 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Your favourite Shamblism?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: GUEST Date: 02 May 06 - 04:34 PM Well said, Wolfgang, well said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 04:28 PM Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Wolfgang Date: 02 May 06 - 04:17 PM Surely the object an originator starting a thread is to enable a discussion - not for them to subsequently be able to prevent other posters from continuing the one currently taking place on that thread's subject? A new beauty of a sentence. Just BTW, Shambles, you are off topic in nearly all of your contributions to this clearly titled thread. If you have nothing positive to contribute to the topic of the dicussion you could try to ignore this thread. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 03:13 AM yes indeed, the moderators and the people who like to be in the "in" group do all the bashing. Just stay off the thread and you won't have to deal with it. number 6 - Thanks for refreshing the thread (only to judge it) and ensuring that it will go on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: number 6 Date: 01 May 06 - 07:24 PM And this thread just keeps shambling on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ............ sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: GUEST Date: 01 May 06 - 06:42 PM yes indeed, the moderators and the people who like to be in the "in" group do all the bashing. Just stay off the thread and you won't have to deal with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 06 - 03:39 PM ah, I see the anonymous ones will now take their pokes at me.... 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: Your favourite Shamblism? From: GUEST Date: 01 May 06 - 03:26 PM I wouldn't exactly call it bullying, and I often don't even address comments to Roger, for, as you say, it does little good. What would be good? Him agreeing with you? He doesn't and he won't. And why should he let this thread drop - because you can't? He isn't haranguing you over a fence Bill. He is writing a post and you are unable to not read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 01 May 06 - 02:53 PM ah, I see the anonymous ones will now take their pokes at me....(I do wonder who you REALLY are....I say what I have to say as ME...just like Shambles does, to his credit!) well, FYI, I just explained, as well as I can, why I respond. I wouldn't exactly call it bullying, and I often don't even address comments to Roger, for, as you say, it does little good. My last remark was just a comment/reply to Ivor. Up above, though, Roger was asking me questions...I answered, as best I could....though with tongue-in-cheek about how difficult is to truly answer those convoluted posts. What I see is the very basic rules of the forum being questioned in obsessive manner, no matter how many responses he gets saying he is merely causing dissention. ALL of us 'bullies' have at times tried NOT responding, letting long, tedious threads die...but up they pop again, usually refreshed by Roger. And if they are closed, he starts a new thread and links to the closed ones! If your neighbor stood at the fence and harangued you day after day, even if he did not threaten you, you WOULD get tired of it and eventually respond...human nature and all that. (bad metaphor? sorry, I was in a hurry) ok....I'll try again. Let's see if Roger lets this thread drop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: GUEST Date: 01 May 06 - 02:45 PM MMmmm two more of the usual suspects. You will have noticed that a lot more of the regular posters aren't actually joining in with your little games. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: jeffp Date: 01 May 06 - 02:07 PM Of course he won't know who they are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Ebbie Date: 01 May 06 - 01:55 PM Ah! I'm glad to see that the Shambles will have some posters to follow him to his new site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: GUEST,another Date: 01 May 06 - 01:45 PM Yes, pathetic isn't it. Maybe giok is channeling himself through bill. Same old group on every bash shambles thread. I can sense some squirming and uncomfortableness amongst their ranks now though, the attempt to pass off their attempts as humour is very telling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: GUEST Date: 01 May 06 - 01:00 PM I am amazed and dismayed that BillD of all people has joined the bullies, albeit in his careful language. Why do you keep insulting Shambles and trying to get him to stop Bill? You would appear to be more intelligent than to join the lowest of the low who have dogged him to no avail. Curious. Are you of the "Lord of The Flies" now as well? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 06 - 12:38 PM Look, everybody has to have a hobby... I would have given up long ago on the point that Shambles is making, but he clearly feels it is important enough to him, so he keeps on with it. I could, for example, devote my days to trying to convince Clinton Hammond to be nicer to people... ;-D There are some things that just aren't worth pursuing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 May 06 - 11:39 AM Like Bill said. It is very often that he makes those points, oddly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 01 May 06 - 10:41 AM "... they don't register on some people's dial at all. Very odd." It is VERY odd how often he makes certain points...after the 27th repetition, he starts getting responses ABOUT the frequency, as well as responses to the 'point'. and when he makes them in compound-complex sentences with ambiguous referents and hypothetical constructs, he gets smart-alec responses from pedants like me who are so bemused by the single-minded obsession that we keep replying out of some morbid fascination, like watching some evangelical preacher rant & rave on the TV. All his points have been answered, over & over, seriously and at length. But like a little kid when Mommy tell him, "No, you CAN'T have it your way.", he just keeps going...nagging, repeating, switching the focus, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: autolycus Date: 01 May 06 - 08:45 AM I think Jack you're missing much of Shambles point, which is about the freedom and health of Mudcat. It's quite odd how often he makes those points, and they don't register on some people's dial at all. Very odd. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Apr 06 - 10:29 PM My favorite Shamblism is now his amazing self absorbtion. It is my opinion that he could completelty spill himself and clean himself back up before he ever hit the floor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 06 - 09:33 PM (still diagramming...I am practicing on some of the more 'interesting' sentences in Bulwer-Lytton) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 06 - 07:31 PM 1)no... 2)no...