an agitator of course would be those who constantly post to judge the worth of their fellow posters and feel they have some entitlement to shape our forum to their tastes and to gang-up, be nasty and try and drive those with different tastes away?

Or is that your definition of your ideal poster? If it is - will you and those who may agree with you - please start your own private members club and leave the rest of us to be finally free from your judgement and efforts to shape our forum to your taste.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 05:54 PM

Rofl...I believe that you believe what you post Shambles. So I have pondered this very fact for about...oh...3 minutes and here is what I have come up with.

For me. I think the best response that I can make in reply to your posts, not matter what you say or how you say it, whenever you post or start a thread..is simply....

ok Roger, your right, your always right and you always will be right, forever and ever and ever

....*sigh*......
Having reached this decision I seem to have attained an inner calm of surprising strength and serenity.
This week's NPOJW will be a good one for me I feel.
May the force be with the rest of you on THE forum:)
J

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 06:04 PM

May the force be with the rest of you on THE forum:)

When you and your fellow malcontents have set THE forum up - I hope you will all be very happy - you will not be able to judge any of my posts there for I will be staying here as a contributor to OUR forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 06:31 PM

Will there be a YOUR forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 06:35 PM

Shambles, IMO you had a good idea. I said that in the first few posts. Good luck to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 08:37 PM

Yes, Jeri, "On a dead man's door you can knock forever."

Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 08:44 PM

So Kendall, this would of course include the brain dead I assume?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:02 PM

Mama, take this badge off of me
I can't use it anymore.
It's gettin' old and I'm bored to tears
I feel like I'm knockin' on Shamble's door.

Knock, knock, knockin' on Shamble's door
Knock, knock, knockin' on Shamble's door
Knock, knock, knockin' on Shamble's door
Knock, knock, knockin' on Shamble's door

Mama, put my guns in the ground
I can't shoot them anymore.
He's repeatin' that same tired shit, a mind has flown
Now I'm just knockin' on Shamble's door.

Knock, knock, knockin' on Shamble's door
Knock, knock, knockin' on Shamble's door
Knock, knock, knockin' on Shamble's door
Knock, knock, knockin' on Shamble's door


Spaw (with apologies to Dylan)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:55 PM

ROTFLMAO (a judgement to be sure)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:14 PM

let me remind all you relative newcomers...most of the clones become so because they were the biggest complainers and troublemakers, whiners, tattletales, and general malcontents, with the exception of Bert. Max couldn't be bothered with their complaints so he gave them limited editing powers. Now they are all power mad, with the exception of Bert. They have created the most ongoing problems, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:52 PM

Bert? Is that you, Bert? :)

Nah! that wasn't me, Bert

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:09 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Vote Mudcats most boring thread!
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:43 PM

Aw c'mon Hawk.....Lay off ol' Clinton. You got nuthin' on the boy and shit like that coming from some broke-dick mamalucca like you is at the very least a bit disingenuous. So fuck off.

Your turn.

Spaw

As I have already been called everything - it should be apparent by now - that no form of personal judgement posted by any other poster will have any affect other that to encourage others to follow this example and inflict these posts upon every other poster.

It is time for those who are not happy with the fact that Max will rarely (if ever) try to exclude any poster - to form another forum which is run on the terms that they require and to finally leave the rest of us in 'peace'.

Some may no doubt post that they consider Catspaw's posting to be an attempt at as 'humour'. That may be so - but it is still setting an example for others to follow and when they do follow this example - other less-favoured posters will risk being subject to judgement and imposed censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:07 AM

Good grief.

"It is time for those who are not happy with the fact that Max will rarely (if ever) try to exclude any poster - to form another forum which is run on the terms that they require"

Shambles - how apt!- if the one you are describing is not YOU, who is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:38 AM

Shambles - how apt!- if the one you are describing is not YOU, who is it?

I think you know who you are.   

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=89872&messages=77

The idea tends to be encouraged that if other posters choose to post something that you do not like - that this is then open to public judgement and it is they who should change their tastes to suit yours or be asked or expected to go away.

Rather than just be encouraged to ignore it and concentrate of the only thing that any poster has control over - the content of their own posts.

Like any other party - who is invited and who is asked to leave - is a matter for the host and not your fellow guests. The main responsibilty an invited guest has is to try to tolerate the other invited guests and set a good example to their fellow guests.

If any invited guest cannot tolerate their fellow guests and are unable to set a good example to them and don't like the host's party - they are free to leave. They are also free to host a party where they can invite who they wish and on their requirements.

I have always liked Max's Party and the terms on which I was invited. My arguments have been with some my fellow guests who feel they have some right to judge the right of their fellow invited guests to be present and to shape Max's party to their requirements.

This has now come to a head as some of my fellow guest feel they are entitled to ask Max to limit who is invited to Max's party and in effect bring Max's party - as we have always known it - to an end.

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:39 AM

Mummy mummy, I build a castle out of my building blocks and Johnny said it was a rubbish castle, please tell him to go away!
If Johnny doesn't like your castle it doesn't matter, if you're happy with it then that's fine.
Mummy I didn't build it for him to criticize, I built it for him to admire, and he won't admire it. Tell him to go away
Not everybody likes your castle as much as you do dear.
Well if they don't like it they should go away and play in another playground.
This is everybodys playground dear, not just yours.
It's my playground, and I say who can play in it.
No dear you must learn to share.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
There there, don't cry dear, be a brave little soldier for Mummy, and she will give you a special kiss and make it all better for you.Close your little eyes and dream that there is nobody else in the playground except you.

There there.


G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 07:43 AM

but you can't have been there..

or maybe little Johhny aint exactly telling his mummy all the truth..

.. just ask one of the more sensible kids in the playground
who can usually be trusted to report what he/she witnessed
as truthfully as possible when asked by a fair-minded playground monitor..


you see, Johnny is not only just saying the other kids castle is rubbish..

the sneaky little sod is also waiting until the other poor kiddie
turns his back for a few minutes
so he can pull out and take away for keeps
some of the other kids
lego blocks
in a spiteful attack to undermine the structure of his victims castle..

now if that dont make Johnny a nasty litle bully..

what does ?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:07 AM

I personally know 6 people who have the authority to delete or edit, and not one of them is a "power hungry monster." That's crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,old bloke walking dog near playground
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:13 AM

I blame the parents, blindly doting on their spoilt evil little brats !

.. and if the little buggers dont stop tormenting my jack russell every time we walk past the playground
I'll let him off his lead to shit on the playground grass..

..ha ha, wipe them worms out their eyes.. that'll teach 'em !


Bah !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:20 AM

Aw hell Sham.....Why not post the whole thing? Here ya' go!

Subject: RE: BS: Vote Mudcats most boring thread!
From: Scoville - PM
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 04:52 PM

Any thread that degenerates into a personal one-on-one between two Mudcatters, exclusive of the rest of us who would like to have a civilized, though-provoking discussion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate - Delete Message - Edit Message - Xfer Message - Unanswered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Vote Mudcats most boring thread!
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:40 PM

Hmmm...yes, I seem to recall one or two threads where that happened.........

yeah...

Screw Clinton Hammond! ;-P The jerk.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate - Delete Message - Edit Message - Xfer Message - Unanswered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Vote Mudcats most boring thread!
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:43 PM

Aw c'mon Hawk.....Lay off ol' Clinton. You got nuthin' on the boy and shit like that coming from some broke-dick mamalucca like you is at the very least a bit disingenuous. So fuck off.

Your turn.

Spaw


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate - Delete Message - Edit Message - Xfer Message - Unanswered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Vote Mudcats most boring thread!
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:18 PM

Yeah? Go ream yourself out with a rusty pipe wrench, you hosebag!

How's that?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate - Delete Message - Edit Message - Xfer Message - Unanswered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Vote Mudcats most boring thread!
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:25 PM

anything involving Amos.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate - Delete Message - Edit Message - Xfer Message - Unanswered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Vote Mudcats most boring thread!
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:29 PM

Not bad....so let's see...........

Hawk, you're such a complete and total wanker that words alone are not enough to describe the totality of your assaholic behavior and crappola postings. The only thing you have contributed to Mudcat is the "Shatner Proof" where you established Shatner as the living proof that caribou butt-fucked buffalo.

I'm going to bed. See you in the morning.

Spaw


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate - Delete Message - Edit Message - Xfer Message - Unanswered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to hear you are suffering from humor impairment. Perhaps it is because you judge it as humour and not humor.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Cha-changes
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:21 AM

Clone

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:45 AM

Spaw - LMAO - and I judge it as HUMOUR. Please don't tar all of us with the same brush!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:00 AM

I also think that little spaw/hawk dialogue is funny,

[in the UK "Viz" magazine style profane humour
has been mainstream now for a good couple of decades,
very popular across all ages & social classes, and very profitable !]

and so the censors should turn a blind eye to any oversensitive complaints.


which, to my mind, makes it all the more pathetic
that in this thread earlier in the week ,
three [by comparison] very innocuous posts of mine were subjected to summary execution by an anonymous clone???????!!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:06 AM

There are those who like Roy 'Chubby' Brown, or Lenny Bruce, and there are those who think that profanity is just a cheap way of getting a laugh, and that it requires more thought and intelligence to get a laugh without it's use.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:13 AM

..and both schools of thought/comedy can co-exist happily enough..

not necessarily mutually exclusive,
many examples of creative cross-over..

'showbiz' playground is surely big enough to find plenty of room for both..?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM

The main thing about these 'profane' comedians is that they are known for their style, and people choose to go and see them, ergo their audience is self selecting.
The same is not true of an open to all web site, where people who would be offended by things of that nature could stumble on them accidentally.
That is really the guiding principle, yes if you're sure of your audience you can get away with it, otherwise exercise caution and restraint with your material.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:07 AM

Giok,

So, we need both a BS and a BSX section here, to prevent people who would be offended by things of that nature stumbling on them accidentally?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

I, and I expect many others in this 'audience',
chose to come to mudcat in the reasonable expectation of reading the fullest range of material
creatively expressed by a most diverse international *adult membership..



[* I hesitate to say 'mature' adult.. but I reckon most here are !]

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM

As do I, but if there are those who feel offended by something in a thread they choose to open, should they have some warning?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:28 AM

surely any 'necessary warning' is automatically implicit
as soon as the sensitive souls stray below the BS line ????

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:30 AM

I would think so, but... it seems not.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:35 AM

Only looking for the explanation for these deleted posts, that seem to be causing the progemitor of them such mystification.
I'm not a sensitive soul, but do remember that some members like Shady Lady and Limpit are of tender years, and while many of today's kids have a wider vocabulary of swear words than I do, I still do try to 'edit' my own posts for that reason.
There is no need after all to cause gratuitous offence is there?
Giok ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:38 AM

The point is that whether these so-called humourous posts containing offensive language and telling others to F*** *** remain on our forum is less a matter of if it is judged to be humourous but of judging who may be posting it.

The whole justification for why our forum has been subject to one poster imposing their judgement on others - is to protect us from offensive personal attacks. If any of those entrusted with an edit button is seen to indulge in such things - what hope is there of this example not being followed?

Is it the ultimate hypocrisy for similar posts to be deleted when those posted by those with edit buttons will be excused and safe from any form of editing action? This sort of open abuse makes a complete nonsense of this current deiting 'system' and brings into question all of those with edit buttons who may try to set a good example and try to act responsibly and who get 'tarred with the same brush'.

