Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)

Subject: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:02 PM

Those who mainly post on music related threads and especially those who choose to post as guests may be interested in the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's latest proposed change. As this has only been announced in the BS section - you may not be aware of it.

Perhaps this thread can remain in the music related section for the benefit of those posters in this section who will be affected by this proposal?

I'm open to any and all suggestions, but it seems to me that it's time for members-only posting to BS, with membership paswords sent only to those with valid e-mail addresses, and for full review of Guest posts to the music section before they are released to public view.

I see no value in the continued combat we've had, or in our continuing to protect the anonymity of those who want to cause trouble anonymously.

If you have a better idea, express it. Try to say something new, something true, and something constructive.
Joe Offer

I have no idea exactly what this 'full review' of Guest postings will be or who will be judging what is suitable for releasing to public view - so perhaps this 'review' and the reasons why it is judged to be needed after all this time - could be explained in more detail?

It would be nice for any future contributor who may drop in to post as a Guest to have a say on this also - but this will not be possible.

---

This is part 2 of this thread. I'm not sure why a second part was started. And no, complaint threads will not be in the music section.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: Janie
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:19 PM

This is a duplicate thread. Roger started the exact same thread in BS that already has 6 posts to it. Please combine.

Janie

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:24 PM

I'd guess it will be dealt with appropriately

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:25 PM

Ever get the feeling that Shambles was the whiney kid that had to have everything his own way and ended up getting locked in his own locker in high school?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: Little Robyn
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

If this thread is consigned to the BS section, many of us, as Shambles has said, will miss it.
Is this going to cause problems for those who lose their cookies?
I know there are some awkward 'guests' and it is easy enough to become a member, but is someone about to throw out the baby with the bath water?
Robyn

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

Another pot to stir.....keep it up.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:30 PM

Sounds like a good idea; I'm a member with no cookie.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:33 PM

log in again and you will get your cookie back!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:42 PM

Hmm, interesting, not only music posts, and not only guests.....

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:45 PM

Keep it up friends....

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: GUEST,Dale
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:48 PM

Well, there are some of us who just never bother. I post rather infrequently anymore and have reasons of my own for not signing in. I suppose that does irritate some and perhaps means some pay less attention to what I might have to say. If so, so be it.

I did get a smile the other day when someone made a comment which made it sound like I was new here! Actually, my first post was in 1997, and I suppose there have been a few thousand in all.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:59 PM

"log in again and you will get your cookie back!"

These stupid threads are making me toss my cookies. Stop all of the bickering and act like adults. I truthfully doubt that many of you can.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: GUEST,Dale
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:12 PM

As I see it, moving this down below the line was a regrettable decision by whoever did it. As Shambles suggested, I would never have seen it.   I wouldn't have bothered to make my small input if I hadn't wanted it to be read. I have more thoughts on the matter, but there is no use in saying them.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:14 PM

Sorry if you thought that was bickering guest, I offered a suggestion. You would be surprised to find out that some people do not know how to get their cookie back.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:32 PM

sheesh..read the quote by Joe that Roger keep tossing out...it is not new, and it is ONLY an idea, and it may not happen anyway.

*IF* it is about to happen at anytime, there will BE an announcement above the line. Roger is just trying to get his campaign in as many places at once...with a provocative header to scare folks.

Even if music posts by Guests were 'reviewed', it would not affect anything EXCEPT posts which were trying to sneak in something else under the guise of a music post.....like 'censorship' vendettas.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: GUEST,Mudcat Visual Arts Technician
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:36 PM

This thread can now be viewed in full hi-fi sterio.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:57 PM

I wasn't saying that you were bickering Ron. It's all of the other whiners who just can't stop fighting over everything. Sorry if you misinterpreted what I said as being against you.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM

No problem. You quoted part of my comment before you made yours, which led to my interpretation.   I agree with you, far too much bickering over issues that should be of no consequence to anyone. Mudcat can be run anyway the owners see fit and if we do not like it, we do not have to join or post.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:42 PM

sheesh..read the quote by Joe that Roger keep tossing out...it is not new

The bit tacked on to it about a 'review' of all Guest postings on the music section before being cleared for public view is new.

It is only an afterthought because the original proposal was so poorly thought through.

And most of it would be new to those who only post on the music section. Which is why I posted it there and requested that it stay there so that they could comment on a proposal that directly affected them. Perhaps it can be returned to enable this?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:56 PM

and perhaps it should just stay where it is until and UNLESS it become a reality. We don't NEED 'comments' on something that may not happen. YOU want comments...and an extra forum for YOUR 'comments'.

What part of "denied" did you fail to grasp?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 06:01 PM

He's projecting, BillD. He wants to go start his own forum, but he's afraid nobody will follow.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 06:02 PM

Perhaps the formal proposal should not have been made public by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team only on the BS section?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 06:24 PM

wasn't a formal proposal...was just an opinion. Its relevance WAS about BS and all of the layers of it he has to consider.

AND....all your 'perhaps' notwithstanding, it was his option and doesn't need to be 'judged'.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 06:30 PM

The chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff stated that he had made a formal proposal to Max - perhaps you should argue with him rather than me for it is you who are making the judgements - as usual?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 06:41 PM

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change.
Joe Offer

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 10:01 PM

Two cents from here: I have been a member for years. I have 'no-cookie' setups on both work and home computers. It is a pain in the neck to reset my cookie every time I come to mudcat for a few minutes of browsing.   So I post as Guest unless there's some compelling reason to make myself known.

I like the fact that on the internet I don't have to be a celebrity or a member of the in-clique to say something in a discussion. While it's swell that there is a real-world group here who are best buddies and know each other's real names and addresses, I just don't think that's what the net or the cat is about.

I don't do abusive or annoying posts, I don't troll or flame. I will admit to occasionally saying something (gasp) negative as a Guest. It's usually something quite productive that the nice kind friends-in-the-real-world folks won't come out and say. You can call it hiding behind 'guest' or you can call it being free to have a more real discussion.

If Joe and Max want to remove abusive posters, remove them, block their isps. Frankly with this type of new rule I will feel like a card-carrying American of Arab descent. I'm going to get stopped and green-carded and frisked every time I turn around, because the FBI would rather restrict the freedoms of a million people than go out and find the 400 Al-Qaeda among us and deal with them on an individual basis.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 10:09 PM

" It is a pain in the neck to reset my cookie every time I come to mudcat for a few minutes of browsing. "

that is not a problem...we have very regular posters, well known and friendly, who haven't set a cookie for several years. But they take a moment to type in their name before they post...takes, what...5 seconds? It just IDENTIFIES their post and makes readers WANT to talk and share.

Art Thieme, "Dale" and several others do just fine with no cookies, though Art would, if he could make it work, I gather. *grin*

Having a cookie set 'can' be useful for certain things...if you want those features, but IT AIN'T NECESSARY!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 10:32 PM

And, Guest who is a member, They know who you are....

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 10:44 PM

Not exactly, Sorcha...one or two of 'them' MAY know an IP address if there was long period of posting, but it's almost impossible to know 'who' unless they tell you. Let's not conjure up images of Big Brother.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 11:16 PM

Now, now .... Let's not argue and take away from these TWO Shamblecentric Threads.   I see that today, one has not been enough.

I am thinking of proposing a Shamblecentric Permathread where only Sham is the moderator......But if a complaint comes up on any other thread, it moves immediately to the Shamblecentric Thread.

Spaw.....Who reiterates that the entire premise of these two threads is complete crappola. IF it was about to happen Max would post it above the line. This was simply an new need for Shamblecetralism by the kumquat himself.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Celtaddict
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 11:34 PM

Spaw: Watch how you use the perfectly charming word "kumquat."
If you wish, try "crouton."
Or "Diphthong." Now there is a term!
Joe and Max, review away. Those who are posting music related, constructive material will have no gripe. Those who like to chat "BS" may have less trash talk to hassle them.
Those who wish to whine will, and maybe should have their own place to do so.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 11:50 PM

Perhaps, Spaw, you could persuade the Board over at the Neil Young Center for the Terminally Screwed to start breaking ground on a new Wing, if they can find an architect who will take on the challenge -- it has to be pink, extremely to the Left yet always Right. I think that is the geometry you call Shamblecentric. Perhaps they could name it after Roger?

A

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:25 AM

Responses to bullying

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:03 AM

I may disgree with what you say

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:22 AM

As said by the Master…

One of our smallest, most plain, usually skulking and often overlooked birds - the Wren - can make a remarkably loud noise when singing and wishing to draw attention to itself.

And also note the post that follows.

John

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:34 AM

I should have said "the post that follows the one linked." I really hate being ambiguous when quoting "The Master."

but The Master Speaks Again

It is largely a matter of practicalities. Would it be acceptable to say that if all of our current legislaton was always enforced to the letter - that the attempt would be laughably futile and counter-productive?

It is hardly rocket science. But if any of it is to be effective in practice - the enforcement of legislation must always make choices.

The rest of us attempt to live in an ideal wourld (or *cloud cuckoo-land) and can sit in judgement upon those choices but it would be foolish for us to pretend that in the real world these choices do not have to be made.

If you can't enforce all the current legislation to the letter - does it really make much sense to demand and continue make even more legislation that you will also be unable to enforce? For that is generally what is happening to answer public concerns.

* "He" knows all.

John

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:36 AM

Non posting of judgements week

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:18 AM

Why all the closed threads?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:20 AM

Do we need to curb the troublemakers?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Gedpipes
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:40 AM

And don't give me that BS about "you don't have to read it"...the real point is, "you don't have to write it...and if you do, on a privately run site, management reserves the right to edit or delete stuff deemed objectionable....even if their definition of objectionable is narrower than yours!"
That is how it works...and the large majority of members have no problem with that.

I presume that BS means Bull Shit? So its ok for you to be offensive to people who don't agree with you Bill D? Perhaps a case of double standards.
And what is all of this about management? what Management. An assumption that there is somekind of managerial perogative - the right to manage?
Cheers
Ged

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 06:30 AM

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

This is part 2 of this thread. I'm not sure why a second part was started. And no, complaint threads will not be in the music section.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps in future any proposal made that will affect all of those posting to our forum can be made where all of our forum can see it?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MBSLynne
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:11 AM

M Ted, you voiced what I was thinking (in the other thread) Can't see any difference really between being abused by an anonymous guest and being abused by a member, except that at least the member has the guts to do it under their own name. And to some extent you know who your adversary is. Otherwise I guess it's a bit like guerilla warfare.

Wesley S...I can't remember now what I posted when I was first here as a Guest.

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:14 AM

Music posts by Guests to be reviewed   after being moved from the music section has finally been subject to imposed closure.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:21 AM

It is about time!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MBSLynne
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:21 AM

Closure because there were two threads. Seems reasonable to me. I didn't know which thread to follow or post to. Why did you start a second one?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:26 AM

Because you just can't have too many Shamblecentric threads!!!

Actually, Joe moved it to BS (which it is.....if it were being considered by Max and about to be implemented, you can be assured it would be on the whole forum) but Shambo couldn't take it up with Max or take no for an answer so he started a second one.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:29 AM

The more I read this thread, the more I realize that Shambles is a blooming a-hole. Give it up buddy. The bosses are going to do what they are going to do. Stop whining. It's because of those like you that Mudcat has gotten to this stage. If you don't like the way it is run GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. I bet no other site will put up with your silliness.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:31 AM

Perhaps this thread can remain in the music related section for the benefit of those posters in this section who will be affected by this proposal?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: GUEST,Dale - PM
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:12 PM

As I see it, moving this down below the line was a regrettable decision by whoever did it. As Shambles suggested, I would never have seen it.   I wouldn't have bothered to make my small input if I hadn't wanted it to be read. I have more thoughts on the matter, but there is no use in saying them

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:31 AM

Sorry Shambles, but you are coming across as the type of person that would re-arrange the furniture if invited into someones home.   I can't fathom why you wish to spend so much time and energy on something that you have no control over. Way too many public demands on a website that is not meant to be controlled by the users.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:45 AM

Way too many public demands on a website that is not meant to be controlled by the users.

This website is not meant to be controlled by its users.

But what you seem to have failed to grasp is that is exactly what our forum is meant to be controlled by.

Don't take my word for it - ask Max?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:52 AM

BRIAN:
Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
FOLLOWERS:
Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN:
You're all different!
FOLLOWERS:
Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS:
I'm not.
ARTHUR:
Shhhh.
FOLLOWERS:
Shh. Shhhh. Shhh.
BRIAN:
You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
FOLLOWERS:
Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
BRIAN:
Exactly!
FOLLOWERS:
Tell us more!
BRIAN:
No! That's the point! Don't let anyone tell you what to do! Otherwise-- Ow! No!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:54 AM

Oh good Christ, here comes the Shambo favorite Max quote. The fact that it was 7 years ago and a throw-off line means nothing to our lad!!! Go for it Shambolina!!!!

You might also want to quote yourself from that time period......You know, the part about leaving and not coming back until you felt welcome.......Why are bitching and moaning now? You must feel welcome or you wouldn't have come back. You said so 7 years ago!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:56 AM

FOLLOWERS:
Tell us more!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:07 AM

Shambles, there is no need to ask Max - just go to the FAQ and you will find:

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. Editorial decisions are made by Max, Jeff/Pene Azul, and Joe Offer, or under their direction."

End of story. They can do as they see fit and 99% of us have no problem with that.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:10 AM

They can do as they see fit and 99% of us have no problem with that

And even if there was a stated policy that they would NOT edit, etc; Max (and his appointed proxies) still would have the legal right to do so.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:16 AM

"And here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
Ya have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice"

(Thank you Mr Zimmerman.)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:34 AM

Please guys, don't confuse the issue with facts!!! Besides if you point out the Shambo's failings here, this will cease to be a Shamblecentric thread and he will want to start another.

Besides, if anybody would read the FAQ, most of these threads would have closed ages ago! (;<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:38 AM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. Editorial decisions are made by Max, Jeff/Pene Azul, and Joe Offer, or under their direction."

Whose words do those sound like? Could it be the same fellow poster who was responsible for much of the rest of a FAQ? A FAQ which was provided when in our forum's history exactly?

How long after many of us had already been posting to Max's forum on the basis of his public statements?

The concept of a right to impose all of those things being kept in reserve is one that few of us would argue with.

However we may have some justification to argue when such powers are used as a matter of routine and selectively against certain targets but not against others.

When those trusted to keep the peace indulge themselves in abusive personal attacks and encourage others to follow this example.

And when most of this imposed censorship is undertaken to shape our forum to the tastes of a few and all under the excuse of protecting us from abusive personal attacks.