(I think. I have not completed diagramming that sentence yet, but I'm 99% sure it will be NO. 3)huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 06 - 07:36 AM You pounce on **THE WORD** as if it had power....YOU provoked Joe until he went beyond his usual comments, then go "AH-HA! See, he called me names!" You would accept that the justification given for the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's role is to protect us from being called names? And that the excuse of responding to any form of provocation may be an acceptable one if the example set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team were given publicly only once and an apology given to the poster concerned and to our forum for this lapse? And this excuse would not be an acceptable one for any subsequent examples? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM My favorite Shambala-ism Shambala wash away my troubles wash away my pain with the rain in shambala wash away my sorrow wash away my shame with the rain in shambala ah ohhhhhhhh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah ah ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah everyojne is helpful everyone is kind i'm on the raod to shambala everyone is lucky everyone is so kind i'm on the road to shambala ah ohhhhhhh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah ah ohhhhhhhh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah how does your light shine in the homes of shambala how does your light shine in the homes of shambala i can tell my sister by the flowers in her eyes i'm on the road to shambala i can tell my brother by the flowers in his eyes i'm on the road to shambala ah ohhhhhh yeah yeah yeah yeah eyah yeah ah ohhhhhhhhh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah how does your light shine in the halls of shambala how does your light shine in the halls of shambala tell me how does your light shine in the homes of shambala tell me how does your light shine in the homes of shambala ah ohhhhhhhhh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah ah ohhhhhhhhh yeah on the road to shambala ah ohhhhhhhhhh yeah road to shambala ah ohhhhhhhhhhh yeah on the road to shambala ah ohhhhhhhhhh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah ah ohhhhhhhhhhh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah in on the road to shambala |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:04 PM Oh Bill....I didn't miss it. You see "shampoo" is artificial poo and gawd knows Roger is full of real poo.....completely full of it I might add. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:54 PM 'spaw...all this time, and you seem to have missed one obvious noun...Shampoo. I can't understand this.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: jeffp Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM Failing that, perhaps Father Joebro can perform the last rights. Or is that privileges? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:32 PM Sounds serious to me!!! I think Joe knows a Doc who specializes as he helped Joe with his Shambroids. Perhaps one day this gifted Doctor will be able to perform Shambolectomies! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:28 PM Oh no! A vein is pounding in my brian! Will it burst? Will I have a shambolism? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM Sorry Bill, but it is the rest of us who are at fault here. To have any understanding at all at the meanings of his postings it is necessary to be fluent in Shamblish with an emphasis on his phrases known as Shambspeak. First though you must get your mind right by learning the ropes in his Shambworld where everything is Shamblecentric and become an expert in Shamblogic and convolution. I know that we have both been here to watch it all from the Shambo lad but I fear that both of us have been remiss in trying to understand.....and that is our fault. We must learn to be good citizens of Shambolia where the flag is a 6 year old moldering turd on a field of periwinkle and the motto is "Convolution Is Good." A likeness of Joe is in the lower left corner with Shambo planting a foot up his rump. I figure I need to try this since I have already tried telling him to have a Coke and a smile and to shut the fock up, but that failed to work.....I guess he doesn't like Coke.(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:05 PM "...commiting exactly the same offence.." except it ISN'T exactly the same.... you just refused to hear or try to comprehend what I just explained. You are so literal minded that you seem to incapable of dealing with context and 'flavor' of a remark. You pounce on **THE WORD** as if it had power....YOU provoked Joe until he went beyond his usual comments, then go "AH-HA! See, he called me names!" Now I'm gonna use a name that I believe fits that behavior....childish. Now start a new campaign against me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:20 AM Bill your Mudlogic excuse simply means that you judge that it is OK for the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to censor others - but at the same time to set the example of commiting exactly the same offence and using using exactly the same words. Keep up the great work, Martin Gibson. And remember, Lepus the asshole Rex is an asshole. 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: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:11 AM I see. So it would be wrong to call someone who asks us all to refrain from judgements about posters or posts and continuously judges other posters a man of double standard. Wolfgang From some of the things I have been called, judged and accused of - in my case were I to be accused of such things - it would be relief......... Non posting of judgements week |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:11 AM "... their is NEVER any excuse for even one single abusive personal attack posted publicy by anyone on a fellow poster..." excuse? Maybe not--- excuses are granted by others, not defined by context. What does often exist is clear and obvious reasons for responding to provocation with strong words when gentle words have no effect. Everyone has subjective reasons for what they say or do. [I answer your barrage of complaints because they are unfair, full of contradictions and logical flaws and ignore the basic management structure of the forum.] ...but Roger, you define 'abusive' pretty broadly. Truly abusive comments have to be understood in context. Good friends sometimes call each other 'idiot' or 'asshole', and never mean or understand anything beyond a mild rebuke by it. Almost no one EVER takes the terms literally. True abuse and personal 'attacks' are more serious. Calling someone a lacky, or a Nazi, or a child abuser, or a liar crosses the line in a serious way, as these are meant (usually) to be real accusations. No one actually believes you (Shambles) IS an 'idiot', but that is sure easier to type and conveys a feeling more than "you are a confused and compulsive person who fails to comprehend the more sublime nuances of the interactive parameters of the relationships between the moderators and the members of this forum". 