But the answer is for those who really think that defending and encouraging such double standards is a good thing - is for them to find another place where they can do this without inflicting them on everyone else. Now that the failure of this current system has been admitted - there can be no justification for the rest of our forum to be subjected to this hypocrisy and the excuses given for it any longer.

It acts as a cover for bullying and actually encourages the posting only of personal judgements of fellow posters. Rather that discouraging flaming - it provides for those who find this enjoyable -almost a crusade to indulge in against certain easy targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM

Giok,

I do not have a problem with having some indicator that "mature" words or topics will be in a thread-

but PLEASE note that many here take delight in causing gratuitous offence: would you deprive them of the only joy they can find in their pitiful lives?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

☺☻

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:00 AM

right, how do you do graphic smilies ?



thats one essential modern forum tool this place needs to try to prevent
a lot of the unnecessary misunderstandings & flaming..


..A new thread pointing to any past tutorials might be quite timely..

[can you do "winking eye" and "sarcastic but still friendly piss-take" smileys ???]


that'd be cool

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule1.html

One of the problems of having a censor is that it becomes challenge to find ways of getting around being censored. You can do this by always being seen to suck-up to the censor so that they will find it is difficult to impose action on you as they would others.

There are many ways to 'push the envelope' but what happens is that in this game - and in the attempt to steer close to the permited limits - it is possible to forget that the most important thing is using the natural inhibitors that we all have inbuilt. In other words, self censorship.

All of tend to know if what we intend to post is really as worthy, pure and positive as we may try to maintain publicly that it is. All that I would like to see is posters not being encouraged by example to judge the worth of their fellow posters or have 'fun' at their expense - but a return to them being encouraged to concentrate on making the content of their own posts as positive, tolerant and as conscious of the realities and limitations of our forum as possible.

When it is finally accepted that our forum is not a private members club to be shaped - or when Max agrees to turns it into a private members club - as requested by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team - peace may have a chance of breaking out. Currently posters are feeling they are being forced to take sides. I would like to see an end to all this division and for all posters to be able to post once again on equal terms. The very thing that made The Mudcat Discussion Forum the special place it still remains.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:59 AM

Allegory:

A man owns a house. It is a nice house, very large and reasonably well kept. But he doesn't live there so he asks one of the tenants to keep an eye on the place. The position is not a paid one, of course, but he knows that the one(s) he chose love the place.

The caretaker accepts and now plays a dual role: he still lives there and plays there but he is a bit more "equal" than all the others and all the others know it- he has the right to speak in the name of the owner. All of the others are aware of his role and they are glad that it is he and not they who has to stay awake. The others would all rather just play. Almost all of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:01 PM

Roger with the greatest respect you are promoting division, you leave people with no option but to be for you or against you, now that's divisiveness!
You have even taken to suggesting that people who don't like Mudcat the way it is should go start their own site with rules to suit them.
Now at a rough guess I would say you were trying to divide them from this site!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:04 PM

Ebbie,

I think that Shamble's point is that, in your analogy, the caretaker is letting SOME of the tenants play loud music all night, but telling others to turn their music down, because the caretaker does not like that type of music.

Shambles, please correct me if I am wrong- I do not claim to speak for anyone besides myself.

Nor do I have a problem with judicious clone editing of some kinds- but it MUST be applied in a fair and evenhanded manner to be acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:25 PM

Good point, bb. Darn. That's the problem with allegories- ya can't cover all the hypotheses!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:40 PM

You have even taken to suggesting that people who don't like Mudcat the way it is should go start their own site with rules to suit them.

The division exists and is not entirely of my making.

But is it not divisive for those who don't like the way it is and express their failure to stay but feel their have some right to impose their required changes upon everyone else? So many good things have been lost and this latest proposal is just the final insult to us all.

Shambles, please correct me if I am wrong- I do not claim to speak for anyone besides myself.

Yes the point is that any caretaker has to recognise and honour the host's invitation and to treat the invited guests equally. It will only cause division and trouble if the guest's suitability to post is judged publicly by the caretaker and fellow guests are then encouraged to support these judgements and to feel they should also express judgements of their fellow guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:40 PM

hi beardedbruce,

can't speak for Shambles either..

But I'm in accord with your concise summing up of the main problems here.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:53 PM

The main problem I see here is a handful of malcontents constantly pissing and moaning about rules.Rules that the majority believe are necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:02 PM

Aw come on guys! let it go.   Let's drop this subject for a few days and see if we can make it go away.

I think that Joe and the clones are now committed to trying to bring some reason to the editing process. Don't go expecting an apology from whever it was that messed up in the past; I don't think that we'll ever know who was responsible.

So, come on, no more threads or messages about censorship, and no more Shambles bashing. Let's just accept that some clone got a bit trigger happy and that some members got pissed and keep going on about it. It's time to forgive and forget and move on.

If we all keep our heads down for a while, maybe this will blow over.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:17 PM

The main problem I see here is a handful of malcontents constantly pissing and moaning about rules.Rules that the majority believe are necessary.

Many who think this - appear to judge that these rules should be imposed on everyone else but they themselves are safe to ignore them.

But what rules are you referring to? Has Max not publicly stated that there are none?

Has The Chief of the Mudcat Editing team not also just publicly stated that the attempt to impose these rules has now failed in achieving the required peace?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:20 PM

Sorry Bert but I know it is possible to tell who edits/deletes what. That said I don't think they should be publicly identified anyway.
If any apology is necessary then it should be a Mudcat apology, and an assurance that it will not recur.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:38 PM

..ok, agreed by me Bert.

Its unreasonable to expect the owners of mudcat to find money or time
for new forum software with more up to date features;

so within existing limitations,
an active commitment to more consistent, rational, objective and fairer treatment
of the written contributions from all members is an acceptable positive outcome.


.. and as a bonus, because of this thread I've finally found
a mudcat name for BS threads
I can like enough to live with long-term !


nice one !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:08 PM

I wish you a lot of luck Bert! No Shambles bashing? No problem!

Now how about Shambles agrees to drop the entire subject as well? Give it a try and see if he will Bert. Nothing and no one have stopped him the past 7 or 8 years but I'm behind you. Go for it!

Sham, I will apologize for any and all comments, no matter of my intent, which you took to heart and considered terrible or nasty or whatever you, on a personal basis only, considered them to be.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,a clone who tries
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:25 PM

"Is it the ultimate hypocrisy for similar posts to be deleted when those posted by those with edit buttons will be excused and safe from any form of editing action? "

Nonsense, Shambles. Don't make statements you are not sure of. I am a clone who does limited amounts of editing. I have had my posts edited and deleted a few times, and I have had a couple of my editing decisions overturned by Joe. That is the way it works. I have tried to learn from those few mistakes and do a better job.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:35 PM

Well Goik, I didn't say it was impossible, I said I don't think we'll ever know.

Let's not ask for apologies for what has happened in the past. Let us move forward.

Personally, I am always prepared to stand up and be publicly identified for whatever I say and do.

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

Shambles, Yes Max has said in the past that there are no rules, but that was a while ago and rules sometimes arise simply from usage. We also set our own rules about our usage of Mudcat.

For example I rarely read threads that are more than about twenty lines long unless it's a song. Therefore I try to keep my own postings short.

This one is going to be longer because I'm answering several people.

So give this a try, forget the past, yes, some stuff was done that I don't agree with. But let's forget it and start anew.

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

GUEST, thanks.

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

Spaw,

I love all of your posts, even when you're taking the piss out of me you are funny and I can take it. I'm sure Shambles feels the same and will go along with it.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM

"Clone who tries," exactly...same here.

For the record, I came "out" as a clone a long time ago. I DON'T think anyone has the right to out any of us without our permission, though. That is the way Max set it up AND, if I remember correctly, he left it up to us, as individuals, whether we went public or not.

Spaw, it would be nice if that could happen, but judging from past years, I don't hold out much hope. I know you can do it, but I doubt Roger can.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM

Now hear this...There is one hard and firm rule...like it or not it is:
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Calling someone a f*****g asshole, or some other nasty name will get you deleted. Adjust, and move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,scaryfied
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 05:06 PM

Now it would be quite worrying if kendall was already a clone ?

and,if not already,

with any hope he will never pass the auditions
for future elevation to the powers of clonedom

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 07:17 PM

Why? Because I tell it like it is? I don't make the rules, I'm only telling you what I know.So, shoot the messenger, that makes more sense than some of the horse shit I've seen posted here.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 05:29 AM

So give this a try, forget the past, yes, some stuff was done that I don't agree with. But let's forget it and start anew.

Bert-

The only reason I am forced to keep dredging all these individual cases of questionable censorship is because many posters will not accept that such things have kept on happening.

When the fact that these things do happen and the harm they do to our forum is generally accepted -
and is not publicly questioned and defended and -
when those that question them are not subject to posts containing only personal judgements -
when this questionable censorship no longer happens and it is clear that lessons have finally be learned from past mistakes -
there will be no need for me to dredged them up or to be due any apologies from anyone.

And on the subject of apolgies - the following is supposed to be an apology? On the lines of - I am sorry if I may have inadvertantly upset you in some way? There can be no question that some of the things this posters has been permitted to post publicly were intended to be taken on a very personal basis. Nor that the intention of them was to encourage others to indulge in such things in the hope that the target would go away as a result.

Sham, I will apologize for any and all comments, no matter of my intent, which you took to heart and considered terrible or nasty or whatever you, on a personal basis only, considered them to be.

Spaw

That I have resisted the temptation to respond to them in kind does not alter the fact that the rest of the forum has been subjected to such things. There is no need for even an honest apology - just some assurance that such an example will not in future be set and posted - and if they are that these posts will be treated in the same way as similar posts from other posters.   

Then if anyone should disagree with any thing that I or any other poster may post on any subject in the future - they can be encouraged to respond or simply to ignore it............

But the incorrect idea that it is any other individual poster that I have some personal beef with is still encouraged. I can deal with anything like this by simply ignoring these contributions. The point is that it is the so-called 'system' of censorship that is the real problem. It is this 'system' - not any well-intentioned individual caught up in it that needs to be discussed openly and addressed.

Sadly I see little evidence here that this is to be openly discussed or addressed - even when the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has now admitted its failure and can only propose that the public be excuded (from posting BS) and this be turned into a members only forum.

Is this going to happen or are we just going to have to be subjected to the same 'system' - despite the resulting division caused by it and even though it's architect has publicly declared that he has no confidence in its ability to bring the results that he requires?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 05:39 AM

Nonsense, Shambles. Don't make statements you are not sure of. I am a clone who does limited amounts of editing. I have had my posts edited and deleted a few times, and I have had a couple of my editing decisions overturned by Joe. That is the way it works. I have tried to learn from those few mistakes and do a better job.

How can I or any other poster really know if you are who you claim to be?

I should have used the word 'some'. For there is no doubt that some posters with edit buttons have been permitted to post things that other posters would have been subject to imposed censorship for.

If that does not include you - perhaps you should also be publicly critical of the actions of some of your fellow edit button holders - who have brought your integrity into question by their actions?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 07:48 AM

Please let em get this straight. 7 years ago on the Mudcat something happened to offend The Shambles on the Mudcat.
7 years ago! Is

(I just knew that NPJW would last longer, I knew it... just kiddin unfortunately)

That's a long time to be holding onto a resentment in my humble opinion.

Seriously Roger, I have not been around the Mudcat for 7 years and I truly mean no offense when I ask you this....

What do you want? Is there a way for you to say what that is, briefly and to the point in two or three sentences. Seriously.
Is this something you would think about doing so it may be clearer to some people on the Mudcat what your goal is.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:07 AM

What he wants is attention.

