BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: Review: National Folk Festival, Canberra, 2006
From: GUEST,Porn
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 06:51 PM

Hi, man! Your rock! look for my site - porn for free, http://porn-station.blogspot.com - porn, [url="http://porn-station.blogspot.com"]porn[/url], and last, but not least - [url]http://porn-station.blogspot.com[/url]. Best Porn Links - every day.

---

Sample of a typical deleted message, moved here for demonstration purposes. I moved all of the messages from August 10-12 into this thread, so people can see just what we've been deleting.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 05:04 AM

Shambles still here and why?

Deleted posts & closed threads

The above two threads have been subject to imposed closure and the following explanation provided in an inserted editing comment.

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps those posters who are interested in this subject can be permitted to continue the debate on this new thread - without such flimsy excuses needing to be found - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - to close this thread too?

How exactly was this 'popular request' determined? For such action is certainly not popular with me. And as the originator of one of these threads and the subject of the other. Perhaps I could have been consulted before any form of action was imposed?

If any posters make request to our 'modertaors' for any threads be closed - cannot they just be told not to open them? As both of these threads were (originally at least) clearly titled.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: gnu
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 05:43 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 05:55 AM

Nope.
didn't take long....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 09:12 AM

SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 10:49 AM

So LOCK this one too!!!

D'uh

Why won't you mods do your jobs???

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 10:56 AM

Oh no .... sorta like one of those annoying neighbours who come over to chat and complain endlessly about nothing you are interested in everytime you go out to cut the lawn or just want to sit on your porch alone and enjoy life.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM

Shambles-you piss me off.

A third of the worlds population dosn't know where there next meal is coming from, there is homelessness, child neglect etc, half the middle east is killing each other, and loads of other real problems, yet you witter on all day every day about cencorship on a folk music website!

get a fucking life, if you feel the need to campaign, at least choose a worthwhile cause, its just a website.

anyway= max said if you dont like it leave=
"shambles you are a big moany, shut up moaning or leave"

(Max, ages ago)


anyway=you never post nothing nice, or funny, or intersting or helpfull, you just moan, and make everybody fed up, loads of people left mudcat, i bet some of them left becase of you moaning.

you wont answer me, becase you havent got a good anser.

john

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM

Please delete him permanently.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM

Ya... I have a bb gun for neighbours like that....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 11:36 AM

"imposed closure" is redundant.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 11:43 AM

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-

Is this thread judged to have gone on long enough or to be 'Nasty enought to close yet?

Or is there not enough of a 'popular request' for it yet (how is this determined BTW)?


Is there no chance now of any joined-up thinking being undertaken on the part of our 'moderators' - before their knee-jerk reactions plunge our forum into yet more chaos?

For of course the message is now clearly being given here, as to how any poster who wishes a thread to be closed, can go about this. And our 'moderators' can place rather big hints which threads on what subjects they would prefer were not publicly discussed.

For of course this action is in fact telling posters and encouraging some of them (intentionally or otherwise) that the posting to any thread - of offensive language, abusive personal attacks and anything that could be judged as 'Nasty' - will not result in any action on the offending posts or against the offending posters - but will result in the threads closure and the prevention of the discussion contained in it.   

Now if our 'moderators' are really interested in the prevention of abusive personal attacks and general 'Nastyness' - the latest message given-out by this action - is just about certain to increase such things.

As this action is claimed and justified by being a response to a popular request - it will also ensure that mean-spirited posts judging the worth of fellow posters and calling for censorship action to be imposed on them - will also only increase as a result. Rather than these posters being told to concentrate on their own posts and to mind their own business.

Most witch-hunts, burnings and lynchings are said to be undertaken due to what is claimed to be by 'popular request'. Another term for this would be mob-rule.

When some accurate means of obtaining and demonstrating the wishes of the majority is undertaken before any action is taken - this is called democracy.

We are now told that our forum is not a democracy and that is fine. But perhaps from now on - any pretence that action is imposed due to 'popular request' can end - unless some real attempt is seen to be made to ascertain what the majority actually do wish - as opposed to acting on the wishes of noisy and unrepresentitive mob (only when these are the same wishes as our 'moderators') and claiming this is due to 'popular request'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 11:50 AM

See, you havent got a good anser!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 11:56 AM

What was the question?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM

The question has to be "WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE"? I have known some thick skinned people in my life. I have known some stupid people in my life. I have known some pathetic people in my life. I have seen many people and known of many people (in that I include myself) being ignorant of protocol in certain situations and behaving thoughtlessly as a result. You(The Shambles) are by far the first person I have come across who does not know when to give up! I have nothing against you personally but have seen what your postings and indeed your threads consist of. I have also seen many others comments which you do not seem to take on board. You are engineering some sort of personal crusade against the very people who actually have some authority on mudcat (as you certainly have none, but for the grace of those who tolerate you).
I stick mainly to the music threads now as I have been fed up with seeing your attacks!
Please Shambles, either settle down and find a place you can be happy with on the mudcat...without trying to change it to suit your own requirements...or if you cannot settle to it, please depart and allow the others the joy and peace that can be found for the most part in BS.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 12:17 PM

He owns the site and asked you to leave......shouldn't be anymore justification needed. But I gues you're just "special" aren't you Roger?.....LOL........

You really ARE mental Dude!

Spa

It does look as if the thought processes of one of us are more than a little confused..

For when the reports of my death had been greatly exaggerated or rather when you wrongly assumed that Max had actually stopped me from posting – you made this (rather touching) plea for my re-instatement…..

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 12:21 PM

Seems it shouldn't be so hard to understand. The folks that run and keep the site going have the right and duty to moderate the threads. This is a matter of what is and ought to be, and those that don't like it have no grounds to stand on.

And it is no threat to anything on any level whatsoever.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 12:37 PM

PLEASE CLOSE THIS ONE, TOO!!

---

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 12:41 PM

PLEASE!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 12:47 PM

QUICKLY!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 12:50 PM

Or, maybe, you fucking whiners could just quit feeding him? "WAAAAAHHHH! MAKE HIM STOP, MOMMY!!!!" You're shrieking louder than he is. You knew what this was before you opened it, and yet you opened it anyways. Why? Just to whine? To demand it be closed? Ignore it. Or can't you resist opening it, and reading it? Because, like Shambles, you just have to have some idiotic cause to bitch about?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 12:55 PM

So you come in here and join us in whining?

Take your own advice before you try to hand it out, Lupus....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 01:14 PM

But I'm not bothered by any of it, really. And I'm not asking anyone to close a thread. I saw the thread title, thought "Huh, what's Shambles complaining about today?" Not terribly interested, but so bored with reading the endless "Gaza" thread that I imagined I'd find better entertainment elsewhere, I opened the thread. Read a bit of it. "Ah, same thing, then." Shambles doing the usual Shambles thing, and his usual detractors either trying to shout him down, or to reason with him, as if this time, he'll get it. Blah, blah, blah. I cut to the end of the thread, saw there you three jackasses braying in unison, and thought I'd ask what, exactly, Shamblesphobic individuals such as yourselves are even doing on this thread. Not a good question?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 01:18 PM

And Lepus Rex..what are you feeding?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 01:32 PM

Well, I read Shambles threads because they're pretty funny, but I don't normally contribute. Yet, that one was closed down right after he responded to my otherwise mild comment. Perhaps I do have a purpose in this universe after all!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 01:38 PM

Hopefully their little hive minds, Georgiansilver. Like artbrooks, I read these for entertainment. Shambles may be annoying, in some ways, but I hate seeing people try to shut him down. He's not hurting anyone, and, for the most part, he keeps this sort of thing in his own threads. And although Shambles seems to be beyond accepting any kind of advice, the others may bemore receptive. Or so one would hope.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:16 PM

The question has to be "WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE"?

If you are really interested - you will find the answer contained in the following (but now closed thread).

Shambles still here and why?

You are engineering some sort of personal crusade against the very people who actually have some authority on mudcat (as you certainly have none, but for the grace of those who tolerate you).

Mike - if anyone were doing such a strange thing - the reasoning behind why someone would just up and decide to just do such a thing would possibly be something to query. Many would agree that the idea that someone would just up and do such a thing is a stange concept to accept and be ready to condemn such a thing - so why would you or anyone accept such a strange suggestion at face value to be the truth?

The fact that some here would like you to believe such a strange concept would of course let them off of the hook and relieve them from any responsibility. So how likely is it that such a strange concept is all or even part of the truth?

But is questioning - if the purpose nature of any authority is achieving its stated aims, considering that it may in fact be counter-productive and making suggestions as to how these aims may be achieved by less intrusive displays of this authority - to question that overall authority?

I feel that any delegated authority that felt that the correct response to such suggestions should be a hostile one and make constant attempts to supress public discussion of this subject - would be one that was insecure and unsure of the ability of their authority in achieving its stated aims but determined to hang on to this authority - regardless.

It is clear that any personally motivated 'crusade', campaign or special treatment has been engineered against my contributions and justified as something far more noble. What is then being encouraged to be judged harshly - is the fairly understandable reaction to this.

Mine is a determined reaction but a fair one. I do not resort to the name-calling and abusive personal judgements that are the example of acceptable posting set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and subsequently justified, minimised and excused. And I do not respond in kind to the many that are encouraged to be posted at me and which I receive no protection from. I simply try to inform our forum of this - despite the attempts to prevent and restrict this.

I am often urged to concentrate on music related threads. If the assumption is being that my posts will be safe from the special attentions and imposed judgement of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - this assumption would be wrong.

Do you not also think it strange that whenever I produce the evidence of the examples set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, in posting the many name-calling abusive personal judgements of me - some noble sounding reason is found (by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) to close that thread?      

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-

The case for the many forms of selective and personally motivated special treatment imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - is a strong one to anyone with an open mind. And perhaps should be addressed before too many harsh judgements are made of any reaction to them?

Based on the number of threads on this subject that he has found reasons to close - the case that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team simply does not wish this subject to be discussed on our forum - is a pretty strong one also...........

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:23 PM

Blah... blah... blah... blah.....

Shambles.... your 'voice' continues to be muffled by your buttocks

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:57 PM

Shambles. NO ONE CARES!!! There is not one other person who is constantly complaining here. Why should anything be changed because one person out of many is unhappy? You are the lone objector to the so-called editing. Why not channel these complaints and your never give-up actions to something worthwhile like fighting hunger or getting us out or Iraq. Persistence would be respected in a battle like that. It's just laughed at when you spend so much time complaining about editing meaningless threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 05:33 PM

SSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 05:36 PM

You sprung another leak Mick?

At your size, I'm not surprized!

:-P
Heh

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 06:49 PM

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-

You may have missed the above editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

But too much notice should not be taken of these type of assurances - grandly made for public consumption - that are provided in editing comments by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

The following will demonstrate that he is not a man who believes he needs to stand by his word.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

The above assurance was given in   Do you need to be censored?   before the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team subjected it to imposed closure and (along with all the other threads on this subject) - it is now closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:03 PM

So as not to risk providng any excuse for any further form of imposed censorship - I will not copy and paste the evidence here, that usually results in this action - but simply provide a link to it - in the already closed thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1804754

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:10 PM

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1804666

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:15 PM

PLEASE CLOSE THIS USELESS THREAD!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:15 PM

The thread is NOT useless for Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bert
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:42 PM

Some other folks seem to be enjoying it too.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:56 PM

Sham sez -

"You may have missed the above editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

But too much notice should not be taken of these type of assurances - grandly made for public consumption - that are provided in editing comments by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team."

If Joe is grandly making these statements for public consumption then why is he inserting them into an existing post so that it does not refresh the thread?

Hmmm? Awaiting your reply Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John O'L
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:11 PM

Same old posse eh?

You supply the bread & butter, Shambles supplies the bullshit, you eat the sandwich.

Carry on. You deserve each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:22 PM

If Joe is grandly making these statements for public consumption then why is he inserting them into an existing post so that it does not refresh the thread?

Jolly good question. I don't know......... Why not ask him........?

Seems it shouldn't be so hard to understand. The folks that run and keep the site going have the right and duty to moderate the threads. This is a matter of what is and ought to be, and those that don't like it have no grounds to stand on.

Seems like it IS hard to understand. Would you view your Government is such an open and trusting way? For you are prepared to take on trust that this moderation is acceptable, when you currently have no way of being informed of the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. Possibly you are prepared to do this because its abuses are being inflicted on me and other posters but not on you?

The issue is not one of me questioning the right to moderate (or not) this forum.

It is one of questioning the nature of it and if what is claimed - matches up to the reality of what is actually happening. Whether the posters have protection form any personally motivated bias and whether 'moderators' have any protection from accusations of this. Whether what is lost – is worth what is gained.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team often justifies action against something simple like a post appearing in more than one thread – as being unfair. But does not seem to see that imposing 'silent deletion' as a first and only resort to such things, may be thought to be disproportionate, mean-spirited and equally unfair.   

The following indicate a number of problems that tend to get brushed aside in the rush to judge this complicated and thorny issue in simple black and white terms.

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-

If there really were grounds - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team should be prepared to take full responsibility for whatever action he felt forced to take. And be prepared to defend it on those grounds. If not – no action should be imposed.

There should be no need to hide behind the idea that his authority came from the posters - if his authority comes from Max. For it is clear that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is left to act as he wishes but is insecure enough to feel that some appeal must also be given for some public support for his actions.

The impression currently being given by this, is of a strange mixture of 'mob-rule' and carrying out the commands of a strict faceless dictator whilst at the same time maintaining some pretence that none of this was really happening.

And then there is the type of action chosen (I have detailed my views already in this thread on thread closure). This is totally ineffective. It is used mainly as a means to look as if some action was being taken when all it amounts to is, a futile display of power – which just proves how powerless those using this method are but which divides our forum, like nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:48 PM

Oh well had typed this up earlier but decided to leave alone. Only posting now as John O L rekons (at least some of) the usual suspects were not leaving alone... This follows a comment from the why here therad. I think several of us who eventual post only post a fraction of what we feel like posting...

Perhaps as this method - by the current Chief of the Mudcat editing Team's own admission, has not suuceeded in imposing the peace he requires and is proving somewhat counter-productive

The only person making causing problems with the current system is you. If you won't leave, try taking a break for 6 months and see what happens without you. Unless Bert decides to try to prove a point on your behalf, 99% of the problems you complain about will go.

- it is time for a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and a more stylish method?

Interesting to see that you want new methods now. It was a return to the old before. Let's face it, it's not about improving Mudcat anyway - that's been obvious for years.

At least you have been a little more open in calling for Joe Offers head this time. We get closer to the truth there but I still (other that I believe you are sick) believe that drives you towards your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

It's a good job you are not doing the equivalant at the Annexe or Folkinfo btw. Pip and I were brought up in an old fashioned way whereby abusing "volunteers" would be considered a far greater crime than constantly having a go at ourselves. You would have gone a long time ago anyway as reasoning is impossible but repeats of that sort of behaviour would have hastened your departure. Fortunately for you, Mudcat seems to work the other way round.

Anyway, back to new ideas. Although the bbc moderation system is by far the most screwed up I've seen. they have one idea that I think is great for dealing with persistant pests. Such posters find themselves on "pre-mod" this means that while other posters messages appear in "real time" (and may be subjected to moderation afterwards), the trouble maker's posts have to be read by a moderator and approved before they can be read by others. The situation is only a temporary one and users are returned to "post-mod" if they post "normaly". On the other hand, if they chose to continue, they find themselves banned either temporarily or permanantly.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:59 AM

At least you have been a little more open in calling for Joe Offers head this time. We get closer to the truth there but I still (other that I believe you are sick) believe that drives you towards your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

It's a good job you are not doing the equivalant at the Annexe or Folkinfo btw. Pip and I were brought up in an old fashioned way whereby abusing "volunteers" would be considered a far greater crime than constantly having a go at ourselves. You would have gone a long time ago anyway as reasoning is impossible but repeats of that sort of behaviour would have hastened your departure. Fortunately for you, Mudcat seems to work the other way round.

Jon - it is unfortunate for me (and others) that it works the other way around.

For the clear facts (that you chose to ignore) that it is (some of) these 'volunteers' especially the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, who are the ones posting abusive personal judgements. And more importantly, setting the example for others to follow, that this is acceptable posting behavior.

Do you consider that 'moderators' making abusive personal judgements and name-calling is acceptable? If it is not judged as acceptable for others - then it should not have been done and continue to be done by those who should know better.

My 'crime' - if it is one - as a victim of thise - is to try and demonstrate the reality of it - rather than the 'spin'. I consider that my posting record is better than many of those who would feel themselves qualified to judge me and other posters.

And yes - I judge that the example shown by (some of) these 'moderators' should disqualify them from imposing their judgement on others but there is nothing personal in this. How can there be - our forum is not trusted to know many of their names.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 04:44 AM

Am I wrong to consider the imposed censorship action detailed in the following - as a continuation of personally motivated and selective treatment by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1804627

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM

Subject: (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM

Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index.

Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion.

His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them.

So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads.

So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted.

Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted.

So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair.

So, that's the story.

That is one side of the story - based on many groundless assumptions and pointless personal judgements. But it does demonstrate the difficulties created on our forum when the personal likes and dislikes of a fellow poster are mixed-up (by some) with the role of 'moderator'.

Surely the first requirement of any 'moderator' to be seen to be acting impartially and not to be seen to be justifying the setting of poor examples of posting behavior and of openly encouraging support for their position from the mob?

What is required is an end to division and a example set that encourages all posters to feel safe to contribute. Rather than the current example introduced - which confuses and inhibits posting by encouraging the posting only of personal judgements of the worth of fellow posters. When it is what is said that is important - not who may be saying it.

The requests made about the PEL posts are being followed - but the same punishments are still being imposed. The new and selective restrictions that apply to my posts only, which have been imposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team are being followed - but still the same assumptions and personal judgements are being encouraged to be made.......How many times should a poster be punished over and over for the same old alledged 'crime'?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:31 AM

We get closer to the truth there but I still (other that I believe you are sick) believe that drives you towards your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

Jon - I have provided evidence here for (only some) of the abusive personal attacks, persoanal judgements and name-calling, that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges is a good example to set to the rest of our forum as acceptable posting behaviour.

Are you not going to pass judgement on this abuse and speculate on the reasons for it?

Can you supply any similar evidence for your accusation of my 'continued abuse of him and the volunteers'? If you cannot - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:40 AM

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1805977

The above link is to a post about our 'war on terrorism' - with which sentiments I entirely agree.

Some may maintain that it has little or no relevance to this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:43 AM

Shambles all the evidence I have seen points to you harrasing the admin team. I will grant you that Joe has on more than one occassion bitten back but while one could argue he shouldn't have, I'm not surprised this has happened given your daily provocation for years.

The real shame is that the whole business has been allowed to go on so long that Joe has snapped, enabling you to add to your "evidence of persecution".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:24 AM

I will grant you that Joe has on more than one occassion bitten back but while one could argue he shouldn't have, I'm not surprised this has happened given your daily provocation for years.

Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise?

Perhaps as you excuse the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for having - on more than one occassion bitten back perhaps you credit me (and other posters) for not following his example that such biting back - was ever acceptable posting behaviour for any poster on our forum - and especially not any trusted with an edit button.

You appear to support the multi-standard of conduct which is at the very heart of this debate.

but while one could argue he shouldn't have There is no argument. No 'moderator' can afford to be seen to ever do this, even once................For the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be seen to repeatedly do this - repeatedly attempt to minimise, justfy and excuse it - is just total hypocrisy. It is now a case of do as I tell you - not as I do.

It is only going to clearly demonstrate that there is now one rule for those who feel themselves qualified to judge and another for the judged. And that any defence of this and any attempts to shift the blame, will discredit and bring into question the honest efforts of all involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:27 AM

Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise?

Shambles, I repeat the accusation and I will point you to your posting history over the past years as evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:37 AM

Shambles, I repeat the accusation and I will point you to your posting history over the past years as evidence.

Such as?

If this so-called abuse was as you have publicly alleged - it should not be too difficult to provide as least as many examples of the abusive personal judgements and name-calling from me - as I have provided from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to me. There are many more such examples of these.................

I ask again - if you cannot provide any support for your accusations - would you please withdraw them?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:42 AM

Shambles, I REPEAT my accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:01 AM

Also been taking a break for a bit, but this was a good one.

Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise?

For over two years, you've said that he's not telling the truth when he gives his reasons for restricting/renaming your posts, so we have "liar" as the primary one. I have to say that if I'd been called a liar by someone every day for two years, I'd be a bit unhappy too.

For the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be seen to repeatedly do this - repeatedly attempt to minimise, justfy and excuse it - is just total hypocrisy

OK, we have "hypocrite" too.

insecure and unsure of the ability of their authority in achieving its stated aims but determined to hang on to this authority

So we have "power-mad" too.

Shambles, you seem to believe that just because you haven't actually used any swear-words, you haven't insulted anyone. Believe me, that isn't so.

You also seem to feel that you've not insulted anyone because you've not said outright "you're a hypocrite" but instead said "this is hypocrisy", or you've not said outright "you're a liar" but instead said "why should I accept that to be the truth?". Frankly that just makes you gutless, playing semantics just so that you can say "I never actually said that".

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:21 AM

Roger - I would think that both Jon and Grab have too much of a life to want to sift through all your postings for the past years to provide the excat quotes. Maybe you should get a life too.

I would agree totally with Jon's premise - it is clear from your posts (and I'm not going to look for specific ones either) that you have the knives out for Joe, in particular, and the rest of the team. I also agree with Grab's last paragraph in his post 10 August 8.01. You constantly insult the intelligence of the members of the Mudcat forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:53 AM

Graham before you scratch around trying to find something to judge my posting conduct as wanting (without providing and evidence and by putting your words in my mouth) - perhaps you may have more creditibilty if you will first pass the same judgement and comment on the many examples of abusive personal judgements and name-calling publicly posted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and evidenced here? And the example set that this is acceptable posting behaviour.

For if you do not - how could you then judge the posting conduct of any ordinary poster as wanting - if they were to just follow this example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

You may accept there is a difference between expressing your views as as honestly as you can in a post and posting only abusive personal judgements and name-calling or responding in kind.

I have always resisted this and have always tried to limit my posts to my views only and not make any personal judgements of the poster. A quick look back through this thread should be enough for you to verify that. I feel there is a difference between stating the reasons why you do not agree with another poster and then going on to use offensive language, calling them names and suggesting that they go away and do rude things with their hat.

For example a post saying: I think this -

Rather than a post saying: I think this and therefore you are a ''''''' [insert the offensive name of your choice].

Most of the abusive personal attacks and judgements made on me by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team and more importantly his open incitement for others to follow suit (that I have evidenced here) - were as a result of him feeling that I was treating him unfairly.

In fact I was simply judging his actions in the same way that that he considered was fair - when he was not only judging the posting actions of others but was also imposing his judgement upon their posts and threads. He felt that I had no right to even judge or question his actions. And of course I had no ability to impose my judgement on his contributions.

My view is that their should be one set of rules for those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on others and one for the rest of us. The rules and expectation of conduct of those who would wish to judge us - should be far higher. And they should remove themselves from this position - even when there is the slightest suspicion that they have may fallen from showing the very highest example of conduct.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:00 AM

at least 7 inconsistancies in the last post by shambles and the proof existing in threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:13 AM

For over two years, you've said that he's not telling the truth when he gives his reasons for restricting/renaming your posts, so we have "liar" as the primary one. I have to say that if I'd been called a liar by someone every day for two years, I'd be a bit unhappy too.

What then is the word to use for someone who states:

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

And then closes not only that one - but every other thread on the subject.........

I am more than a bit unhappy that my posting conduct is now being judged wanting and singled-out for special restrictions by those whose example of posting conduct - I have demonstrated - to be far more questionable than mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:18 AM

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-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:27 AM

I realy don't want to get involved any more but something has been bugging me all the time here.

Roger, will you please answer a straight question with a straight answer. Why do you insist on calling Joe 'the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team'? Isn't Joe easier? Or even Mr Offer if you want to be formal? Joe always refers to you as Shambles or Roger. What is it with not mentioning his name? Is it an actor type thing? Like MacBeth. Or is there some sort of legal implication that no-one else is aware of?

I am realy interested to know. I'm sure other people are as well!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:44 AM

For some time I have requested that editing comments are not inserted into my posts without my permission. My concern is that often these so-called editing-comments are nothing of the sort. They are (mis) used - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - as a way of placing his personal views on the thread's subject but without refreshing the thread. A facility that is not open to ordinary posters.

My request has not been accepted and this practice continues - (some of) our 'moderators' do seem to have plenty of time to insert editing comments and would appear to think this quite fun......

Another request has been made for all case where any form of imposed censorship action is judged to have been required - for this to always be indicated and for some (very brief) explanation of the reasons to be given in an editing comment.

This would ensure that posters would for the first time be able to see and express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of censorship on our forum.

This request has also not been accepted.   

Some of the reasons provided were that this would needlessly bring attention to the offending post or thread. And rather surprisingly, considering my difficulty in preventing editing comment from being inserted in my posts - that it would place an extra burden on our 'moderators'.

I would argue that all it would need to do is bring attention to when censorship was thought necessary and that (some of) our 'moderators' do not currently appear to find placing editing camments currently too much of a burden.

---

I use editing comments to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message. I do my best to refrain from expressing personal opinion in such comments - my opinions go in separate messages. You will note that I use a line, an indent, and a specific font to separate my comments from the message. I also sign my name to such comments.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:54 AM

You are outputting a lot today shambles. But none of it will get away from your persistant abuse of the volunteers.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:08 AM

"Why do you insist on calling Joe 'the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team'? Isn't Joe easier?"

