 sj |
||
|
||
Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Minister Gone-New one - who cares From: wysiwyg Date: 22 May 06 - 11:58 AM As a matter of fact, Shambles, I AM requesting that change, as it is VERY confusing and upsetting to this USer and perhaps others. As you well know, the person who would make that decision is not generally online at this time of day (Mudcat time), due to his time zone location. ~Susan Note from Joe Offer: Response to this message from Shambles: Thread #91675 Message #1745429 Posted By: The Shambles 22-May-06 - 11:50 AM Thread Name: Minister(UK) Gone-New one - who cares Subject: RE: Minister Gone-New one - who cares Yes, there is only one way to find out and that is by writing to him. |
|
Subject: RE: Minister Gone-New one - who cares From: The Shambles Date: 22 May 06 - 12:45 PM Susan - So now you have opened the thread - you are not confused so perhaps you can now let others decide for themselves how upsetting they find this title? Or you could have sent a PM to Eric and explained your concern and asked him to request a change to his chosen title. Anyway I trust that he will now be consulted before any change is imposed......? Minister says jamming OK |
|
Subject: RE: Minister(UK) Gone-New one - who cares From: George Papavgeris Date: 22 May 06 - 12:58 PM Well done Shambles - a record three posts before you manage to sidetrack the discussion on a thread with your pointed (if not quite barbed) asides. |
|
Subject: RE: Minister(UK) Gone-New one - who cares From: greg stephens Date: 22 May 06 - 01:08 PM I find the previous few posts a little confusing..perhaps we are getting some old argument rehashed? Do Americans find the word "minister" upsetting in this context? |
|
Subject: RE: Minister(UK) Gone-New one - who cares From: The Shambles Date: 22 May 06 - 01:32 PM All is explained in the following. In the UK Sadly nothing seems to have been learned from all this silliness. If there are no imposed thread title changes - there is nothing for anyone to complain about. |
|
Subject: RE: Mudcat Help&Trouble Forum? (Complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 May 06 - 11:53 AM Minister Gone –New One – who cares? The above thread's title was subject to imposed change and the thread relegated to the BS following a request for this change made by a fellow poster on the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3222&messages=11 The thread contains the following explanation (or threat) addressed to me. Shambles it is a simple thing and makes the thread title clear on a word used differently on each side of the pond. Do not make an issue of it. I suspect the reason this is addressed to me is because the precedent was set and defended which means that our moderators feel they have to impose this title change.... In my view - what any originator may choose to title their thread will remain no one else's business but theirs and posters should not be encouraged to request any changes to be imposed upon their fellow poster's contributions. Perhaps all posters to the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum can now be encouraged to concentrate on their own posts? It is not an issue of judging whether the change is an improvement or not – for if any proposed title change is thought an improvement the originator may readily agree to any suggested change. The issue will remain one of heavy-handed judgement imposed as a first and only resort, when it could and in my view, should be avoided. If the object is really having a title on our forum's index that is clear - the question is only one of how it is achieved. By encouraging this counter-productive but selective judgement from posters and automatic imposition by our moderators - or by stylish consultation and prior agreement? |
|
Subject: RE: Minister(UK) Gone-New one - who cares From: The Shambles Date: 23 May 06 - 11:56 AM Mudcat Help&Trouble Forum |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Title Change Discussion From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 06 - 02:04 PM Since this Forum serves locations other than the UK, certain changes are occasionally added to thread titles to make them more universally understandable. In general, we expect the Forum Menu to have a list of thread titles that clearly describe the contents of the threads they link to. The use of the term "Minister" outside of the realm of religion is not necessarily upsetting to Americans - they simply don't understand it unless some context is provided. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Title Change Discussion From: flattop Date: 23 May 06 - 02:53 PM Brings back memories of Richard Brautigan's story about Ernest Hemingway's Typist. She'd fix all the typos and mistakes. Probably made Hemingway comprehensible. We only get retitling service here? If someone could only edit out our turgid dullness. Why isn't this thread BSed? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Title Change Discussion From: katlaughing Date: 23 May 06 - 03:19 PM Susan's husband is a Minister in the Episcopal Church. I can well understand her request for an addition to the title. It's a simple courtesy. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: katlaughing Date: 23 May 06 - 06:51 PM The way this thread was started makes it look as though Susan was its originator. Glad to see I was wrong in that, but sad to see the *beat* goes on by one whom Max told should go. BTW, we have other clergy on this site, too. Folks need to be AS SPECIFIC as possible when naming threads. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: Rapparee Date: 23 May 06 - 06:58 PM I've asked to be referred to by my prefered clerical title -- "My Lord and My God" -- but the staff won't do it. Dunno why not. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: artbrooks Date: 23 May 06 - 07:00 PM How about Bookworm instead? |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: catspaw49 Date: 23 May 06 - 07:04 PM If it were me Rap, I'd go for "His High and Long Peckerness" as a substitute though.....Probably make you a lot more popular, ya' know? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: wysiwyg Date: 23 May 06 - 07:15 PM Thanks for making that clearer, Joe. And that's all I have to say about any of this! :~) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 23 May 06 - 07:49 PM WTF? |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: Sorcha Date: 23 May 06 - 07:53 PM I don't automatically associate 'minister' with religion. Do I hang out with the Yookers too much? |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Amos Date: 23 May 06 - 08:05 PM Naw, yer just hard o' hearin! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: number 6 Date: 23 May 06 - 08:11 PM It's all blues and no dinner at the Ministry of Bag The steaks are getting thinner the office is a drag It's all hills and no mountain in the cupboard of the Few The soda has no fountain the coal gets in the dew excerpt of Jack Bruce's Ministry of Bag ... words by Pete Brown. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: GUEST,Jon Date: 23 May 06 - 11:20 PM Websters online dictionary entry: 1 : AGENT 2 a : one officiating or assisting the officiant in church worship b : a clergyman especially of a Protestant communion 3 a : the superior of one of several religious orders -- called also minister-general b : the assistant to the rector or the bursar of a Jesuit house 4 : a high officer of state entrusted with the management of a division of governmental activities 5 a : a diplomatic representative (as an ambassador) accredited to the court or seat of government of a foreign state b : a diplomatic representative ranking below an ambassador. The religious meaning does not even seem to be the first entry in what I believe is an American dictionary... |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: catspaw49 Date: 23 May 06 - 11:37 PM LOL....Yeah Jon, could well be so but the situation is that it is virtually the ONLY use of the term in the States. This has come up before and its a clarification thing but Sham wants to make a mountain out of a molehill. I had to see all the threads to add it but the clone who changed it appeared to tell Sham in the Help Forum that it didn't matter and to not get into it or something.....and Sham took offense like it was a threat. Funniest thing was that the clone logged on the Help forum as "AVFP" ...... Took a minute, but I think that's "Anonymous Volunteer Fellow Poster" a favorite saying of ths Sham's. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Big Mick Date: 23 May 06 - 11:52 PM Just shows the true intent of this guy. In the States we don't refer to government officials as Ministers. In this country, a Minister is a clergyman. There is not one thing wrong with adding the clarifier, in fact it makes sense given the worldwide nature of the Mudcat. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 May 06 - 12:24 AM I must admit to being a little bit bemused by what appears to be a possiblilty of the usage of the word minister causing offense, even if this usage is rare in the US. On the other hand, I do like clarificaion of thread titles. It makes prefectly good sense to me. I can't understand why making it easier for others to understand what a thread is likely to be about and sometimes easir to find in searches should be considered a bad thing. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Ron Davies Date: 24 May 06 - 12:31 AM I sure hope the use of the word "minister" didn't cause offense--that makes no sense whatsoever. Even confusion could be easily avoided by just reading a little more down into the thread. On the other hand, if that's the earthshaking nature of the current Mudcat crisis, it's great news---a helluva lot better than the problems we were dealing with recently. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Bert Date: 24 May 06 - 12:32 AM Well as a bloke who hails originally from the old side of the pond I must say that it doesn't really clarify anything, 'cos the term minister used as a clergyman is also prevalent in the UK. Sorry Susan, as you know, I love you and your hubby very dearly but all it does for me is to dumb down the language so that Yanks can understand it. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 24 May 06 - 12:55 AM In all future threads, ministers of the clerical/religious type will be referred to as "preacherpriestrabimullahgurus". Ministers of the civil/political type will be referred to as "lying sacks of shit". |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: The Shambles Date: 24 May 06 - 01:59 AM If the issue was really one of clarification - just about every thread title could be subject to imposed editing action. They are not. If the object is really having a title on our forum's index that is clear - the question is only one of how it is achieved. By encouraging this counter-productive but selective judgement from posters and automatic imposition by our moderators - or by stylish consultation and prior agreement? As both methods will achieve the same end - which is prefeable? |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: Doug Chadwick Date: 24 May 06 - 02:35 AM There is a current thread "Eugene OR music scene?". Perhaps abbreviations for States are perfectly recognisable for Americans but as Geoff the duck pointed out within that thread: OR is an abbreviation for Oregon, then? I had assumed the thread was about a troubled marriage where the choice was between going out for entertainment versus staying at home with the boring husband, Eugene. Ah well - not a soap opera then..... I made the same mistake. If we are to achieve consistency, why hasn't that thread been re-titled as "Eugene OR (USA) music scene" to avoid confusing people like me? DC
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: The Shambles Date: 24 May 06 - 04:19 AM Do people smile a lot in Cheshire? I am upest and confused - is this Cheshire - New Hampshire? Perhaps this can be changed too? |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: AVFP Date: 24 May 06 - 04:45 AM Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell Your favourite subject isn't it Shambles? I did not threaten you in the Help Forum but politely asked that you not make an issue of this but you did. You are not a plaintive voice of reason in the wilderness; you are not a martyr to a cause. You are wasting your time. AVFP |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 May 06 - 04:53 AM The Shambles:- I find this confusing, can a clone please insert something to clarify whether this is:- A. a street in the city of York, B. a hazard to shipping on the south coast of England, or C. another name for Tunnel Vision? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: The Shambles Date: 24 May 06 - 11:15 AM For those who are interested and for those who may be confused - this is the history and chronology of these recent editing actions. Minister gone –New One - who cares I posted the following in the above thread. Thread #91675 Message #1745429 Posted By: The Shambles 22-May-06 - 11:50 AM Thread Name: Minister(UK) Gone-New one - who cares Subject: RE: Minister Gone-New one - who cares Yes, there is only one way to find out and that is by writing to him. * I note we seem to be managing in this thread with the originator's chosen title. And do not seem to have incurred an imposed change this time to make it clear that it not a man-of-the-cloth being referred to in the thread's title - so far anyway...........That is a hopeful sign. Subject: RE: Minister Gone-New one - who cares From: WYSIWYG - PM Date: 22 May 06 - 11:58 AM As a matter of fact, Shambles, I AM requesting that change, as it is VERY confusing and upsetting to this USer and perhaps others. As you well know, the person who would make that decision is not generally online at this time of day (Mudcat time), due to his time zone location. ~Susan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following appeared in the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3222&messages=11 Subject: RE: Thread subject change, please From: WYS Date: 22-May-06 - 12:01 PM For this one: http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=91675 Can this thread title be ameded, and would this fit: New UK Creative Industries Minister - who cares ~S~ Post - Top - Help Forum Home Subject: RE: Thread subject change, please From: AVFP Date: 22-May-06 - 12:52 PM Simply added UK to the title. Shambles it is a simple thing and makes the thread title clear on a word used differently on each side of the pond. Do not make an issue of it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minister gone –New One - who cares was then re-named and moved to the BS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In order to enable some discussion on this and to allow the original thread's subject to be discussed - I then refreshed the following thread Mudcat Help&Trouble Forum With the following post. Which seemed a logical thing to do - as the way the Help forum is encouraged to be used is a concern directly related to this issue. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Mudcat Help&Trouble Forum? (Complaint) From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 May 06 - 11:53 AM Minister Gone –New One – who cares? The above thread's title was subject to imposed change and the thread relegated to the BS following a request for this change made by a fellow poster on the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3222&messages=11 The thread contains the following explanation (or threat) addressed to me. Shambles it is a simple thing and makes the thread title clear on a word used differently on each side of the pond. Do not make an issue of it. I suspect the reason this is addressed to me is because the precedent was set and defended which means that our moderators feel they have to impose this title change.... In my view - what any originator may choose to title their thread will remain no one else's business but theirs and posters should not be encouraged to request any changes to be imposed upon their fellow poster's contributions. Perhaps all posters to the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum can now be encouraged to concentrate on their own posts? It is not an issue of judging whether the change is an improvement or not – for if any proposed title change is thought an improvement the originator may readily agree to any suggested change. The issue will remain one of heavy-handed judgement imposed as a first and only resort, when it could and in my view, should be avoided. If the object is really having a title on our forum's index that is clear - the question is only one of how it is achieved. By encouraging this counter-productive but selective judgement from posters and automatic imposition by our moderators - or by stylish consultation and prior agreement? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For some reason - Mudcat Help&Trouble Forum was then closed – the above post removed from it and this 'mongrel thread' was created. Minister gone –New One - who cares was then moved back to where its originator placed it. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: catspaw49 Date: 24 May 06 - 11:34 AM WOW SHAM....Absolutely riveting!!! Why this is more exciting than winding my watch, although evacuating my bladder beats it out totally......so to speak. Those nasty clones are after you!!!! They have kidnapped Max and taken over"our" forum. It is up to you to save us from the nasty title changers!!! Good Christ get a friggin' grip, wouldja'? AVFP has it right........it ain't no big deal! This thread needs to close. What a complete waste......nothing new and more Shambleshit...... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Wesley S Date: 24 May 06 - 11:45 AM At this point I can't imagine that anyone would say something that would make one of us slap our foreheads - have a V-8 moment - and say "Oh my goodness I've been wrong all along - He's right" !! I agree with Spaw. This has all been said befoe many many times. This thread should be closed. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: The Shambles Date: 24 May 06 - 11:46 AM Subject: RE: Minister Gone-New one - who cares From: WYSIWYG - PM Date: 22 May 06 - 11:58 AM As a matter of fact, Shambles, I AM requesting that change, as it is VERY confusing and upsetting to this USer and perhaps others. As you well know, the person who would make that decision is not generally online at this time of day (Mudcat time), due to his time zone location. ~Susan No need for levity - this was a very serious matter. That any fellow poster may be upset at a thread title chosen by another of course requres immediate editing action to be imposed. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: lesblank Date: 24 May 06 - 12:03 PM Shambles -- You have forced me to disregard all the social conduct rules I have learned over the past 72 years. So here it is YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE !! I truly apologize to all fellow posters for this lapse in manners, but Sir Roger of Gall really needs to be deported to somewhere outside the civilized world. Les Blank |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: frogprince Date: 24 May 06 - 12:40 PM Saw the thread in question for the first time; thought, why would somebody go into this about a change of pastor at their church? took a look, realized what it was really about; didn't think any more about it. It never occured to me to get upset because I was momentarily confused by one thread title around here; why the heck would it? That seems about as pointless as obsessing endlessly because an incidental change was made to clarify an incidental cause of confusion. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: AVFP Date: 24 May 06 - 12:49 PM Frogprince.....I added UK to the title simply to clarify and not because Susan was "upset." The word is used differently on either side of the Atlantic and it just makes sense to clear up the simple things. I also changed another title regarding the late John Cameron without consulting the thread starter and was thanked. There was no reason to throw a fit over this one. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: jeffp Date: 24 May 06 - 12:50 PM Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Max - PM Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately. Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 24 May 06 - 12:52 PM Hello...other than Shambles (and now myself, dammit!), who keeps posting to this thread, thereby making it longer than it need be? What part of "Do Not Respond" do you not understand? Forgive me for violating my own rule about not responding. Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 24 May 06 - 12:54 PM Shambles, as you probably know, I'm not a member of the "Everything is just hunky-dory in Mudville and Joe and the Clones do such a marvelous job that it makes ne cream in my jeans!" crowd. There are occasional serious problems in the way this forum is moderated. Threads have been closed and posts deleted based not upon what was said, but who said it. At least one Clone lets his personal conflicts with other members affect his work as a moderator. Joe Offer has publicly embarrassed at least three members in the last year by publicly disclosing things that should have been dealt with in private. Those are real problems. But complaining because a thread title has been changed to alleviate confusion is, to put it bluntly, chickenshit. I agree with much of what you say (though I don't understand why you feel compelled to say it so frequently), but this issue of editing titles when the obvious reason is to clarify the original writer's intent is a sidetrack heading to nowhere. If you seriously want to help change the things that need to be changed around here, you need to get your train off of that sidetrack and back on the main line before the track runs out. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: The Shambles Date: 24 May 06 - 01:47 PM Those are real problems. But complaining because a thread title has been changed to alleviate confusion is, to put it bluntly, chickenshit. I probably agree - if that was this thread is about. But if it is chickenshit to complain about it - is it equally chickenshit to anonymously change these things in the first place and for other posters to complain and request editing action to be imposed upon others? The issue is NOT clarifying thread titles. If any clarification is required, cannot the same end be achieved end by first consulting the thread title's originator? The encourgement of posters to request editing action to be imposed upon their fellow posters - rather than encouraging them to concentrate on their own and to only request changes to their own contributions - here and on the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum - is what the issue is. And is it all part of wider move to find ways to judge the worth of and inhibit posting rather than encourage it. As can be seen - my first reference to this was not to complain at all - for at that point - there was nothing to complain about. It could have been left like that........... |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: Joe Offer Date: 24 May 06 - 04:02 PM You know, Bee-dubya-ell, when fraud, deception, and manipulation are involved, I think that "public embarrassment" may be the best way to deal with it. So, put that in your sanctimonious pipe and smoke it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 24 May 06 - 05:33 PM Outstanding! I have pissed off Shambles and Joe Offer both with the same message! Is that some kind of record? |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: Bunnahabhain Date: 24 May 06 - 05:58 PM Probably not, and not a good one if it is. Roger, if you saved up your pertpetual greviances for the times when you actually had something approaching a valid complaint, rather than moaning about a minor change which only makes things clearer, and does not change the actual content of the thread on bit, then maybe a few more people might take you seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: Joe Offer Date: 24 May 06 - 06:49 PM Yup, Bee-dubya-ell, it's the magnetic effect you have on people... And what really pisses me off, is that I still like you despite it all. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 24 May 06 - 07:08 PM I frequently get confused with words.