How about a job in a bra factory? He can make mountains out of mole hills like no one else here.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:37 AM

Knew I shouldn't have posted till the Caffeine kicked in..**smile**

Re: my typing whatevers..!

'em'...should read 'me'
as for the 'Is' after "years ago"..

I have absolutely no idea what the hell that is or where it came from..such are the joys of Dysl and no caffeine kick-in...oh well.
Just wanted to clear that up. Ta

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,scaryfied & mystified
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM

Why does kendall insist on continuing to use this thread
as a platform to portray himself
as a smug interfering mean-spirited hypocrite?

What does he hope to accomplish?

Why does he repeatedly carp and snarl about the dire consequences
bound to be inflicted on mudcatters who "make personal attacks",

yet indulge here, with apparent impunity,
with the very same negative intent aimed at Shambles?

Very curious indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:54 AM

yes Alba, you are right, it is time for caffeine !

I meant to write;

"yet indulge himself here, with apparent impunity,
with the very same negative intent aimed at Shambles?"

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 09:44 AM

The only reason that I can find for you not responding in kind Roger is that you find 'Fuck off' too short a sentence for your taste!
Giok

(It's a joke Roger, it's a joke!)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 09:50 AM

You can't choose your family so it rather follows that on our forum you cannot choose your fellow posters.

They have just the same rights to post as you do. And you have no control over what others choose to post.

When you have finally accepted this reality - all you can do is to try and tolerate your fellow posters and what they post - ignore it - or post somewhere else. It is that simple.

For this is a discussion forum. If any poster wishes to cover any subject - they have the right to do this - no matter how any other poster may judge them. For it only matters what is being said - not who may be saying it.

The only role any form of moderator needs to have is to enable this - not to control, judge or shape the direction of the public's contributions.

If any moderation is thought to be neccesary - it should be undertaken by someone who is not also trying to be a poster and whose decisions can then be seen to be objective.

There first needs to be some firm object of this moderation and a clear understanding of the basis on which these decisions are made and they should apply equally to all posters who should be encouraged to judge what they post rather than post only to judge what others choose to post.

Any moderation that does not operate on these lines - is liable to cause more problems than having none at all and relying on individual posters to self-moderate. We have before us the evidence of this.

We also have the admission of failure of this current editing shambles. Perhaps instead of threads like this with over 300 posts - where a third are from me and the rest are personal judgements of me - we could have a little more discussion on the rather important subject of the nature of censorship on our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 09:51 AM

Or you can choose to simply ignore this and similar threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 10:29 AM

Roger, you have made your point. Now drop it. If Max wishes to make a change he has all the possible arguments from you there may be for his own consideration. He has all the info he needs at his disposal and anything else from you is not needed. Continuing to "discuss" this is nuts because it will never be a discussion.....it is your opinion, my opinion, and the opinions of anyone else who posts here and has an asshole. (that's a small joke there Sham)

Now try and do what Bert has suggested and just drop it. Anyone who doesn't understand what your points are (whether they agree or not) is truly brain dead. They may not agree or even understand why you are so wound up after all this time, but unless they are completely non-functional, they should be able to understand. I'm sure Max does and if you have PM'ed him on this as I and others have suggested, then I absolutely guarantee he understands your points. Again, what he decides to do or not do is up to him but any further postings on it from you are really not needed......but go right ahead if you think they will help.

But why not just drop it as Bert, who has staunchly supported you along the way, suggests?   If and when Max makes a move I am sure he will talk with you about it but until then there really is no point to continuing this is there?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 11:02 AM

Or you can choose to simply ignore this and similar threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 11:30 AM

SOS

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 11:31 AM

Roger do you have one ounce of charity in your soul?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 11:51 AM

Spaw, I'm brain dead...LOL (this of course as no surprise to those who have come to know me..*grin*)

I won't return to this Thread now as I know that I will never REALLy know...why?????
..and I have to ask myself why do I want to know why?
Jude: "why do you want to know why?". Jude: " I don't know, in fact. I don't really want to know anymore". Jude: " Good now go away" Jude: "ok"


Farewell all.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 12:08 PM

Non judging of postmen week

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 01:16 PM

Impunity? for what? posting a notice?
hypocrite? How so? Did I attack someone?

Did I resort to name calling as you did, mystified?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

In case anyone didn't notice, the week's up.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 04:08 PM

OK!

It DID happen, it was a lot less that 7 years ago and it wasn't only to Shambles.

NOW!!!! it is going to stop, it's all over. Even though I didn't do it I will offer an apology. Things could have been handled better, they weren't I'm sorry. NOW ALL OF US - and I mean ALL.

It's water under the bridge, it's over, Kalas, finished, done, tamam, kaput.

Get over it all of you. I don't want anyone stepping in and trying to get the last word. You're right, you've been right all along, all of you.

Kiss and make up, we've got better things to worry about.

If you feel you've been or are being treated unfairly then send ME a PM and I'll investigate and I'll reply to you. If I find something that everyone needs to know I'll start a new thread about it.

But the time for these online qsquabbles is OVER so stop it.

Don't make me come down there.

Lighted up everyone, we're all friends here.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 05:51 PM

There is a wonderful piece of eastern philosophy, "Your opinion of me is none of my business."

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 04:47 AM

Ancient western philospher - now living in the West Country.

If you set the example of publicly posting your opinion of another poster or tell them what they can post and speculate on their possible motives - it becomes everyone's business and encourages the idea that such things are acceptable.

Ancient western philospher - now living in the West Country.

You can't choose your family so it rather follows that on our forum you cannot choose your fellow posters.

They have just the same rights to post as you do. And you have no control over what others choose to post.

When you have finally accepted this reality - all you can do is to try and tolerate your fellow posters and what they post - ignore it - or post somewhere else. It is that simple.

For this is a discussion forum. If any poster wishes to cover any subject - they have the right to do this - no matter how any other poster may judge them. For it only matters what is being said - not who may be saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 07:10 AM

Opinions, yes. Personal attacks, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 10:17 AM

hey! Bert's all puckered up, ready to kiss and make up! For goodness sake, Shambles..(and Kendall..☺) kiss him! I'll be in line right behind you. ♥

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 10:23 AM

"My strength is that of ten, for my heart is pure"

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 10:29 AM

If it is agreed that personal attacks and judgements are none of the business of those being attacked or judged - there is certainly no good reason why everyone else on our forum should be subjected to them.

On a purely practical level - it should be obvious to those who have quite intentionally used personal attacks and judgements and encouraged others to do this - in order to try and drive other posters away - that this does not work.

All that results is many threads containing 300 + posts. It might be as well to just ignore the posts of others on subjects that are not to your taste - then they will not attract 300 + posts. And leave the judgement of who is allowed to post what, to the site's owner.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 10:53 AM

This is the greatest week in the history of the world since the Creation.

Richard M. Nixon

It could turn out to be the longest........?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 10:55 AM

"What he wants is attention."

You certainly could identify that behavior, kENDALL as an attention seeker extraordinaire.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 12:51 PM

I don't know who you are, but you are obviously someone who doesn't know me at all to say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 01:45 PM

Kendall-

You and I have never met - have we?

And you do not know me - so why would you think your public judgement of me - that 'he wants attention' - would be accurate, serve any useful puropose or be of any interest to anyone else?

These threads are not because I want attention. The attention I usually receive on them from the usual suspects and other posters who are encouraged by this example - is the type that most of us could easily live without. But it does serve a useful purpose.

Censorship is an important issue and continuing these threads in the face of this judgement - also makes the point that posters are entitled to post on the subjects that they wish. And that any judgements from fellow posters on this entitlement - will only succeed in prolonging the thread. A fact that I would have thought been accepted by the usual suspects long long ago............

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 01:47 PM

LOL Bill D.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 02:36 PM

Yes, Shambles, we all do know you. Probably better than some folks who have met you. You have given us 7+ years of exposure to you and your real thoughts. Kendall is right on the mark. You have taken low self esteem to a new level.

Bert, I love ya, but give it up. Shambles will never let up. In fact, IMO, it bothers him that you would try to end this. If you end it, he won't be able to claim "high road victim" status. He will go on and on incessantly. Once, the forum displayed some decent discipline and ignored him for the most part for several weeks. He lived with it, but after a few days he started tossing out the bait again. You could almost feel the desperation. Eventually someone took the bait and it started all over again. I have even fallen back into the trap.

Bert, you know most of the clones. Do you think they have a hidden agenda? You were part of the founding of this place. It's beauty lay in the community of it all. In those days there were folks from various places around the globe that had "the button". They were anonymous, but several had ID'ed themselves to me. Do you think they hurt the Mudcat? You know, better than most, that they make mistakes, usually because they get frustrated. But Max/Jeff/Joe usually fix those. Do you doubt their integrity? I will tell you this from experience. When one of us steps over the line, we usually hear about it. And our error is fixed.

Bottom line is that the place is what it is. And Shambles is what he is. I used to suggest he go somewhere he could be happy. I have come to realize that he is very happy, and really doesn't want any of his demands met. If they were, he wouldn't be able to feel like the martyr. In his head, he believes that the great majority of Mudcatters accept his views and he is a heroic figure. The reality, IMO, is just the opposite. And that is sad.

Trouble is, it has caused some great folks to leave the place and has given us a reputation.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 04:33 PM

Roger, that was an opinion. It was not an attack or a judgement. Maybe if you would learn the difference you wouldn't have such a "Hard done by" complex.

Mick, right on.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 04:48 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall - PM
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 05:51 PM

There is a wonderful piece of eastern philosophy, "Your opinion of me is none of my business."

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM

The week in review: What got said:

"




                                                    ."

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 06:13 PM

Peace has pretty much nailed it. The threads serve to frustrate or amuse. People talk, sometimes get mad, and talk some more, get mad some more, talk... I just keep doing what I think I should be doing, editing-wise, regardless of opinions posted. Nothing really changes, but all this not changing sure takes a lot of effort on the part of some.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 06:24 PM

I note with a chuckle that you got your two cents in.

I'll get me hat.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 06:46 PM

But ya' know Mick, I agree with Jeri! I ain't changin' a thing either even though sometimes it is more painful not to change.

Like a couple of weeks back......I had to change the way I wiped my ass because I had rotator cuff tendonitis. It was less painful to change and the outcome was alright I guess, but not nearly as good on the whole....or hole....whatever. Wiping with the opposite hand is, well, I dunno'.........kinda' like a reading a rambling, syntax jumbled, post around here. There is lots of action and all in them but generally not too satisfying and often completely inane...or insane, as the case may be.....a shitty mess you might say.

The tendonitis came from bowling. Tris just loves to bowl and I have watched him for years with his class. But I am finally feeling so damn great that I'm doing lots of things I used to do. The sad part is that much of the bod has fallen apart waiting for other parts to heal. Oh well. In any case, I took him bowling a few times prior to his regional Special Olympics event. Now I haven't bowl in 10 years or better but I rolled a 522 series after all this time. Tris had a great time and by the way.....He is going to the state competition, a 3 day affair at Ohio State in June. He's won 2 medals this year and is really proud of them. He'll have a great time at OSU.   We're buying him his own ball as a surprise.

Just wanted to reinforce Jeri's point..........(;<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 07:05 PM

Perhaps you should purchase a bidet, Spaw.

"BB-1000 is equipped with state-of-the-art "smart power saving function" that calculates the most frequently used hours of the day for maximum savings with a powerful deodorizer that eliminates up to 90% of embarrassing odor.