'Idiot' was used once, in a way that suggests that petty nit-picking was involved. The 'behavior' of criticizing the minor editing a thread title for clarity was EXTREME...not the sort of behavior that one would expect from a reasonable man, and a short pithy word was used to express displeasure at gratuitous nit-picking. OK? No, I suppose not... Brief synopsis...don't do so much useless complaining, and you won't have any sharp words directed at you. You may have heard the aphorism:"The squeaky wheel gets the grease." But the truth is, it sometimes just gets taken off and replaced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: jeffp Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:05 AM I'm sitting here at work with nothing to do. What have you got going on? And by the way, what is the goal of all your posts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:02 AM Perhaps someone who posts to the same thread six consecutive times in a 2 hour and 40 minute period needs to get a life Perhaps the same could be said of someome who counts them and then posts to complain about them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 27 Apr 06 - 10:24 AM well I've read entire novels without a sentence like that. Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, henry James, and you know, sometimes you WISH THEY WOULD...! and posting to mudcat is all some of us have got....show a bit of compassion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: jeffp Date: 27 Apr 06 - 09:55 AM Perhaps someone who posts to the same thread six consecutive times in a 2 hour and 40 minute period needs to get a life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:44 AM 'I once spent the nght in Custer. I remember it well as I had terrble case of the shits - after eating buffalo.' Breathes there a soul so dull who would not see the poetry in that opening line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Wolfgang Date: 27 Apr 06 - 07:58 AM I see. So it would be wrong to call someone who asks us all to refrain from judgements about posters or posts and continuously judges other posters a man of double standard. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 05:46 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard The following extract from the above. There is a subtle distinction to be made between double standards and hypocricy. The latter implies the acceptance of a single standard, but the disregard of it in practice. A man who believes that he has a right to have extra-marital affairs but his wife does not holds a double standard. A man who condemns all adultery while maintaining a mistress is a hypocrite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 05:42 AM Is the following editing action an example of double standards? - No only the practical application of Mudlogic. Subject: RE: Why Is Martin Gibson Allowed Here? From: GUEST,LDB - PM Date: 15 Sep 04 - 05:25 PM I think Martin Gibson serves one of the most important roles here on Mudcat. He is the only one who smashes Lepus the asshole Rex and his/hers/its stupid comments to bits. The only problem with that is that Martin Gibson is so much smarter than Lepus the asshole Rex that Lepus the asshole Rex doesn't even know that he has been smashed by Martin Gibson. Keep up the great work, Martin Gibson. And remember, Lepus the asshole Rex is an asshole. 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: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 05:28 AM 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- I think that the above - calling me and idiot - was posted just a short while after the following - tells us a great deal, especially as the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team also just recently called me a 'buffoon'. I may well be all of those things - but that is hardly the point. Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 04:58 AM Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor.. If some really does believe they are doing a good job etc - and really believe that it is OK for them (if no one else) to sometimes give in to temptation - they tend to think that anyone who does not recognise this and has the temerity to openly question them and express a different view - is being totally unreasonable and then deserves everything that can be dished out. Generally publicly and eagely supported by some posters who do not wish this treatment to be dished out to them and who are more than happy to also 'stick the boot in' to such an easy identified soft targets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:17 AM Talking of kitchens and excuses. http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:06 AM The old adage about heat and kitchens is all that really has to be said but it does not fit into the Mudlogic, double standards and hypocrisy that it appears all posters must now be subject too and expected to accept as blindly as the rest. Summed-up by the old saying that there are now different strokes for different folks. Where major indescretions will be excused for some and others will be encouraged to be publicly judged and castigated for the smallest of things. The fact remains that their is NEVER any excuse for even one single abusive personal attack posted publicy by anyone on a fellow poster or for responding in kind. And if you NEVER resort to such things and set this example - their is nothing to be excused, be haunted by or even apologise for. BUT when setting this example is seen to be done more than once........ At the root of this is that some of those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement (often anonymously) on their fellow posters - do not feel that their actions should be judged in return and are entitled to publicly abuse any poster who they judge to be judging them. A nice try but life is just not like that. If you can't stand the heat - there is no excuse for throwing pots and pans at the customers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:12 PM He's extra-ordinary. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:10 PM Joe HAS explained several times how frustrated he has been with trying to sort out Roger's complaints and keep up with 27 interlocking threads with multiple copy 'n paste iterations. I think he used a couple of 'descriptive' words a time or two to characterize someone who would create such a morass of hassles. Roger, of course, seized upon those to create a separate issue and enlarge the scope of his campaign. It's an OLD tactic....drive your chosen opponent crazy with nuisances, then when he reacts with ANYTHING but patient smiles, take him to task for not being a paragon of politeness. Joe spent years being calm and reasonable, then got peeved at Shambles continued tactics and told him off....guess what?...now Joe is raked over Shambletonian coals for being human...