 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is closing threads censorship?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 02 May 06 - 10:14 PM Just asking. Seems to be, I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: number 6 Date: 02 May 06 - 10:20 PM Do you mean closing or deleting? I'd say deleting certainly is ... closing isn't as you can still access them .... if you want to continue on with the same subject just reopen a new thread. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Alba Date: 02 May 06 - 10:31 PM I asked for a Thread I had started to be closed today. It was. The Thread is still there however, intact and can still be read by anyone that wants to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 02 May 06 - 10:50 PM Martin - you are NOT a troll (trolls live in kingdoms of superiority)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Amos Date: 02 May 06 - 11:13 PM No. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 02:06 AM Censorship and Attitude rolled into one Any form of editing action that is imposed without the originator's prior knowledge and permission is censorship. Any form of editing action or thread closure taken to prevent discussion on the thread's subject (even at the request of anyone) is censorship. If the originator does not like the direction their thread has taken when it is clearly following their chosen title - they can start a new one with the title of their choice. Perhaps this thread can be re-opened to enable the discussion on the thread's subject to continue in it? There is no need to close the original thread BECAUSE there are discussions trying to take place following the thread's title and the originator or anyone else wishes to prevent this discussion. This latest example is setting a questionable precedent and would appear to agreed to in this case only because our editing team are seen in this thread to be totally incompetent and are only too please to find any reason to close it. You follow the link provided and judge for yourself - while you have the chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Doug Chadwick Date: 03 May 06 - 02:31 AM There's an old thread that has just been resurrected on the subject of "What is the worst song you ever heard?" In there, there are 31 links to other threads with similar titles. Seven of these have been closed, although there seems to be nothing controversial about them. Some may have been closed because they were getting too long, in the days before you could look at just the last 50 posts, but others were closed after only a few days worth of posts. Other, longer, threads remain open Why are some closed and others left open when the content seems so similar? DC
As a general rule, we don't reopen threads that were closed because they became combative. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 02:59 AM As posters are then invited to start another - the imposed closure of threads serves no useful purpose at all. It has been established that the closing any thread presents no technical advantage to the operation of our forum. A forum that managed perfectly well when no threads were closed and all remained open for future contributions. Our protectors with edit buttons only started closing threads when and because they were shown how it could be done. Perhaps it can now stop? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 05:34 AM It is certainly censorship when the thread's closure prevents further contributions - except for some who insist on having the last word. Actually those posts were deleted for precisely that reason. The judgement was made by the powers that be that they should be put back in. Not much I can do about that. -------------------------------------------- If you have good reason to reopen a closed thread, contact me by e-mail or personal message, and I'll most probably honor your request. Joe Offer As you know - I did have a good reason - I did PM you - and you did not honour my request. I wll leave you to explain to our forum what your thoughts were on my request. But is this not backwards? Shouldn't YOU have to find a good reason to close a thread rather than posters having to find a reason that you then judge good enough to re-open it? Posters do not (currently) have to find a good reason to start a thread - why should they be expected to have to find a good reason for you to re-open it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 05:38 AM Old "BS" threads are routinely closed after a time, for a number of reasons. Joe Offer Why, for what reasons exactly and in order to protect us from what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John O'L Date: 03 May 06 - 06:06 AM Shambles I would like to take this opportuinity to express my gratitude that you are here to ask these questions. I for one would never think to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 06:30 AM You mean you don't want me to be banned? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Alba Date: 03 May 06 - 07:00 AM I asked for a Thread I had started to be closed Yesterday. It was. The Thread is still there however, intact and can still be read by anyone that wants to. I have received a PM stating that it was uncool of me to ask for my Thread to be closed. That I had no "right" to do that. Well a lot of people seem to have 'rights' around here, why don't I? Seems that even Guests have rights that I don't have. [Roger I also PMd you yesterday as to why I had asked for the Thread that I started to be closed.] See here's the rub. (and this is only PART of my reason for asking for my Thread to be closed and I only supply this part for the purposes of a slight insight, not an explanation) I started that Thread as a bit of fun..