BS: Non posting of judgements week.

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: 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 - 01:10 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 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 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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 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: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 09:13 PM

LOL jacqui.c

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: 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: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 07:59 PM

Don't push your luck Hawkie!

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 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:11 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:57 PM

God...what a headache.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:16 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: 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 - 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.