Because Shambles is a passive aggressive little twat that needs to be slapped the hell off this message board... The problem is, he fits in almost perfectly with the people who own/run the place.....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:18 AM

I am realy interested to know. I'm sure other people are as well!

OK

I see the main problem and cause of much of the conflict on our forum - as one of trying to combine two roles - that of 'moderator' and fellow poster. I am not sure this is now the best approach.....

I use the name of the role for a number of reasons. To try and show when my argument is with the actions of the role itslf - rather than any personal argument with the current individual fellow poster who happens to be in that role.

however, it is well known that the current holder of that role has some very strong views on how they want our forum to look and function. And for this reason, I am not sure that it is possible for posters to always be able to tell which hat is being worn. Perhaps a lot of support is for the individual currently in the role and it is thought disloyal to be seen to disagree with this individual - rather than taking a more objective view?   

Having someone so committed as the current holder in this role, does have advantages - it also has disadvantages. I must confess that I think the disadvantages are beginning to out-number the advantages.

So I propose myself for the role. *smiles*

When I first started posting here there was no Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who so readily imposed his judgement on my posts, threatened me and called me names - just my fellow posters - one of whom was Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:22 AM

You are outputting a lot today shambles. But none of it will get away from your persistant abuse of the volunteers

Jon - put-up or shut-up.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:25 AM

if you will first pass the same judgement and comment on the many examples of abusive personal judgements and name-calling publicly posted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and evidenced here?

If you're as keen on looking back through history as you seem to be, you may find the posts in which I said I thought Joe was out of line in insulting you. However, I also said that I could understand why he did it, in light of months/years of provocation. You yourself have just said that you consider him to be a liar, an opinion which I doubt is recent, since you have been implying for months/years that he's a liar.

You certainly do, now, have evidence of people disliking you personally, Joe for one. Back in 2001 though, before the addition of Joe's "three little words" set you off, did you have any evidence of this? Your assertion is that all moderation actions on your posts have been driven by moderators' personal dislike of you (or at least that this could be the case). This would require that they (and Joe especially) disliked you *before* they did any of it. If you can find evidence of this from 2001 or earlier, I'm all ears. If not, your assertion lacks a basis in available evidence, when the alternative (that you were mass-mailing the forum and posting off-topic in the way which Joe described, in order to promote your viewpoint) has no shortage of evidence.

And they should remove themselves from this position - even when there is the slightest suspicion that they have may fallen from showing the very highest example of conduct.

This is your personal opinion, and that's fine. However you are in no position to force them to do so - Max is the only person who can, and you haven't convinced him (rather the opposite, since he has publicly requested you to shut up or leave). Peer pressure *may* be able to persuade them, but you'd need a significant number of active members who share your opinion in order to swing any influence. If you've not found these people in four years of trying, then I submit that it's never going to happen. In that case, you should be considering the possibility that your viewpoint is in the minority. You should also consider the possibility that in insulting people until they "fall" and react to the insults, you aren't in a strong position.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM

" So I propose myself for the role."

Sweet merciful crap on a cake, no.......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM

Jon - put-up or shut-up.

Interesting Shambles, after only a few hours and a handful of posts you are telling me to shut up.

Quite amzing for someone who complains so bitterly about the occasional angry comment made to him following years of daily abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:34 AM

"When I first started posting here there was no Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who so readily imposed his judgement on my posts, threatened me and called me names - just my fellow posters - one of whom was Joe Offer."

I'm curious- Chief Carper, in your estimation, which happened first? Did Joe one day decide that he needed someone to harass? And you were a convenient target? Or were you perhaps loading the Cat as you are now? I remember the days when you admired Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:35 AM

did I glean from that message above, Roger, that you suggest that you would be an OBJECTIVE moderator?

different, I'm sure!.....objective? Well, scholars differ.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:42 AM

I remember the days when you admired Joe Offer.

So do I. That was in those days when he set a posting example that I was more than happy to follow.

As to what happened - he seemed to think that what was once best achievable by setting a good example was better achieved by threats.

I think he is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:44 AM

Perhaps setting a good example was no longer working.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:45 AM

Well setting a bad one certainly isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:49 AM

So you're judging it to be bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:49 AM

No... it's not... so why are you doing it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:50 AM

And Roger - you don't see your part in any of this? Joe just suddenly turned on you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:06 PM

And Roger - you don't see your part in any of this? Joe just suddenly turned on you?

See my post here10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM

The PEL threads were too much for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made so many wrong assunption, personalised the whole thing and got his knickers so competly twisted that they have never unravelled since.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:11 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:32 PM

See my post here10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM

A prime example of spamming is described here. That alone would get a user suspended or even banned at most sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:51 PM

The PEL threads were too much for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team

The PEL threads were far too much for me too! The PEL topic was of importance to anyone who cares about live music in the UK but your handling of it was obsessive.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:59 PM

Roger...you simply define ABUSE as what THEY do and 'reasonable' as what YOU do. And you have this distorted concept that it's not 'ABUSE' if don't call someone names!

It is abuse of the privilege (not 'right') of posting here to do what you have done for 6-7 years.

As I have noted before, you provoke response from others, then switch the issue to the responses....then to the editing that attempts to contain the complaints about the responses.

This leads to the infinite regress which we find ourselves in. If I were in charge,...........guess......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:00 PM

A prime example of spamming is described here. That alone would get a user suspended or even banned at most sites.

The Mudcat Cafe - despite many efforts to reduce it to the level of most sites is NOT yet like 'most sites' and assuming of course that the one side of the story stated is the truth and you take no account of any other factors and you are a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head.......And if you are - what are you doing here?

There are those 'most sites' where you would be far happier..

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:03 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:05 PM

I see you do not deny the spamming.

Rather you resort to childish name-calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:27 PM

The Mudcat Cafe - despite many efforts to reduce it to the level of most sites is NOT yet like 'most sites'

Too right. As Jeff says, most sites you'd have been banned years ago. The very fact of your continued posting here is a pretty good clue as to how much slack they'll cut people. Which begs the question - if they're *so* power-mad and *so* determined to keep authority, why do they let you stay? This is the major inconsistency in your story. If they were really the way you've painted them, you'd be out on your ear long since.

How many times should a poster be punished over and over for the same old alledged 'crime'?

"Punished"? Hardly. But prevented from doing it until they are willing to stop doing it? Sure. If Joe removed his restrictions on you today, would you go back to posting like that? My opinion is that you probably would. The opinion of Joe, Jeff and Max was that it was harmful to the forum, and they therefore took action to stop it. Since you don't believe it was harmful to the forum, chances are pretty good that you'd go straight out and do it again.

you are a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head

Way to go with non-judgemental! ;-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:31 PM

Oh, Graham..now you will have him explaining that HE never 'called' anyone that,....that it was merely a hypothetical.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:49 PM

So, Roger, I'm puzzled.

I'm puzzled about your linking to my post in the London Bombs thread - was there something wrong with that? Are you saying you agree with my post in that thread?

I'm puzzled about your constant statements about my calling you names - I recall "buffoon," once.

I'm puzzled about your accusations of "abuse" - as far as I can see, all I've done is to express exasperation and disagreement with your constant repetition of the same thing. Is that it - are exasperation and disagreement "abuse"?

I'm puzzled about you accusations that I have "threatened" you. When has that happened? Is it a "threat" if I say that if you post multiples, I'm going to delete or move some of those multiples - or is that just warning you of ther consequences of your action?

I'm puzzled about your charges of censorship. You constantly stress the importance of your topics - freedom of expression at Mudcat and the Public Entertainment Licensing in the UK - and imply that we are attempting to suppress information on these important topics. Nobody here disagrees with your position on these worthy causes. But no matter how worthy the cause, is it fair to flood us with megamultiples of your opinions, so that the opinions of others are lost in the deluge of your own verbiage?

Oh, and you aren't being "punished" for anything. We don't do that - we just use very moderate measures to control problems before they get out of hand. If there is no evidence that something is getting out of control, we make no attempt to control it, which is why you'll notice that we don't delete every over-length copy-paste or nasty comment. The problem, in your case, is your compulsion to flood the Forum with the same words, over and over again - there is strong evidence of that compulsion in this very thread. Thus far in this one thread, you have copy-pasted my "This thread is closed" comment four times, and my "this thread is to be kept open" comment a number of times.

But just answer the first question - I can't figure that one out at all.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:41 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest that even the one such name-calling post like this would be enough to disqualify you from being able to impose judgement upon any other poster for the same offence without being lablelled a hypocrite.....Don't you? And there are more examples.

I'm puzzled about your constant statements about my calling you names - I recall "buffoon," once.

What you can and cannot recall seems to be a little selective.

It is just as well that it is all recorded or I suspect that rather than just trying to minimise and excuse it - you wold be tempted to deny it altogether.

I am glad that you can recall this at least. But you still make no apology for it - can you recall me ever calling you a buffoon?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:50 PM

Sorry Roger - Still doesn't make sense. Joe Offer is both a poster and the current chief etc etc. There is no need at all to differentiate between the two. We all know by now that your issue is with both the poster and the policy. Why continue the silly naming convention?

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying stop the campaign. Even if I disagree it is your right to stand up for what you believe. Your campaign on the new licencing act was very passionate and sucessful in bringing it to everyones attention. It stirred me to action anyway. But when you insist on using politcal terms to refer to a person everyone knows people will just see you as a polititian. Like Kim Howells. Remember him?

Carry on your thread by all means but save yourself a lot of typing and just put Joe.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:55 PM

Some might reasonably think a pesron who makes such a big issue over being called a buffon yet considers himself quite free to call someone a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head... is practicing the sort of double standard one would expect from a hypocritical baboon.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 03:09 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM

Warning: disapearing messages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some might reasonably think a pesron who makes such a big issue over being called a buffon yet considers himself quite free to call someone a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head... is practicing the sort of double standard one would expect from a hypocritical baboon.
Jon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm puzzled about your accusations of "abuse" - as far as I can see, all I've done is to express exasperation and disagreement with your constant repetition of the same thing. Is that it - are exasperation and disagreement "abuse"?
Joe Offer

Yes you are perfect correct Jon. I apologise unreservedly to jeffp and our forum, if it looked as I was calling him a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head.

However - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing who has set the example that the posting of such things is acceptable and who attempts to minimise this and provides many excuses and justifications - rather than ever simply provide an apology and not doing it.....

Perhaps Jon - this will prompt him to apologise to me for calling me a bufoon? Perhaps you could ask him to? As you are fully aware - my concern is NOT with the nature of particular name that I am being called - but the big issue is with who is doing the name-calling and setting the example that this is acceptable posting behaviour.


You may have missed the following editing commemt as it was inserted into an exsisting post and did not refresh the thread. This was inserted into my post - despite my request that this does not happen without my permission.

I use editing comments to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message. I do my best to refrain from expressing personal opinion in such comments - my opinions go in separate messages. You will note that I use a line, an indent, and a specific font to separate my comments from the message. I also sign my name to such comments.
-Joe Offer-

If so - any assurance given in an inserted editing comment should perhaps always be honoured?

Perhaps if what appears in a post or any assurance contained in an editing comment is untrue - an apology can be provided.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

It remains a fact that the perfectly clear assurance given above - was not honoured. As that thread was closed - as has every other thread on the subject (exept this one, so far).

liar: A person who has lied or lies repeatedly.

Many poster here could be accused of being liars - however, most of those do not claim any authority. But many (if they did claim some authority) would not simply post but ignore a situation when they were shown to be liars - and then still feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on this or similar indiscretions of their fellow posters and still expect their integrity to be unquestioned.


It is now my turn to be puzzled. Why is it, when the suggestion is made that editing comments be provided to indicate where any form of imposed censorship has been judged to be neccesary - this is thought to provide a burden and not accepted? But when I request that editing comments not be inseted into my posts - this does not appear to present a burden at all?

I use editing comments to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message.

If so - it should logically follow that where a particular message has been deleted - an editing comment to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message? So why is this double standard supported?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 10:41 AM

Moving swiftly on A Musical Interlude

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 11:02 AM

We all know by now that your issue is with both the poster and the policy. Why continue the silly naming convention?

When the assumption is made that 'we all know by now' is made - you then get the accusations - from the usual pedantic but noisy few, who seem to think their purpose in life is to judge and mind everyone else's business.

This is the case here - as it was with the PELs. But with a floating 'readership' everyone does not know - it is the same with TV news programmes. If you watch the morning news from 6 to 9 you will find it irritating to have to watch the same items again and again. But you do accept the reasons for this.

It is the same here. If by informing a new poster, this irritates the regulars - one hope that they will accept the reasons. And as threads on this subject are so readily closed - an attempt to include all the information has to be made.

If the other threads were not closed and we were allowed to have threads on different aspects of the same subject - accusations of duplication would be less of an issue. For it is only repetition to those who have been informed (and who can switch-off). The same thing will be 'news' to those who have not.

[What is folk music?]

Some new posters assume that what they of our forum now - is the way it has always been. Some assume that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is the site's owner. Some still assume that there is no censorship or anonymous censors.

Often it appears that this is the impression that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would quite like new posters to our forum to assume.......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 11:21 AM

OK, Roger - I accept that. Disagree but at least accept your reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I must say that I think you are fighting a lost cause but if that is your wish who am I to stop you.

Good luck.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 11:29 AM

However - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing who has set the example that the posting of such things is acceptable and who attempts to minimise this and provides many excuses and justifications - rather than ever simply provide an apology and not doing it.....

Perhaps Jon - this will prompt him to apologise to me for calling me a bufoon? Perhaps you could ask him to? As you are fully aware - my concern is NOT with the nature of particular name that I am being called - but the big issue is with who is doing the name-calling and setting the example that this is acceptable posting behaviour.

OK, shambles, I have looked into this business of calling people a baboon and at one other eample you quoted at me. I find you have recently supplied:

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Max
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM

GUEST,Jon is right, there are many differing opinions here at the Mudcat. For instance, Jon's opinion is that his site is a "rival" to Mudcat. My opinion is that Jon is flattering himself with such status, and that he's an asshole.

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

Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

From that, it seems clear to me that Joe's calling you a buffon comes sometime after Max calling me an asshole.

As a result, I will consider asking Joe but only if you ask Max to apologise, not to me, but to Joe Offer and all of his volunteers for setting them such a poor example for them to follow. I mean if the boss does that, how can you expect Joe to behave any better?

















(On the other hand we could just accept that people do get angry once in a while, etc. and it's really not worth getting over excited about)

Subject: RE: Review: National Folk Festival, Canberra, 2006
From: GUEST,Cartoon Porn
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 01:34 PM

Hi! Cartoon Porn presents the new Cartoon Porn Free Site. Visit our free cartoon porn site - http://cartoon-porn-blog.blogspot.com , to gain GB's of hot Cartoon Porn for free. [url="http://cartoon-porn-blog.blogspot.com"]Cartoon Porn[/url]. Your [url]http://cartoon-porn-blog.blogspot.com[/url] Site.

Have a great Day! Visit my site - Xanax and Porn

Good Luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 02:04 PM

(On the other hand we could just accept that people do get angry once in a while, etc. and it's really not worth getting over excited about)

Jon- I would agree that there are many things on our forum that are not worth getting excited about.

Sadly others do not appear to share this view now.

They would appear to get exited enough about them - to post only personal judgements of the poster.

Some attempt to justify their anonymous imposition of 'silent deletion', closing of threads and the the recent introduction of special posting restrictions that apply to only one individual poster.

Perhaps the reasons given for all this would indicate are not really things to get excited about and the reaction is not really proportionate?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 02:42 PM

Well shambles, I'm afraid I consider your actions to be the least proportionate but perhaps if you can agree that some things are not really worth getting this excited about, perhaps you can drop things at least for now and give things another chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 03:24 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 06:02 PM

Well shambles, I'm afraid I consider your actions to be the least proportionate but perhaps if you can agree that some things are not really worth getting this excited about, perhaps you can drop things at least for now and give things another chance?

Jon - will how you judge my actions or how I may judge yours be of any real interest to anyone or change anything.

No judgement by one poster of another's worth will change anything. And simply judging any reaction - without judging its cause - is just as futile. But having one's posts censored remains a big deal and something to get excited about. Even if (some of) those currently imposing their judgement seem to have little understanding of this. Tending to only expect to be treated fairly by those they appear to show little fairness to......

Perhaps it is those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on the rest of us who perhaps should be considering whether the sort of things that have been getting them excited enough to impose the rather drastic 'silent deletion' on - are really proportionate.

Should posters be able to expect any assurance given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - especially one given in an editing comment - to be honoured? It is is not honoured - should they expect an explanation why and some form of apology?

Rather than for it to be simply ignored?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 06:13 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 06:24 PM

In other words you intend to go round in circles again shambles...

Re:

No judgement by one poster of another's worth will change anything. And simply judging any reaction - without judging its cause - is just as futile.

shambles, I've read your comments, Joe Offer's, have my own eperience as a Joe Clone as well as as a poster here to go on, etc. The bottom line is how ever I try to look at things, what you say in trying to make "your case" makes no sense.

It points to other things but not what you seem to want to convince others about.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 06:58 PM

100!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 07:06 PM

&1
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,FIELDVOLE
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:13 PM

Shambles.

Unfortunately I would say give it up, you aren't going to get through
to this lot here! Even if you are correct, or it is a good idea.

I do think we should at least have a marker of some description on
a deleted post so that the thread has continuity, it's hard enough
at times to read a thread given that the posts are quite often out of
chronological order these days. And why not anyway?


NOTE!!!! THE SECTION BELOW WAS WRITTEN BY ME BEFORE THE FIRST TWO
          THREADS WERE CLOSED, I DECIDED NOT TO POST IT AT THE
          TIME, BUT **** IT. YOU MAY AS WELL HAVE MY $1 AS WELL.

Snip.........................................................

When I first arrived here, (probably whilst looking for lyrics as a
lot of us do), I was so pleased that I had found you all, it was my
kind of place! And, as I have said before on other threads,
thank you ever so much to Max, Joe and the other people who run
the 'Cat, and the great people who post here with all their opinions
and knowledge.

At that time, the way I saw it was that the threads were pretty
much wide open, people said more or less what they thought and
gave their opinions freely.......nearly anything went.

It had a good atmosphere, the trolls and others were there, but the
main point was IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE THREADS, YOU DIDN'T READ THEM!
It was MY choice, to do so or not. I would open a thread, read a
few posts, then decide whether I wanted to read on or not.
I assumed at the time that the mod's were taking care of the real
crap and spam that came on to the board.

THEN THE WHINGERS AND WAILERS, MOANERS AND PC PEOPLE ARRIVED!!!!

Slowly it started......

I didn't like what you said about......

I don't like the comment xxxx made, can we have it deleted.....

This thread should be below the line, (this being the second post in
a thread started by a nice guest asking for help, by the way).

You mispelled this word.

Etc, Etc, Etc. Until you got used to opening a thread
and finding a good discussion peppered with posts objecting to this
that and the other or someone beefing about what someone else had said,
and in the process forcing the moderators to take actions that they
possibly might not have done.

And slowly all the good posters drifted off to lurk, and the 'Cat
became what it is today.

I agree with The Shambles that I too have read through threads only
to come upon a post which is objecting to an earlier (DATED) post,
I go back up the thread to find out what they have been talking about,
only to find nothing, I go up and down again, nothing again, I carry on
but feel a bit annoyed that I don't know what had been going on, even
if it was bad or flaming. if a "deleted" message had been left I would
not have looked further and assumed that the post was so bad that
the moderators felt that they had to protect me from it.

I remind myself. I AM AN ADULT, I *CAN* MAKE UP MY OWN MIND.

The same applies to threads. I have gone back to look for threads,
refreshed on three days, not there. Refresh on seven days, not there!
Refresh on fourteen and above days, not there! But nothing to say
that xyz thread has been deleted.

I really don't see why a simple "Post deleted" or "Thread xyz deleted"
cannot be put in it's place. No reasons given if you don't want.

If the people who keep objecting to things keep it up then the board
will continue to deteriate. If you don't like something, don't read it!
If you have read it and didn't like it, skip past it to the rest of the thread!
And if you don't like the rest of the thread....DON'T READ IT!!!

LEAVE THE MODERATORS TO DO THEIR JOB:

BUT......I repeat. I AM AN ADULT, I *CAN* MAKE UP MY OWN MIND.

We are mostly adults here, we can make up our own minds. thank you.
And please remember, I like the music that you don't....YOU like the
music that I don't. And the same applies to the threads.

I personaly think that the threads like "Are hamsters rubbish".......
"Are turtles rubbish"....... and all the "clone" threads should be
deleted. BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY SO, because it is not my place to
do so....and somebody else may like them. I just don't bother
opening them,

Why are we pandering to the moaners, pedants and PC people anyway?
we didn't seem to before and the board ran well. Now if you post you
have to nit-pick in case you upset someone. I would suggest that
Dave the Gnome, in an earlier post,
(23 July, if it hasn't been deleted without trace) is correct!

I too feel that the board has deteriated over the past few years,
but feel that this has more to do with people moaning about things
instead of just accepting that this is somebody elses POV and passing
over the post. Now they start a war over the item instead of just
ignoring it.

I can understand what you are trying to say Shambles, you tried
another thread on the help section where I was in agreement with
what you were trying to say, and I think that a lot of the time you
make sense, but as I said earlier, you won't get through, you'll
get shouted down by the very people who are making a mess of the board
with their disagreements.

I can now see why Shambles has to keep on posting the same thing
over again in a different way....because he's not getting through,
if all that he wants is a marker on a deleted post...WHY NOT?
Why all the hoo-ha for a simple request? It's not difficult to do.

And if he wants to alert the board to what he suspects is over
enthusiasm on deleting post/threads then surely he should be able to
voice his opinion on that as he would on any other subject.


FINALLY:

WILL ALL THE WHINGERS, WHINERS, MOANERS AND PC PERSONS LEAVE THE
MODERATORS TO DO THEIR JOB AND SEE HOW IT WORKS OUT!

HOPEFULLY THE MODERATORS, IN TURN WILL NOT DELETE REASONABLE POSTS
EVEN IF THEY ARE LONG, COPY/PASTE OR NOT PC.

Snip.............................................................

Best wishes

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:21 PM

"if all that he wants is a marker on a deleted post...WHY NOT?..."
1) That's NOT all he wants. His list of wishes is unending.

"Why all the hoo-ha for a simple request? It's not difficult to do."

2)You are not doing it...you have NO idea what it would take to both follow & edit and sort and explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:33 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:35 PM

"Why all the hoo-ha for a simple request? It's not difficult to do."

2)You are not doing it...you have NO idea what it would take to both follow & edit and sort and explain.

Well I know what is would mean.

"This post was marked deleted as spam but are we to accept the word the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that it was spam or might it have been deleted for some other reason? And how do we know who deleted it? Perhaps one of our unknown anonymous volunteer posters who consider themselves qualified to judge us on our made a mistake, or...."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:55 PM

OK, Fieldvole, I'll tell you why there are no markers for deleted posts.

When we delete problem posts, we're usually dealing with people posting large quantities of problem messages. For many months, I spent an hour a night reading every single message Martin Gibson posted, deleting every one that had even a hint of combativeness. I read them off a list of messages from Martin's IP - I just don't have time to read them in context. If they need deletion, I delete them by clicking the "delete" button - I don't have the time to go to the thread and see if people have responded and if the missing message is going to cause a problem.

We have other situations where we get a troll who will come in and post a dozen messages and then leave. I handle those the same way. I work off a list of messages from the IP, read them, and decide.
Another thing - if I delete a message, it stays on a record I can see, but it's not visible to other Mudcatters - there's no way to put a marker in to document the deletion, unless I go to the previous message and add a comment.

That being said, I DO insert editorial comments where there is a good reason to - but I don't often see a good reason when it's just deleting nastygrams from BS threads. It's just too tedious a process for the benefit it would provide.

People make far too much a deal of this deletion stuff. Most of we delete is obviously suitable for deletion - leering sexual comments, overt racism, crude and repeated name-calling, outright gibberish, repeated messages, and non-music advertising/Spam. The people who post this stuff know darn well that their stuff will be deleted - they post lots of this stuff. Most Mudcatters never have a message deleted - and if they do, they're usually contacted and given a private explanation. But for the repeat offenders who post large quantities of objectionable messages, it's just not worth the effort.

And yes, there's another reason for not posting explanations of deletions - if we delete something, we don't want to bother arguing about it. We have our own internal system of review of editorial actions, and it's a pretty good system. Sometimes, we're not at liberty to publicly discuss the reason for a deletion. Most Mudcatters trust us to do an honest job, but there are a very few who make a lot of noise about a lot of nothing. They say that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but we're not here to serve those few "wheels" that do nothing but squeak.

Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,FIELDVOLE
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:59 PM

Jon.

Yes, point very much taken, as I said, my thoughts were written when
the first thread was only about a third of what it ended up as.

I do see your POV and know that this is how it COULD end up, but
on the other hand.....maybe not.

Incidentally I have been on another site this evening where I came
upon a post simply marked "deleted", looked good to me, and no, I don't know how much it would take to mark a deleted post, but if you are going to the trouble of deleting it it wouldn't be too much trouble to just replace the text. maybe I'm wrong in which case I
apologise.

I must admit that it still makes sense to me to mark a deleted post.

