BS: Non posting of judgements week.

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: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:54 PM

Resdan is good to clear up danderous.

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 - 05:45 PM

This thread makes me wish I drank.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: kendall
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 09:05 AM

Yawn

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Ebbie
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 08:12 PM

Oh, the visuals!

Be well, Spaw!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM

The week in review: What got said:

"




                                                    ."

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: 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: 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: Bert
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 01:47 PM

LOL Bill D.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:10 AM

Opinions, yes. Personal attacks, no.