Methods which now the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly admitted have failed to impose the required peace and who now proposes to turn our BS forum into a private members club and to screen all Guest posts to the music section - but does not wish the posters there to be informed.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:45 AM

Shambles, try to be reasonable. The owners of this site can make changes when they see fit, it is not censorship because the site is not subject to the First Ammendment, the people who run the site are the people who run the site and you have no say in the matter, their taste are what counts, and they can use their "powers" when they see fit. It can be arbitrary. THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT!!! If you look around you will see you are in a very small minority of users of this site (we are users, not owners)and all you are doing is making a spectacle of yourself.   Give it up! You don't have a chance of getting your way. All you are doing is acting like a little kid who holds his breath to try to turn blue. All you are doing is giving yourself a headache and giving the rest of us something to laugh at.

END OF STORY!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:51 AM

"Whose words do those sound like? Could it be the same fellow poster who was responsible for much of the rest of a FAQ? A FAQ which was provided when in our forum's history exactly?

How long after many of us had already been posting to Max's forum on the basis of his public statements?"

WHO GIVES A TURKEY DIPTHONG? [It was suggested that Dipthong was more appropriate than referring to Sham as Kumquat(;<))]

Do you think Joe slipped that into FAQ when Max wasn't looking or what? Max approved ALL of those words regardless of the author....and actually that is exactly the same language as is used in thousands of other forums.

Ooops.....Once again the truth is in the way of a good Shammy Tale. My apologies Roger. Please start over with the "Once upon a time" part...............

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: bobad
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:09 AM

I think spaw's idea is brilliant - give Shambles his own permathread, where he can bellyache to his heart's content, and make it the only one to which he can post, the others can also post to it when they are moved to do so. How about it Joe?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:10 AM

I may disagree with what you say

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:10 AM

Do you leave your front door open all night and consider that every stranger in the street has a "right" to come into your home and do whatever damage they like?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:13 AM

What's with the link? Can you simply provide us with a synopsis of what you are trying to say instead of asking us to decipher an out of date thread?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:14 AM

Do you need to be censored

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:15 AM

END OF STORY!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:15 AM

ron - he hasn't managed that in the four - or is it five? years he's been on this campaign.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:17 AM

Oh no Ron......NOT THAT

Do you really want to subject "Max's Forum" to more convoluted logic and battered syntax? ........... Then again, why not? This stuff is better than going to The Comedy Store (:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:25 AM

Responses to bullying

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:25 AM

I'm just confused by all the links to obscure and convulted threads that make no sense to begin with.   Say your point instead of wrapping it up with all the BS. I'm still not sure what Shambles is really asking for.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:28 AM

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:28 AM

Good thing there is no bullying going on here. I'm hoping that Shambles does not think that those of us who are disagreeing with his point and trying to reason with him would consititute bullying.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:29 AM

I still don't think he gets your point Ron.............LMAO

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:30 AM

Would it help if I start adding links? Is this some new conversational style that I haven't learned yet?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:32 AM

It might Ron.....Here, start with this one:

Move on down the line

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:36 AM

And then go with maybe, say, this one:

A Warm Goodbye

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:37 AM

Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:39 AM

Do we need to curb the troublemakers?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:49 AM

So many erudite people here--many of whom have said: "If you don't like the thread, stay away from it." Any of y'all gonna take yer own advice?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:51 AM

Subject: RE: BS: why all the closed threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:42 PM

That's, right, Shambles. No rules. We are not slaves to mindless legalism here. Nonetheless, we do expect people to be civil toward one another. If they're not, we reserve the right to use moderation techniques to keep the peace.

Sometimes, those moderation techniques will work - and sometimes they will not. We also reserve the right to be human, and to be allowed to make occasional mistakes or to do things that other people might do otherwise.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM

I really have to wonder, given some of the qoutes The Shambles makes - if he reads them or not.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:58 AM

Non posting of judgements week

How many ends can one story have?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:59 AM

He hasn't taken his own advice in years

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. Editorial decisions are made by Max, Jeff/Pene Azul, and Joe Offer, or under their direction."

Note the FAQ DOES SAY "We will try our best to edit sparingly.".....It doesn't say "not at all".......Max approved that whether you like it or not Shambo....(:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:00 PM

A (true) jellyfish story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:00 PM

Wait a minute here...... Are you saying this is the end of the story and you're stopping now?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:04 PM

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

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

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:05 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:13 PM

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:15 PM

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:15 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:18 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:21 PM

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Actualy Giok, he hasn't stopped beating himself! He'd type faster but the hair on his palms slows him down.

Now that this thread is thoroughly off topic, I think Sham needs to go back to what is almost a permathread for him.....the one that Joe said will DEFINITELY be left open for him to express his views. Problem is, I don't think he can stand having only one Shamblecentric thread going................

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:24 PM

Looks like our forum is NOT going to be change into a private members only club then? And Guest posts on the music section will not now be subject to a review before they appear?

End of story then?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:27 PM

Shamble's Faux Perma-Thread for Moaning and Such


Spaw

Subject: The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right....
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:32 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:36 PM

Shambles - only Max can decide that - and only Max can answer you. And *IF* Max answers you - then it doesn't mean he won't implement those or other changes in the future. Or not implement them.

All of which information was posted previously to your starting this thread.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:52 PM

But Mario, doncha' just gots to luv it???

Lemmee see if I have it straight..........

Schmambutt now is claiming a great victory as he has stopped the evil Joe Offer. Sham invents a new twist to what Joe wrote which was simply a proposal then when the Sham admits it is just a proposal, he slaps himself on the back for a job well done. Meantime, while he is NOT willing to see that this was a proposal, he keeps harping that something which IS a fact (and in the FAQ) is not for real.

Ahhhh, the intracacies of the Shamble's World. LMAO.....Ya' know I think Roger needs to take a new name. Maybe FUBAR Shambles or something because he truly is (FUBAR that is)

I can't keep from laughing which is why this post is taking so long........I have to try this for myself.

THE SKY IS FALLING....THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

GET BACK UP THERE SKY....I COMMAND YOU...GO BACK UP!!!

The sky is now in place and ya' know I do feel good......I am the saviour of the world today!!! The sky is no longer falling!! Damn but I'm good!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:55 PM

All Hail Catspaw! Look upon his works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:55 PM

Shambles - only Max can decide that - and only Max can answer you. And *IF* Max answers you - then it doesn't mean he won't implement those or other changes in the future. Or not implement them.

Don't worry so MMario - I have it on the highest possible authority.

Spaw.....Who reiterates that the entire premise of these two threads is complete crappola. IF it was about to happen Max would post it above the line.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:58 PM

Exactly. Which brings us all many of us to wonder why you brought the subject up in the first place?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:59 PM

Thank You Mario. I'd be humble but I am just so damn good!!! Please note that now even Shambles bows to my mightiness and authority.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:00 PM

Ya' think we can close this sucker now and let it join it's mate?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:02 PM

I think it should have been close about 102 posts ago

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:02 PM

closed even

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:18 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:35 PM

The End

the end

The END

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:54 PM

Anyone who really believes that censorship is ever the end of any story is being rather foolish.

Sadly it is just the beginning of many stories.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:59 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:59 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:00 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:11 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

What part of this is unclear to you? Seems quite clear to me and in an authoratative location....the FAQ....as opposed to a throw-off line in light conversation. Let's review............

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum, by.................

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:33 PM

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right . . . .

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:37 PM

Cute yes.....but no, Peace.........It doesn't say that anywhere in the FAQ and what it does say is exactly the same thing you can find as part of the rules to almost any forum/message board.

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:40 PM

Gee, thanks for calling me cute. But what didya think of the post?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:43 PM

You're both cute! Now pucker-up Buttercup!!!! (;<))

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:05 PM

I fail to see why you are telling ME this, Sweetcakes.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:33 PM

I know a ditty nutty as a fruitcake
Goofy as a goon and silly as a loon
Some call it pretty, others call it crazy
But they all sing this tune:


Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?
Yes! Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?


If the words sound queer and funny to your ear, a little bit jumbled and jivey
Sing "Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy"


Oh! Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you-oo?
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:38 PM

There's a guy I'd like to kill
If he doesn't stop I will
He's got a ukulele, and a voice that's loud and shrill.
'Cause he lives next door to me
And he keeps me up till three
With his ukulele and a funny melody.

Crazy words, crazy tune
All that you'll ever hear him croon
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de o, doe. Vo-doe doe.
Sits around, all night long
Sings the same words to every song
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de o, doe.
His ukulele, daily
How he'll strum!
Bum bum bum!
Vampin' and stampin'
Then he hollers, "Black bottom!"
Crazy words, crazy tune
He'll be driving me crazy soon
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de o, doe.

I have begged that guy to stop
I have even called a cop
Told my dog "Go sic him", but the durn dog wouldn't go.
But tonight will be the end
Yes siree, 'cause I intend
To go up and kick him in the vo doe doe de oh doe.

He's got to stop it, stop it
Yes he must, or I'll just
Kill him, I'll kill him
Then I'll do the black bottom.
When I'm jailed, upon my need,
To the jury and the judge I'll plead
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de o doe.


Now the minuet, quiet bliss,
Calm and peaceful, it went like this:
Vo doe de o vo doe doe de o doe.
The Polka too was a treat
Your partner said if you tread on his feet
Vo doe de o vo doe doe de o doe.
The gliding Fox©trot we've got
And the blues, if you choose
We've got the Charleston
And we'll soon have Black Bottom
Our vicar said, "Ah, me,
Friends, our hymn for tonight will be
Vo doe de o doe doe doe de o doe.


It's a rage, it's a craze
Everybody sings now-a-days
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de oh doe. Vo doe doe.
Every goof, every sheik,
Tunes his uke and begins to shriek,
Vo doe de oh, vo doe doe de o doe.
Go on the east side, the west side,
Here or there, everywhere,
They vo doe, vo doe doe,
Then they holler, "Black bottom!"
Young or old, old or young
The guy that started it should be hung
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de o, doe.

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:55 PM

Oh he taught me to yodel:
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de o, doe.
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de o, doe.
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de o, doe.
Vo doe de o, vo doe doe de o, doe.
do de o, do de o

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:02 PM

'"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."'

OK. So, what's yer point?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:09 PM

It's all in how ya look at things . . . .

And before someone who knows how to right-click says it's a self-portrait by Picasso, it's a self-portrait done by Picasso. I wish I knew who the subject of this painting was.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:10 PM

that not a portrait painted by picasso! It's a notice that says you can't LOOK at the portrait by Picasso.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:12 PM

you need to copy & paste that link...it doesn't like referrals.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:25 PM

OH. OK, it was a self-portrait of Picasso done in 1907. Does anyone know who the artist would have been?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:29 PM

Self-portrait of a solar system . . . .

I'm jus' tryna keep up with the levity on this thread. Pardon me if that pisses anyone off.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: number 6
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

That's not a self portrait of a solar system ... it's a bunch of eggs!!

sIx

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

"Does anyone know who the artist would have been?" or the subject?

And who WAS buried in Grant's Toumb?

And if an airplane crashes on the US/Canadian border where DO they bury the survivors?


Hey..I'm all for levity!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:15 PM

No one is buried in Grant's Tomb - Grant and his wife are entombed there.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: bobad
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:18 PM

That's a trick answer.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:27 PM

"That's not a self portrait of a solar system ... it's a bunch of eggs!!

sIx"

Oh, yeah! Right. Like yer the guy that stood outside the theatre when folks were gonna watch "The Sting" for the first time and said, "Paul Newman doesn't really die. They used fake bullets."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: bobad
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:31 PM

"Paul Newman doesn't really die. They used fake bullets."

Well I'll be, I wasn't aware of that.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:31 PM

Lotsa people woulda thought that was a solar system.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:33 PM

Rosebud was the sled

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:34 PM

REAL self-portrait of a solar system--DO NOT LISTEN TO sIx.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: bobad
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:36 PM

"Rosebud was the sled"

I thought it was an... ahem... intimate part of his wife's anatomy.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:38 PM

That's real cool Peace!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:39 PM

To, uh, illustrate Bobad's point above . . . .

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: bobad
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:46 PM

" A rose by any other name....."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST,Nicolaus
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 06:16 PM

Zhose tings be eggs and rocks ...zis is REAL Zolar Zystem

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 06:52 PM

Solar System be damned. I've been given to understand that this is a picture of The Center of the Known Universe.

....okay.....that was cheap....But, uhhh, it was just like layin' there!!!........Had to take it, ya' know?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: number 6
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 06:54 PM

"Oh, yeah! Right. Like yer the guy that stood outside the theatre when folks were gonna watch "The Sting" for the first time and said, "Paul Newman doesn't really die. They used fake bullets."

Ya I was Peace ... what's it to ya!

BTW.. nice try with the other attempt on the self portrait of a solar system ... it's a bunch of ice cubes, for christ sakes ..... as if you'd know a self portrait of the universe if ya ever saw one anyway.

Bobad ... come on "Rosebud was a sleigh" that was the biggest load of crap I've ever heard in a movie. It was a dog or a cat or something.

sIx

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:01 PM

Oh yeah? Oh, yeah???? Well here then:
The REAL and TRUE Solar System in a galaxy far far away . . . .

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: number 6
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:03 PM

This is a self portrait of the universe ... well, a little iddy biddy universe ... but hell, to Chagall it could have been a self portrait of a universe ( I think)....

this is a self portrait of a universe

sIx

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: number 6
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:05 PM

Oh come on Peace ... a bunch of f'n peppers ... get real will ya.

sIx

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:10 PM

Hey, guys, I thought you weren't going to talk about goats any more. Or was that ghosts?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:19 PM

The real center of the universe, complete with lyrics.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: number 6
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:20 PM

Jeeezuz ... Janie !!!

sIx

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:24 PM

Good gracious. Obviously I haven't seen enough female belly buttons. I ain't nevuh seen none like that. Looks like dough.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: bobad
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:24 PM

Apparently this is the center of the universe.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:30 PM

Peace - that's not just cool that's CHILLY!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:19 PM

You folks are beginning to scare me . . . .

Peppers me a#se, sIx. That is a galactic cluster. It is a shot that was taken by a friend of mine who lives in THIS spiral galaxy.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:23 PM

AND, further to THAT while we're on it, another frind of mine who lives here in a nebula (the name of which escapes me just now) was with him when he took the shot! So, smarty pants, there ya go.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:25 PM

Next you'll be saying the moon doesn't look like this to you.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:28 PM

Fooled y'all didn't I. I bet, JUST BET ya thought it was gonna be this, huh?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:28 PM

And with that I wish you Earthlings a goodnight.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM

LOL Peace!

Ebbie, them be little baby belly buttons:>)

Janie

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:59 PM

Here we

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM

" Peppers me a#se "

Now there is an expression that is more painful than it sounds.   Jalepenos, they only burn you twice. Ouch.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:10 PM

Posted without comment.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:18 PM

The universe is not easy to get photographs of...for obvious reasons....but here is a map of it.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:26 PM

and if you look REALLY close on the 'back' side, you can see this interesting galaxy (The Hubble telescope had to be programed in reverse Polish notation to get this image!)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

Here's the special lens of the Hubble that had to be installed to cope with the negative curvature of the universe...it confuses the photons so they can be tracked in all four....um...5 dimensions.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

Put on yer shades fer this one . . . .

