 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Jul 06 - 10:21 PM This is a typical deleted message: Subject: RE: Review: The Dubliners - What's the big deal? From: GUEST,Porn - PM 202.159.212.165 Date: 30 Jul 06 - 12:14 PM Visit Porn uha site. http://porn-uha.blogspot.com - 2 Hundred GB's of fresh porn. Thanks! Best reagards, Porn! Shambles and Bert, do you really think we need to take the time to post an explanation for these? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: katlaughing Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:30 PM Bert, you know better than that! Change is inevitable especially when the number of members increases as rapidly as Mudcat has over a relatively short period of time. Shambles has been at it for over seven years. Mudcat started really changing about 3-4 years ago. A lot of the old members got fed up with the constant bullshit that was tolerated and the lack of moderation and either left or quit posting. A FEW of them have started to come back now there is more balance. Visit any of the various boards Spaw, I, and others have posted as examples of how moderating works well for the whole community. In any of those Shambles would have been zapped, no explanations, no debates, no ifs, ands, or buts, them's the rules. So, for that matter, would have several of the rest of us when we get out of line. It works well and they still have spirited, highly charged debates. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:25 PM By default the majority of Mudcatters would seem to be quite happy with the way the site operates, as is the site owner. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is not happy - is he? He now does as he wishes to the all posts and threads on our forum but he is still not happy. And no matter what further restrictions he will attempt to impose - I suspect he will never be happy. No - he is annoyed. Over the years He publicly tells us that he is annoyed by birthday threads, by copycat threads, by posters that refresh old threads, by posters who start new threads, by PELs threads, by claims for 100th posts etc etc..... The list is endless. Should any poster be expected to care if he is annoyed? ....If he is so annoyed - why does he not finally go away and leave the rest of us in peace? Or leave it to a 'moderator' whose wish is to enable the wishes of posters and not to express his annoyance at them when their wishes may not match? Some people seem to think that even the expression of annoyance is an unacceptable form of repression. -Joe Offer, annoyed- Does the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team really think that there IS an 'acceptable' form of repression? If so, perhaps he can tell us what this is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bert Date: 30 Jul 06 - 06:46 PM Well said Peace. jacqui.c says ...there are a minute number of people who want changes made... Actually, the thing is - we DON'T want changes made. It's the folks making too many changes and deletions that have changed the face of Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Peace Date: 30 Jul 06 - 06:40 PM If y'all don't like Shambles POV, you are entitled to ignore it. has a right to express his thoughts, again and again and again. He is no less illuminating than some of his detractors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jacqui.c Date: 30 Jul 06 - 01:40 PM I've been giving some thought to this subject. It seems to me that, if a large number of Mudcatters were of the same opinion as Roger, this thread would have been inundated with their objections to the editing policy of Max's moderators. This is also the case with previous threads on the same subject. Looking at the posters to this and to other threads of the same type it would appear that there are a minute number of people who want changes made, mostly, it appears, to allow them to ride their own hobby horses to death, or because they want to cause trouble, as in the case of the anti women/anti men threads. By default the majority of Mudcatters would seem to be quite happy with the way the site operates, as is the site owner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jacqui.c Date: 30 Jul 06 - 12:41 PM You're right Ebbie - the problem is spreading again! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 30 Jul 06 - 12:20 PM ahem..Roger...I also, personally, absolve you of having to follow any of the prescriptions passed on by ol' Catspaw, who has been known to suggest even MORE complex behavior with even less provocation! VERY naughty boys, 'spaw & Clinton both! Now, as to other less....ummm....'personal' suggestions made by countless others for several years now...such as *stop complaining about the mods*....I might have a different opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jul 06 - 12:03 PM When someone is restricted to airing his redundant and tedious view on one thread only how is it that I keep running into those same views on multiple threads? I once had a brother who after having agreed to a pact of silence of a certain subject operated under the assumption that the only thing prohibited was the other person's right to respond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: catspaw49 Date: 30 Jul 06 - 11:44 AM Personally Bill, he may need fucked.....might be his whole problem. Pent up sexual urges causing his problem? Could be. I checked with Dr. Cajones at the NYCFTTS and he seems to agree. He wrote this scrip for Roger: Rx for The Shambles Go get yourself a partner of either sex that you might prefer and of any species you prefer and go at it til ya' "git 'r done." Then have yourself a good cry, an enema. a blowjob, perhaps a cigar, and see if ya' don't feel better. If not, repeat til you do ....... and don't return here til you clear it with Max. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 30 Jul 06 - 10:31 AM Well, Clinton sure did go beyond the guidelines there! Yes, indeed! He is a naughty boy! It is my opinion, and I hope others will agree, that despite what Clinton says, Roger, you do not have to get fucked! Hope this helps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 30 Jul 06 - 04:30 AM You could have said all that in just the last 4 lines Roger, why you indulge in all that verbal diarrhoea is beyond me. It just means people don't read your diatribes for fear of catching terminal boredom. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 30 Jul 06 - 03:19 AM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. Duplicate and blank messages have always been the first ones to be deleted, and the clones are not required to report those seletions. Deletion of offensive and threatening messages must be reported to Max, Jeff, or me for review. Offensive and threatening message were not really much of an issue for the first two or three years of the existence of Mudcat. I suggest this was the case because those whose would feel themselves qualified to inpose their judgement on us now - did not then themselves set the example that such things were acceptable by publicly indulging in making such posts. And set a less mean-spirited and less hypocritcal example than they currently do. Perhaps simple duplicated or blank posts can now simply be left alone or dealt with by first contacting the poster (where this is possible)? As imposed anonymous 'silent deletion' may be judged as being a little OTT as a first and only resort? "Hijacking" and other obnoxious messages are responded to with appropriate expressions of annoyance and not usually deleted, but we reserve the right to control troublemaking of any kind. Some people seem to think that even the expression of annoyance is an unacceptable form of repression. -Joe Offer, annoyed- Why should any poster be expected to be interested if the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, known members of that team or the unkown number of anonymous volunteer members of that team are annoyed about anything on our forum? If any of these are annoyed by the conduct of their fellow posters - no one is preventing them from going eleswhere - where they will not be annoyed or can take their annoyance out on each other. Can our forum be informed what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team defines - hijacking and obnoxious messages as? Would the following qualify? Your constant bullshit is the most mean-spirited thing in this thread get fucked |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Jul 06 - 03:50 PM You're doing it again Roger, I don't understand your gibberish. G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 06 - 03:41 PM Some posters may agree that not all the so-called posting 'crimes' that currently receive the one and only maximum penalty of imposed and often anonymous 'silent deletion' or closure - are really serious enough to deserve this. Some may think that always imposing such treatment anonymously as a first and only resort, based on assumptions - is showing mean-spiritedness and may very often prove counter-productive. Some may think that so-called posting 'crimes' that are largely matters of taste or of a personal sense of order, should be dealt without haste - by our 'moderators' first making an effort to obtain agreement and understanding with the posters concerned about any proposed change. Or left alone. Some may think that that there are occasions when urgent censorship action of certain posts is the best option - but would prefer if such action was reserved ONLY for these occasions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Clinton Hammond Date: 29 Jul 06 - 03:32 PM "This in an attempt to avoid any mean-spiritedness?" Your constant bullshit is the most mean-spirited thing in this thread get fucked |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Jul 06 - 03:13 PM It's an old ploy Roger, those who don't want to follow the existing rules want to replace them with rules they CAN follow, i.e The rules according to Roger. G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bert Date: 29 Jul 06 - 03:09 PM It is funny that the clones having at first deleted just threatening messages, then offensive ones, and then duplicate ones and then hijacking ones, finally ran out of things to delete. To keep their fingers busy, as they couldn't go a minute without deleting something, they extended their great powers and now use them to delete NOTHING (For those of them who don't get it, a blank message is nothing).
"Hijacking" and other obnoxious messages are responded to with appropriate expressions of annoyance and not usually deleted, but we reserve the right to control troublemaking of any kind. Some people seem to think that even the expression of annoyance is an unacceptable form of repression. -Joe Offer, annoyed- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 06 - 03:09 PM To try and move back to the threads' subject. Perhaps the following suggestion can be considered and discussed? This in an attempt to avoid any mean-spiritedness? The following in Joe's FAQ was introduced a little late in the day - as the horse had long perviously left the stable but is probably sensible as a guide - or is is up to this point. The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. [Perhaps the word 'we' can be lost too and replaced with - but there are times when some action may need to be taken etc)?] I suggest that the rest of what currently follows it can be safely lost and replaced by something like the following? Whenever any form of action is judged necessary - this will be always be indicated and a brief explanation provided - but wherever possible, effort will always be made to avoid imposition, by an attempt to obtain prior agreement with the poster concerned (via personal messages). Then perhaps it can be removed from the FAQ and placed in some prominent position on our forum so that ALL posters will be aware of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Clinton Hammond Date: 29 Jul 06 - 03:03 PM Then let that spirit move you Shambles.... far far away from here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:36 PM Roger I tell you quite frankly that I didn't understand a word of you post of 01:55PM Your circumlocution is a legend in some circles: now I know why! G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:18 PM That's the spirit........