BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one

Subject: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Alba
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:19 PM

Just making sure "those" Threads are right back up top of the BS section.
Being Friday an all, I thought I would help out you Folks that want to read every Shamble's Ramble on those Threads. So without further ado here are some handy Blue Clickys:).
Have fun... (can it be even more fun than it already has been I hear some of you say.....of course...*&^#@&!

ATTITUDE PROBLEM

DO YOU NEED TO BE CENSORED?

MUSIC THREADS BY GUESTS TO BE REVIEWED PART 2


No more searching and searching in the top 10 BS Threads for these Gems... for they are but a click away now!

Jude...* cheery Friday smile *

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:38 PM

Suggestion for rules of engagement

I may disagree with what you say-

Your favourite Shamblism

Why all the closed threads?

Non posting of judgements week

Do we need to curb the troublemakers

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:40 PM

Question re: moderators

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM

Get well soon GIOK

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Alba
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:04 PM

No the last one doesn't count because it's not a Shamble's ramble Thread. It's a good wish Thread for oor Giok:)
You know, the other Scotch Stalker of Rocker (Stalk of Rock get it..haha)...and because oor Giok will be laid up for a while I will be pulling double shifts.... ONLY KIDDING ...:>) ~J~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 03:35 PM

LOL! It's great having these links. Just great. Why not talk Max into providing a THIRD section of the forum, sandwiched between the Music and the BS, and that third (or should I say, second) section could be devoted to these kinds of threads you have kindly provided links to.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 03:39 PM

Posters eh?

What can you do with them?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 03:43 PM

LH, or Joe could crosslink all previous Shamblecentric tread if he has a spare day.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 04:03 PM

Yes. And then publish it as a series of humorous books. What do you think, Wolfgang? I feel this is an idea with great potential.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: jacqui.c
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 04:37 PM

Could make lots of money on the Mudcat auction!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 05:03 PM

Well, they say you can't have a fire without fuel, air and heat. And you can't have an auction without an offer, a medium of communication, and buyers. Still, two out of three ain't bad...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Alba
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

I am willing to illustrate the book...of course I can't draw anything other than stick people and animals but how complicated do the drawings have to be in this case!!...:) ~J~......( notice my very artistic sign off )

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 05:12 PM

Why buy the wine when you can get the sour grapes for free?

Why, to help the Mudcat, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 12:08 AM

Shambles, or Roger, (to those of us who knew him in the years that he was coming up), has become Mudcat Superstar #1.

He has done it through persistance, purely and simply, though it would not have been possible without the active and intense efforts of his admirers. He is not profane, neither is he obscene--he does not revel in any of the more disruptive body functions, and, though some disagree on this point, he is not abusive or offensive. He sticks to his points. Even those who challenge him do not deny that.

There are those who point out that his threads scarcely differ from one another--and yet they draw quick and plentiful interest--his threads tower above others, both in number of posts, and in passions vented.

He confounds his opponents with their own words--and, even worse, from the point of view of his adversaries, he responds to many of the points that they make. Their frustration is understandable.


His insistance on decrying the what he believes to be arbitrary and capricious censorship has prompted demands for the closing of many of his discussion threads. This has helped many Americans to understand the concept of "irony".

So congratulations, Roger!-- Well played! And for the rest, thank you for giving him this great honor!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 03:05 AM

You people need a new geezus hobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:28 AM

Well, I am overwhelmed and honoured. Gosh there are just so many people to thank who without their help, all this just would have not been possible. I just don't know where to start.... Gosh!

So I will just stop at M.Ted................*Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:30 AM

Shambles, The Clown Prince of the Mudcat!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:51 AM

I have been called worse things on our forum - but why any poster should need to be called any name by another - is not certain.

But it is the example now set and eagerly followed.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 07:47 AM

Well said M.Ted! Indeed shambles ability to write without using insulting, derogatory or snide innuendo has made him a rose among many thorns.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Alba
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 08:52 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 12:26 PM

Regretably, GUEST, that sort of writing has become a lost art.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 03:03 PM

Exactly, as the inane post above yours demonstrates. It's funny how the people who have the very least to say always think they are the ones worth listening to.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Alba
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:16 PM

Eh is the "post above" my post? Goodness me... Are you talking about me oh nameless, inane arsehole?

It seems that our sense of Humour differs widely. So much so that I thought that a couple of the previous posts to mine were meant to be funny.
Now I see they were actually an supposed to be taken seriously. OOPS!

I find nothing laughable, however, in passive aggressive behaviour.


Hey Roger you have two Fans now. Keep it up...I am working on the illustrations so we can get that Book into print asap and make the Mudcat some money. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:27 PM

Alba is funny.