Its patented 1 pocket 3 nozzles allow maximum hygiene with a soothing pulsating massage. Equipped with the most advanced "Capacitance" seat sensor and "Self Diagnosis," BB-1000 is truly the most advanced and complete bidet seat in the industry."

biobidet.com

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 07:28 PM

"I note with a chuckle that you got your two cents in."

Why the chuckle?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 07:55 PM

Little Hawk, the problem is that Spaw will still have to dry his bum off after he gets hosed... off. Maybe there's a model that comes with a little blow dryer?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,practical Phil
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 08:11 PM

"Spaw will still have to dry his bum off after he gets hosed"

isn't that what wives are for ?

y'know, the "in sickness and in health/for better or worse" agreement in the contract.....

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 08:12 PM

Oh, the visuals!

Be well, Spaw!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 09:41 PM

Jeri, there is one: Click. Even has a remote control!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 09:49 PM

Actually kat, the models on the site Hawk listed have a warm air drying feature. I knew they would have of course since Hawk listed them here and gawd knows he's a man who likes to stick his head into things!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 09:55 PM

Yeah, they work great when the hair dryer's on the fritz!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 10:54 PM

Ya' know this could be a wonderful new name for the clones. I've always thought "Joe Clone" was pretty stupid but I could see calling this group The Bidet Bunch. Got a problem with a posting? Just call on The Bidet Bunch. They clean up the crap!


This thread is really making some progress now! Poor Roger was so concerned because so many posts add nothing to a discussion. Just look at all we've added here!!!! Brings a tear to my eye it does.........'Course maybe that's the smell....................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 06:53 AM

Bert.

I have a view on a subject that a certain few posters obviously do not want other posters to discuss. Rather than simply ignoring any threads containing discussions on this subject- these few still appear to think that they should have some control over what other posters choose to post and some right to demand that others do not post to discuss what they may choose to.

No one is being forced to open any thread but these few posters would appear to think that because they do not wish to discuss this subject - this gives them some right to continue to post personal judgments of their fellow posters and publicly speculate on every aspect of the fellow poster who happens to be their current target in order to prevent discussion on this subject.

I hope you will accept that if I or any other poster is forced to stop discussion on any subject of their choice or to stop posting at all by these bullying tactics - then these questionable tactics and 'mob rule' would have been seen to succeed in their object?      

Perhaps it is time that these few are officially encouraged to go elsewhere, where this bullying conduct would be thought acceptable - rather than be permitted to indulge in this bullying, set this example and subject the rest of our forum to this. For it has the result only of inhibiting other posters from feeling free to post what they choose to - or perhaps from even wishing to contribute here on such terms.

Perhaps all posters can be encouraged to finally accept that the only control they have - or should have - is over the content of their own posts and that they have no right to prevent others from posting what they choose?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 07:30 AM

Yes, Shambles, we all do know you. Probably better than some folks who have met you. You have given us 7+ years of exposure to you and your real thoughts. Kendall is right on the mark. You have taken low self esteem to a new level

If as you judge, my self-esteem is low, perhaps you would accept that you (and Kendall) have done very little to raise it?

Bert, I love ya, but give it up. Shambles will never let up. In fact, IMO, it bothers him that you would try to end this. If you end it, he won't be able to claim "high road victim" status. He will go on and on incessantly. Once, the forum displayed some decent discipline and ignored him for the most part for several weeks. He lived with it, but after a few days he started tossing out the bait again. You could almost feel the desperation. Eventually someone took the bait and it started all over again. I have even fallen back into the trap.

I have a view I wish to discuss. I am always willing to be persuaded in reasoned public discussion to alter that view. But whatever the subject may be - is it right that I or any other poster should be bullied by some of my fellow posters into silence? There is no trap. It is quite simple. If the thread receives no posts – it will fall off the bottom. Posts that only judge the thread or fellow posters (or on other subjects)– will only result in prolonging the thread and at a cost to the credibility of our forum.

Bottom line is that the place is what it is. And Shambles is what he is. I used to suggest he go somewhere he could be happy. I have come to realize that he is very happy, and really doesn't want any of his demands met. If they were, he wouldn't be able to feel like the martyr. In his head, he believes that the great majority of Mudcatters accept his views and he is a heroic figure. The reality, IMO, is just the opposite. And that is sad.

What the place is – is a public discussion forum. It is not (yet) a private members club. Whether the great majority of Mudcatters accept my views or not – I consider they have a right to read and discuss what these views may be and to decide for themselves. Do you think that they should not have this right?

Trouble is, it has caused some great folks to leave the place and has given us a reputation.

Any reputation our forum may have will be as direct result of the example of posting that is set. If you now set an example that encourages bullying – this example will attract and encourage bullies. Many posters have left because some of their fellow guests feel they have some right to invite them to………….Others have stayed – (partly) for the same reason.

But if you do not think that the public are are entitled to post to discuss what they wish - perhaps those who think this would be happier posting elsewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 09:05 AM

Yawn

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 11:07 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall - PM
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

BS, Members only, great idea, let's do it.

When you have formed this members only club - I trust you will be less bored and that all members of your exclusive mutual admiration society be very happy posting only personal judgements of each other.

As the rest of us will be without you - finally free on our forum to discuss what we wish to without being subject to your judgements.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 11:41 AM

Well I've been away for the weekend making music with some good friends, and I see that absolutely nothing has changed, Roger is still quoting the same posts but in a different order, and we are all desperately hoping that Roger will see the light.
So like I said, nothing has changed, Roger will never see himself as others see him, and myself and others will never allow him to cyber bully us into his point of view.
So that's it!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM

Sadly - it isn't.

Some would appear to think that imposed censorship by one poster upon another has some place on our forum but that any discussion of censorship has not. And that any means of preventing other posters from taking part in such discussions are acceptable.

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 Proposal for members only posting of BS

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 12:50 PM

Have I been mis understood? Is it intentional? The only thing I feel strongly about is personal attacks using nasty name calling. Shambles, if the "right" to indulge in juvenile name calling is important to you, then we are 180 degrees out.
However, carping endlessly about an imagined slight that happened 7 years ago is simply annoying to many of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 01:02 PM

So. Mutual accusations of bullying going back and forth, eh?

There are 2 positions of bullying:

The first position of bullying -

1. From the appearance of strength. The "strong" bully asserts his or her dominance in plainly obvious ways, focusing on the supposed weaknesses of his or her chosen target, and attacking that target with a view toward intimidation and control. Ridicule of the target is much prized by strong bullies, as is contempt for the target. The target is regarded as a pathetic "loser". Strong bullies spend their lives searching enthusiastically for "losers" to make fun of, thus enhancing their own fragile sense of identity. Without such losers to look down on, they wouldn't feel as strong as they like to feel.

The second position of bullying -

2. From the appearance of weakness or, more often, having a grievance of some kind, perceiving that one has been illegitimately offended or hurt in a morally wrongful way. The "victimized" or aggrieved bully asserts his or her moral superiority and presumed righteousness over various people that he or she accuses of bullying or offending him or her. This is a far more devious and subtle form of bullying than the "strong bully" method, because it hides its true intentions behind a facade of being the innocent victim...but its true intentions are the same as those of the strong bully, that is: to exercise control and domination over its chosen target(s), and to be "right" by making other people "wrong". Weak bullies spend their lives searching enthusiastically for people to be offended and morally outraged by, thus enhancing their own fragile sense of identity. Without such bad strong bullies to get upset about, they wouldn't feel as morally righteous as they like to feel.



You can find plenty of examples of both bully types on this forum. The more blatantly strong bullies are so painfully obvious that no one could possibly miss them. I won't name any names, however... ;-P

(some examples of strong bullies in public life: Maragaret Thatcher, Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, the average pro wrestler, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenneger, Don Cherry, Dick Cheney)

The weak bullies are more common, however. There are a lot of them. Anyone who isn't habitually aggressive is likely to be a weak bully at times.

If you find yourself trying to control the agenda by making other people feel guilty for something they said or supposedly did to you or someone else...you are most likely playing the weak bully role. This will provoke the strong bullies to tell you to "fuck off", and similar stuff like that. They will go on and on about what a crybaby and whiner you are (gloating to themselves in sheer sadistic delight as they say it), and there will probably be some truth in what they say too, but not a truth that helps anyone much. You will go on and on about what mean-spirited bullies they are, what unpleasant people they are, which will also be true, but it won't do any good either.

Either way, it's a really nasty, sadistic, cruddy situation that poisons human relations and causes threads to rave on here for 300 or more posts and achieve not one worthwhile thing in the process. Too bad, eh? I see no solution other than that we will all eventually either grow up...or die...whichever happens first.

Either way is fine with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 01:42 PM

There are only two things that will stop it continuing, and one of those is Mudcat disappearing, and hopefully that will never happen.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 01:47 PM

Roger...the recurring theme in your campaign is 'judging', that is, one poster commenting on another in some way...even if done humorously or obliquely. You would, I gather like them to NOT do this. Yet, you also seem to advocate complete freedom for people to post whatever they like, and suggest that people can choose not to open threads and/or can ignore posts they don't agree with.

I can't see how your two views can be reconciled...they 'feel' to me to be contradictory.

Mudcat's current stated policy is to allow most posts, except for direct personal attacks and other 'serious' transgressions. Teasing you and arguing with you are not the same as threats or virulent, serious, attacks....which WOULD be censored (and have been)...

What you have created is a circular, self-feeding process in which you complain about 'judgement' and censorship in such a way as to provoke MORE reaction and 'judgement' about your tactics and opinions about your motives!

Do you really not see that you are the controlling focus of all this debate? There are dozens of folks occasionally or regularly commenting on YOUR efforts to influence policy & behavior here who would NOT have much to say if YOU stopped your incessant picking at the situation!

Mudcat policy IS that there will be 'some' editing done by Joe and his staff. This policy will protect YOU against really gratuitous, serious attacks...but not against raucous commentary when you keep adding fuel to the fire.

You can't have it both ways...if posting is to be free, open and 'mostly' unedited, then commentary on the process is open to everyone..not just you.

If your ONLY real interest is to remove or 'out' all the editors (Joe + clones), then you are endlessly struggling against stated policy that Joe WILL be chief editor and that there WILL be a small staff to aid him, some openly, some not. Since this IS a private site, Max may have this policy as he chooses, and continuing to rail against it only leads to these interminable threads.

We constantly tell each other that we ought to quit responding to your complaints & suggestions, but it is VERY hard to see circular, incessant repetition of these points without replying.

I dunno, Roger...you are bright, aware, a good musician and have a lot to offer, and if you dropped this campaign of righteous indignation, you could be almost instantly just part of the crew again, rather than a source of contention and frustration. NO ONE ELSE shares your wider concerns, though you sometimes get a bit of moral support on small points. It aint worth it!!!!

I dunno why I tried this once more...I don't really expect you to either see or agree with my analysis...I guess I just wanted to see my own viewpoint in print. One can always hope though....(yes, I guess that's what YOU would say...)

sheeeesh............

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 02:03 PM

hmmm,

I thought all this might die down.

I guess you're all enjoying yourselves so I'll just let you get on with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM

Bill D. and Little Hawk, I couldn't have said it better.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,cheesed-off[but perversely amused]bystander
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 02:45 PM

..and its probably plain simple sad truth that some folk here
are just getting too cantankerous and crotchety,
and no longer reasonable enough to be capable of agreeing to compromise
or any meaningfull long-term truce.

Symtomatic of this natural ageing process is the all-too-common inability for individuals to recognize
their own gradual deteriorating condition;
becoming entrenched in fixed attitudes and opinions,
all too proud and vain to acknowledge that their cognative skills of self-judgement and rational social awareness
are not as sharp as they used to be.....