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:39 PM

Bill, yer last one made me see this:

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: michaelr
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:43 PM

Well, this thread appears to be going off-topic just a bit...

I think there's way too much BS. This shit has got to stop. I applaud the "censors" for taking all those threads off the board.

Joe has said he proposed changes to Max. Presumably Max is thinking about them. If he decides to do something, something will be done.

Maybe he'll make an executive decision. Maybe he'll put it to a vote. Maybe he'll decide to leave things as they are. Maybe he'll comment and maybe he won't. Maybe he'll just say, "Fuck all you idiots, you ruined this place for yourselves, and I'm shutting it down."

Point is, all this hysterical yammering just wastes space on a server that would probably like its load lightened. It's my belief that most of the Mudcat members are here for the music forum, and the wealth of information and knowledge it comprises. I, for one, would not miss the BS section much if it went away.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:53 PM

Peace...of course it made you think that way! That is a major component of the Universe!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:58 PM

EUREKA. The real meaning of wormholes explained at last . . . .

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:00 PM

Oh no you don't! This thread has officially been hijacked--and we ain't given up w'out a fight!!!!

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/map_shape.html

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:03 PM

Let's try that again.

The real skinny on the shape of the universe!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:23 PM

Hijacked? I thought it became a real thread again!

We have found the center of the universe! Huzzah!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:02 AM

God try Michael. I may not agree with what you say in your post but I do recognise your right to say it and your bravery to try and say it in this thread probably deserves a considered response.

This conduct instigated, encouraged and eagerly followed could in part be due the the resident scapegoat being absent.

Martin Gibson to vist Europe

The point is - where is the right place for all this BS? It is here on this section. So why try to squeeze it eleswhere? For without this section acting as a safety valve it would be in every post all over the music section.

This is the point - the two sections are different animals. To treat them the same (as the current failed measures attempt to do), to make any attempt to 'tidy-up' the BS section or impose more censorship or make any further restrictions to it (other than encourage posters by example, not to indulge and respond in kind to the worst excesses) will have a knock-on effect to the music section.

That is why the bit about having a 'review' of all the Guest posts on the music section was 'tacked-on' as an afterthought to Joe Offer's peoposal. If it is not broke - please stop tinkering with it by attempts to further shape it to the tastes of a certain few...

And if anyone does not like our forum - 'warts and all' they can always try to set a better example of posting themselves or they are welcome to go elsewhere, where ganging-up, bullying and shouting down the views of their fellow posters would be considered as acceptable examples to set and follow.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:36 AM

Try to think of it this way Roger. It will make life easier for the clones, as anything in the music section that isn't music related can immediately be deleted. No need to justify it over the next 7/8 years, it was non-music related so it just goes no rhyme no reasons.
The only non music posts allowed there could be the Secret Santa ones, thus allowing this bit of shared fun to continue unabated.
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:56 AM

Where is the problem that this proposal is supposed to be fixing for us?

It is proposed only because the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has now publicly admitted the failure of the current measures to impose the peace that he requires.

Should the whole purpose of our forum really now be designed to make life easier for our fellow posters with edit buttons?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:15 AM

Yes Roger!

Have you stopped beating your wife?

G..

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:19 AM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:05 AM

The concept of a right to impose all of those things being kept in reserve is one that few of us would argue with.

However we may have some justification to argue when such powers are used as a matter of routine and selectively against certain targets but not against others.

When those trusted to keep the peace indulge themselves in abusive personal attacks and encourage others to follow this example.

And when most of this imposed censorship is undertaken to shape our forum to the tastes of a few and all under the excuse of protecting us from abusive personal attacks.

Methods which now the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly admitted have failed to impose the required peace and who now proposes to turn our BS forum into a private members club and to screen all Guest posts to the music section - but does not wish the posters there to be informed.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:10 AM

WOW!!!! What a complete crock-o-crap!!!! You are soooo good at twisting reality........Is this because you live in a twisted reality? Just curious. And remember......

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Alba
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:15 AM

What was that Spaw, I can't hear you. The Mudcat reserves the right to do what....?

* grin *

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Aaron Aardvark
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:38 AM

Perhaps The Rambles hasn't read that bit of the FAQs which Spaw is referring to. It's here:

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Aaron Aardvark
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:39 AM

Or even here: Editorial Policy!

Aaron

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:40 AM

Roger as I have posted before, I too think that some of the editing has been inconsistent.
The answer however is not the total removal of all editing or moderation.
There is a definite 'do as I do and not as I say' attitude comes over sometimes, and that is what needs attention.
Your tendancy to personalise everything has led to the majority of your posts being ignored, even those which contain a deal of common sense.
Learn to turn the other cheek, and concentrate on the real wrongs and not the imagined slights.
Learn to laugh at yourself and practice what you preach, and you may be pleasantly surprised by the support you receive.

Giok

[And stop beating your wife ¦¬]] That was a joke Roger!!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:33 AM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:53 AM

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:59 AM

plus, Roger is using a classic technique of "straw man" argument....inflating a comment or quote way beyond its original formulation by tossing in his personal formulations as **JUDGEMENTS**, such as the following:

"publicly admitted the failure "

"whole purpose ... be designed to make life easier for ... posters with edit buttons"

" does not wish the posters there to be informed."

This is setting up something which twists the original meaning of the quotes, and then sniping at the altered versions.

I gotta, say, though, I have seldom seen this trick done better!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:25 AM

I agree Bill....It's really beautiful as I said somewhere back up the line. But then again pond slime has a natural beauty of sorts too. It just smells bad and is a pain in the ass in your pond.....wait.....Is that an analogy? No........Although a big part of analogy is anal and god knows Roger is anal..........So analogy could be a better analogy..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:27 AM

'"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story'

I think not Ron. Part of the story, maybe.

I have exchange messages with Martin Gibson and registered with him that I felt a few of his posts crossed 'the line'. I find the thread he started wherein he said he's going to Europe to be very offensive, and despite people saying 'if ya don't hate him then you love him and therefore are like him in every way' to be simplistic bullshit. One of those remarks was made by someone who posts her hatred of males very often. Not unlike some of Martin's less fortunate remarks. However, the point is this: That thread is filled with invective and hatred posted by 'the guy next door regular member' of Mudcat. That thread should have been deleted or many of the posts on it deleted. That hasn't happened. It serves to show that the editing of remarks will depend not on content but rather on who is being attacked and by whom. Go to the FAQ, a good missive that has been selectively quoted, and read the WHOLE paragraph on Censorship. It's under the heading "Etiquette and Advice". I guess that some folks is more equal than others.

Shambles: I realize that occasionally you can be a single-issue guy. However, until a law is passed that makes that illegal, you just keep writing and addressing what you perceive to be a problem. Many of the folks speaking against you or subjecting you to ridicule have said in the past that 'if one doesn't like a thread, all one has to do is not open it'. Physician, heal thyself.

I don't think you're gonna change jackshit here, Shambles, but no one has made it against the law to piss into the wind.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:35 AM

"Although a big part of analogy is anal and god knows Roger is anal"

I don't believe that Roger has attacked you personally. So what this?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:45 AM

I agree with you Peace, and if we were paying for this service then I might have an issue with the "seemingly" arbitrary use of editing. However, this is run by volunteers from what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong) and I do feel that owners of the site can do what they like with it. We can register a complaint if we aren't happy, offer a suggestion, but that is it. If it isn't accepted, that is life. Move on afterwards. This is not the only site on the internet.

What is happening on that Gibson thread is awful. I agree, there are a bunch of people who wear blinders that can't see their actions are just as wrong as the person they complain about. I am not sure if there is anything there that should be deleted however. Those that choose to participate and use demeaning phrases and names are not being very effective. It is easy to see through and they are doing their own cause (whatever that may be) more harm then good. They can't see it, well that is their problem.

People can't have things run the way they would like. Even if 99% of us wanted to see someone barred, it isn't our call to make. If the owners of this site choose to delete some messages and leave others up, that is their call.   I may not agree with the decision, but it is not my call. People like Shambles can jump up and down and complain, but all it does is make others pissed off at him and has little impact on changing anything.

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."   It really is the end of the story.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:03 AM

I hear you, Ron. All the best to you.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:13 AM

I dunno' if I was "insulting" anyone there Bruce. I think everyone in this place is pretty anal and some a bit moreso than others. The fact that I keep jackin' around with Roger is proof I am........Ain't no big deal is it? If so then like Roger says, we can all just ignore it. That IS his advice I believe.........

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum

Repetitve posting that isn't it? That repetitive posting stuff is pretty anal ain't it? Yep.....

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:18 AM

And those slathering at the jaws on this thread trying to mock shambles says far more about them than he. You should be proud to be so adult.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:16 PM

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie - PM
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:00 PM

Oh no you don't! This thread has officially been hijacked--and we ain't given up w'out a fight!!!!

Those certain few posters who post to complain about wasted bandwidth but still post and encourage others post any offensive rubbish to a thread to try to shout down an issue or and individual, must have learned after so many years of this tactic that no ammount of this bullying personal judgement will succeed in anything other than boring most of our forum to death and showing the less attractive aspects of our forum.

The lesson is that like or lump it - every poster has as much right as anyone else on our forum to say what they choose - no matter how boring it or the poster may be judged and that everyone can equally respond or ignore what is posted.

As this obvious fact is pointed out on a regular basic by some of our more sensible contributors - can someone please explain why it appears that our forum is now so obsessed with finding 'fun' ways to try to prevent other posters from having their say? Is it because it may appear that there is now some official encouragement for this online bullying?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:26 PM

Shambles, if you don't like what you read you could just follow your own advice and not read these posts.
As for your comments about what you read though you seem not to agree with it you could follow your own advice and make no comments about your fellow posters?
Life could be more easy for you if you'd do what you preach.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM

"Life could be more easy for you if you'd do what you preach."

Like would be easier if many who've posted to this thread followed their own advice.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:36 PM

Duck and Cover

(sor-rrry----but this thread seemed like as good [or bad] a place as any)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:42 PM

I think we need a group hug

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM

199

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM

200

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:47 PM

201

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:47 PM

Subject: RE: SURVEY: How many post to Mudcat ONLY?
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 05:46 AM

What a boring life some people must lead!

Bill - the time and trouble you took in order to post your latest personal judgement - deserves the similar effort in return. Or perhaps it does not?
You judge.

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

"publicly admitted the failure "

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:59 AM

Well, I actually get more flak about what what we don't delete, than about what we do delete. Generally we follow the same guidelines we've always followed - we delete personal attacks, threats, racism, and Spam - but we do our best to allow people to express their thoughts and opinions freely. I suppose some of those opinions are objectionable, but if they're not outright hateful, we usually don't delete them - much to the chagrin of some Mudcatters.

For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

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. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

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

"whole purpose ... be designed to make life easier for ... posters with edit buttons" This of course was a question. (indicated here by this little symbol - ?)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:56 AM

Where is the problem that this proposal is supposed to be fixing for us?

It is proposed only because the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has now publicly admitted the failure of the current measures to impose the peace that he requires.

Should the whole purpose of our forum really now be designed to make life easier for our fellow posters with edit buttons?

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

" does not wish the posters there to be informed."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:00 PM

Perhaps this thread can remain in the music related section for the benefit of those posters in this section who will be affected by this proposal?

Sorry, Shambles. Request refused. Contact Max directly if you'd like to appeal the decision.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:48 PM

My first "Hundred" ........ Talk about some anal things to do...LOL.......

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Leadfingers
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:51 PM

How come the 'count' only says 198 then ??

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Leadfingers
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:52 PM

And now it says 204 !!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:52 PM

What is with this "100" crap? I think all people who resort to such childish behavior should be banned from this site. This kind of garbage is an example of rude behavior and Joe and Max should get on this right away. Why hasn't this thread been closed because of this? No one should be subjected to this kind of abuse. I want answers!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:54 PM

I agree completely, Ron, about "100" crap. "200" crap, though, I see that as a different issue all together.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:56 PM

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

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

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:57 PM

100, 200, 211 - they are all the same.   To see a celebration of these numbers makes my skin crawl. How can anyone be so insensitive of the well being of others to allow this to happen?   No wonder people are dropping like flies around here.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:59 PM

Yummy flies!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 12:59 PM

This must be changed immediately. Thank you Shambles for bringing this to our attention. The fact that the management around here allows this to continue and does not see the harm that befalls humanity is a cause for revolution. I say we take to the streets and picket the internet because of this. Heads should roll!!!!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:01 PM

But...Ron....then there would be no more yummy flies *sob*

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:17 PM

You complain about people trying to stop others having their say Roger, but you've had yours.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
again.
This is why your posts are largely ignored, many people who reply to your threads in a mocking or derisory manner haven't actually read the thread.
Guess why they haven't?
That's right you've been posting almost the same post for years, so no need to read them is there?
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:20 PM

Hey, my "201" was a profound commentary on the ongoing discussion. Trouble is, Shambles will probably copy-paste my 201 a dozen times....

-Joe Offer-
214

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM

Posters don't get their claims for 100th posts deleted by the anonymous ones any more and the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is now claiming them....

A small victory perhaps?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM

Discussion?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:28 PM

Discussion =

An extended communication (often reactive) dealing with some particular topic.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:29 PM

Sorry Joe, you have failed us! I think a public flogging is in order here. I also demand a recount. I don't believe that Florida was accurately represented in the postings.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:32 PM

Ain't much left to discuss--all attempts to discuss with Shambles fell on deaf ears as best I can tell. So few of us try to do it anymore.

Myself--I just play. Used to let Shambles' bullying (and bulldozering) way of 'discussing' run me off the playground. I thought he felt strongly about some point and would steamroll over every attempt to actually discuss it--either that or the poor boy was deaf and so didn't realize people were talking to him.

Now I realize it is just his way of playing--learned his rules--and have been playing with him ever since, without any problem whatsoever!
I come to all his parties.

Janie

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:33 PM

Forum =

A public facility for open discussion.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM

I am *so* confused - who is on which side on the numbers postings? Joe and the clones have been lambasted both for leaving them in threads and for deleting them from threads - which is under discussion at the moment? and is the general consensus pro or con? the postings. Or possibly the deletions.

I *told* you I was confused.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM

It has ceased to be a discussion. You made your points, we made ours and yet it continues.   End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:38 PM

HEY WAIT A MINUTE HERE........

Just thought I'd say that. You don't have to wait a minute. Please go on to the next post.   Or you could sit here and use the rest of the minute to contemplate all the important things that Roger has said here...................................

Okay......still have 57 seconds left huh? Sorry.....Just go on......