(won't be making that mistake around here again for a while) My opening post on the Thread made that clear. For a while the Thread was a tad humorous. In retrospect I should never have gone near the 'sacred' subject of Mudcat censorship and Shambles countless Threads. The final staw on my particular Thread (which by then had gone far off my original idea) was a nasty personal attack aimed at a Member by a vicious Guest. Do you know what is not 'cool'...well it is not cool when absolutely no-one even bothered with that Guest's cutting remarks. I mean why would anyone be upset about a bit of character ripping. Such a minor matter, but boy o boy did people get upset when they found that a couple of Threads about the Weather had gone missing! That imo is uncool. You know Folks, Joe Offer is a hellava Guy. He takes a lot of time out of his Life for this place and the volunteers are way cool people too, they also give their time to this place. I seriously have a lot of respect for these People. I have never met any of them and only know who some are because they have made their names public (big mistake that IMO) I am continually amazed by the fact that explanations for moderation and editing are supplied for the most disgruntled People, even Guests get explanations now!. It would not be something that was done in any other Forum. Yet even though that happens here it still isn't enough. The Moderators continually give the rabid dogs their bare Arms to chew on! If you are looking for someone to blame for the closing of MY Thread then the buck stops here. Right here. Right here at ALBA. I am sure that some will take great delight in ripping my Cyber ID apart, a good excuse to vent any surpressed dislike of the Mudcat Identity known as Alba. God knows we have many Experts in THAT field around here these days. A whole bucket load of self appointed Judges but no Jury it seems. If some feel the need to attempt to destroy this place with their Ego problems it would seem that they are free to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Wolfgang Date: 03 May 06 - 07:36 AM Any form of editing action that is imposed without the originator's prior knowledge and permission is censorship. (Shambles) Nonsense, complete nonsense. Each single book or article or letter to the editor I have ever written in my life would have been considered to have been 'censored' accroding to this definition. Each newspaper is censored at a daily basis according to this definition. The word loses all its distinctive power if it is applied so indiscriminate. Why, for what reasons exactly and in order to protect us from what? (Shambles) Shambles, you have a collection of all Joe Offer quotes over the last 7 years and quote from it at least once daily. In the spirit of user friendliness of this site it would be a service if you could link to the last time you have asked the same questions and would quote Joe Offers response from then. Or you could tell which part of the old response is not yet satisfactory for you. Merely repeating a question that has been asked and responded to without giving new people the opportunity to read the old responses is quite impolite. And it gives me the impression that you are not honest with us for you lie (implicitely) about your motivation for asking the question. You ask it in a way that reminds the naive reader of a simple quest for information but since that information is already available to you lack of information is not your real motive. If you would be honest (as you claim you are in many posts; quote available) with us or with yourself you would give us another reason like (1) I didn't like the response then or (2) I have my fun increasing Joe Offers workload or (3) if I get on their nerves for long enough they might prefer to change to rules to suit me. I don't know what the real motive is, but I know you are not honest with us in your agenda. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 07:37 AM If some feel the need to attempt to destroy this place with their Ego problems it would seem that they are free to do so. So it would appear and with the willing help of a few posts like that one - this would now appear to be happening. But those whose Ego problems now make them feel qualified to act as both judge and jury and who impose their judgement on their fellow posters do not need any further encouragment to close threads and impose yet more rules and restrictions. For they do not seem to know any other course. They will not stop - even after admitting the failure of such measures........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Grab Date: 03 May 06 - 07:40 AM Any form of editing action that is imposed without the originator's prior knowledge and permission is censorship. Yes, although whether that's good or bad is open to discussion. Personally I'm not aware of any unmoderated internet forum which allows/allowed anonymous posting, has/had any significant number of members, and remained successful and flame-free. There simply is no such thing, and I'd rather that Mudcat didn't turn into Usenet, thanks all the same. If that means a more active moderating policy than was done previously, I'd rather see that than lose Mudcat altogether, as Usenet has been lost. Any form of editing action or thread closure taken to prevent discussion on the thread's subject (even at the request of anyone) is censorship. Not so, IMO. For starters, personal insults are not discussions. For seconds, if all posters (or the main poster, know what I'm saying?) are saying the same damn thing without listening, then it's not censorship - there's nothing new being said. For thirds, flame-wars and personal insults tend to attract anonymous posters (for the convenience of stirring things up), and having to go and start another thread puts a damper on this to prevent it going further. For fourths, if you really, really care enough then there's the option of opening a second thread. And for fifths, don't tell us that because of censorship, you, Jack, Carol, MartinGibson and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all have not been given a chance to express your views - that is provably untrue. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 07:41 AM Nonsense, complete nonsense. Each single book or article or letter to the editor I have ever written in my life would have been considered to have been 'censored' accroding to this definition. Each newspaper is censored at a daily basis according to this definition. The word loses all its distinctive power if it is applied so indiscriminate. Piffle. What need is there for any EDITOR on a discussion forum that is open to the public and comprised entirely of poster's contributions and where there is no selection process? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 07:45 AM Following the success of Alba's request shall I expect my request - to re-open all of the threads that I have originated and which have been subject to imposed closure - to be granted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 03 May 06 - 07:54 AM Gargoyle, you might be the first one to vote me out, but I would be the first one to fart in your general direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 03 May 06 - 07:59 AM I think threads mught be closed because many are way too easily offended. Why close threads? Just don't participate in them if you don't want to. Let others who want to continue. There are many threads here that are stupid and worthless and I don't want to have anything to do with, yet they continue. Should those be closed also if someone insists on it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 07:59 AM Like this one. Closing threads |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 03 May 06 - 10:09 AM "Why close threads?" Somewhere, somehow it takes someone's time and money to keep a thread going. (It also takes our planet's natural resources.) The question is - do the people giving the time and money see any point to supporting the thread? If they don't, they get to ax it. People in the free world may have the right to express their opinions, but that doesn't mean they have the right to express them using other peoples' time and money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: katlaughing Date: 03 May 06 - 10:42 AM Alba and Wolfgang, thanks for your postings! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 12:14 PM Somewhere, somehow it takes someone's time and money to keep a thread going. (It also takes our planet's natural resources.) The question is - do the people giving the time and money see any point to supporting the thread? If they don't, they get to ax it. People in the free world may have the right to express their opinions, but that doesn't mean they have the right to express them using other peoples' time and money. No technical reason at all, Shambles. We do it for valid but non-technical reasons that I've explained below. That's why I moved this thread to the "BS" section. Next question? -Joe Offer- Strange as it may seem our forum managed perfectly well when all the threads remained open. Why does everyone now appear to feel that our forum is about judging the worth of and finding and supportings ways to prevent other posters from having their say - when Max provided this opportunity for that very reason? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: jaze Date: 03 May 06 - 12:51 PM Shambles, wouldn't it be easier for you to just start your own forum somewhere else and be the king of it? Apparently Max, the king of this one, is ok with the way things are done or surely he would change it,don't you think? You've complained ad nauseum about this for years and it hasn't changed. I think everyone else on the planet has come to the realization..IT'S NOT LIKELY TO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 03 May 06 - 01:22 PM "Strange as it may seem our forum managed perfectly well when all the threads remained open." no it didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Grab Date: 03 May 06 - 01:26 PM What need is there for any EDITOR on a discussion forum that is open to the public and comprised entirely of poster's contributions and where there is no selection process? I presume that you've never used Usenet or other email-based groups. If you had, you wouldn't need to ask this question - the answer would be obvious. That aanswer is that when there's no restriction from people posting flames, anonymous off-topic stuff and spam, the signal-to-noise ratio goes down. The more noise, the harder it is to find useful stuff, the less people find the forum useful, and in the end it all dies a death under a mountain of spam and flames. Fair play to Max (and others) for instituting the BS section - it keeps the non-music stuff out of the genuine music, and moderation of the music side is absolutely required to try and reduce noise. Moderation of the BS stuff is not absolutely required - by music standards you could say it's all "noise" - but it's the area where people can chat freely, so if someone repeats the same thing every day, that may be considered "noise" for people who want to chat about other stuff. Off-topicness certainly is, as are personal insults. (Yes I know Joe has insulted you - don't need more bold-text quotes. So have you insulted him, and I don't see anyone quoting bold-text of those.) Following the success of Alba's request shall I expect my request - to re-open all of the threads that I have originated and which have been subject to imposed closure - to be granted? To quote: If you have good reason to reopen a closed thread, contact me by e-mail or personal message, and I'll most probably honor your request. So you need a good reason. Alba may have had one. Whether you do is up to Joe's decision. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 01:39 PM Yes I know Joe has insulted you - don't need more bold-text quotes. So have you insulted him, and I don't see anyone quoting bold-text of those.) The bold text is not to highlight the insults and name-calling that I have been subjected to - it is to indicate editing comments. Had I ever posted abusive personal attacks upon any other poster here - I am sure that these examples would be given...... But the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is not just another poster. The example he sets will be followed and thought acceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 03 May 06 - 01:42 PM I don't feel that Alba had "no right" to request that the thread she started be closed. I would never make such a request myself, but that's a reflection of differing attitudes toward "ownership" of a thread. Some folks think of a thread as a boat: If they launch it, they have a right to steer its course. Others, like myself, think of a thread as a message in a bottle: Once you toss it out, you let it go wherever the currents take it. Neither is right nor wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 01:48 PM So you need a good reason. Alba may have had one. Whether you do is up to Joe's decision. And our forum will of course be expected to believe that this will not be a personally motivated decision in any way? Despite the fact that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has recently and publicly called me a buffoon - to add to idiot, looney, asshole etc and that two of our known moderators have publicly stated that I should be banned from our forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 02:01 PM Others, like myself, think of a thread as a message in a bottle: Once you toss it out, you let it go wherever the currents take it. Neither is right nor wrong. When I requested that the originator's chosen thread title should always stay as worded unless they were contacted and gave their permission for a change - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team made it quite clear that the thread's originator had no such rights or no more rights than any of the rest of the contributors. As the thread - once launched - was a collaborative effort. So which is it? The answer is the same as always - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will again be seen to do exactly as he chooses - whilst passing judgement upon and complaining about the conduct of everyone else. Even though he now admits these measures have failed to impose the 'peace' he requires. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Joe Offer Date: 03 May 06 - 02:19 PM Shambles, you seem to be posting a lot of quotes without attribution today, even more than usual. Isn't that misleading? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: M.Ted Date: 03 May 06 - 02:25 PM I might as well come out and say that I am the one who told Alba that I thought she was way out of line in asking that the above mentioned thread be closed--"uncool", I think, was the word I used. I also told her that I thought that the person who closed the thread was a fool. And I think so. Like it or not, once the thread is begun, it becomes the creation of those who choose to post to it. You have no guarantee that anyone will post anything, let alone what you want them to post. This isn't just mudcat, this is the internet. And it isn't just the internet, it's life. Someone has been deleting posts because they are intended to "hijack" threads--if that is now the rule, then we'd better get rid of about 90% of what has been posted over the last decade, even from the music threads. I don't think that, after all this time, we should change the rules on that- Which brings up another point, and that is, though the "Censorship" is a "closed" thread --additional changes continue to be made to it--Alba's request that the thread be closed, for instance, is no longer there. There is no excuse for this at all--it seems a bit like "rewriting history"-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 May 06 - 02:35 PM So you're with Roger then M Ted, that no thread should ever be closed? G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 03 May 06 - 02:41 PM " recently and publicly called me a buffoon" Even as ye sew, so shall ye reap" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: M.Ted Date: 03 May 06 - 02:59 PM That's your idea, not mine, Giok- Actually, I think that threads should generally be closed after a fixed period of inactivity has passed-if only to avoid people passionately responding to postings that were made in the last millenium--this happens so often now, that I find that I must check the dates before I respond to anything anymore-- As to closing threads for other reasons--if there are clear cut rules for what is acceptable posting and what is not, and there were clear cut and consistent responses to inappropriate posting, the question would come up a lot less than it does-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 03 May 06 - 03:47 PM It was asserted that: Any form of editing action that is imposed without the originator's prior knowledge and permission is censorship. Closing a thread does nothing to the prior posts. It affects only posters who desire to go on with the thread. As to them, they have prior knowledge (prior to their submitting