.. Fancy a nice cup of tea and a slice of soft sponge cake granpa ?
Shall I switch the TV on for you, or do you want to go back on the internet
to stir up another sensless fight again with your old silver surfer buddies ???

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:06 PM

Dear Cheesed off, how nice of you to drop by and give us the benfit of your wisdom, I can't think when I was last so underwhelmed.
Please don't hesitate to drop by again when you can't stay so long.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:21 PM

I don't watch TV.

Keep in mind that you too shall grow physically old...sooner than you think...and your words will come back to haunt you.

Tbe body grows old. The spirit never dies. I'll be young again when you are lying in your hospital bed. It happens to everyone. The only way to avoid getting old is to die young.

To be arrogant about simply being young is a very common thing, a mistake we almost all made in our own youth, but you feel very sad when you're older and you see young people engaging in that sort of empty vanity. You know they're in for a bad shock, by and by.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:30 PM

♫Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.
Enjoy yourself, while you're still in the pink.
The years go by, as quickly as a wink;
Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself, it's later than you think."♫

"Just because there's snow on the roof, it doesn't mean the fire's out in the hearth"

Methinks "perverse amusement" is all some folks can aspire to ☺...

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:46 PM

Roger...the recurring theme in your campaign is 'judging', that is, one poster commenting on another in some way...even if done humorously or obliquely. You would, I gather like them to NOT do this. Yet, you also seem to advocate complete freedom for people to post whatever they like, and suggest that people can choose not to open threads and/or can ignore posts they don't agree with.

I can't see how your two views can be reconciled...they 'feel' to me to be contradictory.

Do you not accept that a position where certain posters can impose their judgement on the judgements passed on other posters in order to protect them from judgements - is not only contradictory but will only ensure that constant judgement of each other's worth will become the only game in town?

And are you really suggesting that any poster is in fact forced to open any thread or to respond or cannot ignore posts that are not to their tastes?

Mudcat's current stated policy is to allow most posts, except for direct personal attacks and other 'serious' transgressions. Teasing you and arguing with you are not the same as threats or virulent, serious, attacks....which WOULD be censored (and have been)...

If that were any way true in practice – you may have a point. But it is not true and you can have even more evidence provided to demonstrate that it is not true if you really like? But in fact you already know that your statement is not true but (unlike Bert and to his credit) you just choose to ignore these facts.

Everyone' s judgement is as good or as bad as everyone else's. But what happens in practice on our forum is that a judgement is imposed upon a fellow poster and then explained, justified and presented to our forum in the hope and expectation that this judgement will be publicly applauded. Should any poster be brave enough to voice a contrary view – they tend to be viewed as a dangerous insurgent.

What you have created is a circular, self-feeding process in which you complain about 'judgement' and censorship in such a way as to provoke MORE reaction and 'judgement' about your tactics and opinions about your motives!

Do you really not see that you are the controlling focus of all this debate? There are dozens of folks occasionally or regularly commenting on YOUR efforts to influence policy & behavior here who would NOT have much to say if YOU stopped your incessant picking at the situation!

The point is simply to demonstrate that every poster CAN ONLY control what they choose to post or not. And that they have no control over what others may choose to post. When these posts are addressing the subject of the thread – as rather rarely this post of yours is at least partly addressing – where is the problem? Why is not possible to either post to address the thread's subject or to ignore it?

It is really the greatest cop-out for so-called sensible educated adult posters – who have a range of options - to claim (as you do) that they are somehow being provoked into posting only personal judgements of their fellow posters............

Some posters do this because they choose to, it obviously gives them some form of pleasure and they appear to wish to be seen to be members of some kind of controlling mutual admiration society.

My hope is that other posters may be encouraged to contribute to the actual discussion and feel they will be safe to do so and be free from post containing only such persoanal judgements from their fellow posters.

Mudcat policy IS that there will be 'some' editing done by Joe and his staff. This policy will protect YOU against really gratuitous, serious attacks...but not against raucous commentary when you keep adding fuel to the fire.

You can't have it both ways...if posting is to be free, open and 'mostly' unedited, then commentary on the process is open to everyone..not just you.

It should be clear to you now – from the amount of 'raucous commentary' I been subjected to by Joe and his staff and their supporters - but not responded in kind to – that such things can be ignored and have no real affect on me and is not the issue. For they say far more about those who post such things. However, I do not see why others should be subjected to it. I also fear that those few posters who are encouraged to set this example are inhibiting other posters by this form od posting.

If your ONLY real interest is to remove or 'out' all the editors (Joe + clones), then you are endlessly struggling against stated policy that Joe WILL be chief editor and that there WILL be a small staff to aid him, some openly, some not. Since this IS a private site, Max may have this policy as he chooses, and continuing to rail against it only leads to these interminable threads.

How can threads be judged as interminable – by posters (like you) who keep posting to them and refreshing them?

But the main point is that you simply ignore the fact that Joe has now publicly admitted that all this imposed censorship has failed and has proposed that Max turn the posting of BS into a members only club…………..

What is the position of all this admittedly failed imposed judgement by posters upon others – that you support - if Max should not accept Joe Offer's proposal?

Will you be joining the private memmbers club that Kendall is starting? You may be happier there?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,cheesed-off[but perversely amused]bystander
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:51 PM

I was actually being 85% serious !
And yes, I'm not too far off retirement myself..
and very afraid I'll become as stubborn and unreasonable
as far too many of the senior people holding public positions of responsibility and power
that I've had the misfortune to encounter in my not so short life.

But if nothing else, I seem to have demonstrated that there is at least one
important issue you guys can rally round and agreee wholeheartedly on.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:14 PM

Do you not accept that a position where certain posters can impose their judgement on the judgements passed on other posters in order to protect them from judgements - is not only contradictory but will only ensure that constant judgement of each other's worth will become the only game in town?

sorry, but I do not 'accept' the basic premises of that convoluted sentence. I 'think' you mean by 'certain posters', the clones/volunteers, but it is hard to wrap my head around "...impose their judgement on the judgements passed on other posters in order to protect them from judgements...".

are you really suggesting that any poster is in fact forced to open any thread or to respond or cannot ignore posts that are not to their tastes?
...of course not...including you! Why can't YOU ignore 'judgements'??...All I am saying is, that is human nature to react to statements they disagree with. This forum is different than it would be RT, such as at a party. If you hear objectionable comments in a group, you can just quietly move on and the voices fade, but here, the niggling posts remain there, in full view. It IS difficult to ignore or pretend they are not there, when they remain...possibly right next to other posts you need to re-read & refer to. Remember...you are on one side of this, and 27+ others are on the other side--- if YOU stopped, what would they have to say? We are suggesting (well, *I* am, anyway) that ONE person could pretty much end this silliness, rather than hope that 27+ other will en masse get the message and all simultaneously decide to cease responding!

You seem to be obsessed with any degree of 'being judged', even if it is only a spelling correction or a clarification of a thread title. You make the word 'judgement' do excessive work...you stretch its meaning beyond what most folks see in it. Further, judgements are not 'imposed'...they are merely offered....unless you MEAN editing, and that is a management decision. *I* have been edited, and it didn't harm me. I have been 'judged' a few times too...by Martin Gibson..*grin*...and I survived just fine!

I will tell you honestly, Roger...it is VERY difficult to see/comprehend/understand exactly what you are offended by in those sentences with the hypotheticals, subordinate clauses, 'perhapses', and oblique references to past remarks by Max, Joe and others. Your talent for seizing on little remarks...(like Joe's idea of membership for posting BS)...might be useful in a court of law to pin down a witness, but it ignores the import or relevance of what Joe's remark really really means. There is NO sign that Max intends to do that, and IF he did, there seems to be a majority view that it might help! I sure would learn to live with it!


(I did study Philosophy...including the nature of debate and logic and reasoning...and I see continuing and escalating problems in even keeping track of what the precise issues are! You say: " However, I do not see why others should be subjected to it. I also fear that those few posters who are encouraged to set this example are inhibiting other posters by this form od posting." Are you REALLY concerned about 'possible' effects on others? Why not let others defend themselves, if need be? And who is 'encouraging' anyone to 'judge' or 'subject' anyone else to anything?

You make so many, many assumptions about what is being done, and to whom, that trying to respond to you really DOES feel like trying to respond to the old "have you stopped beating your wife yet" line. By the time anyone explains that they were NOT beating their wife, you are suggesting that 'perhaps beating of wives should not be condoned' and making it look like wife beating (judging of other) is not only rampant, but policy!

Well, I had to do this (analyze the inner working of the debate)...but, as I said, I don't expect it to do any good, and I sure can't do it in detail everyday. I will probably just fade back into the woodwork..(literally...as that's what I need to focus on for the next 2 months!) and shrug as this tilting at windmills continues. (Yes..that is very much what it looks like...excessive fervor at a non-danderous and largely contrived enemy.)

...and if that seems like one more 'judgement', I'm sorry....I can only call 'em like I see 'em....

*poof*

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:14 PM

Shambles - "Do you not accept that a position where certain posters can impose their judgement on the judgements passed on other posters in order to protect them from judgements - is not only contradictory but will only ensure that constant judgement of each other's worth will become the only game in town?"

Whaaa...........????????????????

Ummm-ah....Humuhna! Humuhna! Huhmuhna! (brain going into spontaneous meltdown, a la Jackie Gleason...)

LOL! I have nothing more to add to that, Roger. Anything more would be like pouring one more bucket of water into the hold of the Titanic. Pointless, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:18 PM

Yeah, I advise you to give it up, Bill. This is worse than your efforts to deny King Arthur and life after death. Really. Just stop now. You have more important stuff to worry about anyway, with Dubya getting himself organized to "smoke you out" and despatch you in some hideous medieval fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:45 PM

This thread makes me wish I drank.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:45 PM

Bill, I know a family who had to give up their cat because one of their kids was 'danderous' to it. Oh - wait - I think they said their cat was danderous. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:54 PM

Resdan is good to clear up danderous.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 06:20 PM

Bert: "I thought all this might die down."

Pretty funny, considering it's been going on for almost 6 years (that I'm aware of): ~~~Click~~~

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 02:22 AM

Should you not expect really that conversations about censorship will go for as long as that censorship does?

Why can't YOU ignore 'judgements'??...

Bill -

In case you have not noticed - I set the example of try to do just that and considering the number of public posts that only contain personal judgements of me - I think you should at least recognise this.

But when such judgements result in imposed censorship on our forum and every other poster is encouraged to judge that judgement - it is then rather difficult to ignore. It encourages the idea that expressing this judgement of each other this is now the entire object.

If it is the entire object of you and Kendall's private members club - I trust you will be happier posting there than you appear to be here.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 03:16 AM

Your talent for seizing on little remarks...(like Joe's idea of membership for posting BS)...might be useful in a court of law to pin down a witness, but it ignores the import or relevance of what Joe's remark really really means. There is NO sign that Max intends to do that, and IF he did, there seems to be a majority view that it might help! I sure would learn to live with it!

This is really classic. Is it really me who is trying to ignore the relevance of this 'little remark' (or threat)? It's relevance is pretty clear to many of us who have no wish to have our forum turned into your private members club.

For should this "formal" proposal to Max be accpted it will mean the end of the public's involvement in our forum as we have all known it- so why the attempt by you to minimise this public announcement of a formal proposal to Max - as a 'little remark'?

Along with this 'little remark' comes the admission of failure from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Should this admission of failure - in your judgement - be also seen a 'little remark'?