Best wishes

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:07 PM

Fieldvole, the way this forum is set up, it takes a lot of work to mark a deleted post, and it destroys our record of the post that was deleted. Max, Jeff, and I review those deletions to ensure that they are justified.
The only way around that is to post an explanatory remark in the message previous to the deleted one, and it gets complicated.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,fieldvole
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:10 PM

Thanks for that Joe, I cross posted with you there, I apologise for that.
I/we do appreciated what you do for us! I realise that you spend a great deal of (unpaid) time deleting the stuff that none of us wants
to see and am very gratefull for that, but as I said, if it is at all
possible I think that a post should be marked to give a continuity
path if you know what I mean. If it isn't possible then fair enough.

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Fieldvole
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:15 PM

As I said Joe, fair enough, that explanation covers it admirably.
If it had been explained like that in the beginning...well maybe
these threads wouldn't have come to this.

Thanks

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:20 PM

Fieldvole, as far as I know, this marking the threads one is a recent one in the years this business has been running.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:29 PM

I'm usually quite open about what we do - but what I say gets lost in the huge volume of the discussion of Mudcat editing policy. The entire discussion centers on one individual who posts the same thing over and over again, ignoring the answers given to his questions.
It's like trying to have a reasonable, adult conversation in the presence of a child who's having a tantrum.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 09:29 AM

I'm puzzled about your charges of censorship. You constantly stress the importance of your topics - freedom of expression at Mudcat and the Public Entertainment Licensing in the UK - and imply that we are attempting to suppress information on these important topics. Nobody here disagrees with your position on these worthy causes. But no matter how worthy the cause, is it fair to flood us with megamultiples of your opinions, so that the opinions of others are lost in the deluge of your own verbiage?
Joe Offer

The above sounds all very noble but again - we see this concept of what is judged to be fair - being used to justify mean-sprited and selective editing actions that are not in the least bit fair.

Is it 'fair' for the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be making assurances to our forum in editing comments - that are not honoured and still expect their words and actions to be thought credible?

And we have yet more examples of appeals from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, for support from the mob, for what are simply personally motivated judgements. For there is not and there has never been the slightest chance that simply by posting, that the opinions of others are lost is there? But it is a very emotive sounding call for yet more more personally motivated judgements to be made from the 'usual suspects' and sound justified.

When the only sure-fire way to ensure that the opinions of others are lost on our forum - is for our 'moderators' to get excited and subject them to anonymously imposed censorship for the slightest of reasons..... The same loss by this method, does not seem to be much of a concern to (some of) our 'moderators'. I wonder why?

The main concern for all this appears to be to ensure that our forum looks tidy. Are there not more important concerns and other more proprotionate ways to achieve this - without automatic 'silent deletion'?

Actions, they say speak louder than words. So as this is the only thread on the subject that is allowed to be open - it is clear that the subject of freedom of expression at Mudcat (which is further limited by him to the BS section) is not one that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is really very keen to see discussed openly on our forum.

As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has also recently closed a long-running thread on the subject of Public Entertainment Licensing in the UK is also clear that tidyness is now thought - by him - to be far the most important. consideration.......Perhaps our forum does not share this view?

---

I am unaware of any such thread that is closed. If such is the case, please direct me to the thread and I will review the action.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 09:45 AM

See how it goes, Fieldvole. An explaination for one thing is given so shambles picks on something else, in this case a comment made on 10th of August. We are supposed to forget everything else and carry on with whichever direction he chooses.

Shambles has only one consistancy with all of his requests and arguments and that is to find fault with Joe Offer and to a lesser degree the other volunteers. There is no desire whatsoever for any resolution (except maybe Joe resigns or Max sacks him).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Alba
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 09:53 AM

Well Joe I will hand it to you, explaination after explaination when none is even required. My Hat is off to you. How many years is it now 7 or 8!! Holy Crap!

I have watched this fiasco unfold for, oh quite a long time now and in my opinion. I think that the anon poster known as Shambles can have a WHOLE thread all to him/herself to whine, moan, talk shite...for whatever and I mean quite literally A whole thread

For myself however, this is without a doubt the final time I will look into this or any other thread of this nature started by the above mentioned poster.
There comes a point where I realise that I am not helping this person, I am only enabling this person and by enabling causing the Administration of this Forum a moderating hassle.

You, Joe, and many of the Admin Volunteers, have supplied the answers to just about every question that has been asked and more. I caught a drift a looooooooooooooooong time ago.

So it's TaTa from Alba to "Closed Threads and Deleted posts"
Which is truly a waste of bandwith and without a doubt a futile waste of precious, creative energy too!

Remember Folks Shambolitice is catching and carries a health warning.....!!!!!!


Roger, all I have to say to you from now on regarding this topic is.. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:00 AM

There are very few (if any) people I would consider myself qualified to imposed my judgement upon.

You may judge that my expectations of those who would feel qualified to impose their judgement on me - are high.

When their actions are shown in any way to bring question to the integrity of all in such positions - I would expect the individuals concerned to accept that they had become a liabilty and remove themselves from any position of privilege and responsibilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:08 AM

There are very few (if any) people I would consider myself qualified to imposed my judgement upon.

You never cease to impose your judgement on the volunteers here. ~It is part of your perpetual abuuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM

You also ask people to judge from your "evidence" and then accuse them of jusdging when they do not find in your favour.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:01 AM

Roger. Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me.

Subject: RE: Review: The Dubliners - What's the big deal?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM

Yes I remember that one:

Im a free porn man of the travelling nation-

one of their best.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:12 AM

I think that a post should be marked to give a continuity
path if you know what I mean. If it isn't possible then fair enough.
Fieldvole

The only way around that is to post an explanatory remark in the message previous to the deleted one, and it gets complicated.
-Joe Offer-

So what is requested IS currently possible.

And what exactly gets complicated is not explained. But the reason why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not want to do as requested - is as follows.

That being said, I DO insert editorial comments where there is a good reason to - but I don't often see a good reason when it's just deleting nastygrams from BS threads. It's just too tedious a process for the benefit it would provide.
Joe Offer

The main benefit it would provide is to a poster not knowing where their contribution had gone. They would then know if it had or had not been deleted.

Secondly, our forum would be able to see the true nature and current level of imposed censorship. They could then judge the judgement made in their name and be able to express an informed opinion on its proportionality - for the first time..........   

Frankly I do not now care how tedious the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would find this - as this not a concern that should be very high on the list of concerns for our forum. There may be others willing to take his place - who may not judge that finding something tedious was
good enough reason to refuse a simple and basic request, such as this one...........

What all this boils down to is that: The current Chief of the Mudcat cat Editing Team can be seen to set the example of posting abusive personal judgements, call posters offensive names and incite others to follow suit. That he can be seen to place assurances in editing comments that he does not honour, impose special posting restrictions on selected individual posters. And insert editing comments where and when he chooses but refuse to do this when requested.

In fact the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges that he can do now exactly as he wants to with the contributons of others and despite personalising and blaming the whole issue on one individual - still expects to retain some credibilty and for posters to accept that there is no personal bias on his part in any of these actions.   

What it boils down to is that despite what is still politely requested - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team simply does not WANT to do it. Good enough?

You judge. And perhaps by the same harsh standards that other posters are expected to subjected to.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:21 AM

You judge

Here we go again. You want us to judge but call us judgemental when judgements do not agree with yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:48 AM

If you'd all just ignore him and let Joe deal with it........he's just another troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 12:35 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM

"What it boils down to is that despite what is still politely requested - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team simply does not WANT to do it. Good enough?" Shambles

Yep. That's good enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Fieldvole
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:54 PM

Shambles, when I asked Joe why we couldn't put a message in place of
the deletion, he gave me a perfectly good answer. That it is more
awkward for the admin team to do that, on this particular type of
message board, than it is to just delete the post.

It also bu**ers up THEIR record of events, and that is more
important than OUR knowing where a post has gone to.

Now, much as I agree in a way with a lot of what you are saying,
that is the answer that is given and we will just have to leave it
at that and live with it.

PLEASE!!

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM

I am unaware of any such thread that is closed. If such is the case, please direct me to the thread and I will review the action.
-Joe Offer-

You may have missed the above editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Joe - are you serious trying to inform our forum that you did NOT close the thread that I am referring to?

Or that you are going to continue to maintain a pretence to our forum that you are not fully aware of which thread I am referring to?

Which having closed it - you are of course perfectly aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:19 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM

Shambles, when I asked Joe why we couldn't put a message in place of the deletion, he gave me a perfectly good answer.

I agree with much of what you say also.

And I am glad to see that you are satisfied with your answer.

I note your request, but as I consider what you may choose to post is a matter for you - perhaps you will accept that what I choose to post is a matter for me?

However the question is less why this could not be done as why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not WANT to do it.

For I am quite sure that IF he did want to do this - or indeed anything else - it would be done - whatever its effect and whether you or I liked it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:25 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:43 PM

For I am quite sure that IF he did want to do this - or indeed anything else - it would be done - whatever its effect and whether you or I liked it or not.

And that he would do this - even after assuring our forum (in an editing comment) that it would not be done.

A fact evidenced in this thread by me - and still ignored by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.....

And who still expects his words to be given some credit.......

The problem, in your case, is your compulsion to flood the Forum with the same words, over and over again - there is strong evidence of that compulsion in this very thread. Thus far in this one thread, you have copy-pasted my "This thread is closed" comment four times, and my "this thread is to be kept open" comment a number of times.
-Joe Offer-

Instead of just using this as an excuse for more groundless personal judgements - perhaps it can be explained to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team why this assurance given by him to our forum in an editing comment - was not honoured?
And why no apology is provided for not doing so?
And why our forum should expect any other assurance given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team to be honoured?

Or instead of this - will some urgent excuse be found by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to close this thread also?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:57 PM

The problem, in your case, is your compulsion to flood the Forum with the same words, over and over again - there is strong evidence of that compulsion in this very thread.

So shambles demonstrates his compulsion again.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 03:13 PM

OK, Roger. You judge. I have undeleted every message the volunteers and I deleted in the last three days, and I have moved them all into this thread. Please tell the nice people why I should have to post an explanation for all of these deletions. These are normal examples of the messages we delete.

You will note that they are ALL porn or Spam messages from anonymous posters, except for one message from weelittledrummer that doesn't make sense without the porn present. I'm sure weelittledrummer won't mind.

As for a Licensing Act thread being closed, the only one I can think of, is Affected by the Licensing Act 2003. It was closed (with explanation and crosslink posted) for a few days in April or May, 2006, because somebody had started a newer thread with the same title. We do this occasionally when there are two threads on the same subject, to avoid splitting and confusing the discussion. Upon request from Shambles, I reopened the thread. I also combined the newer thread with the older one. Shambles, if this is the thread you are referring to, please be sure not to mislead the nice people. Be sure to tell them that this took place in April or May, that it was closed because there was another thread active on the same subject, and that the thread was reopened at your request within a few days. You might even provide a link to the threads you're talking about, so people will understand. But what's the sense in continuing to argue about the closing of a thread when that action was reversed three months ago?

Oh, you have continually challenged my "This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say" statement, and have even pointed it out to be a lie. Well, Roger, you are allowed one "complaint" thread at a time. As long as you kept your complaints in that one thread, that thread was kept open. Once you started posting your complaints in another thread, the earlier thread was closed. That's the breaks. Most people naturally confine their remarks on a subject to the current discussion on that topic. Over a period of a number of years, you continually posted the same information over a number of threads, all at the same time - so very moderate measures were taken to compel you to act as others do naturally. Let me repeat: no attempt has been made to control the content of your posts, but we have had to channel your remarks into a single thread, instead of continuing to allow you to post the very same thing in a number of threads at the same time. It's your constant repetition that's the problem, Roger, not the content of your posts.

I usually try to answer all questions the first time they're asked. When the same person asks the same question over and over again, I don't bother answering. These unanswered questions do tend to make it appear that I'm withholding information, but that's not the case. It does, however, make it very difficult for the rest of us to carry on a reasonable, productive discussion of Mudcat editing. The volunteers and I would very much like to serve the needs and wishes of this community, but not the petty paranoia of one individual.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 06:32 PM

"Subject: RE: Review: The Dubliners - What's the big deal?
From: GUEST,Porn - PM
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 06:33 AM"

Hey Joe, why you leaving this crap on the 'cat? Wake up there, son. Jaysus, what the hell kinda site administrator ARE you?


LOLOLOLOLOL

Subject: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: GUEST,depressed
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:32 PM

well... who the f*** cares anyway..?

sod it!


its all a waste of time and no one gives a monkeys anyway..



bollocks..!!!!



wheres my anti depressant tablets...?


f** it must have got confused and swallowed them all in one go


teatime last night.....


thats a nice hit thatd felod ew\inh fom te..zdsjsddddddddddddd

im ok dont wh\nt to gerthospirtlized and sexcrineed

cusx inm ok realy

Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:54 PM

canty remeber f i took my tablet

and i dont care if i take too

curz no no else fier cares

so why skiould i

i dont givegurt momnkeys


fudki t if i live or die


useless s pile of bolloks it is

Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:57 PM

This type of shit is the worst of trolling. Gets people concerned for no fucking reason. Piss off, please!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:02 AM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: mudchat, why is there never anyone there
From: GUEST,depressed
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:16 AM

because the sad fucking loser wankers who hold power over life and death..

[in their own sad loser immagination]

stifle creativity and expression here

with the pathetic little delete button they command..


sad fucks they are

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,depred
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:17 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,depressed
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:19 AM

sad twats with delete buttons...

fuck you


you useless shite pellet

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 02:43 AM

Well, I think we have a tendency to respond by counterattacking large populations of people who have nothing to do with terrorism. I think that our responses to terrorism have been misdirected and ineffective, and have only served to make a bad situation worse by destroying any sympathy the world had for us.
So, yeah, I think we need to re-think things - to respond, but to respond judiciously.
-Joe Offer-

This not to make any judgement about the relative importance of two totally different issues. But I do think the criticism and the suggested approach has some relevance for this issue - if the word 'terrorism' in the above was substituted for words like ' abusive personal attacks' - 'flaming' - trolling' - spamming etc.

Generally the measures taken to try and deal with the (thankfully still rare) extreme terrorist actions - mostly affect and restrict the daily lives of ordinary people. As we can see currently, where thankfully there has been no loss of life. But the publicity and disruption caused by the new additional restrictions - on top of the ones already in place - for ordinary air-travellers, have had the effect disired by the terrorists anyway.

I have requested a few things here. Most of them have not been accepted. I did NOT request that all recently deleted threads be placed in this one. But now the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has decided to do this - no doubt the blame for this will be shifted to me. When posters complain that the inclusion of such posts have offended and corrupted them............

But their appearance unbidden in this thread does not seem to have made the the whole Mudcat world crumble.

So perhaps these posts can safely be left where they are posted and all the restrictions, secrecy and division that is justified to deal with such things - can be seen to be disproportionate and re-thought?

Part of the reason for the request that all imposed censorship actions be recorded was in the hope that this would result in less imposed censorship actions. Especially as the automatic way of dealing with any perceived problems. And that an attempt could then be made to find less drastic solutions and a return to all of our 'moderators' (and posters) setting a better example of posting behaviour and leading by this example.

And that those posters who are currently encouraged by the example set - to only post to make personal judgements about the worth of their fellow posters and complain about what others chose to post - can be told to mind their own business and to concentrate on their own posts - by our (few remaining) known and still credible 'moderators'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 02:54 AM

Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.
-Joe Offer-

If you can't stand the heat - no one is forcing you to stay in the kitchen and feel that when you get hot and bothered you have some right to throw pots and pans at the customers.

Give us a break - we ordinary posters don't get paid to do this either, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 03:14 AM

Roger, most of this stuff was deleted because somebody asked us to delete it - although it all would have all been deleted sooner or later. It seems that if Internet forums allow Spam to be posted, it gets posted in increasing quantities. I don't know why, but that's what seems to happen.

I moved the deleted messages from the last few days to this thread, so that people can see that we're telling the truth - that the messages we delete are just plain garbarge, and that such deletions should require no explanation or justification.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:25 AM

Unfortunately Joe, while you can provide pretty convincing evidence that Mudcat gets spam, you can not prove that you have not been selective in what you are showing the forum. Also, under the current system, even if for example the previous post was edited manually, you will still not be able to proove that this has occured for every deletion.

Don't get me wrong, I don't need convincing. I'm just commenting that whatever you do, at least under the current system, you could still be just as subject to "us not knowing the true level of censorship in our forum" as you are now. The only way that should remove that sort of doubt is system that automatically took an action,

eg. assuming the "deleted messages" are hidden but remain connected to the thread, it's unlikely to be to difficult to show "message deleted" instead of the posts content for messages marked as deleted.

That type of thing though is something I know you can not do yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:30 AM

Roger, most of this stuff was deleted because somebody asked us to delete it - although it all would have all been deleted sooner or later.

So these somebodies are not going to be very happy now you have decided to place it all here for whatever reason you decided to.

Our forum does know what spam is and what other things are out there - without this demonstration. And again you use the method of demonstrating the sort of obviously questionable posts that few poster miss much and would judge harshly - to confuse this with the heavy-handed methods used to ensure it does not appear.

The point is that these as the very same methods that are automatically imposed on far less questionable posts. When the only sure-fire way to ensure that the opinions of others are lost on our forum - is for our 'moderators' to get excited and subject them to anonymously imposed censorship and often for the slightest of reasons.....

And as you know my main concern is when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Forum's excitement leads him to propose to Max that the only way that he can impose the 'peace' that he requires - is for our forum to be changed into a members only forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 07:01 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM

[..]
However the question is less why this could not be done as why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not WANT to do it.

For I am quite sure that IF he did want to do this - or indeed anything else - it would be done - whatever its effect and whether you or I liked it or not.

-------
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:30 AM

[..]

And as you know my main concern is when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Forum's excitement leads him to propose to Max...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 07:04 AM

Oh, you have continually challenged my "This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say" statement, and have even pointed it out to be a lie. Well, Roger, you are allowed one "complaint" thread at a time. As long as you kept your complaints in that one thread, that thread was kept open. Once you started posting your complaints in another thread, the earlier thread was closed. That's the breaks.

The above explanation (for moving the goalposts) may have been an acceptable one - had the assurance you given by the Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team, to our forum in that editing comment - This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say as long as he does not say anything in any other thread at any other time..

Perhaps you would confim that the assurance given was only? This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say. And that his assurance that that thread was not going to be closed - is perfectly clear?

For there was no mention of the word 'complaint' in this assurance or any other qualification made in it - was there?

And as you admit to responding to complaints from (some) other posters to justify some of your editing - your view on the desirabilty or otherwise of 'complaints' seems to depend on what they are about and who may making them.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team obviously does not feel that he has to honour his assurances, given in editing comments and can change his mind at any time and attempt to justify this.....

Any future assurances grandly presented for public consumption by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team must be seen in the same light - to mean very little.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:59 PM

I did suggest that an excuse to close this thread and prevent debate on this issue would be found. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team placing in this thread of all these deleted posts - will of course provide that excuse.

Please delete spam

The above thread indicate the sort of silly games that this are now being encouraged to be played in the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. Perhaps the only posts encouraged there should be those requesting action to be taken on their own posts?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 01:06 PM

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12-Aug-06 - 01:48 PM

It helps if you give us both the name and the number of the thread, and preferable the specific message number. All I find at this address is another boring Shambles thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 02:00 PM

Well, whatever.
Anyhow, my reason for moving the deleted posts here is to show people what it is that we delete. No, I suppose I can't prove that there are others I haven't revealed. You have to take my word for it. But that's it - all our deleted posts from the days since Shambles started this thread.

I won't bother moving any more here - you get the point.

It doesn't help to argue with Shambles, because he just says what I have to say is untrue. I've done my best to be honest, but Shambles calls me a liar. So, I guess I have nothing more to say.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 03:01 PM

I won't bother moving any more here - you get the point.
Joe Offer

I still am not sure what the point was (we do already know what spam is).

It was not what I reqested you to do was it? Perhaps you will now do this?

And perhaps you will now remove from this thread all the posts you placed here?

I can't help but wonder what excitement would have been caused, judgements made and witch-hunts started - had anyone else but the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team attempted such a thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 03:12 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 01:31 AM

The concern is NOT the bathwater being thrown out.

The concern is what may be getting thrown-out with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 01:52 AM

Shambles, for years you have been making empty and untruthful allegations about Mudcat editors basing message deletion on favoritism and personal likes and dislikes. I thought it was time to give some solid evidence, so people can see the typical messages we delete - and so they can understand why there should be no need for explanation or notation of these deletions.

I present these messages as evidence. Surely, my evidence has as much a place in this thread as unsubstantiated allegations from Shambles. There is no baby being thrown out with the bathwater, although Shambles has done his best to mislead people into suspecting that there may be something devious about our editing practices.

These are the messages that would usually be deleted in a typical three-day period at Mudcat. I think I found all of them. Shambles, if you wish to allege that there were other messages deleted during this period, prove it. I think you've slandered the Mudcat volunteers long enough.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 12:38 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:14 PM

"Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team"

Roger, stop being so goddamned childish. His name is Joe. Every knows it. What stupid point do you think you're making by referring to him third person neutral? You've been talking to him for years. What is this? Some new tactic (*gasp* after all these years, an original twist on the same lame old bad joke...) to de-humanise him & garner some sympathy for yourself? I promise you it's not working. Grow up, man!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:17 PM

"What stupid point do you think you're making by referring to him third person neutral?"

It's passive-aggressive baiting.... From a small minded little troll who hasn't got the grapes to come out and flame the person he's angry with, so hides behind a facade of being polite....

When he's proved over and over and over that he's anything BUT polite....

He'll now come here and claim to have been infairly attacked.... When, in fact, he's made his bed, and is now being told to lay in it

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:41 PM

It sure doesn't take long for innocent threads to be deleted here. I started one asking the innocent question of whether Shambles has been evicted from the Mudcat. There was nothing nasty and I even praised him. Within 10 minutes at the most it was gone. Maybe Shambles has a point here. That certainly was overzealous editing. I wonder how long it will take for this to be gone forever.

I never thought that I would say it but Shambles...YOU ARE RIGHT. Continue fighting my man.

---

That's right - we generally don't allow threads that are directed at individual Mudcatters, so I deleted that thread as soon as I saw it. That one was sure to become a personal attack by the fourth message.

Here's the introductory message:
Subject: BS: Has Shambles Been Evicted? From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM

I hear a strange quietness across the Mudcat land. Can it be that Mr. Shambles has rambled on to bigger and better places? I hope that he finds a cause worthy of his persistence.
Seems to me that a thread like that is sure to cause trouble.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:45 PM

I applaud Mudcat for taking that post down. I read that post. People complain about Shambles and your post was not "innocent", it was an attempt to stir up crap.   Shame on you! I hope that someone will remove more message. I don't mind if this one is removed either!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:50 PM

Ron,

It really wasn't an attempt to stir up trouble. It is not like Shambles to be gone for two days. I was simply curious as to whether he was blocked from posting. Certainly nothing bad was said in the posting.

Fred

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:53 PM

Okay, that is your story.   You did note a change in the tone of this place and I read it differently then what you are claiming.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:02 PM

There is a change in the tone of the place much like there was when Martin Gibson left. It was just noted but not commented on. No nastiness or gloating or snide comments. Strictly factual. I did not feel that there was any cause in that for deletion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:11 PM

I think Mudcat did the right thing, and they do not need to justify their actions either for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:16 PM

I am not asking for them to justify their actions. I am simply disagreeing with them and you on the necessity of it being done.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:20 PM

Noted. I agree with their decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM

This is about to get very confusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 06:16 PM

Yeah let's play Guess which Guest is the Guest that said "This is about to get very confusing."

Let the game begin...

Question 1:   Guest#1 who is Guest #2
Question 2:   Guest#2 who is Guest #3
Question 3:   Who was the Guest that once said "I couldn't care less what you think" ~{hint does the year 2001 ring any bells?]

There you have it folks, 'CONFUSION' the family Game where any Guest is welcome to play.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 06:23 PM

WHOGABRA?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:32 PM

Who gives a big rat's ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:15 PM

Well played, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:18 PM

I had to use the internet for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:22 PM

It's something I got from my father. A wise man, my father.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:24 PM

Well, he's coined a thingy (acronym(sp?).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:39 PM

Peace (and anybody else, for that matter) please check out this
thread.

Jeff

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 11:58 AM

Shambles, for years you have been making empty and untruthful allegations about Mudcat editors basing message deletion on favoritism and personal likes and dislikes.

No......... I have povided evidence - mostly in the words used by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, (some of) his known and anonymous volunteers to justifiy their imposed actions. Perhaps our forum will judge who is is that has been making personally motivated allegations and assumptions - as yet more of these are being made by you in this thread to gain more support for your witch-hunt and for the special posting restrictions taht apply only to me.......

I thought it was time to give some solid evidence, so people can see the typical messages we delete - and so they can understand why there should be no need for explanation or notation of these deletions.

Your decision to litter this thread with spam has served no other purpose than to demonstrate that you will simply choose to as you wish and that the whole fabric of our forum will not crumble if posts such as these, were simply left alone.

I present these messages as evidence. Surely, my evidence has as much a place in this thread as unsubstantiated allegations from Shambles. There is no baby being thrown out with the bathwater, although Shambles has done his best to mislead people into suspecting that there may be something devious about our editing practices.

Our forum does not need any evidence provided to demonstrate what spam is. And as Jon has already pointed out - there is no evidence provided here to demonstrate your claim to our forum - that nothing is being thrown-out with this bathwater.

These are the messages that would usually be deleted in a typical three-day period at Mudcat. I think I found all of them. Shambles, if you wish to allege that there were other messages deleted during this period, prove it. I think you've slandered the Mudcat volunteers long enough.

