Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)

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!