What would be her position if Condi Rice publicly announced the failure of her measures in Iraq, asked for some even more drastic steps from her President - and there was little support for these measures? Would you view this as a 'little remark'? If so it would be a 'little remark' than would mean the end of her political career.

There is no going back from this point - so if you want your private members only club with Joe and Kendall - be my guest and go away and form it............

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 05:16 AM

All I am saying is, that is human nature to react to statements they disagree with.

Does this mean that disagreement with the statement entitles posters to also call their fellow posters vulgar and offensive names? To question their sanity and motives, to hold public conversations about, them mock their spelling and grammar and to generally gang-up with others to bully in the hope that the poster of the statement will get upset with all this personal judgement and leave?

This forum is different than it would be RT, such as at a party. If you hear objectionable comments in a group, you can just quietly move on and the voices fade, but here, the niggling posts remain there, in full view. It IS difficult to ignore or pretend they are not there, when they remain...possibly right next to other posts you need to re-read & refer to.

No – this is not difficult at all. ….If you first accept the realities of a public discussion forum. Where all you have to agree on – is how to carry on disagreeing with those who have exactly the same rights to have their say as you do.

In a real party – guests would accept their place – or they would leave. If some of these guests felt that they had the right to start publicly judging the worth their fellow invited guests in the way that you seem to accept you have some right to do on our forum – they would probably be kicked-out themselves.   

Remember...you are on one side of this, and 27+ others are on the other side--- if YOU stopped, what would they have to say? We are suggesting (well, *I* am, anyway) that ONE person could pretty much end this silliness, rather than hope that 27+ other will en masse get the message and all simultaneously decide to cease responding!

You may judge this thread to be silliness – and perhaps as you express this judgement – perhaps your part in prolonging a thread that you judge so - is silliness. But many consider censorship to be a serious and sensitive matter and so is discussing it. All your 27+ posters have to do is stop posting. And for them – what they may consider to be silliness - has effectively ended. It really is as simple as that………….

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 05:19 AM

"Comparisons are odorous"

Much Ado About Nothing (1598-9) act 3, sc. 5, l. [18]

William Shakespeare

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 05:27 AM

The ultimate censorship is the flick of the dial.

Tommy Smothers

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 06:01 AM

Roger,

You constantly complain that posters do not offer points for discussion, but confine their posts to personal judgement of yourself.

I have posted many times to ask you to respond to very specific questions, and have yet to receive one reply, in your own words, to said direct questions.

I have a few questions to put to you now, asked out of a genuine desire to know the answers.

1. Is it your contention that clones, who are members of this community, should be debarred from expressing their opinions on this site for as long as they hold editing authority?

2. By what process of thought do you arrive at the conclusion that knowing exactly which members hold that authority will ensure its more even handed use?

3. Who are the "many" you constantly refer to, who, according to you are concerned about the level of "censorship" on this forum?

4. Why do you persist in suggesting that those who disagree with your basic argument should go elsewhere, while claiming that any who suggest the same course to you are guilty of bullying? You seem to be thoroughly dissatisfied with the management of this site, which would seem to be a good reason to do as you suggest to others, and set up your own.

No personal judgements in there, Roger, so might I now expect to receive four direct answers please?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 10:35 AM

Why was the fire truck thread closed?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 02:57 PM

God...what a headache.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 03:03 PM

OK Don.

1. Is it your contention that clones, who are members of this community, should be debarred from expressing their opinions on this site for as long as they hold editing authority?

Yes. For their protection and the protection of posters as any imposed censorship action MUST be seen to be objective and apply equally to all posters without any question of personal motivation or bias.

2. By what process of thought do you arrive at the conclusion that knowing exactly which members hold that authority will ensure its more even handed use?

I am not sure that I have ever said it would but as anonymous posting on our forum has always generally been thought (by many posters if not the site's owner) to be problematic and divisive– the concept of posters who can impose their judgement upon their fellow posters is one guaranteed to be thought equally problematic and divisive.

3. Who are the "many" you constantly refer to, who, according to you are concerned about the level of "censorship" on this forum?

I am not too sure if I have ever made such a claim. If I have – I am sure you can provide some evidence of it and if you can – I shall reply to it. There will certainly be more that Bill D's 27+ who will be concerned about all aspects censorship and would wish to be free to discuss it. Possibly the rest of our forum's contributors would qualify?

4. Why do you persist in suggesting that those who disagree with your basic argument should go elsewhere, while claiming that any who suggest the same course to you are guilty of bullying? You seem to be thoroughly dissatisfied with the management of this site, which would seem to be a good reason to do as you suggest to others, and set up your own.

I don't but perhaps I can also ask you a question?

Why do you not also take issue with and ask those posters who have made almost a religion out of telling their fellow posters that if they do not like the way things are – that they can leave? Why not take issue with those who have set this example?

Don - for some time our forum has had a double standard where complaints (often about what their fellow posters contributed) were encouraged – if these complaints coincided with the personal opinions of our editing team. And often they would result in changes to ur forum being imposed. For example with the 100th post claims and more recently with the so-called copycat threads.

However, if these complaints or suggestions were not in line with this thinking – the poster making the suggestion would eventually be advised that they if they could always leave if they did not like the way things were (or rather the way they were being changed to). This mantra would be taken up by usual few supporting posters, who would echo this concept – but often not in such polite words.   

Perhaps it would be better if all complaints about what other posters choose to posts were ignored and all posters encouraged (by example) not to post only to judge the worth of their fellow posters but to concentrate on making their own contributions as positive as possible?

For the situation has now changed and there is no going back from this point. For it is now the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who is publicly complaining and admitting that this current censorship cannot impose upon our forum the peace that they require. And fomally proposing to the site's owner that our forum now be changed from a public forum to suit their requirement for a private members only club (for BS).

If it is now suggested (by me) that it is they and those who wish such a major change - who should leave and form a private members club of their own and finally leave the rest of us in peace from all these imposed changes – is this really such a surprising suggestion under the circumstances?

Does it not seem a very sensible solution for all concerned?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 03:06 PM

What if all the electricity suddenly failed everywhere, and stayed off for good? Would that put this little problem you allude to in its proper persepective, Roger? I think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 03:16 PM

"... should this "formal" proposal to Max be accpted it will mean the end of the public's involvement in our forum as we have all known it-..."
nonsense! Just the end of sneaky 'guest' problems. I don't 'think' you need worry, though.

"...if you want your private members only club..."
I do not WANT any such thing. I WANT people to behave in this format and quit logging in a 'guests' to be obnoxious. Many seem to be unwilling to be reasonable, therefore, *IF* we are not to have private membership, some editing must continue.

I guess we have to just disagree on this....and it makes little difference what we agree or disagree about, Max decides. I'll live with it either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 03:19 PM

oh, foo...had my cookies turned off to avoid NY Times site...

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 03:36 PM

Is it okay if I petition Joe Offer to get this thread's title changed to "Non posting of judgements month"?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 03:37 PM

I do not WANT any such thing. I WANT people to behave in this format and quit logging in a 'guests' to be obnoxious. Many seem to be unwilling to be reasonable, therefore, *IF* we are not to have private membership, some editing must continue.

Why?

When the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has admitted the failure of it?   

Do you want or need to be edited in order that you do not post obnoxious things?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 03:58 PM

If the moderators were non contributary Roger would you require their identity to be known or not?
If they made an editing decision that you disagree with will you start another 7/8 year campaign to have them identified, or replaced?
Do you want them to adhere to a set of rules laid out beforehand? If so who will make these rules?
Do you really think that someone who is not involved with Mudcat would waste their time ploughing through our maunderings in order to edit them? All for no fiscal reward.
Both you and I know that what you want is impossible, but then making impossible demands means that you can go on arguing forever doesn't it?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 04:08 PM

On a dead man's door you can knock forever

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 04:11 PM

Lots of you folks know how to turn a soliloquy into a dialogue, huh?
As so many of you have posted before, if you don't like the thread don't post to it. Or is that advice best given to others?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 04:16 PM

I love these threads. They are part of the daily entertainment, as long as you don't get sucked into taking them too seriously.

Do you think it would be okay if I petition Joe Offer to get this thread's title changed to "Non posting of judgements year"?

Your wish is my command LH, - Bert

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 04:20 PM

"From Here to Eternity" has a nice ring to it.

Shambles: I agree with you about half the time, and I appreciate that you started this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jeffp
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 04:21 PM

You're right, LH. This is some of the funniest stuff you can find on the internet. Surreal nonsense to rival the best of Professor Irwin Corey.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 04:33 PM

"From Here to Eternity"???????????? LOL!!!!!!!!! That's it!

I'll PM Joe right away and see if he will change it. I'll even promise not to mention William Shatner for a year if he does...

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 04:45 PM

You had your fingers crossed when you said that, didn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 05:21 PM

"Do you want or need to be edited in order that you do not post obnoxious things?"

*grin*...yeah, that must be it.

"... has admitted the failure of it?"

mercy, how you wring extra mileage out of a simple comment! I have read what he said..(PLEASE do not repost it!) and all I got out of it was that he was 'dissatisfied'...as in 'not perfect solution'...as in 'hard to do well'. Failure is SUCH a pretentious word!

it's no use...I better go with Kendall and start yawning..

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 07:36 PM

From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 05:16 AM


"But many consider censorship to be a serious and sensitive matter and so is discussing it. All your 27+ posters have to do is stop posting. And for them – what they may consider to be silliness - has effectively ended. It really is as simple as that…………."

As far as I can see, not one thread on the subject has produced more than a couple of positive responses to what you call censorship, whereas the number who post in support of sensible editing is large.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 07:57 PM

Ah-hah! It has been changed to "Non posting of judgements year". Excellent. That really leaves room for expansion on the well-reasoned themes that have been presented here. In time we may even be able to shoot for "Non posting of judgements decade".

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 07:59 PM

Don't push your luck Hawkie!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 08:54 PM

Bert - I hope you checked with Roger before changing the title of the thread. Otherwise........

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: kendall
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 09:12 PM

You could have 7 years of bad luck

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 09:13 PM

LOL jacqui.c

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 09:20 PM

Ah-ha! ha! ha! What a place this is.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 09:45 PM

Remember in the good old days when they anticipated the DAY of judgment? We should be so lucky..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements decade.
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 10:02 PM

Bert, did you ask Shambles permission to change his thread title? Didn't you say that you agreed you should? Aren't you in deep doo-doo now? Are you going to have to criticize yourself now instead of Joe and the other admin weenies? And have I used up my quota of question marks?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Alba
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 10:29 PM

Oh My...no, no, no...how could you Bert??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????...a Year...
Where did I put the Prozac, they have to be somewhere!!!!!!!!

(Jerri I used the last of the question marks up, sorry, but please cut and paste some of mine if you need them :)

I am going to lie down for a while because I thought it had been a long week...last week...will this NEVER end... A Decade LH..oh please no, no, no, say that won't happen.
*mad grin*
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 10:51 PM

ain't we approach 7 years of this crusade already? What more can he do?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 11:13 PM

Like John Paul Jones, he has just begun to fight.

I have had 2 or 3 threads almost instantly axed by some Joe Clone since I've been here. I even vaguely remember what one of them was about. Whaddya think? Should I sue for damages? Or should I just complain about it for a few years? Will the person/people who did it receive their proper comeuppance? Will anyone care? Is there balm in Gilead?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 11:18 PM

Actually Hawk, Mt. Gilead is a farming community in Central Ohio and I know for a fact "there is a BAG BALM in Mt.Gilead that makes the cows go moo" (go ahead and sing it to the tune)..........Everytime the town comes up in conversation no matter where we are I break into song embarassing Karen....well, it used to. Nothing I do embarasses her anymore..........***sigh***.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Bert
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 12:12 AM

Ah the secret is that I fessed up to it immediately and Roger knows it's only a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 02:13 AM

Only a year?