Like any other ordinary poster- I am in no position to express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of all the forms of imposed censorship on our forum. I do know what it is for my posts and that is why the request is being made that all such impostions are recorded with the editing comments that litter my posts and for all posters to be seen to be treated equally.

Then all posters will be seen to be protected from any personally motivated and selective imposition (and from posts containing 'empty and untruthful allegations' like this one from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team).

And if their services are still required - all known and anonymous 'Mudcat volunteers' will be protected from any allegations that any of their imposed actions were personally biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM

Shambles says:
I am in no position to express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of all the forms of imposed censorship on our forum.

that has been evident for some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:11 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:39 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment (in bold) as in was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh this thread.

The imposed censorship action referred to occured after the period selected by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to show all of his 'silent deletions' in this thread. You may judge this thread to have been 'bathwater' and have deserved such censorship to be imposed, in your name and in order to avoid 'trouble'. Then again you may not?

But without the poster bringing this censorship to the attention of this thread - you would have never been able to make this judgement for yourself - as it has already been made for you.   

That's right - we generally don't allow threads that are directed at individual Mudcatters, so I deleted that thread as soon as I saw it. That one was sure to become a personal attack by the fourth message.

Here's the introductory message:
Subject: BS: Has Shambles Been Evicted? From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM

I hear a strange quietness across the Mudcat land. Can it be that Mr. Shambles has rambled on to bigger and better places? I hope that he finds a cause worthy of his persistence.

Seems to me that a thread like that is sure to cause trouble.
-Joe Offer-

Strange then that a thread titled   Shambles still here and why?   was not so judged and only suffered an imposed title change - before finally being subject to imposed closure by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. But then he will do as he likes and justfy it later as being 'Mudcat' policy - even when it may be the very opposite of what he judged to be 'Mudcat policy' last week.

The following examples of acceptable posting - from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are not judged (by him) to be 'trouble' or to be personally motivated.

Dunno, Roger. As I see it, I sometimes disagree with people, but I'm not combative. It's the combative stuff that causes trouble at Mudcat. and I do believe that needs to be controlled.
Joe Offer

Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit
Joe Offer.
------
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
Joe Offer
------
Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-


If such posting behaviour is judged as needing to be controlled (by the one posting it) - perhaps as start could be made by a change to a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing team who would be prepared to set a better example?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:41 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:06 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into a spam post that was itself inserted and which now forms the first post in this thread.

Sample of a typical deleted message, moved here for demonstration purposes. I moved all of the messages from August 10-12 into this thread, so people can see just what we've been deleting.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps for a little bit of balance - a few examples of the sort of posts that 'we' have not been deleting? And the sort of personal judgements posts which some may consider that are actually being encouraged............

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Sorcha - PM
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM

ROGER! Shut the FUCK up and GO AWAY!



Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: katlaughing - PM
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:15 PM

PLEASE CLOSE THIS USELESS THREAD!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM

You're still setting a bad example...
It still isn't working....

So why continue?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:49 PM

I've done my best to be honest, but Shambles calls me a liar. So, I guess I have nothing more to say.
-Joe Offer-

Well, despite this assurance - you did go on to say more. But perhaps this was only to be expected.

In my book - someone judged to be a liar includes one who does see any reason why they should honour their public assurances. The facts have demonstrated that you feel you can ignore any assurance given to our forum in an editing comment here by simply changing your mind. You must accept the consequences of that action and not make the usual attempt to minimise, justify and defend these actions and make this attempt under the usual double standard of behaviour. An attempt which discredits all of the honest efforts made here and makes The Mudcat Cafe look hypocritical.

Despite your groundless accusations over my reactions to your conduct, you have been shown to be a man whose word cannot be trusted.

And yet you still expect posters to trust your word when you clearly do not trust anyone else's. And you consider it unfair if you are judged when you feel qualified to impose your judgement on others and do not consider this to be at all unfair.   

You feel that you can constantly give posters cause for complaint but then have some right to insult them if they should do this. You do not seem to have noticed that in fact I have long-ago ceased to officially complain. As it is clear there is little point in such a course.

I attempt to try and post my views to inform our forum of the true nature and current level of censorship - to enable this to be discussed. And I will continue to make this attempt - despite the efforts of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to prevent and restrict this.

And yes I do expect those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on me to set a better example than the example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and will work towards ensuring that a better example will be shown in future.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:57 PM

??????

The Shambles says:"You do not seem to have noticed that in fact I have long-ago ceased to officially complain"

When did this occur? seems to be a few complaints in your current post, which makes that statement inaccurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:07 PM

What stupid point do you think you're making by referring to him third person neutral.

A simple one that is often overlooked. That the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is only a role that is currently occupied by the fellow poster called Joe Offer.

That when for example Joe Offer states in post that he does not like Birthday threads - (or any of the number of things that are not to his personal taste) - that this is only a personal view and just as valid as any other poster's personal view. And no more so.

But when in his role as current chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - he give an assurance to our forum in an editing comment - that he does not honour - the excuse provided for this - is not just a personal view but an official one which brings into question his suitability to continue in this role. And perhaps question the need for such a role to continue at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:19 PM

" In my book"
Your book doesn't matter squirt on Mudcat......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:22 PM

One difference between you and me, the Sham, is that I don't consider that I need a role model. The fact that you do may account for the aggrievement you feel.

I consider myself responsible for myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM

200 wasted posts

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:27 PM

Do you still claim that you do not wish to tell max how to run his site? Because you do so frequently.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:35 PM

200

The devil made me do it.

---

Damn. Mudcat (or my ISP) is so slow today that Giok beat me to it. This is post #202.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:36 PM

I would shoot that devil if I were you Joe, her can't count.
Too many birthday drinks?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM

Joe Offer Vs Birth Day Threads

The fact that you do may account for the aggrievement you feel.

Not sure that I do need a role model but if I did - it would not the example of acceptable posting behaviour currently set for our forum to follow - of do as I say - not as I do.

I think that the setting, justifying and defending of such an example may now account for quite a lot of aggrievement on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:02 PM

If only self righteousness and smugness were a terminal condition. At least then we could see an end to Roger's wittering.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:17 PM

Non sequitur alert: what does my birthday have to do with Mudcat editing?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:18 PM

Just because it's irrelevant doesn't mean Roger won't drag it into his whinge.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:24 PM

Actually Giok, if you could die of assholism, Shambotinkles would have croaked long ago. If sheer idiocy caused a rash, he'd be scratching himself silly all over his body instead of just his nuts as he normally does. And if hypocrisy and lies were sugar and pies he'd weigh in at about a ton.

Three months ago Max asked you to leave here Shammypammy. Plain English....No bull, very direct. You talk of other's honor Shambotubbly? You have none, nada, zilch, morally bankrupt.

Up yours and have a nice day........I just did!!!!!!!)

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:27 PM

well - Joe - you have publicly stated your dis-like of multitudinous b-day threads. I think that was as "Joe Offer, fellow poster"; though I seem to recall that it was also stated as that other role you fill. But b-day threads continue. Whereas, god forbid, should conditions change and anything you have said as "Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team' no longer be valid - or an exception be made...

well - obviously....err

I dunno. What does it have to do with mudcat editing?

Is this a trick question? Is it the difference between "if you have anything to say you may start new threads" and "if you have anything new to say you may start new threads". Is it about the difference between crossing the road and cross a grape?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 04:59 PM

I think that it means that supposedly, I am not allowed to have likes and dislikes. If I like something or dislike something, then I suppose the logic is that I will act according to my likes and dislikes.
I think the worst thing I ever did to a birthday thread is grumble about it. Is that so horrible?
Who makes these rules, anyhow?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 05:13 PM

Joe - do your likes and dislikes remain the same when you change from "Joe Offer" { mild mannered moderator for a great international website } and when you turn into the "Current Chief of the Mudcat editing team" ? And does the change require a cape? Because your secret identity has been blown.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 06:46 PM

Gee...Shambles better hope "Mild-mannered, but sometimes opinionated Joe Offer" doesn't get replaced by a "neutral" program set to delete repetitious nonsense and non-sequiturs. Joe at least TRIES to make allowances for idiosyncratic aberrations...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:22 PM

"idiosyncratic aberrations..."

Should this kind of language be posted where children might see it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 06:40 AM

I think the worst thing I ever did to a birthday thread is grumble about it. Is that so horrible?

Probably not - if you judge the role of a 'moderator' to inhibit posting.

If you judge that the role of a 'moderator' simply to enable and encourage posting - it probably is.

If the list of things that have been inhibited by this public 'grumbling' - only consisted of birthday threads it may not be too horrible. But the list is a long and continuing one.

If you wish to be free to grumble - like any ordinary poster - please don't hesitate to become one of us again..........

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 06:47 AM

Non sequitur alert: what does my birthday have to do with Mudcat editing?

As it was one of your great supporters who first introduced the subject to this thread - why not ask him?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:36 PM

I would shoot that devil if I were you Joe, her can't count.
Too many birthday drinks?
Giok

And then goes on to blame me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:18 PM

Just because it's irrelevant doesn't mean Roger won't drag it into his whinge.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 06:54 AM

Hee hee!!!
Nice to see the old paranoia is still ruling your mind Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 06:55 AM

Shambles, your persecutory delusions are worsening.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 03:16 PM

Who makes these rules, anyhow?
-Joe-

Well it would appear to be the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who tells us what he will or will not allow others to post, what will or will not happen and what suggestions are accepted or not.

Or it could just be my fellow poster Joe Offer just expressing and acting on his personal likes and dislikes..............

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 08:48 PM

"personal likes and dislikes.............."

A personal dislike of mine is a string of periods at the end of what would have been a sentence had it had four periods. In this case, the ellipsis would be followed by the period or end punctuation point. Sorry to quibble so. Slow day.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 10:30 PM

Ahh, got my 'puter back. Just in time to remind this guy that the owner invited him to leave. Just go, Sham.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 10:50 PM

Sorry Peace.
.........etc.

Oh give over and just GO Shambles.
No, nobody here loves you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 10:55 PM

how about dashes Peace ------- would that make it easier ----------?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 10:57 PM

As long as there isn't a hundred yards of them. I never did like that either. The mile was OK, but not the sprint.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:26 PM

"idiosyncratic aberrations..."

yeah, like 'public gesticulation'...(The children know MUCH worse!)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:28 PM

My gawd!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 05:59 AM

You called my son?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 06:11 AM

He called your son what?

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 06:25 AM

I hope he calls him Ewan, after all that's what I call him.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 07:53 PM

Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: Peace - PM
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:57 PM

This type of shit is the worst of trolling. Gets people concerned for no fucking reason. Piss off, please!

The above post was deleted and then copied and pasted into this thread by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (for strange reasons of his own). Anyone want to try and explain why the following post was NOT judged suitable for deletion?

---

For the record: the message above was moved, not deleted and copy-pasted - but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. The message below was not deleted because "Roger" does not like to see posts deleted, and this post was about him. We really don't know what to do with posts when they're about "Roger" - he complains if we leave them, and he complains if we delete them. Attacks on "Roger" are deleted when it appears that they may disturb the peace of the entire forum. Is it actually an "attack" to tell an exceedingly verbose person to shut up?? I dunno.
-Joe Offer-

---

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Sorcha - PM
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM

ROGER! Shut the FUCK up and GO AWAY!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 07:59 PM

Oh, sure...because you haven't yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 08:09 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: Peace - PM
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:57 PM

This type of shit is the worst of trolling. Gets people concerned for no fucking reason. Piss off, please!"

Roger. That post was deleted for whatever reasons the person saw fit. It was my response (I think the second post) to a troll who was saying he was depressed and implying that he was going to kill himself and shit like that. However, he'd started two or three threads (or written to two or three) and called everyone with an edit button some sort of bad person.

I think that the whole thread got deleted.

I don't doubt that there may be a clone who is trigger happy, and with regard to me I can name that person. However, piss on it. Life's too short. That person will croak before me, and that'll have to do.

Please don't use me as the example for the things you are pursuing. If I get pissed about one of my posts getting the axe, I will inform Joe myself. No offense.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 08:30 PM

"Subject: ivtqgce xsvauheyc
From: GUEST,scwemjid uhqsjn - PM
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 08:25 PM

pikesqr zqcga hqbkz izsfpv psmtonihv zgrmxie chqnbayx"

I think I know what these posts are about. Does anyone recall in the old Superman comics that there was some sorta 'bad-news magical creature' that could only be sent back to its dimension by being tricked into saying its name backwards?

(NO applause necessary--it's a gift, but thanks for the thought.)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 11:30 PM

So the guest's name was njsqhu dijmewcs then? Wow! You might be onto something.

Well it makes as much sense as anything else around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 11:31 PM

Mr. Mptzxtlplx...or something like that....(I think he was copied from "Joe Bzftzlpk" in Lil' Abner....who always had a rain cloud following him)

(Now, *I* will accept applause)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 11:37 PM

For YOU, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 01:16 AM

Just lost the long post I wrote. Ratsafrazzle! My fault, wrong button.

Anyway, Mxyzptlk and Btfsplk appeared in the mid'40's so they may just have been great ideas of two genius cartoonists. One was a villain from the fifth dimension who ripped Superman a new one until the Man of Steel could trick him into saying his name backwards.

Joe was the ultimate jinx and the harbinger of all the bad luck there was to be had.

Mr.Srbpjqakxw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 05:25 AM

"This type of shit is the worst of trolling. Gets people concerned for no fucking reason. Piss off, please!"

At least he said please Roger, it's nice to see good manners like that, it's so rare these days.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Bewildered Dingo
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 10:52 AM

Can some of you that continue to reply to Mr. Shambles explain why you keep doing so? You are giving him just what he is seeking; validation that his repetition is warranted.

If he is bad then you just might be worse, because you are perpetuating this nonsense and more at fault than he is. Some of you repeat the very same thing over and over and over...just as he does.

You are like a pack of wild dogs that jump a wounded pack member and tear him apart even though he is down and defenseless.

Please reassess what you are doing here. You are losing respect of some of your fellow members, if that matters to you.

Mr. Shambles, in the words of a song: "sometimes you just can't win" You have lost this argument even from those of us that might agree with some of your gripes. Please call it a day on this subject then try to regain the respect of fellow members by posting the useful type of messages you are capable of in the music section.

Dingo not hungry for blood

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 06:10 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread (in very small writing) and did not refresh the thread.

For the record: the message above was moved, not deleted and copy-pasted - but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. The message below was not deleted because "Roger" does not like to see posts deleted, and this post was about him. We really don't know what to do with posts when they're about "Roger" - he complains if we leave them, and he complains if we delete them. Attacks on "Roger" are deleted when it appears that they may disturb the peace of the entire forum. Is it actually an "attack" to tell an exceedingly verbose person to shut up?? I dunno.
-Joe Offer-

As the whole point of the introduction of the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, his known and anonymous volunteer 'moderators' is said to be to protect us from abusive personal attacks - the fact that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not seem to consider that a post addressed to an individual telling them to shut the f*** up and go away, to be an attack - suggests strongly that it is now time for a change? Especially as this post is only following the example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, that such posts are now acceptable posting behaviour on our forum?   

Few posters have the ability (or desire) to 'move' the posts of others and also cannot insert their personal opinions into the posts of others and attempt to disguise these as an 'editing comment'.

As for 'we' not knowing what to do when posts are about any individual poster - the simple answer as in all this - is the same.

What is requested is for equal treatment to be seen to be applied to all posters. When all is conducted fairly and openly - all parties are seen to be protected.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 05:05 PM

Is there any chance of anyone attempting to answer the following?

Would you judge that editing comments, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts?

If censorship must take place - why do you consider that it does not then make sense to place all editing comments where they belong?

[This where any form of imposed action has been judged to be required and to enable all poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and level of censorship on our forum.]

Why would you consider one to be good idea and the other to be bad one?

Because this double standard is what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is expecting (and appears to be receiving) your support in.............

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM

You may have missed the following comment Roger, it was inserted in a post by Max Spiegel, the guy who owns this site.

'Perhaps it's time you went Shambles'

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:15 PM

I like the way Joe does his comments, even when they are directed at me. He writes in that neat rust-coloured red and uses excellent grammar and punctuation.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:16 PM

For those that may have missed it - or those that wish to put their own words into the mouth of this site's owner - this is what was said.

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.

Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.

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.

Joe: Do I need to separate you two?>snip<

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:20 PM

Shut UP and LEAVE Shambles. Nobody cares anymore. Start your OWN site and maintain it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 07:49 PM

Apparently talcum powder is good for creaking boards.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 08:10 PM

Monothematic delusions

When some one is delusional, they will interpret all imput as confirming the delusional belief.

Methinks he ain't being stubborn and he really can't help himself.

He can't give it up. Presumably those of us who repeatedly respond or react can. So why don't we. It would be a kindness.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John O'L
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 10:02 PM

He can't give it up. Presumably those of us who repeatedly respond or react can. So why don't we.

Interesting that I should be sufficiently bored to check this thread just after someone has said exactly what I said so long ago.

It will never happen. You all suffer from the same affliction. This thread is like a bar for inebriates only. Well I've had my shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 04:29 AM

Well, yes, Shambles, I did refer to you as a buffoon.
Joe Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

Not too sure what is so delusional here?

Are there not special restrictions imposed on my postings announced and defended by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team seen to pay little regard to any assurances given to our forum in editing comments?

Does the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team still insist on setting the example that posts containing only abusive personal attacks, name-calling and judgements of the worth of fellow posters is now acceptable on our forum?

Should I then ignore this?

I suggest that to do so - or to urge others to do so - would be the course that is truly delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 05:07 AM

Please don't use me as the example for the things you are pursuing. If I get pissed about one of my posts getting the axe, I will inform Joe myself. No offense.

It was not me who used your post as an example was it - so perhaps your request would be better addressed to those who did? No offence.

Had the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team not 'silently deleted' your post and then 'moved' it to this thread - for reasons of his own - I and our forum would not have known that your post even existed.

Had you (or any other poster) been pissed about such an action - you would not have gotten very far. First you would have had to try and prove that it (and not similar but remaining posts) was subject to imposed censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 05:12 AM

Of course posts are subject to imposed censorship, get used to it Roger.
Pro bono publico is the term you will find fits the situation.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 11:47 AM

[PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00

Censorship will not happen. I do admit to deleting something here or there, but the ONLY two ways that will happen is if personal or delicate information is mistakenly posted and either I see it or the SUBJECT or POSTER requests that I remove it. The second way is if I feel like it (This is half a joke, the temptation as "The Man" to remove downright garbage is just too tempting sometimes, and I do reserve the ability for EXTREME situations, ex. Telling one to go ahead and do it in a suicide thread.)
Max

What is simply being requested now is that if censorship is judged to be required in order to protect us - that an editing comment is always inserted to indicate where and when it is imposed and a very brief reason provided.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:09 PM

The computer says No!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:21 PM

What is simply being requested now is that if censorship is judged to be required in order to protect us - that an editing comment is always inserted to indicate where and when it is imposed and a very brief reason provided.

And each time, shortly after that action we would read a post by you starting

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread and did not refresh the thread.... ?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:49 PM

I know what I'd like to insert, and where, and I'm absolutely sure he'd notice it; them pineapples hurt!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:53 PM

Sorry Giok, you can't do that. It is quite simply too much. What I mean is that with his head so far up his ass he has to take his hat off to shit, there is no room for anything else!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 01:44 PM

You people that continue to respond to Shambles are the real fools and worse than he.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 01:54 PM

Oh how smug it is to be a guest!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM

"Oh wad the gift the guestie gie us,
To show himself, as well as be us."

anyone want to polish that last line, be my....uhh...guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 02:48 PM

Oh wad some powr the giftie gie us
Tae see oorsels, as ithers see us.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 02:52 PM

Good 'un, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:30 PM

no, no, Giok..I know the original *grin*...I was trying to be topical.

(why, thank you, Ebbie...you were always a discerning sort!)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:31 PM

on 2nd thought, Giok, the original fits too.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:41 PM

I thought so too Bill

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 09:00 PM

And each time, shortly after that action we would read a post by you starting

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread and did not refresh the thread.... ?
Wolfgang

The reason why I have requested that editing comments are not inserted into my posts (and not accepted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) is because it was a way open, to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, to express his personal likes and dislikes under the cover of it being an editing comment - and not to refresh the thread.

And in fact it could be further judged that the abuse of this whole process was the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team being also able to make a value judgement on the worth of the thread - by being seen not to refresh it.   

Perhaps when all imposed censorship actions are recorded - there is a way that a (real) editing comment can be made to refresh the thread? Or perhaps when one is inserted into a post - another post stating that an editing comment has been inserted, can be made, one that will refresh the thread?

What is so wrong with being open in this? If a comment on the threads subject is made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - why should this comment not refresh the thread, exactly like the comments of ordinary posters do?

If the current attempt to abuse the practice of editing comments and to hide them by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team were to cease - I would have no need to bring our forum's attention to them in my posts. And posters would then be able to judge for themselves if the imposed censorship action undertaken in their name, was appropriate or being abused.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 09:26 PM

If a comment on the threads subject is made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - why should this comment not refresh the thread, exactly like the comments of ordinary posters do?

Because the main forum thread list here is ordered by the date of the last post to each thread. There is no process called "refresh" that brings a thread up to the top, a thread just goes there when it contains the most recent post.

---

Oh, he knows HOW it works, Jon - he just doesn't think I should be permitted to do that. There are times I feel a need to correct misinformation Shambles has presented - and I think it's best to put the correction right next to the misinformation. Besides, I certainly don't want to prolong the life of a Shamblesthread with my response. If Shambles wants his threads refreshed, he can jolly well do it himself. I'm not about to help him. If it is an answer to a question or correction of misinformation regarding Mudcat editing, I post it in editorial comments. If it's expression of opinion, I generally post it in a message.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 05:22 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.


Oh, he knows HOW it works, Jon - he just doesn't think I should be permitted to do that.

The point is that our forum may not know how it currently works. When they do, they are in a position to judge whether the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team should be permitted to this and to judge whether it is an abuse or not.

There are times I feel a need to correct misinformation Shambles has presented - and I think it's best to put the correction right next to the misinformation.

To prevent any abuse - I suggest that an editing comment should only be inserted when some form of imposed censorship action has actually taken place. And if any poster wishes to make any comment in a thread they know that a post will always refresh the thread.

Besides, I certainly don't want to prolong the life of a Shamblesthread with my response.

The advice to posters is if you do not wish to prolong the life of a thread - then do not post to it. Perhaps it is not expecting too much that this advice applies also to the posts of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

If Shambles wants his threads refreshed, he can jolly well do it himself. I'm not about to help him. If it is an answer to a question or correction of misinformation regarding Mudcat editing, I post it in editorial comments. If it's expression of opinion, I generally post it in a message.
-Joe Offer-

No comment required.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 05:33 AM

Dig it Shambolina....We all know that YOU can prolong the life of a thread all by yourself.......and you do. Several times this thread has gone dormant for almost 24 hours, especially lately, and you refresh it with bullshit.

Max asked you to leave. Get the fuck out.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 06:52 AM

The point is that our forum may not know how it currently works. When they do, they are in a position to judge whether the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team should be permitted to this and to judge whether it is an abuse or not.

OK, it is possible that people may not know, although that is a standard way of going about things.

I did make a programming mistake with the original folkinfo code (it was modified Annexe code to work on the faster MySQL database plus a few other changes) that is relevant to what you are asking about. What I did was set the post date in the MySQL database to an "automatic time stamp" type. The effect of this was that an edit on a post updated the post's date/time.

This did not affect the order of the posts in a thread (which there is sorted in the order they got added to the database rather than the alternative, date posted) but it did change what the most recent post was, causing a "refreh".

What I can say from my experience with this error is that refreshing a thread as a result of an edit (which in many cases can be something as simple as fixing broken HTML - I think you will find it happens at MC more than you might realise BTW) is unhelpful and potentialy confusing. I would not have bothered correcting my mistake had it proved to achieve anything useful, I would instead have been pleased with my "accidental discovery".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 07:32 AM

We all know that YOU can prolong the life of a thread all by yourself.......and you do. Several times this thread has gone dormant for almost 24 hours, especially lately, and you refresh it with bullshit.

The advice to posters is if you do not wish to prolong the life of a thread - then do not post to it.

It is a simple system. But not one that appears to be much understood. Perhaps because of the example now being set by (some) of those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters - and eagely followed by some posters - that abusive personal attacks and name-calling are now acceptable posting behaviour.

Posting to a thread - only to judge the worth of your fellow posters will only refresh the thread. Unless you are one of the few privileged with an edit button and one of the few who choose to abuse this privilege by both having their cake and eating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 07:57 AM

Shambles you are a total fraud, this thread had disappeared off the end, of the list, just look at the time on the thread before yours 24 hours and 24 minutes.
YOU are the one who renews these threads, because YOU are the attention seeker, and YOU are the one on the ego trip.
I repeat YOU are a fraud!
I also repeat as Acting Head of the Shambles Stalkers Union, that Max suggested you leave.
So why are you still here?
Because you're an egomaniac with a chip on both shoulders that's why!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:09 AM

with a chip on both shoulders that's why!

Nah, some would say that is well balanced.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:37 AM

Giok, he refreshes it because he knows there's someone out there as compulsive as he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:51 AM

It's a love hate thing Jeri, Roger just loves being hated!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:55 AM

Actually, Giok, he has his need for attention filled when he baits folks into posting.