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:40 PM

Well, the numbers are an annoyance and an intrusion in music threads and in serious discussions.
They're also a pain in the ass in PermaThreads like the FAQ and Attribution threads, which have message tallys that vary constantly.
In normal BS threads, I think they're kinda fun.
-Joe Offer-

Is it "tallys," or "tallies," or both??

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM

Sorry Spaw, posts like that are just a thinly-disguised attempt to get to 300.   I am highly insulted and I have removed you from my Christmas card list.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:42 PM

I think tally is already plural

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:44 PM

OH NO!!!! Ah geez Ron.....How can I get back on the list? I'll do anything. Yes, you saw through my failed ploy but try not to see through this apology which I might have to post repeatedly. Please.....I need that card Man....It's the only one I get!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:44 PM

That is really part of the problem Joe, I don't like them at all, but gave up trying to buck the trend ages ago.
However if they're wrong in one thread they're wrong in all threads, so either they all go, or they all stay right?
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:45 PM

Tallywhacker is singular though and pretty long too......

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:46 PM

Well some are........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:47 PM

Alright Spaw, I was impressed by your groveling and sincere apology for your anti-social behavior. You are back on my list. Now I have one card to send out.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:48 PM

And what about 'grits'? Is that term singular or plural? Even the waitresses often aren't sure. Some Yankee eating at the Village Diner here in my little town might point to his plate and ask "What's that?"
The waitress is likely to reply "Them's grits, honey."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:49 PM

uh, I hope everyone realizes that my complaints about the 100 & 200 postings was an attempt to satirize the current situation.   I am hoping that no one is really upset about the people who have to be #100 or 200. It may be silly and childish, but whatever floats their boat. I have no problem with it.

I will refrain from levity in the future.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 01:51 PM

Not me. (Not I?) Not me.

I like levity. I saw a guru levity once on the cable TV! Really, I did!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:13 PM

Well, the numbers are an annoyance and an intrusion in music threads and in serious discussions.
They're also a pain in the ass in PermaThreads like the FAQ and Attribution threads, which have message tallys that vary constantly.
In normal BS threads, I think they're kinda fun.
-Joe Offer-

Perfectly clear - they were thought 'obnoxious' by which ever sample of forum posters the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team was consulting and 'fair game' for our anonymous ones to delete - but now although the same posters who judged them 'obnoxious' presumably still consider do - these posts are now judged as 'kinda fun'.

Just as concerted attempts to divert or bury the thread's subject are no doubt also judged to be 'kinda fun'?

No wonder poor MMario is confused - I suspect many are.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Janie - Can I give you my sincere regrets and apolgies for ever bullying you.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:14 PM

"Just as concerted attempts to divert or bury the thread's subject are no doubt also judged to be 'kinda fun'?"

Damned straight.

What is your shoe size?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM

Ron, if anyone DID take that seriously............well that's ridiculous! You weren't being , uh............wait......Are you joking about the serious part or are you serious about the joking?   Oh my.......I am now in a real pickle as to how to interpret this.....On the one hand you have a fine mess and the other is covered in chigger bites...........No, that's not it......Just forget it ..... I'm serious......just forget it......the serious part I mean......That part which I thought was serious about whether your part was a serious joke or a jokey-joke. Wait......Which is it? I can't tell what I said about what you said before I said what I said about what you said ........ oy...........................

Can Roger check in and interpret what I said there? It sounds like a lot of his posts so maybe he can figure it out for us.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM

if they're wrong in one thread they're wrong in all threads, so either they all go, or they all stay right?

If you take a legalistic view of life, I suppose that's the case. The alternative is to use common sense. If everybody's goofing off in a thread, what's wrong with tallying thread numbers? If it's a serious discussion, what's right about breaking the discussion with this numbers foolishness?

Why must we be forced into a shotgun marriage with legalism? Are rigid rules the only fair way to administer a forum like this? Max may have said there are no rules here - but he has also often encouraged people to be civil toward one another, and he has sometimes cracked down hard on people who are not.
-Joe Offer-

P.S. Ron Olesko, your levity may be a bit strange at times, but that seems to be a perfect fit for Mudcat. But if tally is plural, what's the singular? "Tall"?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:25 PM

The good aspects of having clearly understood rules, conventions or guidelines from the start - and not moving the goalposts half way through - is that they do give everyone equal protection from poor, unfair and inconsistent judgements.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:26 PM

durn, Roger...you say my post 'deserved a response' of similar effort.
What I got was more copies of my examples......that is not even an attempt at a refutation.

I claimed you were altering the point and intent of the quotes with your own take, in order to make them look worse than they were. I still hold that view.

(Boy, I'd like to see the cross indexing system you use to dredge up all these link and quotes!....If you do it out of your head, you have missed your calling in life....you could be PM!)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:29 PM

it certainly wasn't *JOE'S* posts that confused me. Nor Ron's.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:30 PM

Nope. No need. I finally learned to play by your rules--the passive-aggressive game--and I'm havin' FUN!

xxoo,

Janie

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:32 PM

And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me whether grits is singular or are plural!

Janie

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:33 PM

Joe, let me do something that is not usually done here on Mudcat - apologize and admit that I was wrong.   I was wrong about tally, or the way that you were using the word.   I've looked it up and the correct usage would be "tallies".

Keep up the good work Joe, regardless of a what a few people think, the rest of realize that you are doing an incredible job and we all appreciate your time and effort.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:37 PM

MMario, I kinda knew that you understood, but there were some others that appeared to be taking my commments seriously.

Meanwhile....

"The good aspects of having clearly understood rules, conventions or guidelines from the start - and not moving the goalposts half way through - is that they do give everyone equal protection from poor, unfair and inconsistent judgements. "

Well, there is a good explanation, if you are willing to listen to reason and understand what it appears to be something that EVERYONE else understands -

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:37 PM

So if I have one tallywhacker it's tallywhacker, but if I had, say, like five of them they would be tallieswhacker???   Doesn't sound right to me. Tell ya' this though, if I had five of them my condoms would fit like a glove.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:43 PM

What I got was more copies of my examples......that is not even an attempt at a refutation.

What our forum now has are your interpretation of my quotes and the evidence on which they were based. Perhaps we can leave our forum to judge if their are any merits in your latest personal judgement of me?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:54 PM

I think there are merits

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:58 PM

So we're up to almost 250 posts about a suggestion ? Something that hasn't even happened yet ?

Well - I'm glad we're not blowing this out of proportion......

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:01 PM

Out of 250 posts, about 250 could be considered frivelous.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:06 PM

Hey, Wesley, I'm glad somebody caught on that pre-posting review of Guest messages was a suggestion. I think it's a tool I'd like to have when things are out of control, something we could turn off when Mudcat is peaceful.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM

I don't want to be left out.


The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:27 PM

Hey, Wesley, I'm glad somebody caught on that pre-posting review of Guest messages was a suggestion. I think it's a tool I'd like to have when things are out of control, something we could turn off when Mudcat is peaceful.
-Joe-

Perhaps it was a suggestion that could have been made to those posting on the part of the forum that it concerned - so they could discuss it and see if they liked the idea of this tool in your hands as much as you obviously do?

The proposal to further restrict this section and change it to members only was made here and this did at least enable some form of discussion to take place.

Is it safe for our forum to now accept that neither of your two latest suggestions are going to be agreed to by Max?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:36 PM

"Perhaps it was a suggestion that could have been made to those posting on the part of the forum that it concerned - so they could discuss it and see if they liked the idea of this tool in your hands as much as you obviously do? "

Why? It is not a call to be made by the forum. None of our business.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:39 PM

You never know, Shambles.
Sometimes, Max agrees with me.
Sometimes, though, it seems that he agrees with you.
Sometimes, even I agree with you.
And sometimes not.
And this is the stuff of 200-plus message Shamblesthreads....
-Joe Offer-
255

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:55 PM

Why not make life easier and just screen Shambles' messages? Most of them were posted weeks before anyway. Little Sir Echo causes more useless threads then Martin Gibson.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:59 PM

None of our business

P.S. Ron Olesko, your levity may be a bit strange at times, but that seems to be a perfect fit for Mudcat.
Joe Offer

END OF STORY?

The suggestion (or threat) to change our forum to a members only club was made publicly - so this was obviously thought to be our business.

The other fairly obvious suggestion that further restrictions of the BS would mean that the music forum would be affected by the non members excluded from the BS section - was made by our forum. It was an aspect seemingly overlooked by the original suggestion.

But the further suggestion to review all Guest posts on the music section (where there does not appear to be any problems nneding yet more imposition) was soon speedily tacked-on.   

Joe if the current state of our forum is not to your tastes and can only be made so by the imposition of yet more restrictions - perhaps you can consider this suggestion?

That you form a site of your own and leave this one alone and to those of us who do like it as it is and without your constant efforts to shape our forum to your tastes.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:04 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:07 PM

'"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story'

I think not Ron. Part of the story, maybe.

I have exchange messages with Martin Gibson and registered with him that I felt a few of his posts crossed 'the line'. I find the thread he started wherein he said he's going to Europe to be very offensive, and despite people saying 'if ya don't hate him then you love him and therefore are like him in every way' to be simplistic bullshit. One of those remarks was made by someone who posts her hatred of males very often. Not unlike some of Martin's less fortunate remarks. However, the point is this: That thread is filled with invective and hatred posted by 'the guy next door regular member' of Mudcat. That thread should have been deleted or many of the posts on it deleted. That hasn't happened. It serves to show that the editing of remarks will depend not on content but rather on who is being attacked and by whom. Go to the FAQ, a good missive that has been selectively quoted, and read the WHOLE paragraph on Censorship. It's under the heading "Etiquette and Advice". I guess that some folks is more equal than others.

Shambles: I realize that occasionally you can be a single-issue guy. However, until a law is passed that makes that illegal, you just keep writing and addressing what you perceive to be a problem. Many of the folks speaking against you or subjecting you to ridicule have said in the past that 'if one doesn't like a thread, all one has to do is not open it'. Physician, heal thyself.

I don't think you're gonna change jackshit here, Shambles, but no one has made it against the law to piss into the wind.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:08 PM

I'll second that:


"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:10 PM

Second that? More like 1,627,348th it.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:19 PM

Peace, it's deja vu all over again! :)

See my original response at 10:45am!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:46 PM

Does anyone remember Polanski's film 'What?'

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM

Gawd. I saw his "Macbeth" and that was enough Polanski for me, Wolfgang.

BUT, was that the film where the guy drives off furiously and ends up back where he started and that keeps happening?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 05:07 PM

"Perhaps we can leave our forum to judge if their are any merits in your latest personal judgement of me?"

hey, sure. I'll be glad to put it to a vote...*grin*...will you?

(of course, ANY comment *I* make is a 'personal judgement', while yours are just something like clarifying suggestions, hmmm?)
Putting 'perhaps' before half your posts don't alter the fact that you do just as much 'judging' as anyone.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 05:20 PM

There is a school of thought that holds to the philosophy, that if one doesn't actually reply to a Shambles Thread, it goes below the line quite quickly.

A boycott of Rambles' shamblings,rather than 'personal judgement', "perhaps".
How many times does one have to tell anyone anything?


ONCE!

Physician heal thyself, indeed!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 05:47 PM

"How many times does one have to tell anyone anything?"

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞³

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 05:48 PM

So, what d'ya think of those Mets?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:06 PM

Mets are nothin' without Stengel!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:08 PM

I HEAR THAT!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:22 PM

Ah screw the Mets......How about a new game?

POST YOUR FAVORITE SHAMBLE-ISM

Enter early and often!!! Post as many as you like and maybe we can vote later?!?!?!? Or not..

Roger is very creative in his choice of words and there are some real gems that we all love or hate or love to hate!

WHAT ARE YOURS???

I'll start with a real beauty:

"Anonymous Volunteer Fellow Posters"

Really gives you the McCarthy era/HUAC Committee hearing feel doesn't it? The clones are not only evil but COMMUNISTS!!!!

Next?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:54 PM

I am red, red, red!! Or, is it pinko, pinko, pinko?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:03 PM

Let's go Mets. Lookin real good this year!   I went to my first game of the season last Saturday. Even though it was one of the 4 games they have lost so far this season, I still had a great time.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:08 PM

If there was a rainout would the stadium be "SUBJECTED TO IMPOSED CLOSURE?"

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:19 PM

There is a marginally interesting power trip being played out on this thread. A week or so ago mick said threads deliberately hijacked would be deleted/closed. This is one of those without a doubt. And there have been a few lately. All with the same posters.

But with mods posting to it what is to be done? Another public mod v mod altercation? Or does it be allowed to run and run? Joe et al you are putting yourselves up as beyond censorship, yet cry for it for others. Very sad.

Does anyone actually find this drivel in the least bit funny except for those feverishly hitting the keyboard. It's like watching a car being driven by someone who shouldn't be driving a car. Uncomfortable and barely in control.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:28 PM

I agree Guest......Let's close this sucker!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:28 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

And, as was said in every Looney Tune cartoon..."that's aaaaaaaaaaaall folks!!"

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:29 PM

Why not just refrain from posting to it?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:29 PM

" It's like watching a car being driven by someone who shouldn't be driving a car."

piffle!It isn't any such thing!

Wanta hear what I think anonymous posts are like? No?....

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:32 PM

"Why not just refrain from posting to it?"

'Cause I still gotta know why Bill thinks Casey Stengel was so important to the Mets.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:37 PM

If this empowers you then so be it.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:45 PM

Casey gave them 'character'....they had an identity, as well as a knowledgeable old fart with ages of experience to show 'em HOW to win. It was an adventure, as well as a job, and the desire to give Casey "one more title" must have been a bit of a game to play, too!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:50 PM

Thanks, Bill. He was fun to watch also.

Casey Stengel Official Site.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:55 PM

Casey Stengal was important to the Mets

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:00 PM

Bill was right about Casey. He gave the Mets character. He could not show them how to win, in fact he fell asleep on the bench. But he made the game interesting and fun - just like threads on Mudcat used to be (note the connection to the topic).

I also loved Casey because he came back after the Yankees fired him. He showed them that he still had the stuff.

Casey also spoke a language all his own - Stengelese. When he did not wish to respond to a reporter, he would give a sort of doubletalk. If you listened closely, you knew what he was trying to say. (Sort of like the relationship of this topic to this thread).

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM

If all the posts that were attempts to 'hijack' this thread were deleted from it - it would not be such a long thread - if the stated 'procedure' were being followed..............

Subject: RE: BS: why all the closed threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM

Yes, there have been a number of threads closed or deleted lately. Things have been unusually nasty around here this last week. Somebody suggested it might be the full moon that made Mudcatters crazier than usual.

Mick did a pretty good summary of the way we do things. They aren't rules, but they are the general procedures we follow. The general principle is that moderators will use a variety of moderation techniques to keep the peace, but that moderation techniques are to be used sparingly. When things are in an uproar, we moderate more strictly. When things are calm, we moderate hardly at all.