Yes the imposed title change was joke - and not a bad one under the circumstances.

Hopefully it will make the point well and will be the last time any change to a posters title is imposed without their permission and at the request of another poster?

Perhaps it would be better in future - if any requested changes were encouraged to be only made to one's own contribution?

So can I ask that it be change back?

If not - can all the Shatner's be re-titled? *Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 02:32 AM

As far as I can see, not one thread on the subject has produced more than a couple of positive responses to what you call censorship, whereas the number who post in support of sensible editing is large.

Don T.

What would you consider that means?

What would you consider to be censorship?

What (apart from it not happening to you or you dishing it out) would you consider to be sensible editing?

It rather depends on the question that is seen to being asked. Why not start a thread (not one confined to he BS section) asking for poster's views on censorship in general or asking if they think their contributions should be censored on our forum and you will get a quite a different response. There are similar past threads and this is what I base my view on.

I think it would be wrong to base much on the very few posters names appearing again and again in this or similar threads. Other than an understandable reluctance for any poster who may agree to subject themselves to the personal judgements from these usual suspects that would appear to be seen to be justified for anyone expressing a different view on our forum.

But folk are encouraged to think here that it just a simple question of censorship or none. And that having censorship is the end of the problem....................

Censorship is just the start.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 03:35 AM

Bert, that's once. (Anyone who doesn't know that old joke will not be offended.)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 04:09 AM

POLL etc

The thread is not now in order but to read the votes - the thread starts with a post from The Villan 25 August 05.12 PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 04:48 AM

Well Roger if ever a poll question was slanted, then that one was. I saw it as tongue in cheek in the first place as it was asking people to say yes to several disparate questions, or no to only one question.
If I were to choose an example to support your argument it certainly wouldn't be that one. Why it wouldn't even begin to pass muster with Mr Gallup.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 05:14 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace - PM
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 10:35 AM

Why was the fire truck thread closed?

One of the Clones was reading the thread, and clicked the "close" link by mistake. Sorry 'bout that. I combined the threads.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 05:52 AM

Well Roger if ever a poll question was slanted, then that one was. I saw it as tongue in cheek in the first place as it was asking people to say yes to several disparate questions, or no to only one question.

What then would you suggest would be a good question to ask in such a thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 06:20 AM

Whatever the future question - I vote that from this example - Joe Offer does not get to count the votes and declare the result. *smiles*

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Poll - Stop Flaming and Abusive posting
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 10:23 AM

Well, as you can see, there are conflicting opinions. Some people want one thing, and some want the complete opposite.
Joe Offer

Hardly a strictly conducted poll and the answer rather depends on the question asked and no, this is not a democracy. However there is little point in the exercise if you are are going to ignore the result and place your own interpretion of what it means.

To date - I make it that the 'some' that answered YES was 5.
                                        the 'some' that answered NO was 37.

Pretty close run thing - I agree......

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

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 07:48 AM

Firstly I don't see it as a question that needs to be asked Roger.
Secondly once again you are making a mountain out of a molehill by re-quoting the Fire Truck thread, which was mistakenly removed, and has now been retrieved, and apologised for.
I for one believe this to be true, but then I'm not like you, inasmuch as I don't see comspiracy at every turn.
I would also revise my previous suggestion that your deleted posts be apologised for and an assurance given that it will not recur. It is quite obvious from your reactions to the accidentally deleted Fire Truck thread, that an apology is not what you want. I think you want rid of Joe Offer, and failing that world domination!
Giok

*All opinions expressed in this post are copyright and are the property of John MacKenzie. They may not be used in whole or in part without the author's permission*

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements year.
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 10:27 AM

Okay Giok, I'll send you half a buck and rent out your opinion that da' Sham sees conspiracied everywhere.

***Please note this is simply a borrowed/rented opinion. Bitch if you must at the owner.***

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM

When one of our edit button holders impose their judgement on their fellow posters and delete or close a thread. They can confess their mistake - say their trigger finger slipped and it was an accident.

Or they can try and justify their judgement and list all of the terrible things that would result if they had not taken this action.

Do you think it possible that all of the imposed editing actions were really the result of a mistake and that all the justification is just to save the ebarrassment of simply admitting it was just a press on the wrong button?

I fear human beings may also destroy the world in this fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 01:25 PM

OK Ebbie, I'll be good. Sorry Roger, I DID IT. That suggestion was just too good to ignore. I did fess up in LH's message.

I knew that you could take a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 01:28 PM

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert - PM
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 09:11 PM

Well said Shambles. The thread title should NEVER be changed without the consent of the originator.

*Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM

Another Fire Truck Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 02:31 PM

Roger for God's sake give it a rest, you'll drive everybody away from Mudcat this way, you are boring them to death with your repetitive crap!
The right or wrong of a thread or posting does not increase in a direct ratio to the number of times it is posted.
Why do you post the same thing over and over again, you're driving people mad, and your cause absolutely no good whatsoever.

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 02:31 PM

with MacKenzie, it's a short putt.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 03:04 PM

He hasn't driven you off yet, Giok. ;-P

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM

It's been close a couple of times, and thanks Guest at 02:31 Thornton Curtis sends his regards!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 03:30 PM

Is anyone taking this man's vendetta still seríous or are you only in it for the joke that is?

Sometimes I think the most charitable assumption I can make about Shambles is that he is posting tongue in cheek since half a decade. Each other possible assumption is not a benevolent one.

Starting on the charitable assumption I admire his doublespeak messages: Saying please ignore posts that annoy you on the one hand and making sure that it is nearly impüossible to ignore his posts on the other. Posting what seems on the surface to be a genuine offer to a serious discussion of an in principle serious issue and avoiding on the other hand each really serious discussion.

But it always fun to read his newest posts. I only wish that Mudcat would mark the threads haunted by Shambles so that I can avoid them or seek them according to my daily changing preferences. It is unfair that the fire engines thread becomes a lets-laugh-about-Shambles thread without notifying that to the friends of his crooked humour.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 05:19 PM

Yes, the Shambles threads should be color-coded in purple font, and then one could easily either find or avoid them. This would be a big help to everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 05:51 PM

Firstly I don't see it as a question that needs to be asked Roger.

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 06:17 PM

Polling is merely an instrument for gauging public opinion.
When a president or any other leader pays attention to poll results, he is, in effect, paying attention to the views of the people.
Any other interpretation is nonsense.

George Gallup

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 06:50 PM

No purple or watching out for him, LH. He should just have his own section, SS, for Shambles Shite, AND, that would be the ONLY place HE could post and NO ONE else could post there.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 07:08 PM

I am rather hoping that when the usual suspects finally accept the realities of The Mudcat Discussion Forum - that they will form the private members club that they appear to have been trying so hard to turn our forum into for so long.

Then none of them will have to read any posts from me on our forum or read anything other than posts from themselves. Which they can pass as much judgement on as they wish and without inflicting this bullying on the rest of our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 07:55 PM

ah, Wolfgang..if it WERE true that this crusade were a gigantic put-on and 5-6 year long joke, I would give Shambles a medal and buy him a beer...but I fear it is all-too-serious..

awhile back, I entered a grammatical time warp and composed a stream of consciousness parody which, on re-reading, almost makes sense! SRS translated it to French....perhaps it needs to have a German version also? (" can't believe I wrote the whole thing!"

Cut 'n pasters creeping back in (12:42PM)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Raul Ebastiano de Crucero
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 08:49 PM

Tenho uma vista sobre um assunto que algumas os pouco cartazes evidentemente não querem que outros cartazes discutem. _ antes que ignorar simplesmente rosquear conter discussão sobre assunto este que pouco parecer sempre pensar que eles dever ter um certo controlo que outro cartaz escolher assinalar e um certo direita exigir que outro não assinalar não para discutir que elas poder escolher. Ninguém não é forçado para abrir qualquer fio mas estes alguns cartazes pareceriam pensar único porque não desejam discutir este assunto - isto dá-lhes certo direito de continuar a assinalar julgamentos pessoais dos seus cartazes de camarada e à speculer publicamente sobre cada aspecto do cartaz de camarada que se revela precisamente ser o seu alvo corrente a fim de impedir a discussão a este respeito. Espero que aceitará que I ou qualquer outro cartaz forçou-se para parar a discussão sobre qualquer assunto da sua escolha ou para cessar assinalar o muito por esta táctica que intimida - é que seguidamente esta táctica incerta e a "regra de multidão ' teriam sido vistas para ter êxito ao seu objecto? Talvez é de tempos que este pouco é incentivado oficialmente de ir noutro lugar, onde esta condução que intimida seria aceitável pensada - antes que seja autorizada de entregar-se esta à intimidar, colocar este exemplo e apresentar o resto do nosso fórum à isto. Para ela tem o resultado apenas de impedir outros cartazes do sentimento livremente para assinalar que escolhem - ou talvez de desejar igual contribuir aqui para tais condições. Talvez todos os cartazes podem ser incentivados de aceitar finalmente que a única encomenda que têm - ou deveria ter - estado acima do teor dos seus próprios postes e que não têm nenhum direito de impedir outros assinalar que escolhem?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 08:55 PM

Here's the Babelfish translation of the above.



I have a sight on a subject that some the few posters evidently do not want that other posters argue _ before to simply ignore to screw to contain quarrel on subject this that little to always seem to think that they to have to have a certain control that another poster to choose to designate and a certain right to demand that another one not to designate does not stop arguing that they to be able to choose. Nobody is not forced to open any wire but these some posters would seem to think only because they do not desire to argue this subject - this gives certain right to them to continue to public designate personal judgments of its posters of comrade and to speculer on each aspect of the comrade poster who if necessarily discloses to be its current target in order to hinder the quarrel to this respect. I wait that it will accept that I or any another poster forced to stop the quarrel on any subject of its choice or to cease to very designate for this táctica that intimidates - it is that seguidamente this uncertain táctica and the "rule of multitude ' would have been seen to have success to its objecto? Perhaps it is of times that this little is stimulated officially to go noutro place, where this conduction that intimidates acceptable would be thought - before she is authorized to deliver this to intimidating, placing this example and to present the remaining portion of ours fórum to the this. For it has the result to only hinder other posters it feeling freely to designate that they choose - or perhaps to desire equal to contribute here for such conditions. Perhaps all the posters can be stimulated to accept that the only order finally that - or it must have - have been above of the text of its proper poles and that they do not have no right to hinder others to designate that they choose?

LOL
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 08:58 PM

That really makes clear much that I did not understand before. I think it says it all really.

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 09:00 PM

Yes, that covers it. Nothing more need be said. Raul has nailed the lid shut on this one and it is ready to be interred.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 09:30 PM

Ha! Little do you know! That was the Shambles on his day job.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 02:07 AM

As far as I can see, not one thread on the subject has produced more than a couple of positive responses to what you call censorship, whereas the number who post in support of sensible editing is large.

Don T.

Any chance of you answering my questions?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
What would you consider that means?

What would you consider to be censorship?

What (apart from it not happening to you or you dishing it out) would you consider to be sensible editing?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 04:05 AM

"I am rather hoping that when the usual suspects finally accept the realities of The Mudcat Discussion Forum - that they will form the private members club that they appear to have been trying so hard to turn our forum into for so long.