I would like to try an experiment. I would like to see if everyone would just ignore him completely for a month, say til 27 September. I would like to see how often he would fish for responses. Might be fun to watch him get desperate.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:47 AM

Big Mick said "Actually, Giok, he has his need for attention filled when he baits folks into posting."

And Giok, Big Mick, and Spaw are the fools who continue to take the bait and perpetuate this thread. Giok does it frequently and is far worse than Shambles.

Let Shambles post to himself over and over in this thread. Please do not help him keep it going.

Jeri has it right "Giok, he refreshes it because he knows there's someone out there as compulsive as he is" I would add he knows there are fools on this board that will reply to his "fools bait"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:56 AM

And now you, faceless one.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:58 AM

The smug certainty of an anonymous guest is just as predictable as Shambles monotony!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 06:58 AM

Actually, Giok, he has his need for attention filled when he baits folks into posting.

If that were the case - I could be sure that a few posters would always bite, refreshing the thread only to make their personal judgements, instruct others not to and blame their compulsion to do this, all on on me.

However, that is not the case and the purpose of a discussion forum remains to enable and encourage discussion.

Not, as now appears to be the case on our forum - finding (fun) ways to judge, restrict and prevent it and to make these clumsy attempts at control and interferance sound honourable.

Especially - when the most effective option open to all posters - is simply not to open, read or respond to a threads's subject that is not to their taste.

A landed and floundering fish could try and shift the blame for their predicament on the irresistible quality and quantitity of the bait. But if they were only able to resist their weakness and ignore any form of bait - there would not be a predicament for them.

Nor would there be so many (closed) threads on this subject, all with tens of hundreds of posts. Like the following.

Shambles still here and why?
Deleted posts & closed threads
Minister gone –New One - who cares
Title change discussion (moved from another thread)
Is closing threads censorship?
Music posts by Guests to be reviewed
Proposal for members only posting of BS
I may disagree with what you say-
Your favourite Shamblism
Why all the closed threads?
Non posting of judgements week
Do we need to curb the troublemakers
Do you need to be censored
Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO
I may disagree with what you say-
Your favourite Shamblism
Why all the closed threads?
Non posting of judgements week
Do we need to curb the troublemakers
Gallery of Mudcat Quotations
More Noteworthy Mudcat Quotations
Less Noteworthy Mudcat Quotations
Closing threads
In the UK
Cut and pasters creepin' back in
Politics only posters on the cat
A (true) Jelly fish story
Censorship on Mudcat
Max what about Shambles requests
In the UK
Opening threads a debate

This subject is as much a worthy subject for discussion as any other and one that obviously has no shortage of contributors. Perhaps those who post only to judge the subject or only to judge the worth of their fellow posters and feel they have some right to name-call and tell them to **** ***, can just ignore this subject and leave the threads free for those who do wish to discuss all aspects of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 08:04 AM

No matter how offensive you may find someone else's views - surely it is a sign only of your weakness to make or support attempts to prevent or restrict those views from being expressed?

In order only to prevent or restrict views that are not offensive but simply views some would simply prefer were not expressed and discussed on our forum - is it at all honourable to be seen to invent justification for this futile attempt to control what other posters choose to post?

If a thread's subject is judged to be 'boring' or 'repetitive' or 'duplication' - is this really enough justification for censorship to be imposed? And to the exessive and obsessional extent that we see displayed here? Surely threads that were so judged by our forum would simply die young through lack of interest?

All moderately expressed views on our forum can be responded to or ignored - why is it now judged that posters should be denied the opportunity to judge for themselves by the overuse and justification of imposed censorship and for such posting 'crimes'?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 02:29 AM

Is it just sensible to limit the making of inserted editing comments to only where some form of editing action has actually taken place?

Does that in fact define what an inserted editing comment should always and only be?

Does it not follow that all cases where any form of imposed deleting action is judged to be required - supposedly for the good of our forum - that that an editing comment is always supplied in the place of the censored material?

When a change to this will for the first time enable our forum to see the true nature and current level of censorship and to be able to express an informed opinion on whether this action taken in their name - is required by them.

Why is it now judged to be fair - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - to insert editing comments into existing posts, when no form of editing action has taken place (and often against the wishes of the poster) but somehow unfair for all cases of imposed editing action to have an editing comment of explanation?

If there is nothing to hide - why does the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team prefer take a course of action that is not open and as result may lead posters to judge that there is something to hide?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 01:20 PM

Not posting on a thread

Could it be that penny has finally dropped?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 12:36 PM

Until our forum is made aware of all intances where 'silent deletion' has been judged to be needed to be imposed, in order to protect us - there will always be some question that current measures may be heavy-handed, personally motivated or generally unfair and open to abuse.

The simple act of limiting all editing comments to where some form of editing action has actually been imposed and always inserting editing comments where any form of censorship has been imposed - will remove any suspicion of abuse.

If such a simple measures toward a more open approach will achieve this and greatly benefit and inform our forum - the question that remain to be answered is why is such a change so strongly resisted and in the manner we see so well demonstrated in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 09:02 PM

Are the mods anti-English

The lastest encouragement for the current Chief of the Mudcat editing Team's witch-hunt, is the following - which is extracted from a post in the above thread.

It doesn't do any good to discuss any of this with Shambles. He knows the names of all the moderators, and yet he continues to complain about their anonymity. In a three-day period a week or two ago, I transferred all the messages we usually delete into his "closed and deleted" thread, so he and the rest of the world could see a normal sample of what gets deleted. This demonstration didn't satisy Shambles, and he continues to assert that the Mudcat moderators are silently deleting something or another. I guess I have to expect that Shambles will continue to assert that horrible but nonspecific things are happening in secret. I can't think of how to devise a system that will provide absolute proof that these horrible nonspecific things are NOT being done by Anonymous Fellow Posters. I tried, but he didn't believe me, so it doesn't do any good to discuss anything with him. I guess it's good to just let him continue to believe in these Horrible Nonspecific Things and in his Anonymous Fellow Posters, because it gives meaning and purpose to his life. I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. I suppose that since this is "his" topic, this will become "his" thread, and I'll have to close the other one. I'll wait and see what he does.
Joe Offer

For the record - I do not know - nor could I know the 'names of all the moderators'. I do not even know how many there are. And even if it was the case that I did know this - it would not be open knowledge to our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Sep 06 - 10:04 AM

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions

This all sounds very noble and selfless - but can someone explain why my postings (only) should be HAVE to be restricted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for the reasons stated by him?

It is clear to me how the selective and personally motivated censorship actions, silent deletions and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum.

It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views are preventing any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum.

Perhaps this can be explained?

And if it cannot - perhaps these restrictions can be removed?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 02:14 AM

Are the mods anti-English?

The above is yet another thread to add to the list of closed threads. This one was closed without an editing comment but just a conventional post. Perhaps out of a fear that someone else (who had also posted and threatened to close it) might do it first.....?

Subject: RE: BS: Are the mods Anti-English
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 12:40 AM

Keith and Divis, as my children say, "chill out!"
...I think that means you're supposed to be civil to each other.
-Joe Offer-

Yeah, I think this thread has run its course. thread closed.

---

And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time.
-Joe Offer-

---

Reopened per request from Shambles.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 05:23 AM

Closed threads and deleted posts

And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time.
-Joe Offer-

How is this one permitted Shambles Dominated thread to be defined by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

---

As stated above:
I figure if he starts a complaint thread or posts five complaint messages to a single thread, that's the thread he's chosen to dominate - and all his other complaint posts get moved to that one thread.
The idea is to allow you to express yourself, but to control the duplication and domination. Say what you want - once. As has been said before, the problem is not the content of your posts, but the endless repetition. This restriction on you applies only to your complaints about Mudcat editing - your messages on this subject are confined to one thread at a time. If you post complaints to one thread today, in general you may not post complaints to any other thread today - you have to wait until tomorrow to post complaints to a new thread. But at your request, I have reopened the "closed and deleted" thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 02:36 PM

The only way to test 100% apathy would be to leave it open - or to re-open it.

If indeed it had fallen off the bottom through lack of interest - there would have been no need for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to so quickly subject it to imposed closure and to attempt to make it sound as if it was undertaken for some noble purpose.

Closed threads and deleted posts

And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM

As far as I have read on this site, Mr Shambles is quite entitled to start another thread now that his last one has been shut down due to 100% apathy.

100% apathy would have just left it alone.

Someone has made a lot of effort to quickly close it to actively prevent anyone posting to it. I wonder why anyone would be so keen to do this to a thread that posters are supposed to be so apathetic to?

Perhaps the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would be kind enough to re-open Closed threads and deleted posts   and allow our forum to decide for themselves and show how apathetic they may or not be to that thread and this issue.

It is quite clear how the selective and personally motivated censorship actions, silent deletions and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum. No matter what your opinion of me may be - it should be clear how undesirable this special treatment of any single poster should be.

It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views (and mine alone) are preventing any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum. But that is the charge.

Perhaps this can be explained? And if it cannot perhaps these unfair restrictions can be lifted and all posters been seen to be treated equally by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

If the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is not prepared to do this - perhaps our forum might have a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who would be willing to be seen to treat all posters equally?

---

OK, Roger, your "closed and deleted" thread has been reopened. We'll see what happens. But I'd place the same restrictions on anyone who repeatedly posted multiple copies of the same thing in multiple threads (and sometimes in the same thread). You are still subject to restriction.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 06:58 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post in the above thread and did not refresh it.

As stated above:
I figure if he starts a complaint thread or posts five complaint messages to a single thread, that's the thread he's chosen to dominate - and all his other complaint posts get moved to that one thread.
The idea is to allow you to express yourself, but to control the duplication and domination. Say what you want - once. As has been said before, the problem is not the content of your posts, but the endless repetition. This restriction on you applies only to your complaints about Mudcat editing - your messages on this subject are confined to one thread at a time. If you post complaints to one thread today, in general you may not post complaints to any other thread today - you have to wait until tomorrow to post complaints to a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

How exactly is a complaint about Mudcat editing to be defined and by whom? Is a complaint only a view posted that is not in agreement with the view held by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

It would appear that any view that is agreement with that of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is allowed and encouraged to be repeated many times in many threads and often combined with abusive personal attacks, judgements and name-calling.

Can all these totally unworkable and unfair restrictions now be lifted and all posters treated equally by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

For it is clear from all this foolishness that any wish to dominate - is his alone.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 07:17 PM

The other Rogered thread has gone for 8 days without anyone replying to him. I hope thats the beginning of a trend instead of a one-off.

If only this were the case........Closed threads and deleted posts

You can of course find all the usual comments from the usual suspects - those that would have normally littered that thread - in the following thread instead.

Not posting on thread

Finding ways to prevent discussion on a discussion forum does not somehow seem to be the correct use of any 'moderator's efforts. There once was a time on our forum when the idea was to encourage posting - not inhibit it. Perhaps there will be again.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 07:26 PM

A non political BS section please? has been closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 05:53 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an exsisting post and did not refresh this thread.

Reopened per request from Shambles.
-Joe Offer-

Thank you. Perhaps reasonable discussion can now resume on this thread and it can be explained here exactly how starting threads and posting to them can prevent resonable discussion on our forum - as stated by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

However the following thread has been closed, effectively preventing any reasonable discussion on that thread from continuing.

Non political BS section please?

Can our forum now assume that the special restrictions imposed on my contributions have no been lifted and that all posters will now receive equal treatment - as I have also requested?

---

Restrictions are still in effect on Shambles, Martin Gibson, and Gargoyle. They have been lifted from "Peace" because he has shown marked improvement. The issue with Shambles is the continued flooding of Mudcat with countless posts that contain the same information, and often multiple exact copies of the same post. This pattern continued over more than five years before any restrictions were placed on Shambles. If Shambles wishes to discuss Mudcat editing policy, he may continue to do so - in one thread at a time.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 02:55 PM

Too bad he can't keep his argumentative offerings over here and leave threads like the Irwin obituary thread alone. The man has no common sense when it comes to knowing when to stop talking and just leave well enough alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 03:24 PM

Took 9 days, but somebody finally replied. This place is too funny sometimes. Too bad it's not supposed to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 05:43 PM

That's a hard question, Jeri. Would it have been better for SRS to respond in the Irwin obituary, encouraging the attempt to turn yet another thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy?

I would have moved the offending Shambles message into this thread, where if could be forgotten, but there have been responses there. It's a good example of the reason why restrictions were imposed upon him. While it might be appropriate for Shambles to make a passing comment about a Mudcat problem in a thread where there's evidence of that problem, there certainly was no sense in posting a copy of an entire message from the "Censorship on Mudcat" thread, as part of a message that had nothing at all to do with the death of Steve Irwin. If this breaking into the Steve Irwin thread were a one-time thing, it wouldn't be a problem - but it has been something that has continued over a number of years.

Shambles asks for "equal treatment." That's nice, I suppose, but there hasn't been anybody else in the history of Mudcat who has posed the sort of problem that Shambles creates. As I've said above, there are four people in the history of Mudcat who have been placed on restriction because of problematic conduct - Shambles and two others are still on restriction, and the restrictions on Shambles are lighter than the restrictions have been on the other three. If he continues to attempt to attempt to evade these restrictions, he will receive the same 100 percent review that the others have had, and all of his complaint posts will be moved into a single thread.

So, those are the restrictions, plain and simple - if Shambles wishes to complain about Mudcat and its editing policy, he may do so - but only in one thread per day. If he posts complaints in this thread today, he has to wait until tomorrow to post complaints in any other thread. Any offending messages will be moved or deleted.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 06:01 PM

Joe, I don't know. For the record, I knew someone was going to post here, and for all I know, SRS never noticed that it had been only Shambles posting. People avoided talking to him here, but not anywhere else, because they like playing the game with him. YOU like playing the game with him, but if you want to spend this much time and attention on him, it's your call. Until Max boots his ass out, you'll constantly be cleaning up for him.

...over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 06:35 PM

" They have been lifted from "Peace" because he has shown marked improvement."

Bullshit I have. The marked improvemment is just because the Nazi bastards and racist bastards have been taking some time off. I have made NO effort to 'improve' as you put it. You are welcome to yank my membership anytime you choose. I do not respond well to threats. By anyone, whether implied or explicit.

---

Well, whatever.
I haven't noticed you flooding the Forum with messages at a one-a-minute rate for several months, and I haven't seen you going anonymous to post provocative messages or impersonating Nazis. I call that improvement. If that conduct happens again, the restrictions will be reimposed.
If Shambles continues or increases his disruptive conduct, the restrictions on him will be increased. I hope that will be all I have to say on the matter.
Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree.
-Joe Offer-

---

Joe, you remember when Max said "Don't make me separate you two?" Shambles trolls you, you troll him, and then you take a swipe at Martin Gibson, gargoyle and Peace just for the hell of it. THAT's the 'game' I'm talking about. -Jeri, sick of this childish bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 06:58 PM

You go ahead and impose the restrictions. Here, maybe this will help: take your pomposity and shove it up where the sun don't shine.

You got a problem with Shambles, address Shambles. Leave me the fuck out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:20 PM

Settle down, peoples

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:26 PM

YES SIR!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM

On second thought, fuck this horseshit. You want me outta here, Joe, I am gone. Change your name to Tito and and have fun. I didn't merit your remarks. I do not need someone like you to tell me I have been a good little boy, one who has met Joe Offer's 'standards'. Judging by some of your recent posts, your standards ain't something I care to meet.

Thank you for the remark, Jeri.

Art, when you are on the receiving end I hope someone tells you to 'settle down'.

---

That all happened months ago, Peace, maybe longer. I have no complaint about you and I have no reason to want you to leave. You have made a wonderful contribution to Mudcat in the last several months, and you've done extraordinary work finding song lyrics.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:43 PM