Personal attacks, racism, and Spam are deleted when we find them, and we consider blank messages to be Spam. Multiples of ongoing threads are usually combined with the earlier thread by moving messages, or closed and redirected to the earlier thread. Here's what Mick said about our procedures:


All, with the exception of the trollers and flamers, have pretty well accepted that reasonable moderation is necessary. As I understand the rules, it goes something like this.

As a rule, if two threads are talking about essentially the same thing, the messages are transferred and one is closed.

If a thread is nothing more than a personal attack, it is generally closed.

If a post is an attempt to hijack a thread, it can be deleted.

Copycat threads are looked at carefully, and if they add nothing to the discussion, they can be deleted. This is generally the call of Joe and Jeff.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:05 PM

Note the words "can be" in the above. That is a lot different than "will be".

I am not noting a lot of complaints, except for one person and an anonymous guest.

Besides, Casey Stengel is relevant to this topic. You can look it up.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:12 PM

Complaints?

None of our business - END OF STORY.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:13 PM

You finally got it right Shambles.

Casey Stengel also said - "You gotta learn that if you don't get it by midnight, chances are you ain't gonna get it, and if you do, it ain't worth it."   Some good words of advice that fit this thread.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:16 PM

The question that has never been properly addressed is...were the Mets important to Casey Stengal? Could he have climbed to the pinnacle of his peak if he had been with, for example, the Toledo Mudhens?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:27 PM

He climbed to the pinnacle with the New York Yankees, who discarded him because they thought he was too old.   The Mets, a brand new team in NYC, asked him to be their first manager because they new he still had charisma and could make a team of castaways and aging former stars into a team that people would enjoy. He proved himself again and again.   Yes, the Mets were just as important to the Old Professor because they gave him the opportunity.

Casey also said ""I always heard it couldn't be done, but sometimes it don't always work."    Sort of like some people on this Mudcat thread.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:39 PM

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie - PM
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:00 PM

Oh no you don't! This thread has officially been hijacked--and we ain't given up w'out a fight!!!!

Joe or Mick - Is there now such a thing?

Is that any thread where a certain poster is always permitted without censure to suggest a course of action to disrupt, divert a thread in an attempt to shout a fellow poster down and a few posters are always willing to follow suit and join in the example set of bullying, offensive language, scatological references and name-calling?

It would appear that some posters may be under the impression that such things are officially sanctioned and they are safe to follow this example as these are now also viewed as 'kinda fun' on forum - are they?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:44 PM

Roger, your wishes will be honored. Would you like me to close this thread?

Mick

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:47 PM

I wish people would lighten up a bit.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:57 PM

Wouldn't you have loved to be in the dugout and clubhouse with Yankees in the 50's? Casey and Yogi each speaking their own language.......Casey riding Mantle.......Mantle, Ford, Martin.....What an era that was.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:01 PM

Would you like me to close this thread?

Mick-

That was not the question I asked. If I had asked for this - why would you consider that my wishes should be more important than any other contributor to this thread's subject? Why do you appear so keen to delete this thread?

Why would there be any need for such drastic action as closing an entire thread just because there is an attempt to 'hi-jack it? But you did not say you would delete the entire thread in such cases - you said post.

If a post is an attempt to hijack a thread, it can be deleted.

This thread would be a lot shorter if all the posts attempting to hi-jack it - were to be deleted. The length of the thread seems to be an issue for some posters- who lengthen it even further when they post just to say so.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:06 PM

If some posters think an entire thread will be removed because of their efforts to intentionally hi-jack it - such a result will be seen as a reward for their attempts - will it not?

Such editing actions will only be seen to be encouraging such attempts...

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:07 PM

Excuse me, but what makes Shambles an arbiter on what consititues an "attempt to hijack"? Any "normal" conversation will have drifts. If the thread were hijacked, there would be no attempt made at getting back to the original topic. I feel that all the posters have done that.   I do not think that Shambles should become an arbiter for taste or content. Just because someone does not agree with him does not give him the right to make such calls.   There is a great deal of humor, healthy sarcasm, and good conversation. If Shambles does not wish to particpate, that is his right.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:09 PM

I sure wish I still had my complete set of 1956 World Series baseball cards...but alas, I clipped them on to the wheels of my bicycle and rode off into the sunset after Stengel and the Yankees won.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:11 PM

I love this place. The irony alone is worth the price of admission.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:12 PM

Yeah but Shambo, ya' gotta' dig that there are a whole lot of threads basically dealing with the same thing.......you and your continuing whatever it is. You ask basically the same questions in each and every one so.............

That's why I suggested your own complaint thread. If you could limit it to one, I wouldn't post on it at all, just stop injecting your Mudcat Miseries into almost every thread where you participate.


Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:17 PM

MICK----"I love this place. The irony alone is worth the price of admission." Ain't it wonderful? I haven't had this much fun in ages.

artbrooks----I had entire sets of all teams from 56-62. Then I got tired of them and went on to other things. I used them for all kinds of things and they just laid around until my Dad asked me what I was going to do with them. I said nothing and we threw them out.........................

I could have a handsome retirement.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:28 PM

I don't think you're gonna change jackshit here, Shambles, but no one has made it against the law to piss into the wind.

As no one is being force to stand and face the wind with me - there is little chance of me pissing on them. And if they do freely choose to stand next to me whilst I try to piss into the wind - perhaps they have no cause for complaint?

END OF STORY?

I am not sure I know what a thread hi-jack is - but it is an offence now covered by Mick's rules and a post did claim that this thread has been hi-jacked and officially hi-jacked at that..........is there such a thing?

It seems a strange concept that the same action can both be against the rules but also thought by some posters to be offically encouraged and sanctioned. Well it may be thought strange in a normal universe ..........

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:29 PM

wee wee wee... all the way home.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:57 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

This story ended long before this thread was started.

Once the story ends, the original topic of the thread would seem to me to be irrelevant, therefore any post on any topic would be very relevant on that thread, it being a thread whose main theme is irrelevancy. Eh?


Roger, I was mistaken in my earlier post. It is impossible to hi-jack an irrelevant thread, since anything is revelant to a thread that is irrelevant. Now, this logic is twisted enough that I think you should be able to grok it quite easily, twisted logic being your specialty.

And you know Rog? If I thought you truly didn't get what you were doing, I wouldn't dream of messing around with these absurd threads. But you are so perfectly passive-agressive that I believe you are very conscious and intentionally provoking. This is a lot of fun for you, IMHO. But guess what? You aren't the only one who gets to have fun with it.

Now, I thought the Met was an opera house. You guys keep saying Mets. does that mean it is a chain or franchise?...Oh--baseball you say. Whose the goalie for the Mets? I mean, quarterback.

Janie

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:19 PM

" It is impossible to hi-jack an irrelevant thread, since anything is revelant to a thread that is irrelevant."

oohhh, Janie! You missed your calling!...that is pure Philosophy of Logic! Internally consistent and relevant....so I guess it is also irrelevant....wait, no---hmmm..if it is relevant to poke at an irrelevant thread with irrelevant relevance, then....uh..

anyway, it FELT scrumptious!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:23 PM

Yeah, Spaw...I thought of that often as the girls' college tuition bills came in.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 02:59 AM

But you are so perfectly passive-agressive that I believe you are very conscious and intentionally provoking. This is a lot of fun for you, IMHO. But guess what? You aren't the only one who gets to have fun with it.

Janie-

Now this is an interesting concept. I would dearly love to know what 'passive-aggressive' means in your book? But whatever this term means - the perception that I display this, that I am having 'a lot of fun' doing this and that earlier I had bullied you in some way- is taken by you as justification for all your subesquent actions to intentionally (in your words) hi-jack this thread.

If this is what you consider to be the correct reaction to another poster being passive-aggressive - I wonder what your reaction would be to one who is agressive-agressive? Then perhaps you can better understand my reaction to such examples of it as the following? And why being placed in such a position when you are just trying to say what you honestly believe - is really very little fun at all....

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Now matter how our motives may be perceived - can I and other posters be free to 'piss into the wind' if that is our wish? I have provided new threads for discussion of subjects such as Grits etc - perhaps posts on these and others subjects can be placed in these threads?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 03:41 AM

When did I say that, Shambles, and in what context? - and how many times have you copy-pasted that particular post? If you wish to quote me, please provide at least the date I posted the original, and a link to the original. That's fair, isn't it?
Oh, and don't forget my fee for any message of mine you copy-paste more than once.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:16 AM

When did I say that, Shambles, and in what context?

I hope you are not trying to maintain that you did not say it? You usually provide, explain and excuse this quote - I am waiting for you to do it this time also.

But what would the context matter? This was posted publicly by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

Can there really be any justification or excuse for any Chief Moderator to be seen publicly posting such things?

And if any justificaton or excuses are given - how can you or anyone be surprised when setting such an example (and there are many more) results in it being followed by other posters making similar judgements of their fellow invited guests?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:52 AM

If the facility for Mudcatters to use HTML was removed, it would limit the activities of some of the more prolific posters.
On the basis of the greater good, it would benifit more than it would inconvenience.
That plus a limit on the length of cut 'n pastes!
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:55 AM

The quotes are accurate, Shambles, but out of context, and that distorts their meaning. From the way you've used this quote, one would think you were the "pain in the ass" I was talking about.

Come to think of it...

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:20 AM

It's called 'Tunnel Vision' Joe.
G..

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:48 AM

Dunno, Roger. As I see it, I sometimes disagree with people, but I'm not combative. It's the combative stuff that causes trouble at Mudcat. and I do believe that needs to be controlled.
Joe Offer

No doubt who these are addressed to - as if it mattered.

Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit
Joe Offer.
------
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
Joe Offer

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:57 AM

Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole.
-Joe Offer-

OK, so I suppose it's time to close this one, too. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know it doesn't have anything to do with everybody calling each other asshole.
That kind of stuff makes it really difficult to carry on an adult discussion.
-Joe Offer

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

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

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

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

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 09:45 AM

I wonder what Shambles does with the rest of his life? I get an impression of a lonely man who just loves to stir up crap and cut and past irrelevant posts all day.   The writing is on the wall, the FAQ speaks for itself, the definition that Shambles uses of "free speech" is not applicable to this type of situation, yet he continues to press on. I bet there is a real interesting story here, perhaps a sad one.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 10:29 AM

Yes, Roger. Give the dates and and thread names. It's not beyond you is it? You're actually quite adept at it. Or are we to assume you are deliberately quoting out of context to put Joe in a bad light? In other words, are you bullying and harrassing him?

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum." (from the FAQ)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Yes, Roger. Give the dates and and thread names. It's not beyond you is it? You're actually quite adept at it. Or are we to assume you are deliberately quoting out of context to put Joe in a bad light? In other words, are you bullying and harrassing him?

*Smiles*
Not just a little bit of a double standard being shown here is there by you Paul?

If I had posted anything like this incitement - would you be trying to defend me on grounds of context or on any other grounds?

In what other context can you take these examples that would possibly show the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in a good light?

If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM

Shambles has a complete catalog of every irritated word I've expressed in my nine and one-half years at Mudcat. You'll find I don't express irritation very often - but for each time I've lost my patience, Shambles has copy-pasted my words a dozen times. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either.

But heck, who ever accused Shambles of fairness?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 01:56 PM

Sheesh . . . . All I did was mention the Mets to Bill. I wouldn't dream of hijacking this thread. Forsooth. So, here's the deal, Dobsie: it's all yours. (It was one of the few threads that contain mostly BS--but was still above the line when I set my BS filter--, having taken a 'vow' to avoid posting to BS for a month--that I could post to.) Now, there is one f#ck of a sentence! However, before I wander from the topic, allow me to state that it has been a pleasure reading the stuff about waterskis and diamond grit sandpaper. Although I disagree that it's good to sleep with skis on, it's your right. Excelsior!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 06:19 PM

I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either.

You could always ask him? But......

If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 06:42 PM

Guest, I mean Shambles, forget about Joe - I would like to see the threads and dates. Anyone else feel the same?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 08:41 PM

Anyone who sees a major 'us vs. them' thing going on here betweene those who edit and those who don't, trace your belief that a division exists back to the very earliest, and you're likely going to find a post by Shambles criticising a division that didn't yet exist.

Roger, you single admins out your special attention, then call us 'fellow posters' who should be no more equal than anyone else. Who claimed we were, other than you? You have to make us seem more significant than others, and make people believe that's what WE think, so knocking us down can make you look like you're doing something besides stalking, harrassing or run-of-the-mill macho head butting. It's a battle wholly of your own creation. YOU created the rift, YOU got into a pissing contest with Joe that seems to have grown to epic proportions, YOU post thread after thread that don't discuss anything so much as harrass individuals, then have the nerve to say, "...posters assume that I must have done something really awful... However, no one seems to know or be able to spell out exactly what this truly awful thing might be."

I'll spell it out. My opinion. You stalk Joe. You try to create divisions between people so you have a crusade. Your actions are repetitive and boorish and, as far as I can tell, pointless. At least they're without any stated goals on your part. I think this is a vendetta, it's 100% personal, and the only goal I can see that would logically be at the end of your actions here is to keep the argument growing and the bad feelings increasing. You may honestly believe you're doing something else, but I rather think you DO know what you're doing, and I think you just hate Joe.

Unfortunately, Joe has a very positive outlook regarding people, to a point that drives me nuts at time. What it means though, is that he will likely just keep being reasonable at you, and you'll keep trying to make him lose it. In the meantime, you've made yourself the only person on Mudcat I consistently hope never to meet. As far as I can tell you've done little, if anything, to make Mudcat a better forum, and a great deal to tear it apart, and for what? Your ego? Posting what other people say over and over is supposed to demonstrate what? You can't organize and post post your own words?

No, I don't expect you to answer. I don't even expect you to wonder if, just maybe, you come off as a bit insane, or that I'm not simply trying to continue an argument but tell you, honestly, what I believe. I can understand that you don't expect others to try to post without guile, since you don't seem capable of it. *smiles*

Any belief that this post means I wish to discuss rather than just make a statement is mistaken.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: michaelr
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 10:27 PM

Jeri -- amen, kudos, and thank you. I couldn't have etc etc.

Now let's ban this obesessive-compulsive, passive-aggressive jerk already.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 10:46 PM

No, don't ban Shambles, don't ban Martin, don't ban anyone.

I have re-read my posts over the past few days, and I would like to say publicly that I apologize about going overboard. I was having fun at someone elses expense and that is not right. Some of my postings and proddings were no different than the crap Shambles has pulled.

It just isn't worth getting upset about folks. Like television or radio, we have choices.   We don't like a program - change the channel. If we were sitting in a bar and someone came in and started acting obnoxious like a few of our members and guests, we would either get in a fight or pick up our drink and go to another table. There will always be better discussions. It is not worth soiling your hands over worthless drivel.