(By my standards - lol)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:31 PM

Stop making Alba cross!

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:33 PM

Ach Jude... I just knew that droll Scottish sense of humour would get you into trouble some day.

Dae ye no ken its a sin tae mock the afflictit!! ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:52 PM

Bad career move GUEST to insult the nicest lady on Mudcat.

Lucky for you you didn't use a name, or you may have found youself more unpopular than Shambles, Martin, Clinton, or even me.

Anyway you've united an unlikely trio by your ill judged remarks...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:04 PM

Mudcat is not a popularity contest for members like Shambles, Clinton, or myself I am sure.

Like shambles or clinton, it is about believing what you say and saying what you believe, no matter who you offend or piss off.

Speaking for the other two, if I may and myself, there is that certain satisfaction of knowing that there are others not as bold who agree with what is being said.

Having balls is not always about being popular.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 08:31 PM

Having balls is about being male, isn't it? ;-)

But, hey, M.Ted...you are right! Roger has, whether by accident or design, become the reigning unofficial king of the forum's attention span. Gad! Extraordinary. Where Spaw once reigned supreme, where Martin Gibson once dominated, where Shatner boldly went...there stands Shambles, the undisputed champion of both bandwidth and good taste, making his points without resorting to vile language, sustaining vicious attacks and ribald humor at his expence but carrying on manfully, faithfully, relentlessly.

He has done what even Shatner could not do.

Could knighthood be far away? Or even sainthood?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:01 PM

I have no desire to compete with Shambles for any dominance.

He makes his points when needed and so do I.

Women can also have balls, Little Hawk in the same sense. There are some males who have less balls than these types of women and that is pretty sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:05 PM

Oh, yeah, I know. ;-) It's a popular expression. Hillary Clinton, for example, appears to have a lot of "balls", though maybe not quite to match Margaret Thatcher? Condoleeza Rice also.

In my experience, I'd say that when it comes right down to it women are probably tougher on the average than men...once their minds are made up about something. Women who fight their way to the top in politics are usually tough as hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 11:11 PM

Not to worry, Martin, your reputation is safe. Shambles is Shambles, and you are.....well, whoever you are.

Your achievements here are the stuff that legends are made of, and will live forever. Most of them, anyway. And check your numbers--Gargoyle never pulled the numbers that you do--in your unique way, you're very popular!

And you are right about women, LH--they are tougher than men--

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Janie
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 11:25 PM

Actually, women have EGGS! One can say, in admiration, "Wow, you've got eggs!" Or in anger, "Hmmph, Girl. You've sure got a lot of eggs to say that to me!" (or I guess you could say ova rather than eggs;^)

Unless of course, the lady in question has a large collection of--say---soccer balls. THEN, you could say, "Wow, you've got balls!"

Toughness, courage, even antisocial rudeness--contrary to the belief of some, are not gender-linked traits, whereas 'balls' are definitely gender-linked.

M. Ted, wonderful observation, wonderfully put.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 12:15 AM

I've got balls the size of basketballs. Two of them. Matter of fact...they ARE basketballs. They're outside behind the storage shed, and I think one of them is in need of some air. I haven't played in years now.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 05:25 AM

Could knighthood be far away? Or even sainthood?

You have to be dead to qualify for the latter - but that concept may have some attraction for some. For not all agree on my postive worth to our forum.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM

>snip<
Maybe you have noted that we are very careful to leave anti-Mudcat posts alone. We let people say just about anything they like about Mudcat and its administrators, because we truly do believe in free expression.
But YOU abuse that privilege by posting half-truths and innuendo, and by posting the same thing over and over again. I like to answer legitimate questions about Mudcat policy and editorial actions, but you have made a mockery of that by raising the same issues over and over again. Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself. You fight in the name of freedom - but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy.
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

Any thoughts on what an anti-Mudcat post may be or who may post such things and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 05:29 AM

but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy.
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

They just can't see the irony for the trees. Bless 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 06:37 AM

This is an example of what I mean when I go on about the current 'system' 'shaping our forum' to the personal tastes of a few.

Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM

Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix?

This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first?

Thank you.

Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu.
The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads.
If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section.
You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about.

-Joe Offer-

The stark choice given was that this music related thread could only stay where it was originally posted if its title was changed (without the originators prior knowledge or permission). Or if the imposed change was removed - the music related thread would be relegated to the BS section.

And the manner of this imposed 'tinkering' is judged as nothing 'to get upset about'. I suggest that it was nothing to warrant any imposed editing action at all in the first place and could be seen to be personally motivated.

But the judgement and opinion expressed goes even futher. To the effect that all our forum's Song Challenges should be relgated.