Peace, can we have one clarification here? Do you or don't you dekiberateky post anonymously even if only to repsond to or address "Nazi bastards and racist bastards"?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:53 PM

``````````````````..............it's catching, it seems.

One of the few things Shambles ever did that I totally approved of was, a few years ago, to make a series of posts, some in bright colors, touting **Max's Private Messages** (I tried to find it, but...)

It made the point that some communications could best be done that way rather than letting our internal bickerings hang out there in public.

When people are typing faster than they think, sometimes they phrase things in a way that lights fuses.....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:00 PM

Actually, Peace, I don't think I was referring to you, but take it as you choose.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:25 PM

How to Have Better Conversations
Thursday August 31st 2006, 12:03 am
Filed under: Entertainment, Lifehacks, Knowledge

Some time back I noticed two things:

    * I enjoy good conversations
    * I want to have more good conversations

Nothing revolutionary, but because of those things, I started thinking more about conversation and how to improve it. Here's what I came up with.

These are some reasons that people converse:

    * Conversation brings back memories from your own life.

    * It validates your experiences and opinions and makes you feel understood and accepted.

    * It gives you knowledge about a subject you're interested in. For example, what it's like to live in South Africa, how it feels to be a parent etc.

    * It sparks ideas in you for improving your life, business or hobbies.
    * It gets you something you want.

    * It gives you the satisfaction that comes from convincing (or trying to convince) someone to change their opinion on some subject.

    * The feeling of satisfaction you get from helping someone feel better.

    * The power you feel for making someone feel bad. This is obviously not a good motive for conversation, but it is a real one nonetheless.

    * Conversation is a way to sort out your thoughts and feelings. By talking to someone who cares enough to listen, you often get the time and perspective needed to better understand yourself.

    * It's an escape from stress and monotony. A way to laugh and lighten things up.

While most of these are valid reasons to have conversation, they don't directly indicate what makes a good conversation. Ideally at the end of a conversation both people should leave looking forward to the next conversation. Before going on to how to have a good conversation, here are a few things that make conversation unenjoyable.

    * You didn't feel listened to. The other person either didn't stop talking long enough for you to speak, or when you were talking they were too busy thinking about the next thing they were going to say to hear what you were saying.

    * You didn't feel understood. Despite the fact that the other person was listening intently, you didn't feel like he or she actually understood what you were saying.

    * You felt manipulated. The other person tried to get you to do or say something you didn't want to do or say.

    * Gossip. While tempting, gossip generally does not lead to a good conversation. It destroys trust - how can you be sure the other person isn't gossiping about you?

    * Intellectual inequality. It's hard (but not impossible) to have a good conversation if one party perceives the other as less (or more) intelligent. While this can still lead to a valuable and interesting exchange, it often does not.

    * Lack of common views. This can go both ways. If both parties to the conversation respect each other's intelligence, differences in politics, religion, culture etc. can make for very interesting conversation and debates. On the other hand, if there is a lack of respect or extreme differences, conversation can become uncomfortable.

Knowing what makes conversation good and bad, we can draw some conclusions about what to do in order to have a good conversation. Here's the good stuff.

    * Don't be selfish. It sounds harsh, but it's not as obvious or easy as it seems. Conversation is give and take. There are times when you should listen and times to talk. Doing too much of either is not conducive to good conversation. Listen carefully to the other person then state your opinions after you understand theirs. Even if you are giving advice or teaching someone something, the listening/talking ratio should generally be around 50/50. In the end, the time you feel like you're "giving up" to listen leads to better conversation. Everyone wins.

    * Prepare for good conversation. Read widely. If you know you'll have a chance for a conversation, learn about the interests of the person you'll be talking with. Keep up with the news. Broaden your knowledge. This not only will help you have interesting subjects to bring up, but it will help you understand the context of the conversation without interrupting it to ask for a definition. It's is called cultural literacy.

    * Don't manipulate, or in other words, be honest and up-front. For the most part, people will immediately recognize when they are being manipulated. You may get away with it, but the chances that the person will look forward to their next conversation with you are slim.

    * Reciprocate. If someone shares details about their life, it is natural for them to expect for you to do the same thing. It's not good if after a conversation someone feels that they've laid their life bare before you and know nothing about you. The opposite is true as well.

    * Avoid gossip and complaining. Both of these things are extremely easy to do and both lead to negative, empty feelings afterwards.

    * Don't be afraid to differ. Conversation is boring if everyone agrees. If you don't agree, say you don't and explain why.

    * Know and use your sense of humor in moderation. Figure out what's natural for you and go with it.

I'll finish by saying that I'm by no means an expert conversationalist so take my advice with a grain of salt, but hopefully you'll find some of these tips useful. If you've got suggestions for having better conversations, by all means, comment!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:37 PM

By the way - 300 - FWIW

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Janie
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 11:38 PM

bobad,

Excellent! Absolutely excellent.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:17 AM

I've never read this idiotic thread before, but through reference to it I knew it was where the Shambles nonsense was parked (whether he wrote it here or not, I know not). I just made a comment here to see if I could get his sorry ass off of the Irwin obit thread. The guy has the social grace of a banana slug. I don't spend much time reading threads here, only a small fraction of them. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea of who started what--I sometimes bet myself that Little Hawk or William Shatner or Amos or Giok or one of the others started a new one. So I thought that waving this flag at Shambles might make him move off of the obit thread he's trashed with his nonsense.

Pardon me for stumbling into the booby-traped thread that everyone is apparently lurking around to see if someone trips it. Why doesn't someone just block Shambles and be done with it? You'll feel just as bad now as you would in three months when you actually do it, but the rest of us will get some relief a lot sooner.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:21 AM

A Banana Slug! Oh, my...those are strong words. Slugs don't get nearly as much press as they rightly deserve, either. How insensitive. Let's hear it for slugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:20 AM

Gees! I wanna get out of this squabble! I think I want to talk about banana slugs. Do they respond to salt the same way regular slugs do? We have lots of banana slugs on the California Coast, but I've only seen them when I've been in the company of strong women who would do horrible things to me if I attempted to salt a banana slug...
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:33 AM

That's a hard question, Jeri. Would it have been better for SRS to respond in the Irwin obituary, encouraging the attempt to turn yet another thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy?
Joe Offer

For the record the post that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is getting his knickers twisted about was a response to the following and another post in that thread whach just called another poster a F******. That he sees this post as an attempt to turn that thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy - reveals more about his motives than it does about others.

Subject: RE: Obit: Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin is dead (Sep06)
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 10:18 PM

I cannot believe this thread is still running. I liked the man and believed he knew what it took to get a message across in this day and age. Stilly, Ron, Don, and many others tend to agree while a number of you don't. For those who don't I have seen some well thought out arguments and I suppose we could continue those discussions and probably agree to disagree....a well tested Mudcat scenario.

Spaw

Why are these posts in that thread (and many others) not also worrying the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

The problem is that The fuss and the semi-official witch-hunt against me that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team actively encourages - makes it impossible for me to make any post where some posters feel that it is accepatable to make some personal judgement of my worth or some reference to my views on censorship. Most of the time I ignore this.

Whereever they may be expressed - these are my honest and moderately views and the role of any 'moderator' is to simply to enable these views - not to be seen to be selectivly passing and imposing their judgement on the worth of the poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:49 AM

So, Shambles, what do you know about salting banana slugs?
Can you make escargot from slugs?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 04:17 AM

Escargot?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:15 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

That all happened months ago, Peace, maybe longer. I have no complaint about you and I have no reason to want you to leave. You have made a wonderful contribution to Mudcat in the last several months, and you've done extraordinary work finding song lyrics.
-Joe Offer-

As for slugs - perhaps those who are not interested in this thread's subject can make their personal judgements along with the others in the thread created for this purpose? Not posting to a thread

I've never read this idiotic thread before, but through reference to it I knew it was where the Shambles nonsense was parked (whether he wrote it here or not, I know not). I just made a comment here to see if I could get his sorry ass off of the Irwin obit thread. The guy has the social grace of a banana slug. I don't spend much time reading threads here, only a small fraction of them. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea of who started what--I sometimes bet myself that Little Hawk or William Shatner or Amos or Giok or one of the others started a new one. So I thought that waving this flag at Shambles might make him move off of the obit thread he's trashed with his nonsense.

For the record, the thread referred to was a BS one. Had that been an OBIT thread - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's rules - it would have been in the music section.

Slowly the message must be coming across that all these noble sounding justifications are just posters being encouraged by the example currently set - to mind everyone elses's business and pass judgement on the worth of other posters? Which is a totally pointless exercise as the current result of all this demonstrates. Had I responded in kind to all of those personal judgements encouaged to be directed at me - the situation would be even worse. Perhaps a little credit can be given to me for this?

That the object of our forum is to encouage discussion from as many posters as possible and not finding ways to judge each other's worth and prevent discussion. And not to encourage only like-minded posting but even arguments. Not name-calling but the enabling of moderately expressed differences of opinon are part of what made our forum different. To manage to get a forum where posters can agree to disagree - was no mean feet and about as good as it gets. But it cannot be imposed, only encouraged by example.

That all the tools required to read and post what is to your taste and ignore what is not - are already provided.

That no one is being forced to read or post anything and if any one does not like this - they are free to go elswhere. Our forum is like any other place that is open to to the public. If you do not like the present company - your only option is to go - not to ask for or expect others to be removed because they may not be to your taste.

That the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has his current Public Enemy Number One - but no real crime to justify the resulting witch-hunt. That other posters feel encouraged (and safe) to join in these witch-hunts is hardly surprising but does not refect much credit on anyone.

Can the special posting restrictions on my contributions be lifted and can all posters been seen to receive equal treatment by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:25 AM

Is it safe over here? That "closed and deleted" thread is too full of people who take themselves entirely too seriously. I thought I was going to get eaten alive.

Pehaps if it were your posts being 'silently delted' and your threads closed and were the victim of one of your own publicly mounted witch-hunts you may take it (and the resulting mess) more seriously than you obviously appear to?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:52 AM

You may have missed the following two editing comments as they were both inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Well, whatever.
I haven't noticed you flooding the Forum with messages at a one-a-minute rate for several months, and I haven't seen you going anonymous to post provocative messages or impersonating Nazis. I call that improvement. If that conduct happens again, the restrictions will be reimposed.
If Shambles continues or increases his disruptive conduct, the restrictions on him will be increased. I hope that will be all I have to say on the matter.

Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree.
-Joe Offer-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe, you remember when Max said "Don't make me separate you two?" Shambles trolls you, you troll him, and then you take a swipe at Martin Gibson, gargoyle and Peace just for the hell of it. THAT's the 'game' I'm talking about. -
Jeri, sick of this childish bullshit.

Perhaps our 'moderators' could finally stop abusing their privileged positions (and edit buttons) and post their views like ordinary posters in conventional post that refresh the thread?

And stop abusing our trust by playing games? And concentrate on enabling discussion rather than restricting it complaining about and imposing their judgment their fellow posters?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 06:52 AM

shambles-you are a mad person just trying to make trubble, i wish you go away.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 12:26 PM

The problem is that posting complaints about what other people post (and not just limited to political subjects) is now encouraged and often appears now to be the only game in town.

When anyone making such a complaint been told (as they should have been) to mind their own business and to concentrate on their own posting - they would only have ever been one forum.

Folk don't need to be encouraged to gossip and pass judgement on each other's worth, for they will do this anyway. Once you have been seen to encourage it - it is difficult to change.

But not, I suggest - impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 12:52 PM

Which passages are more vital and should be given greater attention? The ones in ordinary type...or the ones in bold type...or the ones in italics?

And why do we not see some passages in bright colours instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM

"The problem is that The fuss and the semi-official witch-hunt against me that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team actively encourages - makes it impossible for me to make any post where some posters feel that it is accepatable to make some personal judgement of my worth or some reference to my views on censorship. Most of the time I ignore this."

...or, perhaps you dug your own grave and your comments have been rendered useless.

You will not look into a mirror or accept personal responsibility and your are NOT ignoring the posts. You use it as justification for your paranoia and it is just not the way everyone else sees things. It is only your view, and while you are certainly entitled to one, you should try looking at the world that everyone else on Mudcat is seeing.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:21 PM

Duplicate post, Shambles...

Well despite the anonymous link implies - I thought I posted but when I looked I could not see the post here. So I tried again

Some anonymous person with an edit buttom and too much time on their hands had moved it to Closed threads and deleted posts   but gave no indication of this action.

I assume the same person then deleted my second attempt. All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion.

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM

You will not look into a mirror or accept personal responsibility and your are NOT ignoring the posts.

I feel that if I responded with personal jusgements of all those who feel they have some right to post only personal judgements of my worth and who are encouraged to post only this - and our forum was littered up with such exchanges - you may have a point

As I don't - and I am not now responding with any personal judgements of your worth - perhaps you could at least give me some credit for this?

Perhaps when (some of) our moderators show the lead in accepting their responsibilty for this current mess (and when you also ask and expect them to) I may follow their example in accepting whatever part I may have.

But all I am trying to do is post and to enable all posters to be treated equally - I am not preventing anyone else from posting or forcing them to read my posts - am I?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:56 PM

"But all I am trying to do is post and to enable all posters to be treated equally - I am not preventing anyone else from posting or forcing them to read my posts - am I? "

See, that proves the point that many of us have been trying to make. It isn't about "preventing" or "forcing" - it is simply the fact that we are able to read and then we comment on what you said. Don't blame the moderators, they merely came in AFTER the fire started.


"As I don't - and I am not now responding with any personal judgements of your worth - perhaps you could at least give me some credit for this?"

Again, this seems to be an example of paranoia. I am not "judging your worth", I am trying to reason with you and tell you what many of us are seeing. YOU are taking any criticism of your action personally.

I do not recall EVER seeing you admit to saying the wrong thing on Mudcat. You defend every sentence to the death. You join in the conversations and then when you are questioned, you become defensive and won't admit that you might have done the wrong thing.   

Then, when people get frustrated and lash out at you, you really enter a zone that you seem to be enjoying - martyr. Your civil rights are not violated here.   You have built up a reputation, just like Martin Gibson and others did, and then you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

I am sure you are a bright guy. I can't explain your behavior, but I can only point out how many of us are seeing it.   Your posts have become like a small child acting up at the dinner table. You can't be ignored because you are all over conversation.    Maybe spanking is the answer??

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:45 PM

"All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion" the Shambles

hahhahahhahahhahahha

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 08:14 AM

Again, this seems to be an example of paranoia. I am not "judging your worth", I am trying to reason with you and tell you what many of us are seeing. YOU are taking any criticism of your action personally.

Perhaps you should try and actually read some of the personal judements of my worth, the name-calling that it is thought to be fun to be encouraged and the various and physically impossible suggestion made. Even entire threads are started for such things. Most of which I do not respond to at all and never in kind.

Are you suggesting that these are not intentional judgements of my worth? I make no claims for perfection but my posting record is certainly better that many of those who would feel themselves qualified to post only judge me. Do you consider then that all other parties are perfect?

I could respond here with a similar public judgement of what I judged your short-commings and speculate on your mental health - but what would be the point?

The point remains that all that is important is what is said - not who may be saying it, where, when or how poorly you may judge it to be expressed or its spelling and grammar. It is only important to be able to agree to disagree and it not honourable to try and find noble sounding excuses to restrict or prevent any other named poster from posting what they may wish to.

No one is being forced to read or respond to my views or the views of any other poster-are they? And is none of your or my business what we may think of another poster's worth or posting actions and so what is the point, by the example currently set, of encouraging our forum to be littered with such posts?

If you really want to make personal comments and suggestions to me or another poster - there are PMs for this purpose where they do not have to be inflicted on our forum. And in the case of non-members, where this is not available - perhaps the best option is possible to just move on?

Non posting of judgements week

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 08:35 AM

hahhahahhahahhahahha

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. I suppose that since this is "his" topic, this will become "his" thread, and I'll have to close the other one. I'll wait and see what he does.
Joe Offer

I am glad that someone seems to find the concept of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team silently deleting posts and closing threads in order to enable reasonable discussion - to be as funny as I would do - if the implications of accepting such perfect nonsense did not present such a real threat to the long history of free and open discussion on our forum.

It is clear to me how the actions taken and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum.

It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views are preventing (as claimed) any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum. Can someone explain why my postings (only) should be HAVE to be restricted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for this reason?

Perhaps these restrictions can now be removed and all posters be seen to treated equally?

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 08:50 AM

In this case, it is hard to find any particular sin or crime to justify banning....being terminally tedious is sort of a different matter.

Does a poster being judged to be 'teminally tedious' justify any form of selective posting to be imposed? If so perhaps quite a few posters should now be concerned?

I suggest that being judged to be tedious, repetitious, or boring - no matter how irritating some may find this - is not justification for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to impose any form of imposed censorship action.

Perhaps you would agree that these restrictions should now be lifted?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 09:39 AM

Don't blame the moderators, they merely came in AFTER the fire started.

If what you state were true - whether they get blamed would rather depend on what these 'moderator's' actions were after a fire started.

If their actions were not to extinguish them but only to fan the flames and encourage the fire (even unintentionally) - I suggest that the blame for the house burning house down would be all theirs.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in particular is quick to blame anyone and everyone for not being able to impose on our forum the peace he requires. But having admitted this failure does not seem to see that the example set by his double standards have played any part in this or now be prepared to take any personal responsibility for it. Doing exactly as he pleases but speaking for other 'moderators' by claiming this to be 'we'.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team now appears to see the only option open to him is to plough on with the same counter-productive imposition. At least until our forum can excude free contributions from the public and become the members only posting forum that he already treats it as.

Seemingly the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team sees 'moderation' on our forum, as some form of game - where he alone makes the rules up for others to adhere to and be judged by (referred by him to as Mudcat Policy) but which he does not think should apply to him. And where to cause totally confusion and even in the same post or editing comment - he will jump from the role of ordinary poster - expressing their views to that of 'Head Honcho' - imposing them.

Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps the one requiring restriction on our forum - is not me but those who are now activly preventing, restricting and inhibiting reasonable discussion by 'silent deletion' and thread closures?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:32 AM

Should anyone wonder why this matters to me to the extent it does - it is because (as the following public statement from Max explains) I feel partly responsible for this current for of censorship being imposed on our forum in the first place. It certainly was not introduced at my bidding and no matter how well-intioned it may have been - the idea that members would anonymously be imposing censorship on the contributions of their fellow members is one that was guaranteed to only cause division and conflict. It is not too late to change this.

User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Max is taking action (76* d) Max is taking action 22 Jul 99

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view. For one thing, I have marveled at the comradery and love and knowledge and friendship that the Mudcat has been. I have felt safe in meeting new people here and inviting them into my home. But something is changing.

To get to the point, I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers and communication with all Mudcat members to identify people who "cross the line". Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white. It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation. I cannot let another fine person leave, and I cannot support a community where people are not comfortable sharing who they are and what the love, and I will not continue publishing the Mudcat if we cannot find a way to control it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:44 AM

"I feel partly responsible for this current for of censorship being imposed on our forum in the first place."

Don't worry about it.   There is no such thing as "censorship" in a forum like this. It is privately owned, the users are subject to the discretion of managment. You could not walk into a movie theater and then start singing loudly when the feature starts - the management would throw you out. This is not censorship.   Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE.

Some people refuse to understand that and will continue to hold their breathe and stomp their feet. Sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:59 AM

If you don't wish to encourage the poster, stop responding. People repeat what others have said before then wonder why the thread keeps appearing and continuing. It's a no-brainer. Now it's become the Ron and Shambles Show.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:05 AM

There is a difference between a discussion and venting.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:09 AM

The result is the same. The thread continues.

You got a window. Open it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:17 AM

I see nothing wrong with the thread continuing if positive discussion is taking place. My window is open, the fresh air feels good.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:23 AM

Say that to Shambles and stop being the fortieth in on a gang rape.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:30 AM

Shame on you guest.   Everything I am saying here is read by Shambles. Why don't you use your real identity if you wish to attack someone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:50 AM

Why do you continue to fan the flame?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:57 AM

?? I am involved in a discussion. I made my point. It appears you are the one fanning flames here.

Why is it that when someone cannot logically offer rebutal or information that might change an opinion they it necessary to attack the individual, often becoming anonymous because they realize that their attack would be viewed as childish???   In that respect, Shambles is right.

I disagree with Shambles stance about Mudcat and the way he handled the situation and yes, I do think that he has taking it too personally. I tried to point out instances where I thought he was wrong. I made my case without any name calling or attack. If you wish to view it as something else in order to stir up controversy, then it becomes your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Nick
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:00 PM

Perhaps a naive question but does anyone else apart from Roger get censored?

Perhaps Readers Digest could do a shorter version of the (approaching) 1/3million characters on this thread (must be hugely over that if you pull in the other threads that say exactly the same thing).

READERS DIGEST ABRIDGED VERSION

Shambles: The moderators sometimes have moderated me and I think it's wrong.
The Moderators: Sometimes we moderate the threads - we believe we do this reasonably and without bias
Shambles: I don't agree with that.
The Moderator(s): OK
Shambles: I feel the need to reassert my position.



That's about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:07 PM

"All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion"

Roger, that sentence struck me as very funny. Shall we dissect it?

"All done to prevent me" (All done in the cause of keeping me from) "from preventing" (keeping me from) "reasonable" (sensible) "discussion" (communication)

"All done in the cause of keeping me from taking part in reasonable communication"

No. That's not what you said. Let me try again.

"All done in the cause of keeping me from making reasonable communication impossible."

That's closer.

Speaking of "setting an example", does it not seem incongrous to you to be the person perceived as making reasonable discussion impossible?

Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:17 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an exsisting post and did not refresh the thread.

At his request, I reopened it. apparently, he likes talking to himself there.
-Joe Offer-

I think this was in reference to the following thread Closed threads and deleted posts

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:33 PM

My dear Ebbie

Ebbie I am glad you found my sentence amusing – that was the intention.

Perhaps you can explain how reasonable discussion can now be possible? When as a result of measures designed to enable posters to carry on reasonable discussion - every other poster can post and even address posts to me – on to a thread called A return to only one section but they are denied seeing any response I may make – because some anonymous fellow poster is moving all my posts to this thread?

Perhaps you would agree that whatever your view of my worth may be - being seen to impose selective censorship measures like this - on one poster will only make the current methods of running of our forum look sillier than they already are?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:40 PM

Especially when I appear to be able to post to a thread called Not posting to a thread without these posts being subject to any anonymous imposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:45 PM

No - I spoke too soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 05:07 AM

You could not walk into a movie theater and then start singing loudly when the feature starts - the management would throw you out. This is not censorship.

This would not be editing either - would it? But it would be imposition. And would being judged as being boring, tedious or repetitive really be grounds for any bouncers to throw you out of a theatre and then encourage and appeal for public support for this?

Of course, where one member of the invited public IS actually preventing others from enjoying or taking part in the the activity. It makes perfect sense to introduce proportionate measures to deal with this. But here - if you find a thread, a poster or post not to be to your taste - no one is forcing anyone to even open the thread, read the post or respond to it. Posters can decide for themselves. So why is it now thought somehow noble on our forum to prevent adult posters from being able to makaing this choice for themselves?

If such measures are seen to be used sparingly, openly and fairly, for the benefit of all - such measures would certainly have my full support on our forum. As they once did. If I supported the current censorship system on our forum - no doubt I would then be perfectly free once again to post these views in as many threads as I wanted. As other posters who support these actions, currently are.

When such measures are plainly seen to be abused by (some of) these 'moderators' and seen to encourage some of the invited public just to post only to judge and complain about the worth of their fellows and get these measures anonymously imposed on others - such measures - no matter how well-intentioned - are counter-productive.

For our forum is NOT a theatre - is it? The whole purpose is to enable and encourage contributions from the public. If these contributions are moderately expressed there are no grounds for any form of imposed editing actions. The bottom line - as any poster will be able to see - is that certain views are not encouraged and threads on this subject are quickly closed, posts are silently deleted and some totally bogus but noble sounding reason is provided as justification.

There is no reason why all discussion of this issue could not have always been contained on one thread. The reason why so many are started is BECAUSE any existing ones on any aspect of this issue are quickly closed in order to prevent discussion of it. The way all posters are treated on our forum is the only thing that all posters have in common but it is the one thing that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not appear to want our form to discuss.

If the object of our forum is to enable and encourage reasonable discussion on all subjects - perhaps our forum would at least agree that this is NOT acheived by our bouncers anonymously 'silently' deleting and moving posts and by closing threads and imposing selective posting restrictions on certain posters - because of what their moderately expressed and honest views may be.   

Whatever you may think - or be encouraged to think of my worth - the opportunity is currently here to have your say on this subject.

In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualfied to impose their judgement on us?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where,why and when such action has been judged necessary?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 05:37 AM

Shambles,

Dewey is posting on another thread. Please go talk with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 03:03 AM

It is sad that too much notice cannot be taken of any instruction or assurance given to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in the form of editing comments. For he has shown that he is not someone who feels his assurances should be honoured. Or apologises, takes any responsibility for the resulting effects of this failure or makes any effort to correct them. Seeing this presumably as part of the 'game' he feels he can set the example of encouraging to be played with the contributions that the site's owner has invited and in the process, compromising the integrity of all concerned in the process.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

It was not my request for any special treatment but the above assurance was publicly given to our forum in the following thread   Do you need to be censored?   which (along with nearly all the other threads on this subject) - is now closed.

Had this assurance been honoured – there would not have been any need for any subsequent threads to be started. No need for them to be subjected to imposed closure and no need to impose selective restrictions on a single poster or for noble sounding attempts to be made to justify these restrictions.

Perhaps these restrictions can now be lifted and all posters treated equally and any censorship judged to be required be seen to be undertaken openly and fairly?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Zen Buddhist
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:11 AM

If a Roger posts in a thread and there is noone there to read it does it make a point?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 01:19 PM

Even if no one (but me) posts to a thread - it does not mean that it is not being read.

If the thread closed or a post 'silently deleted' - then no one is able to read it. Which is of course why this is now done on our forum and why noble sounding attempts at justification are made.

My point is to try to enable all posters to always be able to have the choice and not to have this choice made for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM

I had some free time this morning, Roger, and I looked up your posting history. As you probably recall, your first post was in August 1998 and for a total of 12000 plus in the years since. Have you ever tried to suss out the percentage of complaining ones versus posts that showed us that you are glad to be alive?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 06:07 AM

I had some free time this morning, Roger, and I looked up your posting history. As you probably recall, your first post was in August 1998 and for a total of 12000 plus in the years since. Have you ever tried to suss out the percentage of complaining ones versus posts that showed us that you are glad to be alive?

No.

Is your post a complaint Ebbie? Our forum may not judge from the sound of this post (and many of your others) as if you are all that 'glad to be alive'. Especially if you consider that looking-up and posting only to make personal judgements of my posting history is really the best way of spending your free time. Do you consider that volunteering to anonymously impose your judgement on your fellow posters on our forum is showing us an example of being glad to be alive?

Perhaps you may accept that that no one is forcing you or any other poster to read my posts or respond to them? And that despite the example currently set by (some of) our 'moderators', that the posting only of personal judgements and complaints about a poster's worth is now acceptable on our forum – that however I may choose to post is really none of your business? And more importantly that my attempts to post my moderately expressed and honest views - is in no way preventing any other poster from contributing to any reasonable discussion?

That if I were not glad to be alive I could also ignore the thread's subject to respond with a post containing only a personal judgement of you? But as such a post would only litter-up our forum and totally fail to achieve anything except elicit a further response in kind - what would be the point of such a post? There are PMs for this - why not use them?

The following was posted when it was (wrongly) assumed that this site's owner, Max had prevented me from posting. Whatever the justification given for the selective restrictions imposed on my posts only, by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, this post shows that our forum's perception is different. That is only 'complaints' about one issue that are seen to be the problem to (some of) those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on the rest of our forum.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.

All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'. If we currently were 'all seen to be playing under the same rules' – there would be little need for anyone's suggestions to be labelled as complaints. And for this to be done – in order to provide some justification for imposed restrictions and thread closures, just to prevent posters from deciding for themselves whether they wished to read, respond or ignore contributions?

The penny eventually appears to dropping and even the usual suspects (after thousands of posts) have finally grasped the concept that (conventional) posting to a thread only to make personal judgements about the worth of a poster -- only refreshes the thread. Sadly – and once encouraged – the usual suspects do not appear to be quite able to prevent themselves and now start threads to enable this witch-hunt to continue in this thread. Not posting to a thread

Where their fun games continue at the expense of a single poster but ironically in a thread where – due to the selective restrictions imposed on my posts only – by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - a thread which this poster is currently unable to post to.

Such a situation could hardly be described as fair – and as fairness is something that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team states that is his concern – perhaps all posters can once again be seen be treated equally and openly?

Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 11:02 AM

Five in a row now. Last time, it was 15. How many this time?
Joe Offer

It is hardly fair of you to try and also encourage judgement to be passed on this - especially if you are also counting the posts that you 'silently move' there from this thread (and others).

Perhaps as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team - you can concentrate on encouraging posters to contribute by being seen to treat all posters equally and openly - rather than being seen to think it amusing to set the example of encouraing other posters to indulge in games that are designed only to inhibit posting.

