 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Jeri Date: 04 Aug 06 - 08:41 PM Roger, I think you shifted your attacks to Max, and I think it's likely not going to end well for you. I supposed though, that what you want to do is force him to ban you. Shame that being obnoxious is that important to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM Some of them (well, at least one) do anyway, so no-one is being prevented from complaining. The only way you may think this to be the case - is because you are currently allowed to see (some of) these views. But perhaps you would accept that there is currently a determined attempt by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to try to selectively limit these views? Is that not just as worrying? For how would you know when the point was reached where everyone was being prevented from posting these views? Or that this imposed censorship action was not just personally motivated? But the most pertinant reason of all is that Max wants it that way. Would it be pertinant and is it fact true? Perhaps Max is happy to think that posters want it that way? ..........Do they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Manitas_at_home Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:40 PM "Should not they be seen to still be able to do this?" Some of them (well, at least one) do anyway, so no-one is being prevented from complaining. But most people wouldn't notice so it saves the moderators work and dampens the tendency of the discussion to turn to censorship. But the most pertinant reason of all is that Max wants it that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 06 - 02:05 PM Subject: RE: BS: Don't read guest posts From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 04 Aug 06 - 01:46 PM Copy of deleted one-message thread that skipy started: Subject: BS: The passion of Martin Gibson From: skipy - PM Date: 01 Aug 06 - 05:15 PM light blue touch paper and retire. Skipy We delete all "Martin Gibson" threads. They cause too damn much trouble. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Big Mick Date: 04 Aug 06 - 12:47 PM Spaw .... go rest. Your abnormal activity is clouding your thinking. Telling these folks not to respond does no good. Shambles ..... leave. The owner has spoken, as you invited him to. When he did, he said you should go. I concur. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 06 - 12:33 PM As for "qualification", my only "qualification" is believing that they're doing this because they think it benefits the forum and doing it as lightly as possible. In my view the qualification required for any 'moderator' is for all of their imposed censorship judgement to be seen to be undertaken as a last resort and never show any cause for suspicion of it being selective and personally motivated. Where there was any doubt - the moderator should fall back to just being an ordinary poster. For example - Graham - you have avoided comment so far but would you judge the closure of the Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 thread - to be an action without any question of personal bias? And even if you would - would you be surprised if other posters did not? Would you expect any poster to feel that any form of imposed censorship of their contribution was without this personal bias - when the moderator concerned was themselves setting the example of posting abusive personal attacks and calling this poster offensive names? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: catspaw49 Date: 04 Aug 06 - 12:25 PM And once again, Max has already requested that he goes! Non-Entity refuses to give a reason he remains after being asked to go by the site owner. Anyone see any compelling reason to continue responding? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Grab Date: 04 Aug 06 - 12:16 PM Thanks Bill. I don't think it's that good, to be honest - I could almost be done by Joe for repetition, because it's the same reasoning I've been waving at Shambles for ages. He's yet to respond to it, though. Oh sorry, missed a bit. "Harm" - none. "Good" - also none. You think different, but (as you've probably noticed) you've been unable to persuade the people who would have to increase the amount of their own time that they'd spend doing this. Since it's *their* assessment of how long *they* would be spending on it that counts, your opinion is irrelevant. From that, the natural conclusion comes. You've asked the people running the place to do things differently, and given your reasons. They've checked your reasons, decided that they don't agree with you, and given you a bunch of reasons why they don't agree with you. When you've disputed those reasons, they've civilly responded to you, but you haven't found a compelling reason to make them change their minds. This leaves three options open to you: either you can accept that your idea was rejected, and live with the forum in its present form; or you can appeal to higher authorities; or you can leave the forum and find somewhere more suitable for your tastes. You took number two, and your request was again turned down, firstly by Jeff and then by Max. That leaves you with only two honourable choices: stay and live with it, or go. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM Because people would argue against the decision. Should not they be seen to still be able to do this? And why would be seen to be harmful or 'exacerbate the trouble caused'? Possibly they may have a point? Possibly they may only wish to argue with its silent imposition? Possibly if our forum could see where all forms of imposed censorship had taken place - posters would be in an informed position to judge if its current nature and level and the being price paid for this ' was really necessary? Possibly some mutual agreement could have been reached prior to any impostion being judged as necessary? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:42 AM excellent summation, Graham... You would do well to read his post several times, Roger.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Grab Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:36 AM I (and others) obviously do not see that this it is an unreasonable request to make at all, and have stated their reasons. And two years ago, those reasons were assessed by the people who would be doing the work. They decided then that your reasons were not compelling, so they said no and gave you their reasons. That was two years ago. You haven't changed your reasons since then, or provided one piece of new evidence. Why should they then have changed their opinion? what 'harm' it would do to our forum? "Harm" - none. "Good" - also none. You think different, but (as you've probably noticed) you've been unable to persuade the people who would have to increase the amount of their own time that they'd spend doing this. Since it's *their* assessment of how long *they* would be spending on it that counts, your opinion is irrelevant. And your clear implication from that last post is that if it doesn't actively harm the forum then it should be compulsory. Now you could request that the moderators jump up and down on one leg and sing "Clementine" before they delete a post. It wouldn't harm the forum for them to do that, but they're pretty unlikely to do it. As for "qualification", my only "qualification" is believing that they're doing this because they think it benefits the forum and doing it as lightly as possible (quote for that), as opposed to your assessment that the only purpose in doing it is either to play mind games with Mudcat posters (quote for that) or to conduct campaigns of victimisation against people they don't like (quote for that). Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:23 AM It doesn't HAVE to be 'harmful' to be a bad idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: manitas_at_work Date: 04 Aug 06 - 07:47 AM Because people would argue against the decision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 06 - 07:41 AM Well if that IS all - I will make a start of replying to these. I don't think anyone has ever said they thought it would be harmful to our forum. MMario Yes they have. I'm sorry, Bert, but that's not going to happen. If we have to report and defend and debate deletions, it would only exacerbate the trouble caused by problem posts. Joe Offer MMario - your answer was: - I think it is an unreasonable request to ask of unpaid staff who are doing a job requested of them by the site owner. I (and others) obviously do not see that this it is an unreasonable request to make at all, and have stated their reasons. Should the main consideration of our forum really now be - what is judged (by a few) to be what is most convenient to them? Some - mostly those who feel themselves qualified to act as judge in that role - would now appear to think this to be the most important consideration....... So I will ask again - not if you think accepting this suggestion is convenient to you in your role - but what 'harm' it would do to our forum? Perhaps I can ask you, or anyone to provide - in as many words as they require - why they would consider that always openly placing some indication where and when any form of imposed censorship had taken place and giving a very brief reason why - would be so harmful to our forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jacqui.c Date: 04 Aug 06 - 07:15 AM Maybe they just aren't interested at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 04 Aug 06 - 07:11 AM Is that it? I still remain unconvinced - by what some posters may judge to be the few rather mean-spirited answers provided so far. Perhaps other posters reading this are unconvinced too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 03 Aug 06 - 05:01 AM Perhaps Non-Entity Fellow Poster, they are waiting for YOU to provide the answer as to WHY YOU ARE STILL HERE after being asked in plain terms by Max to leave. Go ahead......let's hear it! I judge that may be the subject for another thread and not for this one. Although why you think the answer of this Non-Entity Fellow Poster - would be of any interest, is not clear. But this is only the latest of the names you feel you have some right to call me. It is at least less scatological than the usual names. However, as I am limited to this one thread on 'deleted posts and closed theads' - perhaps you could start a new thread with your question clearly indicated in the title - and I may just answer it for you there. Are there any more posters who would care to provide answers to my questions or discuss the merits of the few answers that have been provided to them here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Aug 06 - 03:56 AM Perhaps Non-Entity Fellow Poster, they are waiting for YOU to provide the answer as to WHY YOU ARE STILL HERE after being asked in plain terms by Max to leave. Go ahead......let's hear it! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 03 Aug 06 - 02:49 AM Yes of course they were loaded questions - but it is now a rather loaded situation. Are there any more posters who would care to provide answers to them. I remain unconvinced by those few provided so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 02 Aug 06 - 12:05 PM What he SHOULD do is go back to posting on music and the occasional funny thread and stop questioning the administrative policies and practices.....but he has painted himself into a psychological corner and can't comprehend how 97.83615% of all opinions can disagree with his paranoid nonsense. He can't even figure out HOW to go away, as this campaign fills such a big part of his life, and he'd have to ummmmmm..write more letters to his MP on pub singing...or something. Don Quixote at least had Sancho Panza to lead him away when the windmills got too frustrating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Big Mick Date: 02 Aug 06 - 09:44 AM You beat me two it, Spaw. Things aren't equal here, or anywhere. Moderators have certain privileges granted to them by Max, in exchange they try to keep things running smooth. Some folks, like this person Shambles, have made themselves less equal by squandering their reputation with inane cut and pastes, taking quotes out of context, and trolling for attention at the expense of others. I believe he should accept the invitation of the founder/owner of this site and leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Aug 06 - 09:10 AM Actually Mario, it goes beyond that. We are NOT all equal here. I mean, you and I are and thousands others as well, even the unnamed Guests. However Sham is NOT equal. Shambolina, let me explain this so there isn't anymore confusion on your part. With your passion for renaming things (Joe Offer='current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) I think it is time for you to refer to yourself as "Non-Entity Fellow Poster." You post here but you are a non-entity deserving diddly-squat, and you get plenty of diddly-squat so consider yourself lucky. You are qa non-entity because Max in very clear terms asked you to go. You stayed but you are now definitely a non-entity and not equal to your fellow posters. Simple isn't it? Non-Entity Fellow Poster, I hope that you understand. If you don't it doesn't matter. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: MMario Date: 02 Aug 06 - 08:20 AM Because MAX (the site owner, remember him?) decided he wanted some people to moderate. He doesn't wish for them to have to stop being contributing members, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 02 Aug 06 - 02:41 AM No one appears to want to provide an answer to this one? Why it it is not now possible (or desirable) for all contributors to be seen to be once again to be posting on equal terms? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: katlaughing Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:48 PM subjected to 'silent deletion') |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST Date: 01 Aug 06 - 08:34 PM Why can't people accept Joe's advise, it's good for all our sakes. He knows what he is talking about. D. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Clinton Hammond Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:26 AM "Don't pick on Shambles" Shambles isn't worth the steam off my piss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:17 AM and Roger....what in MMario's post is unclear to you? You ask loaded questions of the "When will you stop beating your wife?" type. You evade the issue when someone points out that the ultimate 'answer' is that Max has empowered certain people to DO editing. "Can it be explained why my request that any editing comments (especially those containing only personal opinions) are not inserted into my posts without my prior permission is ignored?" ....see above. NOT ignored, just not accepted. Editorial comments of that sort BELONG at the point where the editing was done. It makes sense to put the comments there, whether you approve or not! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Grab Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:16 AM Can it be explained why my request that any editing comments (especially those containing only personal opinions) are not inserted into my posts without my prior permission is ignored? Shambles, you may have missed this, even though you block-quoted it, since it does not match up to how you're trying to paint the situation. Your other requests have not been ignored - they just have not been accepted. -Joe Offer- What part of that was so hard to understand? At the risk of being repetitive, please can you also let us know what part of "You too, should bid goodbye" did you not get? I notice that you've never yet responded to that, despite the number of times people asked you to explain why you're still around, given that Max has said he doesn't want you here. Sorry for giving into temptation, given your earlier comment that anyone who suspects a poster is only trying to get a reaction should leave them be. I sincerely believe that this is the case with you. If it isn't the case, number one priority for you should be to explain why you're still here, and still banging on the same subject, after being told "You too, should bid goodbye". As a "reasonable man", the reasonableness of being politely requested to leave by the site owner should be an overriding concern to you. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: MMario Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:00 AM why they would consider that always openly placing some indication where and when any form of imposed censorship had taken place and giving a very brief reason why - would be so harmful to our forum? loaded question. I don't think anyone has ever said they thought it would be harmful to our forum. I think it is an unreasonable request to ask of unpaid staff who are doing a job requested of them by the site owner. why the alternative of selective imposed judgement and 'silent deletion' by anonymous fellow posters as a first and only resort - is not? again - a loaded question - since Shambles insists on the inclusion of "selective" and "imposed" - and also saying that it is a "first and only" resort. The people who edit, delete, etc are all acting as Max's proxies - with his consent. Since he does, and furthermore has stated that he reserves the right to delete, alter, edit, etc ANY POST or thread on the site it is not an imposition - but a possibility for any posting. ** BY POSTING ** any author of a post on this site is agreeing to those terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 01 Aug 06 - 10:53 AM So, I guess that's a "no." Apology to Jeffp: Sorry for the misunderstanding. Your request has not been ignored - it has just have not been accepted. But at least the full reasons for this have now been explained to you. Perhaps I can ask you, or anyone to provide - in as many words as they require - why they would consider that always openly placing some indication where and when any form of imposed censorship had taken place and giving a very brief reason why - would be so harmful to our forum? And why the alternative of selective imposed judgement and 'silent deletion' by anonymous fellow posters as a first and only resort - is not? Why it is not now possible (or desirable) when any form of minor change is judged to be required to a contribution, for the originator to be first consulted (where this is possible) and agreement reached before any form of editing action is imposed on their chosen words? Why it it is not now possible (or desirable) for all contributors to be seen to be once again to be posting on equal terms? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jeffp Date: 01 Aug 06 - 06:51 AM So, I guess that's a "no." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 01 Aug 06 - 05:10 AM Can our forum be informed what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would now define the term 'hijacking' as? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 01 Aug 06 - 04:28 AM Roger the fact that this forum is divided is largely up to you, your aggressive and repeated postings FORCE people to take sides. I say it again YOU are creating divisions on this site. Just because Bert has taken up the cudgels on your behalf, it doesn't mean that suddenly your arguments have become acceptable to all and sundry, Bert is in the minority here, as all can see. Occasionally people will say "Don't pick on Shambles" or words to that effect, but that is just sympathy Roger not support, the natural support for the weak. Now if you came round to my house and wrote graffitti on my wall I would erase it, and I would do so without asking your permission. This Mudcat Cafe is Max's wall, and if he wants to erase your pitiful whinings, then he has every right to do so, him or anybody he appoints. AND HE DOESN'T NEED TO ASK YOU OR EXPLAIN TO YOU OR ANYTHING ELSE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY HE PUTS UP WITH YOUR PUKING AND MEWLING.. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 01 Aug 06 - 03:16 AM Shambles, in all seriousness, can you sum up this principle and this point in fewer than 10 words each? I probably could make the attempt but why would I or anyone need to limit anything they may want to say here to less than 10 words or any other limit? This is not a chat room. It is a discussion forum and the little message box at the bottom will expand to accomodate all the words that any poster may feel are required, to enable them to say what they wish. In all seriousness - if you really do not understand by now - now matter how many or how few words are used - you will never understand. Perhaps I can ask you to provide - (in as many words as you require) - why you would consider that always placing some indication where and when any form of imposed censorship had taken place and giving a very brief reason why - would be so harmful to our forum? Especially when against my wishes, some of our 'moderators' still insist on inserting all manner of editing comments into my posts (except of course the posts on mine that have been judged and subjected to 'silent deletion'). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 01 Aug 06 - 02:52 AM Can it be explained why my request that any editing comments (especially those containing only personal opinions) are not inserted into my posts without my prior permission is ignored? When and the time taken to do this can always be found and such action always justified even when no imposed censorship action has been imposed. And why the simple matter - requested and supported by many posters - of always placing an editing comment to indicate where and when any form of imposed censorship action has taken place and is judged to have been required, does not find favour (at least does not appear to with those who feel themselves qualified to impose these judgements)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jeffp Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:56 PM Well I try my best with any reasoned attempt to argue with the rather simple but vital principle I try to defend at the heart of the point here. I know I'm going to regret this, but I'll ask anyway. Shambles, in all seriousness, can you sum up this principle and this point in fewer than 10 words each? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:34 PM Who would possibly post to this forum knowing that a endless barrage of arguments will destroy their point and force them to spend all day defending it, and every subsequent attempt at meaning. I feel that even after so many years of having every suggestion made being ignored and encouraged to be mocked - I still do my best to try and post to our forum despite the above. Well I try my best with any reasoned attempt to argue with the rather simple but vital principle I try to defend at the heart of the point here. But too many posts here tend to ignore this approach and just resort to abusive personal attacks. Mainly because this response is now shown - by the example given by those few who feel themselves qualified to impose judgement on their fellow posters - to be an acceptable one. And that to feel accepted, on our now sadly divided forum (or rather to be seen to be on the right or the winning side)- would seem to be more important than to feel you were doing and supporting the decent thing. The view of any poster does not not get any less valid - because others try every trick in the book (and a few that are not) to try and repress it and to try and make this repression appear somehow noble. I am a man who remains open to persuasion - I have yet to be persuaded by any argument here that, anonymous, selective, secret and imposed judgement, division, inequality and hypocrisy are good things. Nor have I been persuaded that there is such a thing as 'acceptable' repression as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team seems to believe there is. You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. Apology to Shambles: Sorry for the misunderstanding. Messages from Clinton have been undeleted. Your other requests have not been ignored - they just have not been accepted. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bert Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:04 PM Thanks for the explanations Joe, they go a long way to help the situation. I do agree with Shambles though, that a simple explanation would not hurt, and it would go a long way to prove the integrity of the editors and back up their cause. Now I'm off to the Limerick game thread to see what is going on there. Care to join me everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Clinton Hammond Date: 31 Jul 06 - 05:28 PM "arguments will destroy their point " If it's that easily 'destroyed', then it was not not much of a point..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Wesley S Date: 31 Jul 06 - 05:19 PM Mick - If you recall - Max suggested that Clinton leave also. I don't see much difference between Clinton and Shambles anyway. Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Max - PM Date: 12 May 06 - 06:30 PM Clinton, maybe you should pack it in and move on too. Do you do this to every thread? God I'm sick of this. I can't even stand to read this thread now. Who would possibly post to this forum knowing that a endless barrage of arguments will destroy their point and force them to spend all day defending it, and every subsequent attempt at meaning. You've posted 39 times in this thread, are you really that interested in this topic or are you bored, out of work or is convoluting threads a hobby of yours? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Big Mick Date: 31 Jul 06 - 04:42 PM Nope, CH, he just needs to leave, as Max indicated he should. Go away, Shambles. There is not one reason to stay except to be a dumping ground for your repetitive crap. Just leave. Find a place where people value your opinion. Those people, including the site owner, are few and far between here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Clinton Hammond Date: 31 Jul 06 - 02:31 PM Shambles... fuck off and get a life |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 06 - 02:21 PM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post (of mine, despite the fact that I have repeatedly asked than nothing be inserted into my posts without my prior permission) and did not refresh the thread. Yes, ordinarily a message like that would be deleted, but I didn't want to provoke you into a tirade about my deleting a message concerning yourself. Since you asked, I'd be glad to. I'm glad you now see the need for such deletions. Clinton's message has been deleted. -Joe Offer- As can be seen - I have pointed out that this abusive personal attack was NOT 'silently deleted'. For the record - I have NOT asked anyone to delete these two posts or any of the other abusive personal attacks directed at me. Perhaps an apology can be provided from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for wrongly stating to our forum in his editing comment - that I did? However I have asked for other things which are simply ignored. Amongst these requests was that when any form of censorship action is imposed some indication is always given in its place and a brief reason stated. Perhaps this can start in this thread?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: SINSULL Date: 31 Jul 06 - 02:19 PM AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHH! People are dying in the Middle East, Ohio is flooded and families are homeless, AIDS is still decimating whole villages in Africa and you waste all this time and space on pure bullshit! Grow the hell up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: catspaw49 Date: 31 Jul 06 - 02:14 PM Joe, you have made a serious error!!!! Although I am glad that Sham now sees the need for removal of some posts, the changes you made in HIS post are exactly what he is complaining about! Restore all the words whited out otherwise you are censoring HIS post.....and I'm sure he doesn't want that. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 06 - 02:06 PM Shambles, one more time: Citing someone else's opinion of someone is not playing fair. Clinton's opinion of you is warranted. In my opinion. You really couldn't make all these multiple standards of judgement up...Ebbie how can you accuse me of not playing fair? How can you consider anything about the current censorship chaos on our forum to be fair? So Ebbie would you judge it to be fair if I responded in kind and inflicted on our forum - what my opinion of Clinton was and used the same language to do it? Or would you judge this be me not playing fair - especially if you judged the abuse not to be warranted? Would you judge me to be showing mean-spiritedness? Does it matter if a post containing only an abusive personal attack is judged by you to be warranted or not? As by the 'rules' - which you appear to support when applied to my posting 'crimes' - surely it must be 'silently deleted'? And preferably quickly before you can see it, to remove the risk of you and other posters being offended by it or even have a chance to just whether you judge the abuse to be warranted or not? Perhaps Ebbie it is you who are displaying and supporting any mean-spiritedness? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Ebbie Date: 31 Jul 06 - 12:37 PM Shambles, one more time: Citing someone else's opinion of someone is not playing fair. Clinton's opinion of you is warranted. In my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 06 - 03:33 AM The following example remains uncensored. It is not only a post containing just an abusive personal attack - it also contains offensive language and now - sin of all sins - it is a duplication........ Ebbie may even judge it to be mean-spirited. Or would do - if it were posted by me instead of directed at me. Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: ClintonHammond - PM Date: 30 Jul 06 - 02:04 PM Shambles.... Your constant bullshit is the most obnoxious thing in this thread get fucked |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jul 06 - 02:23 AM Shambles and Bert, do you really think we need to take the time to post an explanation for these? -Joe Offer- Why not? And even if such posts remain in place - no online poster is going to be shocked by seeing such a post are they- as we all have gotten used to ignoring them. But such clear-cut examples as you have provided to justify your view and which will no doubt be supported - are not really the sort of 'silently deleted' postings and imposed judgement and actions that really cause concern are they? But even is such cases - with no indication given as to when and where it takes place - no poster on our forum knows what the true nature and level of censorship is. So they cannot either agree or disagree with your view from any informed position. If there are no alternative ways of acheiving what is now judged to be required or these have failed and this imposition MUST happen - all that would be required is some indication where any form of imposed censorship action was judged to have been required and very brief indicaton of the reason. Like the following: Post censored - Offensive material. Post censored - Abusive personal attack. Thread closed - (And the reason why). If this imposition is judged to now be required on our forum - what would be the harm in always openly indicating this? I suggest the most harm is done by those wishing to undertake it - being seen not to wish to indicate this and not providing convincing reasons as to why. |