Now how is any poster supposed to see this form of editing action or the attitude and judgements behind it - as objective or in any way protecting us from personal attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Alba
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 07:15 AM

Roger...this is my Thread.
It was started to help people gain faster links to your many other Threads, on the very same topic, that are in the BS Section at the moment.
So please take your >SNIPS< and put them where they belong......I fank u..* innocent smile

Can't you see that I am trying to generate interest for 'our' Book, a Book that I believe will be a Best Seller, an #1, an all time earner of much needed Funds for the Mudcat!!! (when completed of course....!)

Back on Track please Roger...oh and Folks due soon (ish) in the Auction, The not to be missed...

THE SHAMBLES RAMBLES ~~ One Man~ One Mission~~ Volume One

Get yours today, you know it makes sense (or not!)

Jude:)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 07:42 AM

Talk of >snips< and balls in the same thread are making me a little anxious.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Alba
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 08:05 AM

I know I will most likely get labelled as 'banal' or even inane for doing this but Roger..
Your above post made me ROFL..
Jude:)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Alba
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 08:38 AM

This is now Forum with a View.
I got my Chainsaw out and after my Breakfast I
Did a Bit of Gardening.....
and just look what I found once the Trees came down!!...
iron(y)
There now, you can see it quite clearly, because the Trees are.. well Mulch basically:)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 12:47 PM

Not banal, anal.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM

LOL! Omigod...

Roger, this place is sort of like a club, isn't it? Well, why object to it being shaped to "to the personal tastes of a few"?

That just naturally happens in every club as time goes by. It always happens. That's life. If it's intolerable, then one finds a different club to belong to.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM

When the 'club' naturally evolves things like Bithday threads, Song Challenges, Copycat threads etc etc - why should these and other things be inhibited as they currently are?

If what you say is the case - should not those who find these naturally evolving things not to be to their taste and then choose to try to inhibit these things - rather than ignore them - be the ones who leave?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:23 PM

Is it really such a problem to have 10 Shatner threads showing on the index of threads?

And perhaps those who find the concept of having to look at these titles so terrifying, boring or whatever should be told that if they do not like what the rest of our forum posts - they do not have to stay and post only to complain about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:44 PM

You make good points there, Roger, but it does happen in every club. Those who are most in the "in group" at that club begin to set policy and feel they have a right to...and they mightily irritate those who are not in the "in group" when they do so.

I've seen this happen in every club or group I've ever witnessed. It's a natural human dynamic, driven by ego and personality.

I don't think there is any perfect solution to this.

You think you are speaking on behalf of the way this forum should be.

The people who disagree with you think exactly the same thing.

I agree with you about the Shatner threads, and I agree on the general principle of what you're saying, but it won't make any difference what you and I think about it. We are not in control.

No one can say who should or shouldn't leave...(except Max and whoever Max delegates such authority to)...but they WILL say so if they feel like it, and there's nothing that can be done about that...except by Max or whoever Max delegates such authority to.

Do you want such authority yourself? Or do you want that no one should have such authority? If so, then whose forum is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:49 PM

Authority itself doesn't present a problem. But when those bestowed with it are inconsistent and unable to handle it then it becomes a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:54 PM

Well, see, the thing is pretty simple. Many folks come here because of the wit, the good communication, the intelligent exchange of viewpoints. The folks here seem to possess some quality that makes them seem like Intelligent Life. Able to discriminate, select importances, appreciate humor -- stuff like that.

Ten Shatner threads is just stupidity. So is the whole Copycat thread. It isn't that it shouldn't be allowed. More that it should be allowed in a day-care center for small kids, whose stupidity at least has an excuse.

There's nothing terrifying about it. It's just STUPID. And what is irritating is that a good opportunity for a genuine creative exchange has just been wasted in order to indulge stupidity.

This is the same reason people don't like negative threads, or posts like Martin's insults. It's a waste of good opportunity and it undermines the community.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:56 PM

The 'community' includes all those people who enjoy the threads you consider a waste of space.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 04:16 PM

There's nothing terrifying about it. It's just STUPID. And what is irritating is that a good opportunity for a genuine creative exchange has just been wasted in order to indulge stupidity.

Amos - If you do not like - you can start a forum of your own. Why stay and think you have some right to complain about and inhibit what your fellow posters find to their tastes? Why cannot you just ignore what is not to your taste. It is just about possible to still hold a discussion.

But the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team always talks about 'goofing off' - is this not another word for stupidity? If posters are not free to be stupid on the BS section where else would you suggest?

For this section operates as a safety valve to enable the music section to function and the two are different animals - if the the same rules are applied on them both - they both suffer. So when some posters complains that there are threads or posts on the BS section that are not to their tastes - why cannot they just be told to concentrate on their own posts?