I speak as the only poster who really is NOT posting to this thread. Not that this is out of choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 02:30 AM

Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE.

I would suggest this is the case only where such a policy was clearly stated and understood prior to anyone first entering a forum. Many long-term posters here are still under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum and they support it on that basis. And a pretence is kept up (for their benefit), that this is still the case.

Our discussion forum has always been open by the site's owner, to encourage the public's contributions and it currently remains so. Should it not follow that posters should expect to see on our forum, the public's words as posted and be able to decide for themselves what to read, respond to or ignore?

And if this not now to be the case - is it really too much to expect that they are always made aware of when, and the reason why they are not seeing the public's words as posted, and the identity of whoever is imposing their judgement on the postings of others?

In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualfied to impose their judgement on our forum?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to only where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate to our forum, where and why such action has been judged to be necessary, in our name and order to protect us?

A move to this open approach is the only way that posters can now feel safe from personally motivated editing actions and the only way 'moderators' can feel safe from any suspicion that their actions are personally motivated.

If (some of) the current holders entrusted with edit buttons are not now prepared to operate in this open manner - perhaps some new ones can be found who are?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 06:20 PM

And there's the rub Shambles.

Some are, some aren't (regarding edit buttons).

You ain't gonna change a thing here. Stop wasting your breath, fingers, thoughts, bandwidth, space. It hasn't changed, isn't changing, won't change. Let it go. What's it matter anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 01:06 PM

Big injustice or small injustice - the only way you can ensure that things this will continue (or get worse) - is to do nothing.

Whatever you may attempt to do - you may not succeed in, but at least you will have made the effort and often you do not have the choice.

But I consider just to have this thread open (again) and be able to have this discussion on this subject - is a move in the right direction.

It does enable all posters to decide for themselves what to read, respond to or ignore on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 09:08 PM

If it makes you happy it makes me happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM

"Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE.

I would suggest this is the case only where such a policy was clearly stated and understood prior to anyone first entering a forum. Many long-term posters here are still under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum and they support it on that basis."

Unfortunately you appear to be the only long-term poster that feels that way.

Policies can change on a whim, there is no harm in that - not for a forum like this.


"All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'."

Done. No one has proven otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Unusual Person
Date: 14 Sep 06 - 04:24 PM

I've just now had one post closed and another deleted! It was my own fault though.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 10:20 AM

Unfortunately you appear to be the only long-term poster that feels that way.

One of the problems of our now split forum - is that many who post only on the music-related are now unware of discussions like this one - so it is difficult to state a definitive answer of what they may think - one way or the other. It is a bit like a ballot result where you don't send out a ballot paper or voting slip.

But the forum headings have not changed in any noticable way from when it was generally accepted that ours was an unmoderated forum (or at least when any imposed censorship was only a very last resort).
Perhaps you would accept that there has been no public annoucement to the effect that this policy intention has changed and that this was now a moderated site? And that it could be possible that some long-term music posters may still be unaware of the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. Especially as none of us ordinary posters who do take part in these discussions, can know this or make an informed opinion on it.

Policies can change on a whim, there is no harm in that - not for a forum like this.

Possibly not but it may be a good idea to at least inform posters of any major change - don't you think? The main policy that this is a forum open for the public's contributions has not (yet) changed. The worrying thing is that (some of) those entrusted to carry out this policy - now openly state that this attempt has failed and that they are now in favour of a change to exclude the public.

So perhaps those posters who do still beleive in, support the original policly and have always posted on that basis - do have good reason to question the will of (some of) those to use their best efforts to ensure that the original and current policy is made to work? Or of suspecting that they may not in fact be doing this?

"All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'."

Done. No one has proven otherwise.

I question how much proof you require that we curently are not?

For a start - do you accept that you (and any other posters) are able to start and freely contibute to any thread - but there are special rules and posting restrictions (including silent deltion) - that have been imposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that apply only to me? I suspect that many posters may see this as one example of us not 'all playing under the same rules'.

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-

I suggest also that had I posted only to call you such names as in the following example - that this would have been judged as an abusive personal attack and censorship action imposed. There are examples of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and (some of) his known 'moderators' setting the example that using offensive language and much worse name-calling as this - is acceptable posting behaviour.

More examples of this curent double standard set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are available - should you wish it?

I do not post only to personal judgements of named fellow poster or respond in kind to the many name-calling posts that are encourged to be posted to me. I am not protected from these (nor have I asked to be) by our 'moderators' but in fact it is (some of) these 'moderators' who openly set the example that such posts are acceptable posting behaviour. And at the same time judge themselves qualified to impose their judgement on me and other posters and also expect our forum to support this double standard.

"All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'."

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 10:39 AM

"Perhaps you would accept that there has been no public annoucement to the effect that this policy intention has changed and that this was now a moderated site? "

No. I never felt it was an unmoderated site in all the years that I have been posting here. It seemed clear to me that this was a site was owned by someone and any ownership can make the rules as they see fit.

".. but it may be a good idea to at least inform posters of any major change - don't you think?"

I agree that is a GOOD IDEA to inform posters of "major" changes (and I do think that Max & crew have), but I don't think it is mandatory.   

If I invite you in my home and two hours later you light a cigar and tell you to stop, should you be allowed to continue simply because I failed to mention the "rule" at the start or gave you warning?

"do you accept that you (and any other posters) are able to start and freely contibute to any thread - but there are special rules and posting restrictions (including silent deltion) - that have been imposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that apply only to me? "

Absolutely not! We are all working on a level playing field, and if I posted along the lines that you have I would expect a few deletions.

Frankly, even if there were a double standard - too bad! This is not a public forum, never has been, and the owners can implement whatever rules they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM

Absolutely not! We are all working on a level playing field, and if I posted along the lines that you have I would expect a few deletions.

And what lines would they be exactly? And perhaps you could provide our forum with some evidence to support your claim?

Frankly, even if there were a double standard - too bad! This is not a public forum, never has been, and the owners can implement whatever rules they want.

If our forum had not been open to the public - there would not be any contributors to impose any rules upon. And had such 'rules' as you seem to find acceptable been imposed - there would not be our forum in the form that you found it.

But you would appear to want to have it both ways.

The justification given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (and not the site's owner) for his selective censorship of my posts and closing of threads - is that he judges that my posting is somehow 'unfair'. So it would seem that he does not see the application of an unfair double standard on our forum as desirable as you would appear to.

And the attempt at justification made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is that in preventing my posts from appearing by 'silent deltion', and closing threads in which they are contained - is fair - as this imposed action is somehow judged to be enabling our forum to continue with reasonable discussion.

Perhaps you can explain how the imposition of this deletion and closure works toward such an end - on what you - on one hand claim to BE a level playing field and on the other hand - claim that is also somehow acceptable to not to have the playing field level at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM

All those who see a double standard, please raise your hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM

and....................




If you're British raise the first and second fingers
If you're American raise the middle finger

Make any gesture you think suitable in the direction of anyone you think is obsessed by an imaginary ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 01:02 PM

so is that a yes or a no?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:01 PM

Why won't this thread go away?

Well that dangerous and subversive thread will - as it has now been closed.


Done. No one has proven otherwise.

Ron - so is that a yes or a no? I know you have already now moved on to plan B (i.e. the nonsense that there is now no need for a level playing field on our forum) but does that mean that you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:11 PM

"Ron - so is that a yes or a no? I know you have already now moved on to plan B (i.e. the nonsense that there is now no need for a level playing field on our forum) but does that mean that you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules? "


Shambles, what are you smoking? Where did I ever say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:28 PM

That's the advantage of living in a world of your own like Shambles, nobody to argue with, and nobody to tell you you're wrong, oh so wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM

Frankly, even if there were a double standard - too bad! This is not a public forum, never has been, and the owners can implement whatever rules they want.

That this site's owners can implement whatever rules they want was never at issue. But up to now, Max has always made the effort to ensure that all posters are treated fairly and with respect. Perhaps you would accept this?

If you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules - as now implemented by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - we could continue our discussion based on some kind of reality?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM

Again, I fail to see where I said that Mudcat is operating under a double standard.   Shall we look up the word "if" in a dictionary?

Why are you insisting that I have finally accepted anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:48 PM

At last! The perfect symbiotic relationship! I have searched years for an example of this. Years and years, I tell you! Thank you, thank you, Ron Olesko and Shambles! My efforts have finally been exonerated. I will now retire gratefully, accept my Nobel Prize, and bask in the fruits of my labors.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:53 PM

great, another one.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:02 PM

What do you mean... "another one"? I am the ONLY research scientist who has made truly revolutionary progress in the study of symbiosis in the last 25 years! No one can compete with my achievements in this area. That's why I am going to win the Nobel Prize.

Now would you please get on with it? Debate some more with Shambles like you are supposed to. He can't respond properly if you don't, and I need some additional prime examples to fully flesh out my thesis.

I will be satisfied if together you can raise this thread to 500 posts in the next few days...as long as your average post does not fall below a total of 25 words in your case and 150 in Shambles' case. If so, it would call my whole theory into question, and that simply doesn't bear thinking about.

So be a good fellow, now, and get on with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM

yo, Prof! How can he "debate some more" with The Shambles, when the Shambles doesn't allow debate since Shambles states false premises as fact; denies reality, contricicts himself and ignores anything that doesn't fit his strangely warped world-view?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:06 PM

Lucullus, you are either beneath me or below me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM

Whatever turns you on.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:25 PM

Never was a harsher punishment dealt out by a moderator of a website than that by Joe to Shambles: he lets him post on on his course of self destruction to the amusement of the other posters.

Wolfgang (torn between laughter and pity)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:39 PM

Wolfgang, I thought that this thread was really funny when I could look at it every few days and see that no one except Shambles had posted...and he did so every day, or several times a day, basically talking to himself. Let's go back to that, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:40 PM

Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:41 PM

You are right Art. I guess I was poking at windmills myself trying to get him to see what the rest of us see clearly. I will move on. My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,KB
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:56 PM

Whew, it goes from nobody but Shambles to no Shambles at all. Quite a plot twist, that.
I know, I'm only feeding the beast, but it has only been about 10 minutes, I'm not really prolonging it much.

I really don't mean the following in a jerk-off way. Shambles, have you ever thought about finding a new past-time? Think of all the time you have spent on this. Might there be something more fulfilling? I am honestly not trying to be an a-hole here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 08:38 PM

Again, I fail to see where I said that Mudcat is operating under a double standard.   Shall we look up the word "if" in a dictionary?

Why are you insisting that I have finally accepted anything?

Perhaps you do need to look up the meaning of if?

What I said was IF you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules - as now implemented by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - we could continue our discussion based on some kind of reality?

For in our discussion - you have moved on from a position of trying to maintain - against the evidence - that we were all playing under the same rules to a position where even IF this were not the case - any rules at all can be implemented. To which I have agreed could be the case.

So what is it? Have you now accepted the pretty obvious fact that we are not now all playing under the same rules on our forum? Or are you still trying to maintain that we are all playing under the same rules?

Or have you now returned to good old stand-by? Mudcat plan C (the witch-hunt?

Ron- if you really are at all interested in discussing this subject on this thread - perhaps you could explain what would be the point of our forum having rules if they did not apply equally to everyone?

If you are not and just wish to play to the usual suspects perhaps you could do that on Not posting to a thread Which has not been closed.

All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were once again seen to 'all be playing under the same rules'. Not all that much a heretical concept - some of us may think?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 08:25 AM

You may have missed the following editing comments as they were inserted into existing posts and which clearly demonstrate, that we are not now all playing under the same rules.

And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I figure if he starts a complaint thread or posts five complaint messages to a single thread, that's the thread he's chosen to dominate - and all his other complaint posts get moved to that one thread.
The idea is to allow you to express yourself, but to control the duplication and domination. Say what you want - once. As has been said before, the problem is not the content of your posts, but the endless repetition. This restriction on you applies only to your complaints about Mudcat editing - your messages on this subject are confined to one thread at a time. If you post complaints to one thread today, in general you may not post complaints to any other thread today - you have to wait until tomorrow to post complaints to a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 08:56 AM

The Shambles, I don't think anyone doubts that you are the only person this sanction is applied to. It is a situation of your creation.

What we don't know is whether this "rule" would be applied to anyone else should they persitanly have multiple threads on a topic, etc. While I hope it is never put to the test, my own feeling is that you have set a precident and that any other poster constantly behaving in the same way would receive the same treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 06:35 PM

My posting record will stand up well against the posting records of those who who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters.

And who set the example that the posting of abusive personal attacks, name-calling are now acceptable posting behaviour on our forum.

And who publicly encourage other favoured posters to post only personal judgements of the worth of their fellow posters and to take part in witch-hunts - all liable to inhibit posting - rather than to encourage it.

The main point of the introduction of our 'moderators' was to protect our forum from abusive personal attacks. As (some of) these 'moderators' indulge in this themselves and make no attempts to prevent such offensive posts coming from certain favoured posters as long as these post are directed at certain easy targets - this part of our 'moderators' role is clearly not now taken very seriously.

Most of the current effort seems to be addressed at control and protecting our 'moderators' from any moderately expressed criticism about their actions appearing on our forum. Or at least inhibiting this and limiting our forum's opportunities to see it or respond to any discussion on this subject and encouraging public support for these actions.

The idea proposed to justify all this sillyness is that in someway the imposition of these selective restrictions - adds to reasonable conversation on our forum. Incredibly that for threads to be closed, and to silently delete amd move posts and encourage various other 'fun' attempts to prevent the moderately expressed views of certain posters from appearing as posted - is not our 'moderators' preventing reasonable discussion.

The fact is that all I CAN attempt to do is post. And my posts can quite easily be simply ignored.

The totally paranoid over reaction is to attempt to justify the prevention of my reasoned views appearing on our forum - as they have done since 1998 - by nonsense assumptions and accusations charged in highly emotive terms about 'flooding' and preventing others from taking part in reasonable discussions by 'crowding' them out by attempts to 'dominate'.

It is pretty clear how all these imposed restrictions will prevent resonable discussion but perhaps someone can explain how simply attempting to post views - (that others appear to wish were not posted) - in any way, shape or form can prevent other posters from taking part in reasonable discussion? For this is the charge.

Do you need to be censored

I don't - do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 06:51 PM

The Shambles, your posting record shows why you in this position of being limited to one thread on your "pet subject". Comparison with ANY other poster's record will show why you are unique in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 06:57 PM

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-

I have asked before who protects us from the abusive personal attacks and offensive name-calling when these are publicly posted by (some of) our 'moderators' and often in editing comments.

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: curmudgeon
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 07:52 PM

Will you lot please stop picking on Roger. Get off this thread and leave The Shambles ALONE1

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 08:10 PM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 09:41 PM

OK then. Bye, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:33 AM

Comparison with ANY other poster's record will show why you are unique in this.

Any comparisons with the posting records of anonymous guests and anonymous 'moderators' are not of course possble. For all the terrible things I am accused of - in reality all I attempt to do is post my honest views under my own name.

Even if I were totally unique in my views - that does not make honourable the many and various attempts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team to actively prevent our forum from seeing these views expressed for discussion where and in the form they were posted.

If nothing changes as a result of my views, requests and suggestion, then my views will remain the same. They are posted under my name to enable any other poster who may wish to - to convince me otherwise. I have read little reasoned discussion and argument that has convinced me but I may yet.

It should be clear by now that no amount of selective restrictions or encouragement of bullying will prevent me trying to see that at least open discussion on this issue can continue. And until Max decides to scrape around to find some reason to ban one of this forum's longer term members and greatest supporters - I will carry on trying to ensure that posting on our forum is encouraged rather than inhibited.

If posters find this tedious, boring, repetitive or judge it not to be to their taste for any reason at all - that is their right. They do have to read or respond to these posts as no one is imposing any measures to force them. My view is that posters should be left to be able to decide for themselves and not denied this choice by the imposed judgement of a fellow poster.

That you may not agree with a poster's moderately expressed views or judge them not to your taste in someway - and no matter what hysteria is generated - this is NOT grounds to censor and attempt to restrict or prevent these views.

Nor is it grounds for posters to be encouraged to support these attempts in public witch-hunts and to post only personal judgements of a fellow poster's worth - as is the example currently set by (some of) those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:23 AM

Seen one Shambles post, and you've seen them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 05:07 AM

Seen one Shambles post, and you've seen them all.

That may be so and may well be your honest opinion to which you are entitled to express, having at least been able to see such posts on our forum.

I hope you are not suggesting that this would be grounds to 'silently delete such posts, to close threads and to impose selective posting restrictions - as such actions would only deny any newer poster the opportunity of being able to decide for themselves?

The only one of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's 'trumped-up' charges that would concern me was if there was any truth in the noble-sounding justification given for him 'having' to impose these selective posting restrictions - is that my posts were in any way preventing our forum from conducting reasonable discussion.

It doesn't do any good to discuss any of this with Shambles. He knows the names of all the moderators, and yet he continues to complain about their anonymity. In a three-day period a week or two ago, I transferred all the messages we usually delete into his "closed and deleted" thread, so he and the rest of the world could see a normal sample of what gets deleted. This demonstration didn't satisy Shambles, and he continues to assert that the Mudcat moderators are silently deleting something or another. I guess I have to expect that Shambles will continue to assert that horrible but nonspecific things are happening in secret.

I can't think of how to devise a system that will provide absolute proof that these horrible nonspecific things are NOT being done by Anonymous Fellow Posters. I tried, but he didn't believe me, so it doesn't do any good to discuss anything with him. I guess it's good to just let him continue to believe in these Horrible Nonspecific Things and in his Anonymous Fellow Posters, because it gives meaning and purpose to his life. I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. I suppose that since this is "his" topic, this will become "his" thread, and I'll have to close the other one. I'll wait and see what he does.

Can it be explained to our forum how simply attempting to post my views can prevent others from conducting reasonble discussion and how the imposition of 'silent deletion' moving of posts and the closing of threads by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team is somehow making reasonable discussion possible?

If it cannot - can these selective restrictions be lifted and all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 06:49 AM

(o) Yawn, I presume that is more of the same boring rubbish, never read them myself, just the name Shambles at the top of the post stops me going any further.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 8
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:53 AM

I'm Ennui the Eighth I am
Ennui the Eighth I am I am
I got posting in the thread next door
Then remade the point on seven threads more
And every one was Ennui
You couldn't see a difference worth a damn
I'm now going to post in a few threads more
Ennui the Eighth I am ...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Grab
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 08:03 AM

I'm prepared to refresh the thread for that - bloody marvellous, Guest! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 12:12 PM

I'm Graham the First I am
Graham the First I am I am
I started the thread next door
And said what I liked on seven threads more
And every personal judgement was encouraged
Not 'silently deleted, or banned
Going to thumb my nose in a few threads more
Graham the First I am ...

In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on us?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 01:46 PM

Do you not think that there is rather of lot of fuss being encouraged to be made about posts and threads that so few posters appear to read?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:26 PM

I admire your fortitude, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 06:40 PM

Good for what ails you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 06:41 PM

400 Now close it quick.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:59 PM

You are correct, of course. Four hundred posts is a good place to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 08:29 PM

You are correct, of course. Four hundred posts is a good place to stop.

If you think this - and as no one is forcing you to continue - you are of course free to stop reading and posting to it - then as far as you are concerned - this thread will have stopped.

Perhaps you will accept that if others should wish to continue posting to any thread in your absence that is their choice?

Why should a thread remaining open bother you, or be subject to anyone else's judgement and why do you think you should you be encouraged to deny other posters their choice?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 05:22 AM

What a mealy mouthed pompous parsimonious prig you are Shambles.
Try the Preparation H you pain in the ass!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Grab
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 08:28 AM

Oh well, since we're being musical and requesting equal treatment...

I'm just another Graham I am
Just another Graham I am I am
I read the terms of membership when I came in
It said that if I posted crap it might get binned
So I posted like I'd talk in real life
And others who took advantage got banned
That's their call when the writing's on the wall
Just another Graham I am.

I'm just another Graham I am
Just another Graham I am I am
Max told Roger "you too should head off son
If you don't like the way the Mudcat's run".
But Roger kept the same old thing up
And said in another thread he'd explain
But to my surprise, he cries "I'm victimised"
Just another Graham I am

I'm just another Graham I am
Just another Graham I am I am
When Roger asked us all just what was the score
Me and loads of others told him hundred times or more
But Roger wasn't looking for an answer
His pretence at conversation was a sham
So it's a two-finger sign to that non-stop whine
Just another Graham I am

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 11:29 AM

Someone will be asking for this thread to be moved to the music section if we keep this up.

[PM] Max         Explain the BS rules (52* d)         RE: Explain the BS rules         26 Oct 99

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max

Graham - the object of our discussion forum is to enable and encourge discussion. That does not mean that we have to all agree - does it?

Perhaps you would accept that being seen to able to agree to disgree on our forum is a good enough thing to aim for?

Perhaps you would also accept that the 'silent deletion', selective restriction and the imposed closure of threads containing reasonable discussion are not measures likely to encourage reasonable discussion?

Perhaps you would agree that these measures can only inhibit reasonable discussion and that this is the object of these restrictions?

I am a man that is always open to pursuasion and this is best attempted by reasoned discussion. Force, name-calling and witch-hunts - perhaps you would agree, form no part of any kind of reasonable discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM

"I am a man that is always open to pursuasion and this is best attempted by reasoned discussion."


hahhahahahhahha

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM

"pompous parsimonious prig"

Only a pompous parsimonious prig speaks that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM

Ad astra per aspera

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:58 PM

You gotta admit, Roger - that was very funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:41 PM

The people who come to slag Shambles have the option of going to another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:46 PM

Tried that and he follows people around and pollutes their threads with his paranoid parrot droppings.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:52 PM

Yes, but this place ain't what it used to be, and never was.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM

What is?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:07 PM

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:17 PM

This place is more like it is now than it ever was before.

besides, Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:13 AM

Well I, and many others like its is, and yes occasionally threads are deleted, but by what I have seen moderating it is good,-

I could post that from what I have seen rock chick looks like a blond, 19 year-old supermodel.....But as from what I have seen I have no way of knowing this to be the case - what would be the point of such a post?

Such opinions and judgements made about the current system of censorship on our forum by any poster may be honestly intended but are uninformed. As posters have no way of knowing what the true nature and current level of imposed censorship is.

rock chick - like most of the rest of our forum will not be aware that yesterday an entire thread was deleted. If they are going to be allowed and encouraged by our 'modertors' and are interested enough to post in support of theses measures - perhaps it is only fair that all poster are made aware of what they are, and when and where they are imposed? Which is why I suggest the following.

In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on us?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:31 AM

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem

You may or may not be interested to know that an entire thread was deleted yesterday.

Our forum has no idea what the justification would have been given for this action.
Or who was supposed to be protected by it.
Or who was responsible for this action.

As this action is imposed in our name and in order to protect us - perhaps we should be informed when and why any form of imposed censorship takes place?

And perhaps we should not be expected to or be seen to publicly support such actions - until we are informed?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 04:07 AM

Warning Missing Messages

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 10:12 AM

A BS thread (called Do you support the status quo?) was deleted yesterday, for reasons unknown and by persons unknown.

Today - the title of a clearly titled music thread Do you support the Status Quo?
   has been changed without the originator's permission for some reason to In favour of/ Do you support the Status Quo - and has now been relegated to the BS section by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread.

The following editing comment was inserted into an existing post which did not refresh the thread.

Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

And who (conventionally) posted the following:

Subject: RE: BS: In favour of /Do you support the Status Qu
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 06:02 AM

The first thread was stupid, but I don't think that constitutes a reason for deleting it. I undeleted the messages from the previous deleted thread and combined them with this one.
But I think the "discussion" fits best into the "BS" category, where the original thread was located. I'll admit that's an arbitrary decision, but I had to pick one or the other.
-Joe Offer-

As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has judged (amongst other things) that there was no justification for some other anonymous 'moderator' to delete the first thread – perhaps the better option would have been to return this thread to the BS section and to leave the other one alone, to remain as posted in the music section?

But rather than feeling they 'have' to be seen to be doing something – perhaps it is better that our 'moderators' do nothing and let our forum decide? It certainly would be better if before they decide to impose any action – that they are at least seen to communicate with each other first and prefably first consult with the thread's originator.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM

BS In favour of/Do you support the Status Quo?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:10 AM

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok

Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles*

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals.

If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures.

If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:15 AM

"He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread."

Quite obviously he has seen fit to combine the deleted music thread (obviously started to deliberately cause confusion with the BS thread and not very on-topic for a blues and folk forum) with this BS thread. An entirely different matter.

Don't fuck about, Roger, you did it to deliberately provoke the moderators and I will accept to weasel words of excuse. I may not be a mind-reader but I know what you are doing.

Are you going to accept the site owner's invitation to go or stay and accept the way it is run?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:26 AM

Quite obviously he has seen fit to combine the deleted music thread (obviously started to deliberately cause confusion with the BS thread and not very on-topic for a blues and folk forum) with this BS thread.

Paul you have obviously decided that I am the Anti-Christ and seemingly nothing I say will change that judgement. However I will make the effort.

The simple fact was that when I started the 'Status Quo' thread on the music section - the entire 'status quo' thread (with it music-related posts) had been deleted. This without any editing comment of explanation.

That thread was gone and history and there was nothing for it to be confused with - until the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team decided to overule the anonymous moderator's decision (was it you?), combine the dead thread with the Music one and send it to the BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok

Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles*

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals.

If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures.

If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM

"Are you going to accept the site owner's invitation to go or stay and accept the way it is run?"

The site owner can block Shambles' ability to post. The site owner doesn't. If you do not like what Shambles has to say, stop reading what Shambles has to say. There are about ten people who can't let Shambles be. Get a grip.

Keep saying what you have to say, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:51 PM

And those ten are conspicuous by their absence on the SERIAL BULLY thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM

Why is Shambles allowed to rant in both this thread and the one on mederated groups? I thought that he was limited to one per day?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:00 PM

Don't fuck about, Roger, you did it to deliberately provoke the moderators and I will accept to weasel words of excuse. I may not be a mind-reader but I know what you are doing.

Paul - this remains a discussion forum and it is supposed to be fun. As there is no way that one poster can ever know what another's motivation may be - it is perhaps better for us not to follow the example set by (some of) our 'moderators'. That they now to use our forum as a means to judge the worth of their fellow posters and publicly make all manner of assumpions about aspects of named individual posters that they can have no real knowledge of - does not mean that you have to follow this example. And what this sort of thing has to do with 'moderation' - is not clear.

I cannot delete posts or close threads - I can only post and I need to make no excuse to you for what I choose to post. So what is the point of you speculating publicly that I may have 'provoked' our 'moderators' by what I choose to post. The day I tell you what you can post - is the day you can tell me. What you may choose to post is none of my business.

But the you have the chronology wrong. Before that thread was closed - posters there were not provoking anyone, just having fun. Perhaps any provocation was on the part of the anonymous 'moderator' who subjected the thread to imposed closure?

Perhaps you would also like to speculate publicly and make assumptions about their motivations for this provocation? Not in just trying to post - but in taking active steps to prevent others from posting.

If it matters, I started the Status Quo thread on the music section to enable posters to continue discussion on that subject. It may well have partly been in reaction to that thread's closure - for which I am for once in perfect agreement with the views expressed by current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - if not his actions.   

If anyone is to blame for confusing anyone - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for re-opening the closed thread, combining the two threads and then relegating it to the BS section and not the music section where is clearly belongs. Perhaps you will be taking this up with him?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:08 PM

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok

Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles*

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals.

If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures.

If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:28 AM

Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

This is the true nature and current level of what you are asked to support as 'moderation'.

One day a still anonymous 'moderator' decides to delete an entire thread. When this action is brought to the attention of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's attention the next day - this imposed action is judged to have had no justification. End of story.

But is anything learned from this? Is our forum given any apology? What happens now to prevent such sillyness from happening again?

Nothing. Such things have occured time and time again and nothing happens or changes to prevent it. When such things are pointed out and suggestions made to prevent it - the accusation is taken-up that the same questions are being asked again and again.

We have a system in the UK that is supposed to prevent speeding. Cameras are run by private companies and are self-financing - by the money obtained from speeding fines.

So it does not take a genius to work out that such companies do not have any real interest in preventing speeding - as if they ever succeeded - they would put themselves out of a job.