their post) that the thread is closed. So that part of the quote about prior knowledge above is satisfied. After closure, no-one is an originator within that thread. The "and permission" is a separate matter. A would-be poster has no right to reopen or continue the closed thread. Indeed, as I see it, no-one here has a right to be on Mudcat at all. It is Max's forum, and it is his rules, administered largely by his designees, that make it possible for each of us to have the privilege of playing in Max's sandbox, so to speak. If Max were to "pull the plug" on the entire Mudcat site, we might all feel frustrated and saddened, but that would be his right. If he has that large right and absolute power, he surely has the lesser right and power (by his agents if he desires) to close off some lesser part of it, in this case closing a thread for what he or his agents deem good reason. I fully believe that that power is being responsibly exercised. Even if an occasional wrong decision is made (and I suppose it occasionally is), the overall system is a justifiable one, and necessary to maintain Mudcat as the useful, convenient, and pleasant place that it can and should be. If The Shambles, or Gargoyle (or indeed, Dave Oesterreich) object to that, we are perfectly free (and encouraged, I'd say) to find some site (if such there be) that gives such great freedom, companionship, pleasure, and utility without what one of us might deem "censorship". I, for one, see no reason to excercise that particular freedom of choice, because I believe that any small mistaken decisions or defects (and they ARE small) are greatly outweighed by the advantages that are given to us at Mudcat. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: akenaton Date: 03 May 06 - 04:08 PM I think if the future of Mudcat is at stake, as Dave has implied, we have no option other than to be bravehearts and sacrifice that stalwart fighter for truth and justice "The Shambles", for the greater good of Mudcat and the Queen!! "It is a far better thing you do today.......ect ...ect....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: kendall Date: 03 May 06 - 04:09 PM "The more you stir a turd, the more it smells". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: akenaton Date: 03 May 06 - 04:17 PM Any volunteers to operate "Madame"?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Grab Date: 04 May 06 - 12:15 PM the thread's originator had no such rights or no more rights than any of the rest of the contributors In other words, any other poster on that thread could have asked as well, if they'd had a similarly good reason to present to Joe. Despite the fact that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has recently and publicly called me a buffoon - to add to idiot, looney, asshole etc and that two of our known moderators have publicly stated that I should be banned from our forum? Since you've recently, publicly and repeatedly (for the last however many months) called them all incompetent and biased, and you've made it clear that you don't want to be a member of the Mudcat whilst they're delegated by Max to do the day-to-day running, frankly I don't blame them for losing their patience in the end. If your good reason is just "I posted this, therefore no-one else has the right to alter it, and Max wouldn't have done it back in 1999", then I reckon we can all predict Joe's answer. And our forum will of course be expected to believe that this will not be a personally motivated decision in any way? As I said, if you expect anyone on Mudcat to believe that you've not been given the freedom to speak your mind for the last however many months, then you're completely off your rocker. Do we know what your views are on this? Of course we do. So tell us how we'd know if you hadn't been given the freedom to keep posting the same thing, day after day for months? Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 04 May 06 - 12:30 PM "The more you stir a turd, the more it smells". True, but to remove a turd one needs a shovel and only a handfull of people around here have been issued them. If the shovel-holders don't see a turd and don't listen when someone points the turd out to them, the only thing left to do is stir the turd up in hopes that the smell will get them to start using their shovels instead of just leaning on them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 06 - 12:39 PM Shambles I would like to take this opportuinity to express my gratitude that you are here to ask these questions. I for one would never think to do so. If would be nice not to have ask such questions but as long as there are those who seem to spend most of their time in thinking up more and more restrictions and rules to impose upon the rest of our forum - someone is going to have to ask what the reasons are. Not that the answers to these question seem to be provided? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 May 06 - 01:46 PM OK, Shambles, be specific. Explain these draconian Mudcat rules to us, and demonstrate why it is that they are so oppressive. The ones I recall are: no personal attacks, no spam, no racism, no non-music copy-pastes longer than one page, and be civil to other participants. The bit about "hijacking" threads was misinterpreted by an overly enthusiastic Clone, and that editing action was reversed as soon as I became aware of it. No, we're not going to allow somebody to maliciously divert a serious discussion - but that wasn't the case in the situation this week. Certainly, there are other things we edit for one reason or another - but those are just methods of operation - directing traffic, if you will. Most of the time, our editing does not remove anything but duplicated and malicious information from the Forum. I know you consider it a sacred right to post multiple multiples of just about everything you post (and much of what I post), but I think most people don't see the deletion of multiples as censorship. And, in fact, you actually haven't been affected by the Mudcat editing policy. In my memory, one message you posted got deleted - and I undeleted it within an hour. As for the accusation of name-calling, somehow I don't see the wrong in describing several aspects of a person's behavior (out-of-context quotes, endless repetition, continual repetition of questions that have already been answered, and countless character attacks and non-sequiturs) and then concluding that person is a "buffoon." It seems to be a very logical conclusion based on demonstrated behavior, not an ad hominem personal attack. If the "buffoon" title is taken out of context, it can be made to appear to be malicious name-calling and a personal attack, I suppose - but I'm not the one who posted it out of context. Same with "I'm sick of your shit." If somebody posts a thousand messages whining about what a horrible tyrant I am, am I attacking that person by saying "I'm sick of his shit"? I don't think so. If you want to present facts and discuss them in a logical, civil manner, that's another matter. That's not your game, though. You threw logic and the facts out the window long ago. So, Shambles, I'm sick of your shit - and of your buffoonery. Deal with it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Wesley S Date: 04 May 06 - 02:03 PM "So, Shambles, I'm sick of your shit - and of your buffoonery. Deal with it." The preceding is the intellectuial property of Joe Offer. All rights reserved. Not to be reprinted or duplicated without express written permission of the author. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,heric Date: 04 May 06 - 02:06 PM Counsellor Joe asked Shambles to plainly answer the question. Shambles, by legend, responded: "Unless I am convinced by The Rules and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of clones and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of Max. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other thing." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 04 May 06 - 02:20 PM Rules & restrictions arise from bad behavior. Bad behavior comes in several forms. Obviously, applying rules evenly is never easy, as those whose behavior is in question will often not agree with the decision and will complain. And 'bystanders' who SEE the application sometimes add to the furor and demand explanations, even when they are not directly affected.......and you wonder why the rule for volunteers is sorta.."do your job as best you can and try not to debate it"!! Joe & Jeff are arbiters of decisions, and 'sometimes' reverse decisions of volunteers. I can't imagine any other way it could work. There might be occasional changes in the details of how it works, but the large majority of members seem to agree that rules & restriction are needed! and with the basic system. It is fascinating to me that 'the management' allows so much debate and complaining and 2nd guessing **OF** the rules! It seems to be similar to the way the country (USA in this case, but maybe UK and others too)....There are laws; there are enforcers; there is a certain amount of freedom to challenge the law or its application..(the courts).....but NOT total freedom to harass and cause dissention interminably. ....yeah, the metaphor has its limits, and maybe a better one would be a private club or a family *shrug*.....anyway, THIS place is privately OWNED. The public is invited in to play...IF they play by the rules (which are pretty durn liberal!). ...and to make the point about the topic, closing threads IS the prerogative of the management, whether you choose to call it 'censorship', 'editing', 'interference', or whatever! Sometimes they are re-opened by request, sometimes not. If I were in charge, ALL individual requests for thread closings OR re-openings would have to be made by PM and would be ignored if they were done in the thread....that is, I would not allow the decision to become a tedious bit of public bickering. (That is sort of a suggestion for Joe....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 04 May 06 - 02:25 PM (gee, and while I was typing, Joe made his own point! *grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 May 06 - 02:56 PM OK, Shambles, here is the message I posted in the other thread. If you want to reply, reply here, in this thread, not in a new one. From now on, I will generally allow only one "Shambles complaint thread" to be open at a time. I expect you to comply. If you do not, I will take editorial action to enforce the policy - I will handle it, not the volunteers. -Joe Offer- Thread #91207 Message #1733152 Posted By: Joe Offer 04-May-06 - 02:21 PM Thread Name: BS: Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO You know, Shambles, we were all talking about this very subject in Is Closing Threads Censorship?. In fact, I think I made some very good points in that thread. Why is it that you feel a compulsion to start yet another thread? Is it because you can't stand up to logic, that you have to move away from those who try to face up to you with reason and factual information? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: catspaw49 Date: 04 May 06 - 03:43 PM Oh my......Only ONE Shamblecentric Thread allowed at a time???? Whatever will he do? Roger's head might explode!!!! What will happen to all of his carefully catalogued and filed misquotations not to mention "The Shambles Encyclopedia of Garbled Syntax. This is surely cruel and unusual punishment!!! Spaw.......LMAO...... |