It was fun, but it was wrong. I am tired of this bickering. No one is going to convince anyone else that they are right or wrong. We each have our opinions and we should stick to it. I would hope that we can have real discussions and not be so stubborn that we can't listen to someone elses opinion. We might learn something. All this excessive crap isn't doing anyone any good.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 11:42 PM

yup!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:01 AM

Does that mean I can post to this thread again?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:09 AM

I WAS KIDDING.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:19 AM

'[Peace] "I don't think you're gonna change jackshit here, Shambles, but no one has made it against the law to piss into the wind."

[Shambles] "As no one is being force to stand and face the wind with me - there is little chance of me pissing on them. And if they do freely choose to stand next to me whilst I try to piss into the wind - perhaps they have no cause for complaint?"'

Shambles, I don't know if I understood you. 'Piss into the wind' is an expression used here to mean 'do something that is futile and self-defeating'. I think that some of your observations about various things are correct. Having said that, just beCAUSE you say it don't make it correct. Some valid points have been ridiculed I think because finding those points amidst such prolific posting would require a Cray computer to sort and catalog the nuance and innuendo. I disagree with those who have tried to shut you up, for they too are pissing into the wind, but I do not think you should be stifled. Remember, it ain't who ya know, it's who ya blow. You take care and have fun with your thread.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST,Mudcat Central Security
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:22 AM

Just taking notes of the names here and what's being posted. Better behave yourselves.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:24 AM

OK, Suzette.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST,Mudcat Central Sucurity
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:32 AM

I'll have no more of that Peace. I'm going to have to write you up. Once more and it's back being on probation for you.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:33 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM

Shambles quotes Joe saying: I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either.

Shambles sez: You could always ask him? But......

Shambles quotes Shambles saying: If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates.

---

Well, Roger, I don't want to be drawn into the discussion, and I try to avoid "pissing contests" as much as I can. You'll note that most of the time I don't comment unless there's something new to discuss. Lacking that, you attempt to insert me into the discussion, against my wishes, by posting out-of-context comments from me that are sometimes several years old. No, I shouldn't be obligated to look them up and give reference information for them - they're from your stalking library, and I would assume that you should have that information if you post the quotes. If you believe in fairness at all, the least you could do is furnish dates and context for the quotes you post. I have made no attempt whatsoever to deny the quotes you post - I have simply requested that you furnish dates and context information.
Maybe you have noted that we are very careful to leave anti-Mudcat posts alone. We let people say just about anything they like about Mudcat and its administrators, because we truly do believe in free expression.
But YOU abuse that privilege by posting half-truths and innuendo, and by posting the same thing over and over again. I like to answer legitimate questions about Mudcat policy and editorial actions, but you have made a mockery of that by raising the same issues over and over again. Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself. You fight in the name of freedom - but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy.
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:39 AM

GREAT NEW GAME!!!ENTER NOW!!!

Read Joe's post above and try to guess which pharse will be the most quoted by Sham.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 03:10 AM

If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates.

I have made no attempt whatsoever to deny the quotes you post - I have simply requested that you furnish dates and context information

Request denied.

Learn to ive with it

Do those quotes of yours sound familiar as well or do I need to supply the dates and context for those too?

To talk as you do of context and irritation are excuses for the sort of reaction demonstrated here from any form of moderator are inexcusable. The context is that you are always setting an example. Your reactions must be seen in that context.

To talk of me being unfair when the context of your many public attacks on me which example only encourages others to think such posts are also acceptable for them - are all because I try to point out the basic unfairness in your actions. And you don't like this and again you clearly demonstrate this.

I have yet to respond to you or anyone else in this manner - I simply try to express my view. If this is pissing in the wind - so be it.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 03:36 AM

...and go round and round and round in the circle game.

I guess I'd better jump off this merry-go-round. I don't think we'll ever find out why he refuses to furnish dates and context information. I guess he'll just keep on having his circular conversation between himself and his copy-paste Joe Offer quotes. He gets flustrated and starts babbling if he has to respond to me directly. He'd much rather argue with an edited, out-of-context Joe Offer than discuss with the real Joe Offer.

Think he'll start quoting "self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself"? Probably not - there's too much truth in it. It might be good if he'd think about it for a while. Maybe he'd realize that his constant attacks aren't doing himself any good, and they aren't doing anything to make Mudcat a better place.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 04:38 AM

How much have you paid towards the upkeep of the Mudcat Roger?
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:56 AM

The Internet is free, last time I looked.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 06:38 AM

Moderator =

Someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence.

ALL those who feel qualified to be moderators on our forum will perhaps accept that in order mediate in any disputes - they cannot be seen to be part of it?

If they wish to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters - (in order to prevent abusive personal attacks as it is claimed) - they cannot be seen to indulge in setting or following the example of posting this or of posting any other form of personal judements of their fellow posters.

Posters may well be publicly judged by some of our known moderators to be 'buffoons' or called worse names. But those who post only these public judgements have to accept that all posters are Max's invited guests and have the same rights to have their words remain as posted on our forum as everyone else - no matter how they and their motives are judged or whatever names they are called.

Such public posting as we see evidenced here by some moderators - only brings all of our forum's moderators conduct into question. And any poster who questions the fairness of this current system - is encouraged to be seen a making personal attacks on all those in that role - even when many of them remain anonyous.

The issue is not which side is right or wrong - but that all of our forum are being publicly invited by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to openly support one side of a dispute. All that is needed on our public discussion is a way that we can all agree to disagree and not be bullied into accepting one view or of leaving.

Perhaps if our moderators are really interested in fairness and in bringing peace - they can be asked to choose to be either a moderator or a fellow poster? Then some form of lasting peace will at least have a chance.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM

That is why you are tolerated here MG!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Alba
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 07:33 AM

The Internet may very well be Free.
The Mudcat however does not operate for nothing. Although some are of the opinion that it does, an opinion which is simply wrong.

Which leaves the question open.
How much over your Years of your Membership Roger have you contributed to the Mudcat to keep it up and running...?

Before you say your usual rebuff I shall say it to you,... DO YOU NEED TO BE CENSORED!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 08:41 AM

What it means though, is that he will likely just keep being reasonable at you, and you'll keep trying to make him lose it.

Let us examine this quite prosterous senario. For a start - if the The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team had ever been reasonable or just as importantly, ever accepted the realities of our forum and not set out to shape it to his tastes - I would not have had any justification for ever suggesting to him that I or any other poster had been unfairly treated.

But I have now clearly evidenced that this is not the case and it is this evidence and the excuses, justification and defences given for this unfair treatment- that results in the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team 'losing it' and publicly calling Max's fellow invited guest names.

The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team then publicly excuses, defends and justifies the example set of the personal attacks he makes and expects (and usually receives) support from the usual suspects who then follow this example and mount (and are permitted to mount) personal attacks against the usual selected easy targets - who are also Max's invited guests. And this is reasonable?

The moment you describe anyone as reasonable - it then follows that anyone who disagrees with this person - is being unreasonable. It then becomes a popularity contest - and under these rules - there can only be one winner.

But our forum is for discussion and to enable us all be able to disagree it is not a contest. All that is expected is that all posters can post on equal terms and to see their words remain as posted.

We have posters who are still inhibited form posting Birthday Threads, and anything that could be judged as a copycat thread. No one knows if they should refresh an old thread or start a new one - as both can be judged to be wrong. Silly little details like the posting of 100th post claims are blown out of all ptoportion. Threads are closed - mainly it appears because they now can be. Entire threads are now deleted and changes to thread titles can be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission. And all these imposed changes are still not enough for the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Who has now proposed the members only posting of BS and a 'review' of all Guest posts to the music forum. What other changes is he intending to impose?

And all this is done under the cover of protecting posters from personal attacks...............This is reasonable - or fair? And is it anything like the original concept of our forum that so many of us felt welcomed, safe and tolerated in?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:33 PM

Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself.

What would the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team consider to be an anti-Mudcat post?

It would appear that is encouraged to be any view that is a different one to that expressed by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

Who would only appear to be happy with our forum - by needing to constantly impose changes and restrictions to further judge and inhibit his fellow posters in order to shape every aspect of our forum to his requirements.

Who can have no real interest in preventing posters from personal attacks - as to succeed in this will mean that there is then no excuse and cover for this constant tinkering, ordering and fixing of things that are not broken.

In fact no one can now legitimatly question Mudcat policy without this being portrayed as a personal attack on the poster who is currently the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - because they have become one and the same thing.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:53 PM

I suggest that Joe Offer sends a copy of every rude malicious foul mouthed and abusive post that he has to delete and send it to Roger, in order to demonstrate that editing is necessaery on this and all other fora.
Personally though I would gladly grant you the martyrdom you so obviously desire and ban you from ever wasting Mudcat bandwith ever again.
Sometimes when I read your silly twisted posts my hand itches to reach for my phone and dial the local hardware store to order two pieces of wood and 5 long nails, two of which would be to fasten the pieces of wood together!

Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:00 PM

I suggest that Joe Offer sends a copy of every rude malicious foul mouthed and abusive post that he has to delete and send it to Roger, in order to demonstrate that editing is necessaery on this and all other fora.

Sadly I (and the rest of our forum) have enough problems with the ones - for some unknown reason - The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team chooses not to delete...

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:15 AM

BTW, I would be remiss if I didn't bite here so here we go.......

Okay Sham......I know I'm going to regret this.........You seem to have added a new phrase to your volumes of "Sham's Liturgical Bullshit." What the fuck are these "founding principles?" I get this vision of Max in colonial garb and sitting with Franklin and Jefferson................

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:33 PM

If Joe did that Giok, Shambles would just use them, posting them ad infinitum et ad nasueum.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM

One.

Two.

You KNOW what comes next . . . .

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:42 PM

Imagine Shambles as the lamp . . . .

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 03:21 PM

I prefer to imagine him as the other thing that attracts flies!
G.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 04:47 PM

Subject: RE: Gallery of Mudcat Quotations
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 04:21 AM

Shambles you are a :-
Self obsessed, self interested, self important, supercilious, pompous priggish, paranoid, prat. Deluded, devoid of humour, dreadfully boring and disgustingly repetetive.
No need to reply.
G.

*Moved from other non-Shambles-centric thread. --JC

* Please note that this abusive personal attack - not only managed not to get deleted in order to protect us - it was rather helpfully moved to another thread by one of our unknowm edit button holders....Any suggestions as to why?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 04:58 PM

"unknowm edit button holders"

Most of them are known, Shambles.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:01 PM

Who was this one then?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:03 PM

We're all entitled to our opinions Roger!
I'm as entitled to mine as you are to yours.
Your obsession is to right a perceived wrong, to avenge an imagined slight.
Mine is to continue to call you at every turn for the twisted posts you make the selective quotes you make, and the vendetta you pursue against Joe Offer for doing his job.
You openly boast that you do not respond in kind to personal attacks, and seem to think you are a saint for so doing.
Well I think the real saint around here is Joe who has manfully resisted the temptation to pull all of your repetitive and bullying threads from this site, and has also not banned you for a time till you learn to play by the same rules we all play by.
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 06:27 PM

till you learn to play by the same rules we all play by.
Giok

*Smiles*

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 06:34 PM

300= posts and at last giok admitted he has an obsession. And it really isn'y healthy giok.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 07:10 PM

" in order mediate in any disputes - they cannot be seen to be part of it?"

piffle! That is just splitting hairs. We don't HAVE any totally objective, non-interested parties who are paid to 'mediate'. If we tried, they'd have to READ all the threads regularly in order to comprehend the issues, and how long would it take ANYONE to wade thru this morass of threads to ascertain who said what and who should be censured?!
   The only people capable of dealing with these debates at all are some of the ones who are affected, AND who are trusted by the owner and respected by a majority of the parties.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 07:16 PM

I wouldn't do it for less than $50,000 dollars. Up front.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 07:40 PM

(I know who we could get to do it for bananas)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 07:48 PM

We'll do it for peanuts . . . .

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 08:11 PM

hmmmm...well...ah I see the MEN are still at it. Women would never carry on like this for years about something so fruitless. Men are stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!!! It's the MEN mucking up Mudcat, in my view! Stupid men stupid stupid stupid men....
love, me

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 08:22 PM

So, like, uh, what's yer point?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 09:49 PM

naaaww...women just spend years fruitlessly obsessing about the stupidity of men.

(gee, I thought for a minute Harpgirl was back among us!)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:19 AM

" in order mediate in any disputes - they cannot be seen to be part of it?"

Just because you start reply with words like 'piffle' does not mean that what you about to respond with is profound. As demonstarted by this latest example to avoid any reality encroaching into the world of 'Official' Mudcat logic.

Would you have some justification to consider it a rather unfair game if the referee were to call the players on one side names and start kicking goals in for the opposition?

Would there be any chance of this ever being seen as a fair result?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:23 AM

If being determined not to let one petty minded little snide spoil this site for the rest of us is an obsession, then yes Guest you are correct.
Just standing on the sidelines sniping, and posting while under the influence of alchohol won't help to get rid of disruptive influences which ruin the Mudcat.
I suggest that next time you take a deep breath, and possibly a pot of black coffee before you decide to try being clever anonymously.
Some people know who you are!
Giok.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 04:31 AM

The only people capable of dealing with these debates at all are some of the ones who are affected, AND who are trusted by the owner and respected by a majority of the parties.

An interesting principle to try and introduce to the rest of the world, where logic is still valued. Sounds a bit like a good old Wild West Posse - complete with weapons.............

Bill why are juries so carefully selected and vetted to ensure that they are not directly (indectly) affected or trusted or by any of the parties?

Would it be so that that any settlement can be seen to have been conducted without prejudice to either party and as a result, respected by ALL?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 04:58 AM

In the UK at least no juror may divulge information on proceedings inside the jury room. Surely your desire for accountability albeit by non posting moderators would not work if you use the jury principle as an example?
Surely you have been complaining about unaccountability since Adam was a boy?
Sorry Roger your jury selection simile doesn't work.
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:57 AM

In the UK at least no juror may divulge information on proceedings inside the jury room. Surely your desire for accountability albeit by non posting moderators would not work if you use the jury principle as an example?

I am not sure that I follow that? I also not am sure that I was specifically suggesting the jury principle.

I think I was suggesting that not all established principles and the means by which society generally obtains and values objective decisions be thrown away and replaced on our forum by some of Bill D's Mudlogic and judgemental mob-rule.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 10:18 AM

why are juries so carefully selected and vetted to ensure that they are not directly (indectly) affected or trusted or by any of the parties

Actually - if you talk with lawyers and judges and others in the legal biz you know that jury selection is a highly subjective issue - with a great deal of profiling.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 10:34 AM

"and possibly a pot of black coffee before you decide to try being clever anonymously"

Then ya just end up with a wide-awake drunk on yer hands.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:04 AM

Hee hee, thanks for that Bruce.
MMario, one of the many differences between the US and the UK is the jury system, I've seen jurors [see Michael Jackson O J Simpson etc.] interviewed on American TV about the deliberations after a trial. That would result in at least a Contempt of Court charge in this country, where jurors are legally obliged not to discuss these matters.
While there are no doubt some high profile solicitors in the UK who reject some possible jurors on grounds of race or sex, depending on the race or sex of the accused, jury profiling is not the scientific exercise here that it is on your side of the pond. Additionally a solicitor is only allowed to challenge a certain number of would be jurors, after which he must accept what he's given.
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:20 AM

On whatever side of the pond - any court case where a judge (or indeed any jury member) publicly expressed any opinion of, abused or called the accused names like 'buffoon' during the proceedings would be considered to have unfairly prejudiced the outcome.