*grin*...Joe can take care of himself, and takes it with a grain of salt, but his words will haunt him forever, even though they were fairly mild by ordinary standards. Roger, of course, is anything but 'ordinary' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: autolycus Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:22 PM Joe - Roger says the chief of the editing team has gone in for name-calling (24 Apr 8.40). Could you confirm th't that has happened and explain, please, (just to clear this up)? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:27 PM LOL!!! I was hoping you'd be lurking around to take advantage of that one, Spaw... Har! Har! I love this place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:29 AM Blew your brains out huh? Okay, it was cheap, but it was just layin' there Hawk.....Had to take it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Apr 06 - 10:08 PM "If those words you mention had had, as you say, "no effect" on you, Roger, you wouldn't keep bringing them up." (LH) I am sure your judgement is correct. *Thank you. You're quite right, it is. (grin)* But cannot you grasp the concept that I care little about any individual's posted 'nastiness' on a persoanal level. For it can be ignored and such posting maginalised. *Ummmm...yes...I think I can grasp that. What do I win if I do?* Cannot you accept that the concern is the example and effect on our forum of our so-called moderators setting such a hypocritcal example when the only justification for their existence is to protect us from abusive personal attacks? *You'd be surprised at what I can accept. For instance, I live with dogs that have megalomaniac delusions of grandeur. I accept that. I went out with a woman who slept around like a camp follower and tried to get me in bed with her insane sister...with what objective, I don't know, but I had enough presence of mind not to do it and find out. I accept having had that experience too. I live next door to a very dangerous nation that practices pre-emptive strikes. I don't like that, but I accept it. Now...as to the concern of yours that you allude to...ummm... Could you repeat the question? (smile)* (imagine me saying that in Ronald Reagan's trademark whisper) The term shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind - if none of these words had been posted by those who should be setting the example for others to follow - there would be nothing for them or you to defend - would there? * I know exactly what you mean. I tried to shoot myself in the foot once, and missed! I ended up shooting myself in the ass instead somehow. That takes talent, if I do say so myself. Don't do it, though. It hurts. The up side was, I got a week's sick leave out of it.* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:33 PM (about halfway down) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:31 PM The Germans have one good one... Quatch mit sauce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:42 PM I used to have a guzunder. I expect the Germans will have a meaning for that too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:29 PM Does Shambles have an unhold under his bed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:28 PM Did we really just see you equate the merging or deleting of duplicate threads or posts (or even, heaven forbid, non-duplicate threads/posts) to being raped or having friends and family murdered...? No - of course we didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Grab Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:02 PM You may not have been raped or subject to a terrorist attack but you can probably appreciate how survivors of these may feel. Especially if you were to suggest that in some way they may have done something to deserve this and could have somehow avoided these terrible things? Did we really just see you equate the merging or deleting of duplicate threads or posts (or even, heaven forbid, non-duplicate threads/posts) to being raped or having friends and family murdered...? A sense of perspective might be a good thing to have. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Wolfgang Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:38 PM Yes, in German. It means monster, demon. Perhaps it was the right word? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:18 PM Is Unhold a word at all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:13 PM This was good one. I try to unhold the traditional ideas on which our forum was founded - in the face of many attempts to change and impose yet further restrictions by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who now proposes to destroy these traditional ideas. Unhold was not the right word at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:56 AM Talking of kitchens. http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:48 AM No one is being forced to slave away in the Mudcat kitchens - so if anyone in there cannot stand the heat, do not think it is fair and can only deal with this by setting the example of publicly posting abusive attacks on their fellow posters - perhaps it would better for us all if they get out of the kitchen or be thrown out? For is not protecting us from abusive personal attacks supposed to be the reason why they are in the kitchen in he first place? All it has achieved is bringing in more and more silly changes and restrictions upon everyone and yet the Chief and the rest of the Mudcat Editing Team are still not satisfied....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:13 AM If those words you mention had had, as you say, "no effect" on you, Roger, you wouldn't keep bringing them up. I am sure your judgement is correct. But cannot you grasp the concept that I care little about any individual's posted 'nastiness' on a persoanal level. For it can be ignored and such posting maginalised. Cannot you accept that the concern is the example and effect on our forum of our so-called moderators setting such a hypocritcal example when the only justification for their existence is to protect us from abusive personal attacks? The term shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind - if none of these words had been posted by those who should be setting the example for others to follow - there would be nothing for them or you to defend - would there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: robomatic Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:36 AM I have not been exposed to (definite article) Sham-bulls so in truth do not know what to make of it, as opposed to certain other webdizens who I try not to make much of at all. I suspect (definite article) Shambles of being one of those Islanders on the easterly side of the pond who may be beyond my ken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 06 - 09:10 PM I think...that no one is perfect. I judge people as "likeable" or acceptable if they act in a likeable wat most of the time. I can forgive them for the occasional failing when they are under stress. It is people who are consistently vicious, mean-spirited, and nasty almost ALL the time that I find truly objectionable. Also, one can usually get some nastiness out of most people if one harasses or provokes them long enough. The moderators of this forum have been harassed and provoked a great deal. If those words you mention had had, as you say, "no effect" on you, Roger, you wouldn't keep bringing them up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 08:40 PM Now that is the way to deal with it when someone calls you an asshole...or a buffoon. Over the years on our forum - there are many things I have been called in posts, none of these words have had any affect on me as they always tell us much more about the name-caller. Others don't like such things - and they are generally referred to as abusive personal attacks. Do you not think it is different when the name-calling is undertaken and the example set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who tells us his main role is to protect us fron such things? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 06 - 07:22 PM Ebbie Idiom: cut/give (someone) some slack Slang To make an allowance for (someone), as in allowing more time to finish something. I've just always heard it...one person speculated that it was originally nautical, asking someone to 'quit pulling on the rope, so I can untangle this mess a bit'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Apr 06 - 06:55 PM He was indeed! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 06 - 06:53 PM Trudeau...I loved that guy! What nerve he had. What cheek. He was a riot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:17 PM Pierre Trudeau also told John Lundrigan to "Fuck off" right in the House of Commons. When the press asked Trudeau for comment, he told them that he had actually said "Fuddle Duddle". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:58 PM Roger, consider this. Pierre Trudeau, the onetime prime minister of Canada was called an asshole by Richard Nixon, and it came out on the Watergate tapes. The Canadian press were immediately galvanized by this, naturally, and sought out Trudeau to get his reaction. He handled it beautifully... He could have been offended. He could have been hurt. He could have tried to shrug it off, but this is what he did. He smiled, with a bit of a sardonic twinkle in his eye, typical Trudeau-style, and said, "I've been called worse things by worse men." Now that is the way to deal with it when someone calls you an asshole...or a buffoon. ;-P I mean, really, talk is cheap. There will always be other people in life who call you an asshole. The only way to avoid it is to never be around other people at all. And then they'll call you an asshole because of that!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:32 PM Boring boring boring, change the record Roger! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:20 PM Ebbie that is why all the personal vendetta stuff on my part is such nonsense. As a fellow poster I have always respected Joe Offer. When I first started posting here Joe set a good example of posting that I was more than happy to follow and support as he then accepted - rather than battled with the realities of a discussion forum that was open to the public. The problem came with the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who seemed to consider that the same objectives could be achieved by threats, public judgements of fellow posters and imposition rather than by example. And the example then set was do as I say - not do as I do. And then the idea that the imposition of constant changes could shape and order every aspect of our forum to his tastes. And now it would appear that any view posted that is not in agreement with his intentions - is an anti-Mudcat post. Now that I read the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team's intention for our forum is to turn this section into members only and to restrict public posting to the music section - there is no going back from this point. He is welcome to do all of this - but he is not welcome by me to do this on our forum. Is that is now viewed as an anti-Mudcat post? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Ebbie Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:39 AM Well, if I can't dent your head I can at least make Joe's feel better. (I'm glad that context is not important) Remember these sunny days? "Talking of Joe, where is he? I for one have missed lately, his polite common sense approach to things. "Come back Joe, we need you. " "Has anyone knowledge of a certain cyber-creature, that sometimes goes by the name of Joe Offer. This being used to frequent this establishment but has recently been notable by his absence. He was known to dispense goodwill, help and gentle guidance in a common sense way which I for one am missing very much. " Roger Gall |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 04:49 AM Roger, in your lucid moments I'm sure you recognize that Joe's "abuse" of you is recent. Well that's OK then. Ebbie - the example set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's posting of public abuse of me and other fellow posters goes back a rather long way. It is reserved for any poster who posts what the Chief of the Mudcat judges to be any form of anti- Mudcat post - which appears to be the posting of any view that is not in agreement with that of the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff and his constant shaping of our forum to conform to his tastes. Perhaps you will establish the truth of this with another trawl through the past threads? And see if you can come up with the truly terrible things that I must have posted to deserve my subsequent treatment and a reputation for evil-doing that Jack-the-Ripper would be hard to match? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Ebbie Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:32 AM Roger, in your lucid moments I'm sure you recognize that Joe's "abuse" of you is recent. For many, many months he stayed calm if occasionally bemused or somewhat exasperated as he tried to explain to you what you will not accept. Only lately has he given up on you. IMO it's time for you to back off and regroup. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:24 AM Whatever the current term of abuse may be used by The Chief of the Mudcat Editing team to publicly describe me or any other poster - are we and our forum really expected to accept that any censorship of our contributions can be objective? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Ebbie Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:13 AM Oh, no, Sham, 'buffoon' is recent. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:04 AM But I've never been censored. Am I doing something wrong? You may not have been raped or subject to a terrorist attack but you can probably appreciate how survivors of these may feel. Especially if you were to suggest that in some way they may have done something to deserve this and could have somehow avoided these terrible things? I have never posted anything that needed censoring. I don't post abusive personal attacks. And do not respond in kind to the many I am encouraged to be subjected to and fail to be protected from. Perhaps my chosen thread titles were subject to imposed change, all the threads that I have originated or contributed to have been deleted, moved or subject to imposed closure simply due the fact that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly judges me to be a 'buffoon'? So as long as the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not judge you to be this, an asshole or many of the names that he has called me and incited others to follow this example - that's perfectly OK then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:01 PM If that day comes, Bill, you're one I'll cut all the slack you could possibly use! What does 'cut slack' mean, by the way? I know what slack means, and I know cut but...