BS: Non posting of judgements week.

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!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:10 AM

Wot??

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,Life...
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:08 AM

Oh well.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM

Oh you mean Mick as well........

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 - 12:01 PM

Kendall is that post addressed to Catspaw?

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 - 05:13 AM

This one remains open too.

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: 08 Apr 06 - 09:49 AM

BOO !

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 02:31 PM

with MacKenzie, it's a short putt.

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: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM

Another Fire Truck Thread