Guest, I mean Shambles, forget about Joe - I would like to see the threads and dates. Anyone else feel the same?
WFDU Ron Olesko

Me too.

Yes burn the witch.........

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:24 AM

??

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:00 PM

Frankly, I do not like many aspects of the jury system....there is an entire industry devoted to studying how to pick and influence juries.


but, Roger, similes and metaphors aside, you did not really deal with my points. You did your usual by replying with a couple of hypothetical leading questions.
We do NOT have a way to farm out mediation & editing to some totally disinterested party(s). If you have a better idea, I don't remember it...(other than NO editing, which has been decided is not practical)

If we did get (read 'pay') some neutral party, you would hear the screams for miles when "some outsider who doesn't know or care about us" made some unpopular decision! I can see it now..."Announcement from Mediator X! Three members banned...one for obscenity and insulting behavior, one for referring to bodily functions, and one for incessant complaining about censorship" *grin*

Nope, Roger...we gotta do our best the way the boss decided...among ourselves. If Max gets tired of how Joe does it, maybe he'll recruit you.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST,8:11pm guest
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM

I see only two women on this thread on this page.   Why not leave the fellas to their bashfest gals and talk about something fun?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:37 PM

If you have a better idea, I don't remember it...(other than NO editing, which has been decided is not practical)

It has - by whom?

The point is not censorship or no censorship. If you decide on censorship - and I am not really sure from Max's public statements that he ever did decide on this - you have to do a bloody good job of it and you can't just let it creep along.

As the current shambles demonstrates.

The only thing that everyone seems to agree the current 'system' should be doing - is protecting us from personal attacks. And despite all of the tinkering, current and proposed further restrictions on what we can post and where - it is the only thing that quite blatently has never been attempted.

For how can it when the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is permitted to set this example?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 01:08 PM

"It has - by whom?" Max decided it when appointed editors! sheeh!

"The only thing that everyone seems to agree the current 'system' should be doing - is protecting us from personal attacks."

simply not accurate. Most agree with the current setup as it is.

"For how can it when the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is permitted to set this example?"

1)YOU are 'making a judgement' about what constitutes a 'personal attack'. Calling someone non-obscene names like 'pest' may be just 'expressing an opinion'. If you decide to BE a thorn in the side of the editors, you should not be surprised to read some 'creative' expression of their feelings.
2) Seems to me the "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team" can set any example he decides to ..*grin*. Part of the job description. Take it up with Max.
3)"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum"

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:21 PM

Piffle.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

Hee hee, I knew we'd agree about something eventually Roger, that is if you mean the whole pointless campaign!
G.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:25 AM

If you decide to BE a thorn in the side of the editors, you should not be surprised to read some 'creative' expression of their feelings.

Piffle.

What is their to edit - when all of the public's invited contributions provide our forum's copy?

Why should mearly holding and expressing a different view to that of our editors - be considered by them and those they then publicly appeal to for support - be a thorn in anyone's side on a open discussion forum?

Perhaps the problem is that our 'editors' (even the anonymous ones) are seen to a view at all? Or can set the example of publicly posting only personal judgements of the worth their fellow posters - when our host make no such judgements?

I (and I suspect many non-credited other posters) have demonstrated over many years of direct provocation that it is more than possible not to respond in kind to any form of provocation.

No one is forcing any of our 'editors' to slave away in the Mudcat kitchens - so if they cannot stand the heat and do not think it is fair - perhaps they should get out?

Or if they have insisted on setting the example of publicly posting abusive attacks on their fellow posters - they should be thrown out of the kitchen?   

For protecting us from abusive persoanl attacks is SUPPOSED to be why they are in the kitchen - not to sit in and impose their judgement on everyone else and to consider that for them to be judged in return is UNFAIR.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:51 AM

piffle is a fine word, isn't it? Very expressive.

"... the public's invited contributions provide our forum's copy.."
...and also provide a bunch of problems. Thus, a need for limited editing....a lot less than most forums.

"Perhaps the problem is that our 'editors' (even the anonymous ones) are seen to (have) a view at all?"

Perhaps not. This was covered in earlier posts.

but here is the crux of the matter.

"Why should mearly holding and expressing a different view to that of our editors ... be a thorn in anyone's side on a open discussion forum?"

holding...fine. Expressing...ok...ONCE! Expressing for 5-6 years at interminable length after being told the rules and the reasons...NOT fine. Tedious, divisive, unreasonable and incessant repetition IS a thorn in the side.

nuff said.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:33 AM

Double-piffle.....

Bill - you are still responding with the same things you have been saying for all this time.

And what's more, you have been refreshing all the many threads you say you find 'tedious, divise, unreasonable and incessantly repetious.

Why do you not consider you posts to be tedious, divisive etc and a thorn in the side?

Why can't you just ignore them from now on?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:19 PM

"For protecting us from abusive persoanl attacks is SUPPOSED to be why they are in the kitchen - not to sit in and impose their judgement on everyone else and to consider that for them to be judged in return is UNFAIR."

Tell me it isn't true, Roger. Are you admitting judging them?

But you never respond in kind. You've said so dozens of times;..... no, make that hundreds of times.

Now, it would be possible for anyone here to start enough threads to push all your stuff off the bottom of this numbers limited list. Of course they would kill off everyone else's threads as collateral damage.

If somebody did that, would you still hold the view that they should not be stopped?

We ALL need to be moderated (not censorship) if we step over the line that marks a move into actions that are unreasonable, and, before you ask, yes, that means unreasonable in the opinion of those appointed to moderate.

You can use emotive terms as often as you like, but sensible editing is NOT censorship.

Before you respond that your actions are not unreasonable in the same way as my example, count the number of threads currently devoted to Roger's campaign against the evil elves, and deduct one. The result is the number of threads you are currently excluding from the list.

The one you deducted represents the number actually required to further your sacred cause.

Just once, give some thought to this, and consider whether claims of unreasonable behaviour ARE, as you would like to think, unjustified.

Joe Offer even stated that ONE thread was not to be deleted or closed, to ensure that you COULD continue. Do you need the dictionary definition of "hint".

Don T.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

You can use emotive terms as often as you like, but sensible editing is NOT censorship.

If a posting of mine is subjected to imposed judgement how am I or any other poster going to be convinced that there is not a personal motive involved?

Just how sensible is it when the person responsible for all these actions has just set the example of publicy posting an abusive personal attack and called me a buffoon?

A name to add to the collection of idiot and asshole etc that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team already feels is acceptable to call their fellow posters who they do not judge is being 'fair' to them?

This is an example of 'sensible editing'? By Mudlogic perhaps......

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 08:15 PM

No, that is not any kind of example of editing, since calling you names does not change any of your posts.

You will no doubt be aware, since you seem to archive every post expressing disagreement with your idee fixe, that I have never resorted to calling you names such as those you quote.

Had I, however, been the target of your half a decade of personal vendetta, this might not have been so.

I have been following this saga ever since I first visited Mudcat, more than three years ago, and the following is certainly true:-

1. You have just two major interests on this site. a) The campaign against the new licensing laws (a very worthy cause, and one in which I have also been active, and b) Your determined, and never ending attempts to undermine Joe Offer.

2. In relation to interest b), You play the same tune over and over again, apparently unaware that you are not making converts, but enemies.

3. You start a multitude of threads on the same subject, with the same lack of success. It has been explained to you by many here that this is unacceptable, and unreasonable, as well as unnecessary, since one would do as well.

4. You appear on threads which have nothing whatever to do with your subject, and determinedly try to convert them to your use, thereby depriving other members of their ability to discuss the original topic. It has been explained to you that this is also unacceptable.

Joe Offer has, until very recently, treated you with the courtesy we have come to expect from him. He has lately lapsed into a less gentlemanly mode than I would wish to see, and I don't condone that, but IMHO you have, by your treatment of him, provoked him to the point where he is reacting in an uncharacteristic manner, and I CAN understand why.

You are NOT the victim here. By your actions you have attempted to make Joe a victim, and you should not be surprised that he expresses his feelings about that.

If somebody gets in my face and keeps poking me in the chest and telling me I'm lousy at my job and ought to quit, I may (as a peaceful man) put up with it for a time, but there must come a point when I have had enough. At that point I am likely to haul off and let him have the best right cross I can manage.

Just be thankful that all this is virtual, and physical responses do not feature here.

Five years of effort have achieved nothing. Time to find a new interest in life, I'd say.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:16 AM

Don T that's a worthy synopsis, unfortunately it has all been said to, and ignored by Roger, many times over the years. So I hold out no hope whatsoever that it will affect Roger the Pachyderm's hide.
Still, the longer he goes on about his bete noir, the longer I/we will go on telling him his quest is futile and his cause is bogus.
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:44 AM

Joe Offer has, until very recently, treated you with the courtesy we have come to expect from him.

Don you may really wish to believe all this - but it simply is not true and the facts will not support it. And there is no need for emotive terms like enemies in this context. Are you saying that there is a time limit when a moderator's required courtesy to all of Max's invited guests can be replaced by open rudeness and justified?

If you are still interested in facts - read them - all the examples of threats, name calling, incitement, insults and personal judgements are here - )from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, except the PMs and older stuff on the HELP forum which seems not to be available now) - and these threats, name-calling, incitement, insults and personal judgements and insults are not from me and there are no responses in kind from me to to them.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:39 PM

No Roger,

It's not that I WISH to believe it. From reading threads on this subject started over the past three years, I have observed it for myself, and I am not the least bit interested in following your interminable list of links. (by the way, you forgot to put this one in).

As for emotive terms, once again responses observed prove this to be the case.

Please do not misquote me, or try to twist what I say to your own ends. I clearly stated that I did not condone the use of ungentlemanly language (as you very well know), and ignoring that to alter my meaning is much closer to censorship than anything that has been done to you.

I did in fact say that Joe had been provoked by you into responding in a, for him, quite uncharacteristic fashion, and that I could UNDERSTAND the feelings that would make this gentle, courteous man cross that line.

I stand by that comment, and further, feel that it is you who is shamed by these events, not Joe.

You should ( but probably won't) ask yourself why you are the only persona who has managed to elicit this response.

Judgements of you, based on YOUR behaviour, are opinions backed by the evidence of said behaviour, and as such are valid posts IMO.

While the three pejoratives you complain of are not very nice, I think you must accept that there are many more posters than just Joe who (whether they say so directly or not) who see you in that light.

One who constantly attempts to divide, and disrupt, and is impervious to any and all pleas to desist might fairly be described as a boor, or a buffoon, as these are terms in the English language coined for the purpose.

As to your last sentence " and these threats, name-calling, incitement, insults and personal judgements and insults are not from me and there are no responses in kind from me to to them.":-

THREATS:- I'll grant you that one. You do not threaten, but then again, the only threat you have received from Joe is the threat of post or thread deletion; quite reasonable IMO, and please don't bother to remind me about the "what if we were to link you with...etc". A hypothetical question to illustrate a point is not a threat, and you know that Joe did not mean it as such.

NAME CALLING:- Not much to say here, except "anonymous fellow posters"; "edit button holders", and sundry other terms designed to denigrate and dehumanise the team appointed by Max to moderate HIS, not OUR forum. It IS name calling, my friend, and I think you know that.

INCITEMENT:- Who is it who has for several months been asking Joe to go and set up another forum? Who is it who has for several years been inciting the membership to join his campaign to get rid of the moderators, and continues so to do, thankfully without result?

PERSONAL JUDGEMENTS:- Almost every post from you contains your personal judgement of the moderators (and, by association, Max who places his trust and faith in them). You have, over the years stated that they are unfair, biased, incompetent, and bullies. You have not so far used the word corrupt, but it is clear, from your expressed opinions, that the word is in your mind.

INSULTS:- Your personal judgements ARE an insult to the integrity and honesty of the moderators and to the intelligence of Max, who appointed them.

Climb down off your high horse, read your own posts for a change, and see yourself as others see you. It should be a chastening experience.

And look, I managed all this without a single cut 'n paste, or link to another thread. It's all my own opinion, and you are free to ignore it, but if you do reply, try to contribute something new, and pertinent.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:50 PM

Thank you, DonT! Well-put.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:29 PM

THREATS:- I'll grant you that one. You do not threaten, but then again, the only threat you have received from Joe is the threat of post or thread deletion; quite reasonable IMO, and please don't bother to remind me about the "what if we were to link you with...etc". A hypothetical question to illustrate a point is not a threat, and you know that Joe did not mean it as such.

I am not totally inexcusable then? Don why do you think and how would you know the threat you go on to minimise - is the only such threat – as you incorrectly state?

And if it were the only such threat - is there really ever a need for one poster to judge and threaten another with anything? Or is it OK by you because it is me being threatened and told publicly by two so-called 'moderators' that I should be banned?

Tell me – do you think there anything nice about anyone who would feel themselves qualified and wish to impose their judgement on their fellow posters and do so anonymously?

And can anyone, (especially a 'moderator') ever be excused for indulging in and resorting to name-calling during any form of discussion? Whatever provocation may be claimed – it is generally accepted (if not by Mudlogic) that anyone who resorts to this has lost any credibility.

I am sure you would not find the excuses you use here for a traffic warden who 'lost it' and started calling you names. Even when this was in the heat of the moment. When these 'outburst' are indulged in by 'modertators' here – there is no such excuse – for thee is time to consider your words and their effect very carefully and time also to decide whether to send it………………

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:39 PM

Roger at last I think I've found an apt description for you.
You are a Prima Donna!
Get real, grow up, stop and think, etc etc etc.
It is only due to Joe Offer as far as I can judge, that you are still on this site and posting your crap. So it ill behoves you to decry the man to whom you owe your continued existence on the Mudcat!
Giok

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:39 PM

WOW! I wanna' be a Modertator!!!! Didn't want to be no Joe Clone.....I ain't nuthin' like Joe. But I tell ya' I could really get into that Modertator thing.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:12 PM

do you think there anything nice about anyone who would feel themselves qualified and wish to impose their judgement on their fellow posters and do so anonymously?

Yes.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:19 PM

Not to mention that these people are given a set of guidelines to follow and their actions are subject to at least two levels of review. Judgement is involved - the implication that it is personal and private judgement is false.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:23 PM

Yeah, but they need to be Modertators....not Joe Clones.....