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 06 - 09:45 PM so, Ebbie..*grin*...will you cut ME some slack when I make comments about others? (like ladies from Alaska...☺)I'm a full decade older than Roger...and getting younger by the day. Hey, I think I like the excuse "it must be my advancing years and general decrepitude that makes me so cantankerous!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Apr 06 - 08:50 PM In my usual pedantic fashion I've spent a couple of hour perusing the Shambles' posts from day one. As usual I've had some surprises. The good surprise I had is that Roger is being consistent in his contentions- from the very first time he mentions it in 1998 he has been adamant that he wants NO censoring, no banning, no monitoring, or judging. I didn't realize that. So there's a point for you, Roger. On the other hand, one of the bad surprises I had was his age. For some reason, I was under the impression that Roger Gall was elderly- in fact, it even occurred to me over the last few months that he might been suffering from senile dementia and was willing to cut him some slack on that supposition- hey, I hope that I am cut some slack. Unfortunately, it isn't true. Mr. Gall is only in his early 50s. So the obsessive bullheadedness that makes him oblivious to what some other people are thinking and saying is his own responsibility, entirely. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Apr 06 - 08:03 PM How comes other people don't seem to have the same problem? I suppose their complaints about it must have been censored... I've been posting here since 1999, and quite often in some pretty heated threads, often enough from points of view that are way out of line with people I've been discussing with, and, likely enough, with a majority of Mudcatters. But I've never been censored. Am I doing something wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 06 - 07:32 PM "·.And you can always pretend that something is not happening by changing the name." And you can always pretend that something *IS* happening by changing the name, too! 'editing' suddenly becomes 'censoring' and 'imposing of judgements'...substitute a loaded word for a neutral word and you have PRESTO!, a trampling of rights! If you don't LIKE the way Joe or a clone does his job, just label it with a perjorative term, and require everyone else to respond to YOUR terminology. That's a technique some of our more obnoxious 'conservative' pundits use over here (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly). You just try to wrap everyone who tries to debate with you in mazes of verbage, and then smugly assert that they haven't proved their points... and if you can get them steamed enough to *gasp* use strong language to answer you, you change the point to the 'attacks' on you! Let's make something VERY clear...if you are guilty of a transgression, you do not become UN-guilty because someone calls you names or makes fun of you to illustrate their point. Driving your opponents up the wall until they use 'colorful' language to respond does not mean that you 'win'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Georgiansilver Date: 23 Apr 06 - 06:59 PM What an attempt at self effication! Do you insinuate that we should tolerate such diabolic self effication from such a microscopic piece of animosity as you. Your presumptions are precisely incorrect. Only joking but what a waste of space this thread is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 06 - 06:51 PM You're right that that makes two, but you're wrong if you think it was the only two. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:03 PM If I am right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:03 PM Well that makes two.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 06 - 04:54 PM Another delightful example of your use of "If I am right", Roger, can be seen in Wolfgang's cut and paste of your words in his post above on 22 Apr 06 - 05:45 AM . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 04:35 PM Frankly, I doubt very much that the Shambling one has either. He's had a title changed - by expanding it - and he's had threads combined because of redundancy, he's had posts deleted because of having repeated them in numerous threads, but so far as I know, he has not been censored. One reason for my belief is that I got no indignant response from him when I said this once before. Yes of course my dear Ebbie - a poster who has been posting for many years suddenly and for no reason starts to be concerned about his own and other posts being unfairly subject to imposed censorship and our forum being shaped by this. That explanation of course makes perfect sense. And you can always pretend that something is not happening by changing the name. Thus genocide becomes ethnic cleansing etc. And of course when an entire thread is deleted by some anonymous fellow poster along with all the posts from all its contributors - even the positive ones - it would be wrong for anyone upset at losing their post - for no good reason - to call this censorship. By the same reasoning it would be wrong to call it murder if you were one of the victims of a terrorist attack. It is just that you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some people seem to choose to have very short memories. If you don't accept my word for it - try reading the words of an edit button holder. http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=1707797 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM Let me change the urination analogy to one that is more graphic, as if pissing in the wind is not. Let's say that Shambo is pissing up a slack rope. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:43 PM Autoclycus, unless one were to keep one's verbal jewels on the desktop I don't know how a person would know he or she was censored. Bleep for gratuitous vulgarity would be a pretty good tip off but that's never happened to me. So far as I know, I have never been censored. Frankly, I doubt very much that the Shambling one has either. He's had a title changed - by expanding it - and he's had threads combined because of redundancy, he's had posts deleted because of having repeated them in numerous threads, but so far as I know, he has not been censored. One reason for my belief is that I got no indignant response from him when I said this once before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM Pissing into the wind means it comes back on you, and you can't complain about it. Quite a good analogy really. Definitely not a good thing to do though. ............................ As for "If I am right" - follow this link for an example. Courtesy Mudcat search machine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: autolycus Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:14 PM I'm very tired after a 3-day Mind,Body and Spirit Festival here in beautiful downtown Norwich, publicising Gestalt Therapy;and this is the thread that's puzzling me. Thru my tiredness, i've got my difficulty. As far as I know, I haven't been censored. I'm still a new boy so can someone say a) why one is censored,b) how one knows one has been censored.? Morticia - (and I'm flying tiredly by the seat of my pants here),this seems to me an anarchic site, where anyone unknown might say nearly anything. So we can all get responses to our posts that are quite unexpected, or irrelevant, or annoying. From my limited experience, the best response to anything you find unacceptable is to ignore it. And the best response to any indication of a perceived decline in standards looks to me to be to post at the sort of standard you approve of, and do so relentlessly. And to support and express thanks to anyone else who does the same. I write that with some feeling, having put a lot into some decent posts and get no positive feedback. I don't demand same, believe me. And encouragement of what you like might bring forth more. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 08:51 AM "If I am right..."? Can you find any evidence me saying that? Don't sound like me.... Are you thinking of someone else? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:11 AM I know, but I just HAD to say it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:06 AM I wasn't meaning on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:04 AM "I AM NOT A CLONE!!!!!!!!!!!!" (Picture Kirk Douglas screaming that in the famous Spartacus scene...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: number 6 Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:49 AM My favourite Shamblism ... pick anyone as they're all the same. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:43 AM Shit, sorry. Thought this was the other thread which is above the line. OOPS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:40 AM Something I have noticed about threads that Shambles initiates: Lotsa clones show up and say stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 06 - 09:38 PM My favorite Chongo-isms: "KREE-GAH!" and "BUNDOLO!" My second favorite Shamblism: "If I am right..." Hypotheticals are fascinating, aren't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 06 - 06:51 PM sure I accept that ...sort of..."AS MUCH"...not more. And, of course, I have a very different notion of what counts as 'pissing' in any direction. And if it's INTO the wind, it makes little difference. Can't say that rule is always followed... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:42 PM My view with sessions is pretty much the same as I view our forum. It is a public place everyone has the same rights to make music as anyone else. The only thing you can do - if you do not like this fact - is to leave and start a session of your own. I have led a regular session for over 6 years and this reality is made very clear to all partipants. It works very well. Yes there are individuals who others find too loud or otherwise a pest. It is not easy to keep everyone happy and some drive others away. But any comments about these individuals who are judged to be pests are not encouraged. If any other particpant feels that bullying another is acceptable - they discover that it is not. I am also sure that this will not alter your perception of this issue but perhaps some others may understand and agree? I am sorry if you do not like my view - but it is not held or expressed only to upset you or anyone else. I do not post abusive attacks or respond in kind to the many I receive and I try not to make any personal judgements of my fellow posters. I feel that I and any other poster have as much right to be left to piss into the wind as you do. Do you not accept this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:10 PM "However, no one seems to know or be able to spell out exactly what this truly awful thing might be" well...If I understand correctly, you do..or did...moderate/organize a music session somewhere? Did you ever have an attendee who showed up regularly and did something that drove others AND the moderator batty? Playing when he shouldn't; playing out of tune; playing or singing the same piece every time he came, even if everyone had heard it 327 times? And when he was asked to alter this behavior, said "this is OUR session in a public venue, you have no business "imposing your judgment of what is proper on me." ? Maybe not that PRECISE set of circumstances...but...*smile*...anyone who has ever run a music session has had to deal with something like that. They either make rules and announce them or they suffer...and if no one is allowed to deny the offender entrance, they suffer anyway. Need I spell out the similarities in detail? "Truly awful" is subjective, but when 90%+ have the same basic opinion, it should tell you something. YOU know when a musician is behaving in a tedious manner, as we know when a fellow poster is doing likewise. (As I have mentioned before, I have no delusions that this example, any more than others, will alter your perception of the issue ONE WHIT!) ,,,but you asked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bert Date: 22 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM Uh Oh! Shambles, I guess you've been misunderstanding Spaw all this time. EVERYTHING he says is a joke. And although he'd never admit it, the old fart doesn't have a mean bone in his body. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 12:53 PM From all the fuss, venom and abuse shown towards me - it is no wonder that posters assume that I must have done something really awful to deserve it. However, no one seems to know or be able to spell out exactly what this truly awful thing might be............*Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Morticia Date: 22 Apr 06 - 09:13 AM I thought long and hard about responding, Roger, since I am one of the people who have taken that particular piece of advice very seriously for years and have stayed out of the threads that piss me off... but you could equally say I have stood by and watched while one the places I really love on the net has been turned into something unpleasant, even vicious at times and you are one of the major factors in that change. So, just for once, I am speaking up. It won't do any damn good but then, keeping quiet doesn't appear to have either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 07:50 AM Many thanks for the judgement and for refreshing this thread. Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Peace - PM 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: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Morticia Date: 22 Apr 06 - 06:46 AM You mean people actually still read what he writes instead of sliding right on by it, knowing it for the boring, repetitious set of familiar whining that it has been for years? Well, yeah, I guess they must do, since every thread Roger starts gets responses a-plenty. Pity about that, really. I'd take it as encouragement too, if I were him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 06:01 AM Thanks Wolgang - I couldn't have said it better myself. *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Wolfgang Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:45 AM And I've seen him typing a dozen posts or more in one thread to express the same thought. I always wonder if he forgets what he has posted within such a short time, if he thinks nobody understands what he means the first ten times or if he has misunderstood the distinction between quality and quantity. Here's one of many examples from just one Shamblecentric thread: Would it cause great technical problems to the running of the site - to provide the increased number of characters available in the thread title creation box - to all contributors and not just those trusted with edit buttons? It is a simple suggestion - that if posters were permitted to have the same number of spaces available to them as our volunteers do - posters may be able to make as informative titles as our volunteers impose. Perhaps this measure may prevent the need for any future title changes to be imposed as a matter of routine? The length of the imposed title above does demonstrate the sort of title that ordinary posters could not create. It may very well be that a poster - would make a more informative title - if they could use the few extra spaces that our volunteers can. It is a simple suggestion - that if posters were permitted to have the same number of spaces available to them as our volunteers do - posters may be able to make as informative titles as our volunteers impose. My point is simply that if ordinary posters were able to use as many letters as out volunteers are - they may be able to produce more informative titles - without the need for any inposed change. I was asking questions to establish if there was a difference in the number of title spaces available. When it was established that it was a fact that our volunteers did have more spaces available than the ordinary poster - I just suggested that perhaps a change would be a good idea. How come this new (imposed) thread title can be so much longer than the ones that ordinary posters can put in the box? Perhaps part of the problem could be solved by enabling ordinary posters to make longer and more informative thread titles? If I am right - perhaps if us ordinary posters were given - even the extra three or four spaces that appears to be available to you and your anonymous volunteers - more informative thread titles could be given by ordinary posters? That's really a man not trusting in the power of his first formulations. I wonder how much more dull our days would be if would try out the many different formulations offline and only post his best attempt. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:42 AM Polanski's film What? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Wolfgang Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:35 AM I like it when Shambles asks a question, gets the response 'yes' or 'no' and has to ask back what is meant by that response. And it is always amusing how many keystrokes he needs to type a long expression consisting of several words to avoid typing the three letters j,o, and e in that order. I've seen him typing seven words to replace three letters. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:26 AM If you are bored or in any other way disenchanted by mine or anyone else's posts - the answer must be pretty clear now - even to the my most committed of my stalkers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:24 PM "Perhaps" I am waiting for Godot... I look about this new thread, but I don't see him. I am not sure I should wait longer. If Godot arrives, tell him I was here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:19 PM My Favorite Shambolism.... When he answers a point with a quote from Joe Offer.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:56 PM Great Grief Sham!!! Are you saying that you JUDGE posts and the posters intentions??????? No Sham, I already saw what you were doing and of course I at least have the class (or lack of it) to NOT post the same thing on all of the threads as you do. (:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:48 PM You feel that you are being bullied Shambles? YOU started this in a shallow attempt to prove YOUR point. I am not sure why you have been having this need to be right. Why is it that when some of us play YOUR game you get upset? Childish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:45 PM Glad to see you liked this one Roger and didn't take it as bullying or something. Just about every post of yours could now be judged to be bullying or encouraging others to join in and consider this to be a 'kinda fun' thing to do........ But at least if you confine such things to this thread - other threads may be free of it and can return to their subjects. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM Non posting of judgements week |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:21 PM Favorite Shane/BDiBR-ism: "Flip right OFF, eh?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:19 PM And my favorite Catspaw49ism? "broke-dick mamalucca" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Big Mick Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:14 PM "For......" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:08 PM I may disagree with what you say- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:04 PM Glad to see you liked this one Roger and didn't take it as bullying or something. Yo do have a way with a phrase and I'd like to add here: "Subjected to imposed closure." That is so much more colorful than saying the thread was closed. In your phrase I can see the thread being battered about with brooms and sticks until it wilts under the battering and shrivels down to nothing. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:02 PM And my favorite WYSIWYGism? That would be... :~( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: wysiwyg Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:56 PM :~( ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:48 PM Music posts by Guests to be reviewed(2) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:42 PM Perhaps that is Bill D's favourite? Do you need to be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:25 PM "Perhaps..." |
|
Subject: BS: Your favourite Shamblism? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:09 PM Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: catspaw49 - PM 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 |