Yesterday, I wrote a blistering letter to a national paper. I had to jump through hoop, after hooplala, to discover that the projected, infra-red, keyboard article had nothing to do with music, and everything to do with enlarging those tiny blackberry pads.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 May 06 - 09:36 PM While I think that the title might have benefited from the insertion of a reference to the UK to make it clear that it was a minister in the UK government rather than a minister in any other government who was removed, I do object to the assumption that a reference to a "minister" might be objectionable to those (who I think must be rare) who use the term primarily to refer to a minster of religion. I am opposed to all assumptions that the tender susceptibilities of some of the religious must be appeased even if absurd. Some religions may have virtues and even be completely on the level if you get my drift, but most are hotbeds of irrationality. Religious supersensitivity paves the route to the Taliban, to Jihad, to Crusade, and to Indonesia. Not to mention PC stupidity like "Have a pleasant seasonal holiday in accordance with the wishes of the supernatural being of your choice" (="Happy Christmas") |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 May 06 - 09:44 PM And the Marlboro thread might benefit from a change to make it clear it is not about cigarettes. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 May 06 - 09:48 PM And the Mission San Miguel thread might offend lovers of Spanish lager. Or those who assumed it was about a religious outreach campaign through alcohol. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 24 May 06 - 09:53 PM I know what you mean, Joe, although it doesn't piss me off that I still like you. It only amazes me, confuses me, and makes me doubt my own sanity. However, if I may offer a bit of constructive criticism, the power of word "sanctimonious" is generally thought to be enhanced by including the word "prick" or "asshole" somewhere within the clause in which it is used. Keep the faith, get some anger management counseling, and don't forget to boogie. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: Bert Date: 24 May 06 - 10:37 PM A lot of folks used to get upset with Catspaw 'cos they didn't know when he was joking. Now it seems that some of you need to be able to recognise when Shambles is joking. Which is a lot more often than you think. I used to have the same problem with everyone taking everything I said SO SERIOUSLY. Now I often resort to katlaughing's strategy of adding *GRIN* to anything that mighty be misunderstood as a serious comment. So Roger it might be an idea for ya. I was going to suggest that Catspaw give you lessons in American humor, but he doesn't seem to be able to tell if you are joking or not. Maybe we can get Joe to add 'JOKE' to the title of threads where Americans might not be able to recognise the subtlety of English humor. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: katlaughing Date: 25 May 06 - 12:40 AM Bertdarlin'...I can almost see your tongue...in your cheek...us'ns is so durn dense, yeah?**BG** |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: Joe Offer Date: 25 May 06 - 01:26 AM And I rarely get angry, Bee-dubya-ell. I get....demonstrative. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: The Shambles Date: 25 May 06 - 02:10 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.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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- Does any poster really think that this changing of selected thread titles through anonymous imposition has anything to do with the reasons stated? As the required clarity can be achieved by first obtaining the originators agreement - the insistence on imposing these changes as a first and only resort - is pretty obviously a more about attempts to exert control than to achieve clarity. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 May 06 - 04:15 AM In Scotland ministers of religion are addressed as such. e.g Good Morning Minister, and when I hear the word, my first thought is always of religion and not politics. G. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 May 06 - 07:41 AM Does any poster really think that this changing of selected thread titles through anonymous imposition has anything to do with the reasons stated? As the required clarity can be achieved by first obtaining the originators agreement - the insistence on imposing these changes as a first and only resort - is pretty obviously a more about attempts to exert control than to achieve clarity. I think it is done to and does add clarity. I do not see the need for consultation with the originator. The way Mudcat works, ie. making changes to clarify without consultation is the same as the Annexe and folkinfo work and in fact the same way as just about every board I ever vist works and I don't see complaints on any of these. All I see is pretty well just one person making a big issue oo this board. Do you visit other boards? I'd love to read your comments on this subject elsewhere. The only other place I know you visit is the uk.music.folk newsgroup. That can't have renaming as it is known here but a poster may take it upon themself to change the title for the leg of a thread without consulting the originator. This typically happens when an topic drifts considerably and it is felt by someone a new title is appropriate, commonly to "new subject (was old subject)". How come I have never seen you challinging such an individual as you do Joe Offer here over such "impositions", or demand to know whether they had emailed for the originators concent. I think you show no consistancy and rather than thinking ~"is pretty obviously a more about attempts to exert control than to achieve clarity.", I observe (and suspect if you visit other web forums) your complaints are strangely confined to Mudcat and your problem is a poorly disguised personal problem you have with others here. |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thr From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 May 06 - 08:25 AM Joe said "Son, one of us is going to have to go; and I ain't about to move!" G ☻ |
|
Subject: RE: Title Change Discussion(moved from another thread) From: The Shambles Date: 31 May 06 - 03:14 AM How come I have never seen you challinging such an individual as you do Joe Offer here over such "impositions", or demand to know whether they had emailed for the originators concent. Many of the imposed and selective editing actions referred to here are now plainly personally motivated - but the claim is repeatedly made and supported - that they are not. Asking for and receiving support for this hypocrisy and the attitude displayed in the following - destroys the whole credibilty our forum and the basis of toleration on which it was founded. 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- |
| Share Thread: |