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:30 PM

NAME CALLING:- Not much to say here, except "anonymous fellow posters"; "edit button holders", and sundry other terms designed to denigrate and dehumanise the team appointed by Max to moderate HIS, not OUR forum. It IS name calling, my friend, and I think you know that.

Don - I have tried using many terms. When you use posters names (when you know them) you are accused of attacking them personally but I have to call them something and whatever term I someone will object to or read terrible motives into - as you have.

I am also cricised for using the term Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team rather than the current holders name. I do this to try and avoid being accused of personal attacks.

As for the use of 'our' forum - I have some agreement on this - so perhaps you can leave that one?

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

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

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:32 PM

nice try slipping that one through, shambles. regardless of what you and anyone else "agree" on - the forum remains Max's, not "ours"

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:36 PM

Not to mention that these people are given a set of guidelines to follow and their actions are subject to at least two levels of review. Judgement is involved - the implication that it is personal and private judgement is false.

Ask Bert.

http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=1707797

But if any of you are accused of personally motivated editing actions (against a poster you publicly rail against like me for example) - what defence can you have to convince our forum that it was not personally motivated?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:44 PM

no defense is necessary - see the FAQ regarding editing and deletion.

However - I apologize - My statement should have been "The implication that is is always, or even predominently, personal or vindictive judgement is false."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:49 PM

And this nonsense has now gone to....400!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:00 PM

Yes - 400 posts based on a SUGGESTION - just a SUGGESTION !!!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:02 PM

Yes, the sky is definitely falling. And you heard it here first. And second. And third. And ...

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:30 PM

" do you think there anything nice about anyone who would feel themselves qualified and wish to impose their judgement on their fellow posters and do so anonymously?"

yes...with the caveat that "impose their judgment" is a loaded, biased, irresponsible way to describe the editing porcess.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:32 PM

How about, "wish to do their assigned tasks as best they can."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:35 PM

oh, MUCH too reasonable, jeffp....you are not in the spirit of high-level whining!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 05:38 AM

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM

Shambles, what part of what MMario said do you not understand? It is quite clear to most of us that this site belongs to Max. We have NO say in how it is run.

Kendall - It is indeed long been clear that this site belongs to Max and I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

However this is a part of Max's website that he has very generously set aside for invited contributions from the public and called the Mudcat Discussion Forum. I have some agreement - for my reference to this part of Max's site - as our forum. It is from a very unlikely source - and perhaps you would agree with the both of us?

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

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

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.
-Joe Offer-

Our forum is certainly not Joe Offer's and it does not say that it is in the FAQ - yet.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 05:42 AM

Joe Offer is Max's earthly representative.
G. ☺

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 06:01 AM

Only Shambles in the Shamblecentric Shamworld using his Shamlogic could interpret what is written in such a way as he does. It is truly a thing of beauty. Completely fucked of course but a thing of beauty in its wackiness nonetheless.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM

What would you do when bouncers decide that the only way they can impose the peace they require is to exclude the public altogether?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: jeffp
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM

A highly unlikely scenario.

What is your goal, Shambles?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:32 PM

Why you think requiring people to have an identifiable 'moniker' in order to post is equal to excluding the public is a leap in logic I can't fathom. How does it discriminate against anyone? There is no cost for membership, so those who are less than well-to-do are not excluded due to economic factors. Who else is affected? Pray tell.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 09:34 AM

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:01 AM

What is your goal, Shambles?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:14 PM

World peace and to work with children and to be a model......

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 05:16 PM

Shambles,

"Why you think requiring people to have an identifiable 'moniker' in order to post is equal to excluding the public is a leap in logic I can't fathom. How does it discriminate against anyone? There is no cost for membership, so those who are less than well-to-do are not excluded due to economic factors. Who else is affected? Pray tell."

You answered: Proposal for members only posting of BS

My response to your response: This will make things clear!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 05:37 PM

"World peace and to work with children and to be a model.."

*big grin*...now THAT'S funny & clever!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 08:32 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: manitas_at_work - PM
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:45 AM

If Guests can only post above the line then you will get a lot more BS appearing there.

This rather obvious 'knock-on' effect of any attempt to further restrict access to the BS section was seeming overlooked by those who thought their next imposed change to our forum to be a good idea.   

Which is why the additional proposal to restrict Guest posts to the music forum then needed to be made. And so it goes on and on, every change requires more changes and produces more unforseen problems to be countered by yet more restrictions in attempts to control every aspect of our forum.

I have often sent link to threads on both sections to friends, safe in the knowledge that they will be able to open to opened. I trust I and others will be able to continue doing this.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 06 - 11:22 AM

Why you think requiring people to have an identifiable 'moniker' in order to post is equal to excluding the public is a leap in logic I can't fathom. How does it discriminate against anyone? There is no cost for membership, so those who are less than well-to-do are not excluded due to economic factors. Who else is affected? Pray tell.

The public have been freely invited to contribute to our forum - I trust they always will be.

Perhaps our forum can be told if this proposal is to be accepted?

Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 06 - 12:21 PM

Well Bill?

As anonymous posting is another cause for you to post to complain about - why is the introduction and defence of anonymous editing not also a problem for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 06 - 01:37 PM

Censorship and Attitude rolled ito TWO

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 06 - 07:26 PM

Why isn't this thread also closed?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 06 - 09:21 PM

Fucked if I know.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 02:42 AM

Do you need to be censored

Why is this one still open when the thread linked to above has been subject to imposed closure - despite the following editing comment being inserted into an exsisting post there?

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 05:28 AM

What would you do when bouncers decide that the only way they can impose the peace they require is to exclude the public altogether?

This is not an unlikely senario - it is the one that that since this proposal was publicly made and formally recorded - is now the case on our forum. So what do you do?

Especially when the bouncer's public request is not granted (yet) but you know that it will remain their wish and reflect the future attitude displayed by them towards all of Max's fellow invited guests?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:19 AM

INCITEMENT:- Who is it who has for several months been asking Joe to go and set up another forum? Who is it who has for several years been inciting the membership to join his campaign to get rid of the moderators, and continues so to do, thankfully without result?

My understanding of our our forum is based on Max's founding principles. The way I see it is - if the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and those who support his latest proposal to pervent the public from freely contributing to our forum, wish for such a major change - they are free to form another forum of their own. For it does not look (yet) as if Max is in agreement with this change.

Any 'campaign' has been for a long time been to the effect of suggesting that it is any poster who does not like all the current imposed changes to our forum who should leave. Again this is quite at odds with the original concept of a tolerant forum where the public were invited to contribute as they wished on an equal basis.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:38 AM

PERSONAL JUDGEMENTS:- Almost every post from you contains your personal judgement of the moderators (and, by association, Max who places his trust and faith in them). You have, over the years stated that they are unfair, biased, incompetent, and bullies. You have not so far used the word corrupt, but it is clear, from your expressed opinions, that the word is in your mind.

Whatever I may have suggested (rather than you say I have) - I have provided the evidence for. I do try to make it clear my problem is with the 'system' rather than the (mainly) well-intentioned individuals involved. They may not see it that way.

I make no claim for perfection but I hold no position of authority and have no more responsibility to set a good example that any other poster. So why would you judge my conduct wanting - but not take issue with the example set by those who do have such a responsibilty?

Those who repeatedly post only to make personal judgements but also set the example of posting abusive personal attacks on fellow posters - respond in kind to any they receive and subsequently excuse, justfy and defend this example - whatever the effect and cost of this?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:52 AM

INSULTS:- Your personal judgements ARE an insult to the integrity and honesty of the moderators and to the intelligence of Max, who appointed them.

Piffle.

I say what I mean and mean what I say and I feel I have the right to do this on our forum (and posters have the right to respond). If anyone sees that as an insult to their integrity or honesty - so be it.

Unlike many - I do not use offensive language, make abusive personal attacks or respond in kind to the many I am subject to and not protected from - whatever the provocation may be.

What would you judge it to be when those who Max appointed to protect our forum from abusive personal attacks set the example of repeatedly posting abusive personal attacks on their fellow invited guests and of subsquently justfying such examples?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 03:13 PM

Joe Offer even stated that ONE thread was not to be deleted or closed, to ensure that you COULD continue.
Don T.

And you will also no doubt tell me that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is a man of his word - even though that thread has now been closed also?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 06 - 07:56 PM

Gads. This one is open, ain't it?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 06 - 08:20 PM

Yes but it's early closing on Thursday.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 02:04 AM

I rather struggle with the need or justification to judge and impose closure on any thread and that any posters should be singled-out for any form of 'special' treatment.

And that our forum is seriously expected to accept that such unequal treatment is NOT personally motivated - when it is so clear that it is...................

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 05:06 AM

Gads. This one is open, ain't it?

If I remember rightly - you once accused me of lying. Presumably being seen to tell lies on our forum is not something you approve of?

Is not the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team guilty of telling lies to our forum by informing us that thread Do you need to be censored was to remain open and then be seen to close it?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:06 PM

Good lord. When did I accuse you of lying? Source, please.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:10 PM

hey Roger - putting sugar coating on poison doesn't make it any less poison.

and whereas Ebbie most likely hasn't called you a liar - you certainly feel free to distort the truth on a frequent basis. To most people that would deem you a liar.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:12 PM

Shambles you pathetic loser... this is not "our forum". You do not own or control it whatsoever. It is Max's forum. Stop whining and go away. Open your own forum and make your own rules. Putz.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 06:34 PM

PM] Ebbie Tech: Closing threads? (140* d) RE: Tech: Closing threads? 04 Sep 05

"As my recent efforts have all be subject to imposed editing from our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - for no good reason (including this one) " The Shambles

This is the clearest evidence yet that I've seen of your duplicity, Roger. You LIE when you say your posts have been edited. ONLY a heading has been changed (added to). That is not censorship, or editing. That is CAPTIONING. And you know it.

I will waste no more time or thought on you. And forget about PMing me anymore. I will not answer.

Elva Bontrager

As you appear to have wasted quite a lot of time and thought on me since then - perhaps that statement can now be seen to have been a lie also?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 06:37 PM

yep.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 06:44 PM

Actually I had forgotten that bit of riled-ness on my part. Although I do stand behind this assertion: You LIE when you say your posts have been edited. ONLY a heading has been changed (added to).

You toss around 'censorship' freely but you have never shown us more than we already knew: that some of your threads's titles have been added to and some of your posts, as Joe O says, (although you would say, admits) that duplicated others that you had made were deleted.

I call that 'moderating', not censoring. YMEV

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 07:15 PM

Ebbie do you accept and do think that our forum can really accept - that whatever word you chose to describe it - these imposed actions on my contributions by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are NOT personally motivated?

For that is what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is expecting you and our forum to accept.

The following is just a recent example that continues to be set to our forum, of repeatedly posting to judge the worth of fellow invited guests and of calling posters names and expecting censorship actions against these posters to be accepted by our forum as not being personally motivated?

Or do you not think that it matters?

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

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM

Shambles quotes Joe saying: I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either.

Shambles sez: You could always ask him? But......

Shambles quotes Shambles saying: If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates.

Well, Roger, I don't want to be drawn into the discussion, and I try to avoid "pissing contests" as much as I can. You'll note that most of the time I don't comment unless there's something new to discuss. Lacking that, you attempt to insert me into the discussion, against my wishes, by posting out-of-context comments from me that are sometimes several years old.

No, I shouldn't be obligated to look them up and give reference information for them - they're from your stalking library, and I would assume that you should have that information if you post the quotes. If you believe in fairness at all, the least you could do is furnish dates and context for the quotes you post. I have made no attempt whatsoever to deny the quotes you post - I have simply requested that you furnish dates and context information.

Maybe you have noted that we are very careful to leave anti-Mudcat posts alone. We let people say just about anything they like about Mudcat and its administrators, because we truly do believe in free expression.

But YOU abuse that privilege by posting half-truths and innuendo, and by posting the same thing over and over again. I like to answer legitimate questions about Mudcat policy and editorial actions, but you have made a mockery of that by raising the same issues over and over again. Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself. You fight in the name of freedom - but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy.

Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 07:46 PM

and whereas Ebbie most likely hasn't called you a liar - you certainly feel free to distort the truth on a frequent basis. To most people that would deem you a liar.

Source please?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 08:19 PM

Shambles, it is not mandated that Joe must like you.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 06 - 03:26 AM

Shambles, it is not mandated that Joe must like you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ebbie do you accept and do think that our forum can really accept - that whatever word you chose to describe it - these imposed actions on my contributions by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are NOT personally motivated?

For that is what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is expecting you and our forum to accept.

As a fellow poster Joe Offer can be seen to like and say what he wishes.

Can the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team do this and still expect our forum to accept that his censorship actions are NOT personally motivated against those posters he makes it so clear he does not like?

Does this then turn those posters that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team clearly does not like into easy targets for other posters to follow the example set and think it acceptable? And be encouraged to also subject these easy targets to abusive personal attacks and create conflict rather than lead to any form of peace?

Any answer to any of these questions will be welcomed.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 May 06 - 04:08 AM

I dunno. I can't really think of any Mudcatters I don't like. I may use a stern approach to some people who cause problems and I may have some people "on probation," but that's just the way I deal with them. Certainly, I pay closer attention to those people who have a history of causing problems - but that's common sense, not personal dislike or prejudice. I'm generally detached from the people who spend most of their time in the "BS" threads, and have no reason to either like nor dislike them. I simply deal with them in the way I find most effective - and sometimes the situation seems to call for me to speak strongly.
Shambles is certainly an interesting psychological phenomenon. I don't know whether I like him or dislike him.

I'm here for the music. I like the people who talk music, and have no particular interest in the others.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 06 - 05:36 AM

Does this then turn those posters that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team clearly does not like into easy targets for other posters to follow the example set and think it acceptable? And be encouraged to also subject these easy targets to abusive personal attacks and create conflict rather than lead to any form of peace?

I mention this unanswered question - as I will include in the following examples a (then fairly supportive) post from a posters who has subsequently become my resident shadow - possibly thinking that posting abusive personal attacks in any thread where such an unwelcome easy target posts, is now acceptable and sure to gain them 'brownie points'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair.
So, that's the story.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way – In reference to Joe Offer's claim that I have compared him with Hitler - I put The Shambles - Joe Offer and Hitler in the advance search and the only post that came-up was the following.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 06 - 09:45 AM

Shambles has a new title - Chief of the Mudcat Whining Team.

That last message mentions something about PEL. I have been visiting Mudcat for a number of years, and I do not recall the posts. It is obvious that the Chief of the Mudcat Whining Team is very ineffective. All this complaining has done nothing more then separate the Chief of the Mudcat Whining Team from any postive message he might have had to offer. His unskilled debating tactics have backfired against him, and all you need to do is check his last posts and you will see where he has been posting. As long as he relegates himself to the BS threads, the rest of us can avoid his whining.