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Clinton Hammond Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:16 PM Shambles you should go away |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Ebbie Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:09 PM Gracious. Must be the mean spirit in me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 06 - 01:55 PM Sorry Rog did I forget nit-picking, we are sorry, (that's from all of us BTW). I am sure that if I were to suggest that you go - 'Gang awa an' bile yer heid' that Ebbie would judge this to be mean-spirited of me- so I won't suggest you do this. However, when you earlier suggested it to me (as a favoured poster safe in the knowledge that yet another abusive personal attack from you would not be subject to 'silent deletion' - Ebbie (by her lack of comment) would appear to consider such a post by you, to be a suitable contribution to a discussion? If posting mean-spiritness is judged not now to be acceptable conduct on our forum (by Ebbie at least) - perhaps such judgement should be equally applied to all posters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Jul 06 - 07:40 AM Sorry Rog did I forget nit-picking, we are sorry, (that's from all of us BTW). G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jul 06 - 05:09 AM I do like to see you kept busy Roger, we wouldn't want you to get bored, after all if you're hectoring us, you're leaving some other poor soul alone. Giok This is a classic.... It contains an 'I' a 'we' an 'us' and a 'you' - and just in case someone isn't spoken to or about - an unspecified 'other poor soul' is thrown in. All in an attempt to defend the posting only of an abusive personal attack and make it look as if it was undertaken in some noble and selfless cause. And I am accused (along with every crime on the planet) of 'hectoring'? I grew up in a large family. One of the things one learns early on - or should- Shambles, is that one never says the worst thing one can think of, and one fights fair. You seem to have missed that part. Ebbie does your public criticsm of my 'crimes' extend to other posters? Does it extend to those who have not even been taken to task by you and have not apologised to you for their mean-spiritedness displayed in this thread? Is that what you consider to be fair? What I consider to be fair is a return to equal treatment for all posters, for contributions to remain as posted and any form of imposed censorship be limited and always explained. Others seem determined to consider that this state of affairs would be terrible and resort to all manner of attempts to prevent any sensible discussion and debate or move from the status quo. Even though they are never happy with this and wish to impose more and more restrictions. As for accusations that I have said the worst thing I can think of - I have certainly not done that. I have tried my best to stick to the issue. I have not judged Jon's worth at all and tried to avoid any form of personal judgement of any fellow poster and to avoid responding in kind to the judgement and isults I receive. Ebbie - It had been pointed out in this thread what a third party's opinion of me was. As you made no comment on this, presumambly this is not judged by you to be mean-spirited? I just re-posted the same third party's judgement of Jon - which presumably Jon had already seen and later stated does not bother him. So why does this bother you so much when the numerous other examples displayed here of mean-spritedness pass without any comment from you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 28 Jul 06 - 07:45 PM Shambles, I would be very surprised to think that you don't know what was mean spirited in your post. The rude things that you refer to were said directly to you; YOU brought in a third party. I grew up in a large family. One of the things one learns early on - or should- Shambles, is that one never says the worst thing one can think of, and one fights fair. You seem to have missed that part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jeffp Date: 28 Jul 06 - 03:59 PM No |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 28 Jul 06 - 03:48 PM Ooh I'm so dizzy trying follow this circular argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 28 Jul 06 - 03:33 PM I have never stated any assumptions and I challenge you to find any. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I apologize for assuming that you are not stupid. How about an apology for stating that you have never stated ANY assumptions and for losing your challenge? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST Date: 28 Jul 06 - 12:41 PM And one that Ebbie may judge and take you to task for being a mean-spirited one? Shambles this is the second time you have had a go at Ebbie since apologising to her for showing mean-spiritedness yesterday in this thread. Clearly your apology meant nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jeffp Date: 28 Jul 06 - 11:25 AM I apologize for assuming that you are not stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: MMario Date: 28 Jul 06 - 11:19 AM now you are assuming that jeffp used "bastard" in the literal meaning - rather then the far more common usage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 28 Jul 06 - 11:15 AM I have never stated any assumptions and I challenge you to find any. It wasn't too difficult to find some examples - was it? How about this one? [PM] jeffp In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) (697* d) RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) 19 Aug 05 YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless you knew for sure the family history of whoever that (un censored) abusive personal attack was aimed - that would have certainly been an assumption also. And one that Ebbie may judge and take you to task for being a mean-spirited one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 28 Jul 06 - 10:53 AM I have never stated any assumptions and I challenge you to find any. Will this assumption do for a start? [PM] jeffp Mudcat Help&Trouble Forum? (Complaint) (90* d) RE: Mudcat Help&Trouble Forum? (Complaint) 11 May 06 I believe you're right, Spaw. Nobody can possibly be as stupid as Roger portrays himself and be able to breathe on his own. I think we've all been had by a master. To keep a joke running for this many years is a truly amazing feat. Shambles, I salute you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 28 Jul 06 - 08:55 AM I do like to see you kept busy Roger, we wouldn't want you to get bored, after all if you're hectoring us, you're leaving some other poor soul alone. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 28 Jul 06 - 08:49 AM Who are all the other moderators? Their name is legion. You may have missed the following (and various coloured) editing comments as these were inserted into an existing post and did not refresh this thread. But you can get some indication what great fun some of them appear to consider that lining-up to anonymously impose all this judgement, 'silent deltion' and all forms of censorship upon some of their fellow posters appears to be. Some of their number may not see their role as a joke in the same manner and it would be nice to pay them credit. But as they are anonymous - they all tend to get tarred with the same brush. At the moment anyway. Note to Clones: I'm here for the entire summer, so there's no need for you to do any editing work on this thread. I can handle it, if it's needed. okay, joe! -clone- dang it, you get all the fun. OK. And green is my color, whoever you are. LOL. Mudelf [we hear and obey, oh exhalted one skinny clone] Can I get Calomine for my itchy fingers then? Mudpiskie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 28 Jul 06 - 08:33 AM You have Scottish connections Roger so you'll understand me when I suggest that you. 'Gang awa an' bile yer heid' Are we to assume that this post of yours has malicous intentions - and will be 'silently deleted'? No I thought not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 28 Jul 06 - 08:29 AM You may have missed the following editting comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. What it shows is that empty messages and empty threads get deleted. Some may contend that a blank message is a statement - but at Mudcat, like it or not, it gets deleted. Your three threads were deleted by volunteer/Clones because they were simply empty messages, which the Clones have authority to delete. The men's thread had to wait for my review because it got responses before the Clones got to it - I deleted it because it was started under deceptive and manipulative premises. Not inconsistent - it just doesn't follow YOUR predictions. The topics, while they may have been distasteful, weren't the reason for deletion - they were deleted because YOU were playing manipulative games. -Joe Offer- The message appears to be that there are only a certain few who are now allowed to play (what are assumed and judged by them to be) deceptive and manipulative games and to set the example of posting maliciously intended name-calling and personal attacks........... Rather than being expected to support this hypocrisy - perhaps adult posters can now be left to decide such things for themselves? Rather than have anonymous and favoured fellow posters operating under a double standard - judging and assuming the intent and worth of posters and deciding for them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 28 Jul 06 - 08:28 AM You have Scottish connections Roger so you'll understand me when I suggest that you. 'Gang awa an' bile yer heid' G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST Date: 28 Jul 06 - 08:10 AM Unlike this thread - where you will see that all other 'moderators' have been warned off............. Who are all the other moderators? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jeffp Date: 28 Jul 06 - 07:55 AM Why get your knickers in a twist by assuming what my assumptions may be? I have never stated any assumptions and I challenge you to find any. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 28 Jul 06 - 07:53 AM Why get your knickers in a twist by assuming what the 'intent' of a deletion may be? As you have no evidence that the many and various forms of imposed censorship upon mine and other's contributions, are not malicious or personally motivated why would you assume (as you obviously appear to do and in face of the evidence to the contrary) that they never are? should you not at least be giving the victims the benefit of the doubt? My knickers are less twisted about any assumptions than they are about the actuality of imposed judgements made and encouraged based only on assumptions about possible intent. If all posters were openly to be seen to receive equal treatment - there would be little need for any judgements and assumptions to be made. Where normal logic applies - in cases where there was ANY question that one individual may be seen to be recieving special and personlly motivated treatment from another in a position of trust and responsibility - the latter would remove themselves from any dealings. Unlike this thread - where you will see that all other 'moderators' have been warned off............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: clairerise Date: 28 Jul 06 - 05:06 AM Still doesn't explain why a thread asking are all men sexual perverts stayed, and a thread asking are all girls easy? Whatever way you try to condemn me, the point stands. And...it is a point you are unable to refute. It is a sad indication.
But, whatever.... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jeffp Date: 27 Jul 06 - 07:01 PM Why get your knickers in a twist by assuming what the 'intent' of a deletion may be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 06 - 06:34 PM It matters if they were started with malicious intent Bert. Why get your knickers in a twist by assuming what the 'intent' of a posts may be? As it does not appear to matter now if threads are closed and posts' are silently deleted' with malicious intent - as long as they are someone elses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Jul 06 - 05:22 PM It matters if they were started with malicious intent Bert. G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bert Date: 27 Jul 06 - 05:12 PM Why should it matter who started them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 27 Jul 06 - 05:10 PM "bigoted" = "doesn't agree with ME" and like Joe showed, you, clairerise, started all those threads anonymously. |