Then none of them will have to read any posts from me on our forum or read anything other than posts from themselves. Which they can pass as much judgement on as they wish and without inflicting this bullying on the rest of our forum."

Hee hee, very good Roger, yes that's classic divide and rule tactics.
Just who is going to lead this splinter group that you're trying to form?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 04:43 AM

Is anyone taking this man's vendetta still seríous or are you only in it for the joke that is?

Wolfgang - I think we can take it from the tone of your post that you would you judge any form of 'vendetta' to be a serious business and a totally bad thing?

Could we then expect you to play no active part in any form of 'vendetta' nor encourage or even be seen to support any form of 'vendetta' on our forum?

When the realities of what our forum is - and is not - are finally accepted - I suspect that we will see the end of the use of emotive words like 'vendetta' and 'enemy' used in the context of one poster expressing a view that other posters may not agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 05:01 AM


Just who is going to lead this splinter group that you're trying to form?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall - PM
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

BS, Members only, great idea, let's do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is of course no chance of me wishing to join Kendall's private members club (or of being accepted if I did) for I like the public's involvement in our forum. Nothing is preventing anyone else from joining or forming it with Kendall and finally leaving the rest of us free from judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 07:05 PM

As far as I can see, not one thread on the subject has produced more than a couple of positive responses to what you call censorship, whereas the number who post in support of sensible editing is large.

Don T.

Any chance of you answering my questions?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
What would you consider that means?

Very well Roger. I think it self evident that your concept of censorship is not shared by the vast majority of posters on the subject. You may feel that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, but the balance of probability is that the opposite is true.

What would you consider to be censorship?

Arbitrary alteration or removal of ON TOPIC opinions from a thread would constitute censorship IMO. Helpful alteration of a title to improve clarity, or removal of posts designed to hijack threads to your pet subject would not.

What (apart from it not happening to you or you dishing it out) would you consider to be sensible editing?

As I tend to think carefully about what I post, and strive (not always successfully) to avoid drifting off topic, I have, as you say, not had my posts deleted or altered. If I should ever cross the line I would expect deletion, and I would not rail against those whose job it is to moderate.

IMO Joe and the Clones do a very good job, and this forum might be a much nastier place without them.

The odd thing about your position, to me, is that you complain about bullying, and fail to notice, or acknowledge the contribution of the moderators you so dislike, in supporting your right not to be bullied.

There have been comments from Joe recognising that some of the responses to you did constitute bullying, and asking that it stop. This is the man, you will remember, who has been under attack by you for several years.

As to your comment about dishing it out, GOD FORBID!

I just don't have the superhuman tolerance and patience of a Joe Offer. Had I been him, your campaign would have come to a dead stop a long time ago. I have no desire to involve myself in any such thankless activity.

I suspect, that if you had your finger on an edit button, your definition of censorship would change drastically.

That is my last word on this thread. I DO know when to stop bashing my head against a wall!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:21 AM

Very well Roger. I think it self evident that your concept of censorship is not shared by the vast majority of posters on the subject. You may feel that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, but the balance of probability is that the opposite is true.

How is such a thing self-evident and is it simply a matter of being right or wrong? The current measures are accepted as having failed - why would anyone else still be expected to support them - when those who operate them now declare publicly that they no longer have faith in them?

Would it not be sensible to establish what the vast majority of posters do in fact think about being subject to any form of imposed censorship on our forum - rather that to assume that they would be generally in favour of being subjected to this or of any further proposals to increase this?

Would you accept that many posters have made the view clear that they are not in favour of any form of imposed censorship on our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 04:30 AM

"Would you accept that many posters have made the view clear that they are not in favour of any form of imposed censorship on our forum?"

NO!

What I have gleaned from the same posts you have also read is that most posters are completely satisfied with current policy, and do not express a wish for either less or more.

Would you (finally) accept that we hold diametrically opposed views that are very unlikely to change, and agree that it is time to put this matter to rest?

Would you further accept that Max owns this forum, and will continue (as is his right) to run it as he sees fit?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 04:54 AM

That is my last word on this thread. I DO know when to stop bashing my head against a wall!

Don T.

How is your head?

Is this now your very very last word in this thread?

Would you further accept that Max owns this forum, and will continue (as is his right) to run it as he sees fit?

Yes - would you? I always have but why is it so wrong for posters to judge what this may be by Max's own public statements - rather than what fellow posters may wish this to be? You may think what I contend for our forum is only my view - but my views are only based on the few public statements that Max has made in the many years that I have been posting on our forum.

Do you see any public statement to the effect that Max agrees with the public admission of failure of the current imposed censorship or with the solution formally proposed to him by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Do you see any public statement from Max as to his judgement either way on seemingly pressing issues for some posters - such as the suitability of other posters contributing 'copycat' threads, 100th posting claims, birthday threads etc, etc?   

In the absence of any public statements from Max on such things - perhaps it would be wise to wait for such specific public statements to be made before any assumption is made by any poster as to what these may be?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:37 AM

Serious????

No, Shambles, it may feel so to you, but to me your contributions are a constantly flowing source of (if I follow Bill) involuntary humour. Everybody has the right to be taken serious at first, but after half a decade I have stopped taking you serious. The more pompous and serious you sound the more I laugh.

The only sad thing about your vendetta is that you do everything you can to stop any serious debate about those issues you claim to mind. You never did care for the issues despite all claims to the contrary, for you it was always and still is about your hurt personal ego.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:22 AM

oooooo......Wolfie!! Wow man............. a direct hit amidships I'd say.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:55 AM

Anyone care to tell me why "Arnie's Argument thread" was removed? I was trying to get that arguement off the "NON-political comments thread"

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:19 AM

Ask in the Help forum or PM Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:49 AM

BOO !

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 01:53 AM

Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause.

Mohandas Gandhi

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 05:13 AM

This one remains open too.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:31 AM

If we would all just GROW UP, editing and deleting would be unnecessary. It's a shame that a few of us were raised with no manners, and no regard for the other catters.
If you think that the 1st amendment gives you LICENSE to spew forth any filthy tirade, then you have some growing up to do. Sure, we have freedom of speech etc. but that's not all of it.Inciting to riot is not guaranteed by the constitution, and if you were to meet someone face to face in public, and you address him/her as a "Fucking asshole" you could be arrested for simple assault, and you damn well should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:01 PM

Kendall is that post addressed to Catspaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:48 PM

It was addressed to those who attack, using gutter language.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM

Oh you mean Mick as well........

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:47 PM

I can just see Roger now dancing up and down with a grin on his face going Nyah nyah nyah!
Really Roger that level of debate is infantile, even by your usual standards.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:51 PM

"God, you fuckhead GUESTS don't even bother reading things carefully before you start spitting bile. My post started with a very polite and humble request to chill out. I'm not surprised by your disdain to this idea, only those with something to lose would be opposed to accountability.

You are here. This place obviously means something to you, don't you care? We are not in financial trouble, we just need funded to exist, and your asinine behavior and childish quibbling are hurting that. No money is coming out of your pocket, is it? Yet you take advantage of this place. You want to criticize me for funding Mudcat, damn near single handedly, for 6 years and then losing that ability? Fuck off."........Max Spiegel

And Max too!!!! (:<))

Yeah, Sham......I use language that I know you and Kendall don't approve of but most of my posts are just screwin' with someone and lack any vitriol, a fact you have never understood.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:59 PM

I remember being formally warned at work for telling a certain young no-it-all graduate to go forth and multiply.

In my defence I pointed out that in fact he was well used to being told this by everyone else in the workplace - who were not 'on the carpet' but who shared my opinion and also told him do do the same thing on a daily basis.

He explained to the management that although he accepted that everyone else told him to do the same thing - that the difference was that he knew that 'they' didn't really mean it...........

I can assure you that they did.

But in speech you often wish for the time to think and chose the right words. and this is the difference - I think.

When you are writing a post - you do have time to think and select your words with care. Perhaps it is the thought that a poster does have time to take care but intentionally writes these words down that is offensive - rather that a prudish approach to the words them selves? They certainly have a use - like when you hit your thumb with a hanmmer but perhaps there is no excuse for causing offence in a written post, especially when others may follow the example you set - thinking it to be acceptable.

In the example supplied - I am not sure if you are just following this example or the site's owner was following yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:27 PM

"I remember being formally warned at work for telling a certain young no-it-all graduate to go forth and multiply.

In my defence I pointed out that in fact he was well used to being told this by everyone else in the workplace - who were not 'on the carpet' but who shared my opinion and also told him do do the same thing on a daily basis.

He explained to the management that although he accepted that everyone else told him to do the same thing - that the difference was that he knew that 'they' didn't really mean it...........

I can assure you that they did."

And there in a nutshell you have explained why your postings on here arouse such ire from some.
You have an attitude problem Roger, and it even comes over in black and white typeface!

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 02:45 AM

If others may find a problem with my attitude of always trying to say what I mean and meaning what I say - perhaps it is they who have an attitude problem?

I find those who do not say what they mean and do not mean what they say and who are prepared to play golf with the boss - in order to lose - to be much more of a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Life...
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:08 AM

Oh well.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Del
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:10 AM

Doncha mean "muzzent grumble?"

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:10 AM

Wot??

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:18 PM

If those who do not say what they mean and do not mean what they say are to be compared unfavorably against those who do say what they do not mean but do not necessarily not say what they don't mean then it could have an unsettling effect on those among us who are well-intentioned enough to not not say what we do mean, notwithstanding some cases of those who do not mean what they do not say whether or not they don't say it. If I am right, the community that is represented on this forum, a community which one feels should provide the membership with a feeling of comradely equality as one would expect and as one would think would be normal among what are termed friends would preclude the censoring or alteration of things said or not said by persons unnamed who seem to feel that they have the right to interject their rude comments upon others and yet to act in such a way that those others are, in effect, quashed and find themselves being forced to say what they do not mean or to mean what they do not say.

This should be entirely clear to any unprejudiced person, should it not? Perhaps it is time these issues were discussed honestly and in a spirit of goodwill on this forum?

(la..la..la..) (walking away, whistling) ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 08:42 PM

Do you need to play golf with the boss and lose?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:03 AM

LMAO @ Hawkster...........An outstanding job my Man. You only forgot the "Shamble's Crowning Touch" where Sham runs his first draft of mutilated syntax through Babelfish to achieve the "Complete Jibberish Effect." I have taken that liberty for you and we have the result below:

If those who does not say that what means and does not mean that what says must be confronts unfavorable against those who says to you that what does not mean but necessarily does not say that that what then does not mean could have a disturbing effect on those between we that they are well-intentioned in order not to say enough that what we mean, in spite of some cases of those who does not mean that what does not say if or they do not say it. If they are of right, the Community that is represented on this tribune, a Community that one thinks would have to supply with of the members a sensibility comradely of the equality poichè would preview itself and poichè it would be believed would be normal between that what is calls the precluderebbe friends to you the censorship or the alteration of the things has said or said from the specified persons who they do not seem to think that their observations have the right interject rude on others but to behave im such way that those others, in effects, quashed and to find that they are forced to say that what does not mean or they do not mean that what does not say. That would have to be entire clear is of unprejudiced the person, would have it not? Perhaps it is time that these editions have been discussed honestly and in one spirit of the good will on this tribune?

And btw..........................

Do you need to eat shit and die?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:33 AM

Thanks for making my point so well....

And for refreshing this thread too.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:34 AM

Losing to the boss at golf

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:09 AM

"Behave im such a way" Spaw? Tut tut!