No - an unmoderated forum is not a silly idea.

It is at least some ideal to aim for and any 'moderation' seen only a means to this end. But to some it would appear that this form of open-ended, divisive and secret 'moderation' - is an end in itself.

Posting restrictions are publicly announced against named posters for the 'crime' only of starting threads and posting. But anonymous 'moderators' who prevent 'reasonable discussion' by deleting an entire thread with no justification - remain anonymous and a 'moderator.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM

As there was never anything controversial about it - perhaps the following thread can now be moved back to the music section, where it may get some more contributions? And perhaps it could be given back its original title?

Do you support the Status Quo?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM

There is no bad faith in evidence.

There is no evidence to enable any poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. If there is no bad faith - what is the problem in our 'moderators' being open in this?

Bad faith does not need to be a factor in our forum's judgement - for incompetence, over-zealousness can still be factors even when well-intentioned.

The question for our forum's judgement is if this imposition is really proportionate or has in in fact now become counter-productive? That perhaps if (some of) our 'moderators' were not so busy- 'waging war for peace' - peace may actually be perfectly possible without such drastic measures and their results.

If all editing comments were limited to only where some form of imposed censorship was judged to have been necessary and editing comments were always supplied on these occasions - our forum would for the first time be able to make an informed judgement about whether the true nature and current level of imposed censorship was really proportionate.

For example - currently it can be claimed that any post of mine (or yours) that is silently deleted - was not and it non-apperance was due to a mistake by the poster or due to some technical glitch. It can also be claimed (or implied) that it contained much more offensive material than it in fact did - in order justify the imposition to our forum. As the evidence will have been 'silently deleted'.

Without being open about this - no poster is ever seen to be protected from abuse and no 'moderator' is ever seen to be safe from accusations that they have imposed judgement disproportionatly and abused their privilege. There is one way to end this conflict once and for all - so why not introduce it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:24 PM

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions.
Joe Offer

Do yuo really?

Perhaps the best way to do this is for our 'moderators' to just to allow reasonable discussion to take place on our forum?

Rather than making our forum look like a poor school-boy joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM

I can't believe this shamblesshit is still pilling up......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:53 PM

Perhaps a better way to do this Shambles is to block you from posting to any thread in the same way that Martin Gibson was blocked. You are just as annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 06:47 PM

Someone forcing you to read this thread? Gun to your head? Need a 911 or 999 call on your behalf?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:32 AM

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:39 AM

Rather than making our forum look like a poor school-boy joke.

You have a point there. The restriction has been in place for a while and it its achieved little other than giving you something else to complain about. I think it would be better for them to decide whether to allow you to post with no restrictions or to prevent you from posting at all than carrying on with this farce.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 06:29 AM

There is no bad faith in evidence.

There is no evidence to enable any poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. If there is no bad faith - what is the problem in our 'moderators' being open in this?

Bad faith does not need to be a factor in our forum's judgement - for incompetence, over-zealousness can still be factors even when well-intentioned.

The question for our forum's judgement is if this imposition is really proportionate or has in in fact now become counter-productive? That perhaps if (some of) our 'moderators' were not so busy- 'waging war for peace' - peace may actually be perfectly possible without such drastic measures and their results.

If all editing comments were limited to only where some form of imposed censorship was judged to have been necessary and editing comments were always supplied on these occasions - our forum would for the first time be able to make an informed judgement about whether the true nature and current level of imposed censorship was really proportionate.

For example - currently it can be claimed that any post of mine (or yours) that is silently deleted - was not and it non-apperance was due to a mistake by the poster or due to some technical glitch. It can also be claimed (or implied) that it contained much more offensive material than it in fact did - in order justify the imposition to our forum. As the evidence will have been 'silently deleted'.

Without being open about this - no poster is ever seen to be protected from abuse and no 'moderator' is ever seen to be safe from accusations that they have imposed judgement disproportionatly and abused their privilege. There is one way to end this conflict once and for all - so why not introduce it?

Perhaps there can be and end to selective restrictions that are now seen to be imposed on my posts in this thread and eleswhere (and supported by many posters it would appear)? This makes reasoable discussion impossible but is imposed upon our forum on the the grounds that 'silently delteting posts and moving posts containing only reasonable discussion is somehow enabling reasonable discussion. A concept that George Orwell would recognise as 'Doublespeak'.

Whatever your personal judgement of my worth or the worth of any other poster may be encouraged to be - perhaps you will agree that an end to this witch-hunt - will enable this subject to be seen to be sensibly and openly discussed on our forum like any other subject?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:28 AM

I think it would be better for them to decide whether to allow you to post with no restrictions or to prevent you from posting at all than carrying on with this farce.

Now that is gratitude for you.

There are no real grounds to justfy this current silliness - let alone grounds to ban me. As a long-term poster who has always used a name and only ever tried to post my honest views. Who does not post to indulge in abisive personal attacks, does not respond in kind to the many I am allowed and encouraged to be subjected to. And who despite being publicly encouraged by (some of) oue 'moderators' to be seen as public ememy number one - has done nothing but post attempts at reasonable discussion and tried my best to avoid posting any personal judgements of my fellow posters.

I hardly think it 'fair' (to use the word favoured by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) that I am to be judged by those who wish to reamain anonymous - be they anonymous guest or anonymous 'moderator'. Especially the latter - who now appear to think that reasonable discussion is achieved on our forum by them selectively closing and deleting entire threads, 'silently deleting', moving and by generally judging, interfering and restricting posts containing only reasonable discussion.

I have tirelessly supported (and still do) the continued unrestricted posting from the public on our forum - but now - one of these unnamed guests posts with the suggestion that I be banned. And with added irony that I be banned by those who judge themselves qualifed to deny others the rights that they take for granted - but who openly post their preference for them (the public, guests non-members) to be restricted.

The only 'crime' I have commited is to try to reasonably discuss a subject that (some of) our 'moderators' would rather obviously prefer not have discussed on our forum. If Max considers this to be grounds to ban a poster then he will do so. I hope that he will not feel himself pressured into such an action but will find others ways of finally resolving this conflict. One that does not attempt to prevent reasonable discussion by drastic means that CAN only inhibit reasonable discussion and make our forum look foolish.

And that he can do this in ways that do not define reasonable discussion as views only that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team agrees with - but defines it as free and open discussion, where the poster' words remain as posted (wherever this is possible).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:51 AM

As a long-term poster

you have been treated with more tolerance than would have been granted a "newbe".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:05 AM

Bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:37 AM

you have been treated with more tolerance than would have been granted a "newbe".

[Is that you Joe?]
If that were to be the case - then it just as well for any 'newbe' that I am not just content (like far too many others) to just watch and say 'I'm alright Jack'. For then any 'newbe' and guest would have been tolerated less and treated even less well than you claim they are.

If I have been treated differently to any other posters - it is not my wish or made at my request. My request is that ALL posters are seen to be treated equally. And are able to see the true nature and current level of imposed censorship action, to enable our forum for the first time to be able to express an informed judgement on whether all this imposed in their name - is really proportiate.

Anyone trusting enough who wishes to sign blank cheques - is welcome to send them to me.........

I have done nothing but try for many years to post my moderately expressed and honest views on our forum for the purpose of reasonable discussion - but which no other poster is being forced to read or respond to.

Many completly bogus accusations have been encouraged to be made and many attempts made to justify the selective prevention, alterations, moves and restrictions on my posts and the deletions and imposed closures of many threads in which these posts appear. With various and ammusing attempts at justification, to make such closures sound noble.

All of these methods of inhibiting reasonable discussion are now attempted to be justified to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, as somehow enabling reasonable discussion to take place.

Quite how this is supposed to work - where there is room for all - has yet to be explained. But it is just the latest and inevitable result of a system of so-called 'moderation' that publicly encourages other posters to indulge in conflict and where (some) 'moderators' are seen to activly indulge in open conflict and witch-hunts mounted against named individual posters, to try to prevent their honest and moderatly expressed views from appearing or remaining (as posted) on our forum.

---

Nope. Not me. I spell the word "newbie," and I sign my name. But you knew that.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 12:12 PM

Mudcat is structured. Nicely so, IMO

Our forum is certainly structured so that no poster is forced to read or respond to any post or open any thread that is not to their taste.

It is structured so that all threads could (and should IMO) all remain open, without any affect of the technical running of our forum.

So threads do not need to be closed or judged - as the only judgement required is for posters to lose interest when they cease to refresh them with new posts.

The simple beauty and effective nature of this structure is all that is required for peace - but only when and if this is first recognised and applied equally to all.

All posters need to be encouraged to do (in the form of moderation and by example) - is not post publicly only to make personal judgements of their fellow posters or to respond in kind.

Posters do not need to be encouraged to post only to complain about what their fellow posters chose to post (especially in the Help Forum). And any changes introduced as a result of posters complaining about what their fellow posters may choose to post can be ignored and told to mind their own business.

Such posters can be asked to concentrate on their own posts and that any editing changes will only be considered for their own contributions.

Where ever possible - all post should be seen to reamain as worded and where posted and anyone else who may not like this can be told to mind their own business.   

Yes - our forum is well structured - so why is this structure ignored in favour of measures destined only to inhibit open discussion, divide our forum and involve it in constant and seemingly endless personal conflict?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:21 PM

Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run?

Sometimes in a converstaion, the following phrase is heard: Can we change the subject please?

It is usually considered impolite, once a participant in the conversation has requested this, to continue to discuss the original topic.

Numerous people have asked if the subject you seem to want to discuss might be dropped or changed.

I think people might be more willing to return to considering this topic if you demonstrated your willingness to join and discuss other threads, which weren't seen as so negative towards a situation they don't see as a problem.

...I know i'm going to regret posting this, but i felt I had to have a go... (not as in 'have a go at someone' but as in 'give it a shot')

People have often commented on my ability to show wisdom in strained situations - to pour oil on troubled waters - i can't see it working in this instance because I really don't think you want the perceived 'problem' to go away. I suspect strongly that, even if an announcement were made that From this day Forward, whenever a post is deleted or edited or a thread closed, an editing comment will be inserted etc ... you would still deny that this was being done ... I'm convinced.

I don't think either that Max or anyone should go down that line, because, as has been said many many times, it is Max's forum and it runs as he sees fit.

If you have a problem i strongly suggest that you ask Max via PM. If he doesn't respond by acquiescing to your request - I would accept that as being his answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM

No one is forcing anyone to read or respond to Shambles' thread or posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:29 PM

No - I know - but we have also tried just ignoring threads and then he just gets cross at being ignored and starts posting off-topic on other ones!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:33 PM

"No one is forcing anyone to read or respond to Shambles' thread or posts. "

Not a good answer. No one is forcing Shambles to keep posting either after he made his point. As shown above, Shambles has refreshed his own thread to keep it visible. I would suspect that he may be posting as "guest", something that he has also accused others of doing.   

I know I should not feed into this thread either. It is interesting to see that before Clinton posted yesterday, there was at least 24 hours when Shambles was the only one adding to this thread.   It seems telling that the only people that see any merit in this is Shambles and nameless Guest, who could very easily be one in the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:40 PM

Strongly suspect Guest is a certain female person from Minneappolis MN.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:54 PM

Once you've opened a thread where there is a Shamble Ramble, it just gets under your skin. This is the same argument with the same reasonings and mostly I get annoyed at myself for reading them at all. In the end what happens is I stop opening up Mudcat at all, sometimes for months at a time. I return, just long enough to get annoyed and then off I go again. And don't tell me that I should simply not open those threads because it's not always obvious that the thread was either started by him or hijacked by him.

The complaint is the same, it never changes, and it won't. He will find a reason why he is being persecuted and that the moderators are out to get him and this post as well will be villified to be from a poster that just doesn't understand.

I personally have only one complaint about the moderation of this forum and that is the length at which this current discussion has been allowed to continue. Having said that, I have no solution to offer, just sympathies to those who have to deal with it. You see, I can just leave as I have in the past, the moderators can not....God bless 'em.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:02 PM

Wesley S came up with the following - he does not seem to think much of it now but I have yet to see it improved on.

Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others.

I'm convinced.

Blowzabella - from reading your post I see you are so convinced that you should have some control over the postings of others that there is little point in me responding to the little you have said - as this will only confirm your already stated regret at having posted it. On top of all the other terrible things you feel I am responsible for - and I have no wish to disapoint you further.

It would have been nice if you had concentrated on some attempt to solve the problem rather than making personal judgements and rehashing the same tired assumptions. For nothing you have said will change anything. It will only continue to personalise and identfy this issue as a problem only for one poster - and the idea that it is an issue that can be solved by action against this one poster. I will not respond in kind, except to say that when I post to tell you what to post - you can do the same to me.   

The main thing that is stopping posters from discussing this topic is that they are encouraged join in the witch-hunt and post personal judgements of certain easy targets instead. Plus the fact that - as it is known that I will not respond in kind - being seen to be playing to the crowd in this manner is not only encouraged to be thought to be fun - it is also thought to be safe.

Do you need to be censored

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM

Frankly I think the Mets have a great shot at going all the way this year. I'm hoping the Yankees are eliminated in the first round of playoffs.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:14 PM

No one is forcing anyone to read or respond on this thread. That means you too. I happen to enjoy Shambles' posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM

I know I should not feed into this thread either.

Then why do you do it? Are you forced to?

Ron you are of course welcome to discuss the thread's subject when you can't resist posting to and both refreshing and moaning about this thread and your named fellow posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:18 PM

Thank you. I will have a second cup.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:21 PM

Shambles: there are some folks who seemingly wish to keep on your case. Ignore them. You speak for yourself, and you have done so for months in the face of people who love to gang up on others. Ignore them and keep about your task.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:32 PM

Well you've got the underdog sympathy vote Roger!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:33 PM

Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run?

Right you did ask - so I will assume that you do want an answer.

I will start off with a question for you. What do you you think started all of this?

I was trying to to do just that and I still am. It became pretty obvious that it was not going to be possible for some posters and for me especially - to continue be able to do this unless some changes were made.

Here is an example of an attempt to start a thread song.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM

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

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

Thank you.

Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu.

The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads.

If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section.
You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:38 PM

"It became pretty obvious that it was not going to be possible for some posters and for me especially - to continue be able to do this unless some changes were made."

How? From what you posted, Joe offered you choices.   He even said "If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section." I thought your big complaint was that changes are made without informing anyone? Here Joe had the courtesy of telling you what would happen in public and you still find a reason to complain?

Boy, there is no pleasing some people!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM

"Blowzabella - from reading your post I see you are so convinced that you should have some control over the postings of others that there is little point in me responding to the little you have said..."


Nothing I said suggested that I should have or desire to have any control over anyone else's posts. I really do not see how anyone reading my post could interpret it in that way. I merely suggested that your present tactic is not working and that, by doing what you say you want to do - i.e. taking part in reasoned discussions - plural ie on more than one topic - you might find that you could return to this topic later in the conversation.

It is how conversations work.

Should you not wish to do so, I suggest you direct your request to the site owner.

These are suggestions which do not in any way try to controll what you post or where you post - but may help you to resolve something which clearly takes up more of your day than can be healthy, in the long term. Even the most ardent campaigners have to use more than one tactic - especially when they can see that their preferred method is having little effect.

Unless, that is, your campaign is having precisely the effect you desire - having no idea of what your true desires are, I cannot, obviously, make any comment on that.   

Howeve, God has granted me serenity to accept the things I cannot change - what a pity he hasn't done the same for you.

Oh - and by the way - no-one is forcing you to read my post - nor did I force you to read the previous ones. They might even have been posted merely to refresh the thread - who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:43 PM

I will post to clarify one thing about this poster. Then I am back out of any discussion of him.

The only restriction on this poster is one he richly deserves. It applies to his constant attack of the moderating of this forum. Among other things, this poster would carry that selfsame argument to threads that were unrelated, and he would hijack them from their original subject. For a number of years he would use cut and paste quotes taken out of context. The problem became so severe that the decision was made that he had one thread per day to post his monotonous complaints.

I would also point out that where he is simply taking part in a discussion of other topics, there are no restrictions. There are several other threads such as this that he is currently participating in. If you participate, you are part of the problem. I don't buy into this "I can't help myself" thing at all. Of course you can.

I agree with GUEST. Those that try and reason, or even respond to his posts on this subject only encourage it to go on. I much prefer the tactic that has been used of late to just ignore him and watch him flop about trying desperately to lure someone in.

I am now back out of this other than to monitor it.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM

I really do not see how anyone reading my post could interpret it in that way.

You can not be aware of the rules then.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:00 PM

Well, Mick, the only moderation that will be needed is of those who attack Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated. If they are responding to him, silly though I believe that to be, that will be allowed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:24 PM

Guest 22 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM

If I have broken any of the rules, I would be very much obliged if you could enlighten me, as I have not done so to my knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:38 PM

If I have broken any of the rules, I would be very much obliged if you could enlighten me, as I have not done so to my knowledge.

The rule you are unaware of is that Shambles is allowed to interpret and draw conclusions from threads in anway way he sees fit. Even if you stated that you believed the earth is round and Shambles drew the conclusion from that that you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, you would have no rights to question how such a conclusion could possibly be reached.

I hope that clarifies matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:42 PM

Thank you for your explanation Guest 22 Sep 06 - 04:38 PM

That has clarified the situation and I do see how I fell foul. It was unintentional, but a blunder, nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:10 PM

"The rule you are unaware of is that Shambles is allowed to interpret and draw conclusions from threads in anway way he sees fit. Even if you stated that you believed the earth is round and Shambles drew the conclusion from that that you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, you would have no rights to question how such a conclusion could possibly be reached."

Don't be so thick. We all know that the world is round--like a saucer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:11 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 06:53 PM

Boy, there is no pleasing some people!!

Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run?

Another example - Where the possibility of having more than one thread on our forum one similar subjects - is thought to be justificaton for the imposed closure of a long-running thread in which the regular posters were seen to be following all the 'rules'.   

As for a Licensing Act thread being closed, the only one I can think of, is Affected by the Licensing Act 2003. It was closed (with explanation and crosslink posted) for a few days in April or May, 2006, because somebody had started a newer thread with the same title. We do this occasionally when there are two threads on the same subject, to avoid splitting and confusing the discussion. Upon request from Shambles, I reopened the thread. I also combined the newer thread with the older one. Shambles, if this is the thread you are referring to, please be sure not to mislead the nice people. Be sure to tell them that this took place in April or May, that it was closed because there was another thread active on the same subject, and that the thread was reopened at your request within a few days.
Joe Offer

Where it may be irritating for some posters to have to see the titles of two or more threads on similar subjects - it is hardly justification for such obsessive imposed deletions and thread closures. These are only guidelines. Our forum will survive such terrible things as having to see two or more threads on one subject for a few days.

I am not so sure that it will survive some of the examples now set by (some of) our 'moderators' of what they judge to be acceptable posting behaviour or proportionate 'moderation'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:20 PM

The only restriction on this poster is one he richly deserves. It applies to his constant attack of the moderating of this forum.

The so-called 'moderating' on our forum is not being 'attacked' by me or anyone. The attempt is only to enable open discussion on this issue (and others) without 'silent deletion', imposed thread closures and other selective restrictions.

If these selective restrictions are so richly deserved - why is any poster who constantly posts to defend the so-called 'moderation' on our forum is allowed (by our 'moderators') to post this uninformed judgement of support in as many threads and as many times as they wish. Often accompanied with abusive personal attacks and name-calling - following the example set by (some of) our 'moderators'.

But this 'moderation' does not need to be 'attacked'. For the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly announced the failure of these measures to impose on our forum the peace he requires. So why are these failed and counter-productive measures defended as if they were in any way effective - when their chief architect has now publicly admitted their failure?

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Would should now be openly encouraged to be discussed on our forum (and not restricted) are suggestions as to how the peace that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Mudcat Editing Team's measure have failed to impose - can be enabled.   

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:25 PM

2. Do you think it should be moderated?

A supplementary question for those who answered YES to the above -

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:37 PM

Here Joe had the courtesy of telling you what would happen in public and you still find a reason to complain?

Except of course that the change to the thread's title had already been imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission. The then and current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's threat was to relegate a music thread to the BS if I expressed the view that I did not agree with his imposition.

All this and his (unasked for) personal opinion of 'song challenges' were all contained in that editing comment.

It may be considered to be a courtesy had I been contacted and asked my view on the proposed title change - before the change was imposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 08:07 PM

If you HAD been contacted what would you have said?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 08:22 PM

He would have objected to having been contacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:05 AM

If you HAD been contacted what would you have said?

The point is that I was not contacted - so our forum will never know what a more stylish approach may have achieved.

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-
--------------------------------------------------------------------

However a less drastic approach is possible, has less danger of being counter-productive and as the following post shows - it is appreciated

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,khandu - PM
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM

I am with The Shambles on this one.

A couple of years back, I created a thread regarding a certain troll. Within moments, Pene Azul pmed me and explained that he believed this thread would probably do far more harm than good and requested permission to delete it.

Certainly, he could have deleted it without bothering to ask. But Jeff showed more class than that.

The simple act of contacting me beforehand made all the difference in the world. I told him to delete it and I felt rather good about it all.

Had he or anyone else deleted it without contact, I would have been pissed and would have posted a grumbling thread about it.

Simple decency goes a long way.

Change my thread titles? Sure, if you believe there is a good reason. But show some civility and respect to the creator of the thread by sending a simple PM.

khandu

There is nothing decent, friendly or nice about all these imposed measures like the 'silent deletion', of entire threads and posts, thread closures, title changes and the like.

These imposed judgements by one (favoured) poster on another are drastic measures and they will produce counter-productive responses. Perhaps drastic measure like this should not be used as the first and only action and should only be used on the rare occasions when such drastic measures are proportionate?

Then the impression of (anonymous) 'moderators' (or some undefined 'we) being in constant conflict with named members our forum will not be the one that is perceived and which undoubtly will now inhibit some posters from contributing.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:51 AM

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated.

Good to see this is being taken seriously and that the posters of such things are to be eliminated. About time too.

Is this to be with the services of the special Mudcat hitman who will be chosen from the ranks of favoured posters or Mick, are you also going to volunteer your services in this role?

That could well be a problem - for as one of our known 'moderators' who has constantly set the example that such posts are acceptable posting behaviour - you may have to eliminate yourself.

Thanks for the offer but it is not required that the posters of personal judgements be eliminated - just that our 'moderators' do not continue to set the example that this is now the whole object of our forum and that all posters can be seen to be treated equally. And remember:

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:28 AM

Well you certainly missed the point there then!
Yet again

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:18 AM

I'll do the deciding
Humans only need guiding
To do want I want them to do
Justified by the means
The end - seen in my dreams
Does it seem like a nightmare to you?

The goal is elimination
Of all duplication
Can't you get this into your brain?
I'll make sure that you will
Finally swallow this pill
As I will post it again and again

I will enable debate
Like a totalitarian state
With kind and generous hosts
Peace will be imposed
Every open thread closed
And with me writing all of the posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:21 AM

And with me writing all of the posts.

At least that line figures...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:23 AM

Today Mudcat, tomorrow the world!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:53 AM

Is giok having a lie in?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:52 PM

Or a tig er?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:45 PM

Perhaps the Mudcat hitman has eliminated my Scottish friend?


Can someone explain to me why any poster would continue to post to support a system as being effective - when the main architect of this system has publicly admitted its failure?

There may not be any 'bad faith' involved in the current system of 'moderation' - but the posting of this support certainly appears to be an example of 'blind faith'. It is rather like continuing to place your money on a horse to win - when its trainer has already announced that the horse has died. It is very loyal and trusting on the part of these posters and punters but perhaps not really very sensible....?

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

I am not sure, and it is not really explained why it is now thought to be OK to scare visitors away and for our forum to look even more exclusive than it currently does by changing to members-only posting.

And I for one, have certainly thought of many solutions and made lots of positive suggestions - I am sure that you can too.

In order to protect all parties and ensure that posters can for the first time express an informed opinion on whether the 'moderation' on our forum is proportionate or not - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on us?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM

You are reading too much Orwell, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:27 PM

A man in your county should be reading Thomas Hardy - definitely.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:51 PM

If Galileo had said in verse that the world moved, the inquisition might have let him alone.
Thomas Hardy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:12 PM

Mudcat's Birthday

Interesting that a thread where nice things are said about the Mudcat Editing Team still proudly remains on the music section.

When any other birthday thread would be quickly relegated to the BS - but perhaps not quite so quick as any thread where less than flattering comments and suggested improvements - were made about the same issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: gnu
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM

Jaysus, Roger. You got nothin better to do than crap and whine ALL fuckin day. (Ah, notice there was no question mark at the end of that sentence.) I read ONE of your posts for the first time in months and it's still crap and whine.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM

Not to Roger it isn't.

Say what you wish about the Shambles, but over time he has gained my admiration for fortitude in the face of derision, scorn, slagging and bad things people have said to and about him. He has never, to my knowledge, resorted to the types of statements many of his detractors have. That says a bunch.

Ya go brass ones, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:05 PM

Of course, even though he does not resort to the same types of statements that his detractors have used, Roger has his own style of causing problems.   I may admire his fortitude, but there comes a time when fortitude is replaced by ineptitude. Much of what he has been doing appears to be an attempt to sooth his own ego and avoid the perception that he admits he has been wrong in his actions.

Ya got brass ones Roger, but they could use a little polish

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:08 PM

Yes, shambles posts can ramble on and on ... it's your choice, all one has to do is ignore them ... but of course there those that don't.

But, I have to agree with Guest that "He has never, to my knowledge, resorted to the types of statements many of his detractors have"... and some of them have been downright mean and ugly.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:36 PM

Shambles quotes out of context, distorts facts, accuses others, etc.

No he doesn't use the same tactics but it's easy enough to see why people end up saying what they do in exasperation with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:44 PM

So ..... just ignore him. Verbally attacking consistantly is no less honourable than his mumbly rambles.

BTW ... he states what he does and does not guise himself as a Guest.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:45 PM

Simple solution for you. Do NOT read his posts. If the ingestion of salt acuses your BP to rise, you should ascribe the cause of the problem to

a) the salt?
b) the ingestion of the salt?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:50 PM

BTW ... he states what he does and does not guise himself as a Guest.

That does not make what he does any better.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:50 PM

"So ..... just ignore him"
Likewise you can just ignore those of us who have issues with Shambles posting style. It is a two-way street.

"Verbally attacking consistantly is no less honourable than his mumbly rambles"
That is a judgement call. "Honour" can be interpreted in various ways.

"he states what he does and does not guise himself as a Guest."
Do you know that for a fact? Do you believe that?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:01 PM

Who really cares that much to keep this argument going ... certainly not me.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:27 PM

Posters may be encourage to see this problem as only being an individual poster.

And if you do see it as this - the public witch-hunt can be carried on in Not posting to a thread

Then perhaps this thread can be left for anyone who wishes to discuss the issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:33 PM

500 NOW CLOSE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Joe Offer at the Women's Center
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:33 PM

Am I #500?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Joe Offer (at the Women's Center)
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:35 PM

Damn. Missed it.
No, I don't plan to close the thread. This is Shambles' home.
That's NOT a promise.
Situations may force me to change my mind.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:54 PM

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. It is not wise to take too much notice of any assurances given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

The above assurance was given in the following thread   Do you need to be censored?   which (along with all the other threads on this subject) - is now closed.

In future and to avoid posters being confused about which are their personal views and what are the official editing comments of our 'moderators' expressed in the course of their roles - perhaps all editing comments can be seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?

And no reference to editing actions be made - especially like any poster being able to impose their judgement on others - is ever contained in a conventional posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:12 PM

Tough, Rog. You earned it. You get one thread for this. You can have it forever or until Max has had enough. You may post on other threads as long as you don't try to swing the topic to this same old tired stuff. Proof of that is found in several other threads where you are currently posting. GUEST may admire you, that is his right. I think that is misguided and ignores 7 or 8 years of your rants and taking over threads.

And yes, you can request. It has been considered. Request denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 11:20 PM

Aw Mick, that ain't right. Lemmee help you out here.

Shambolina you say that you need an explanation "provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?"

Okay Rog.....Here's one you can always refer to should someone zap a post.

One of your flakey posts on some thread or another was zapped the other day because it was another of your sillyass and repetitious rants built around misquotes and out of context, copy and paste, bullshit. If it had any redeeming value it was moved to this thread, otherwise it is gone into the ether and only it's smell remains.

That ought to cover all of your problems......except for the fact that you haven't left after Max asked you to go.

Have a nice day Twiddles.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 05:55 AM

Please delete personal attack?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 06:12 AM

Responses to bullying

Which was closed with the following editing comment of explanation.

I think it's time to close this thread. Reason: bullying, which constitutes a gang approach to a personal attack. I'm glad you suggested it, Roger.
Joe Offer

Of course – I had suggested no such thing and if this action had been undertaken at my suggestion – it would have been the about the first only suggestion of mine that was had ever been selected for implementation by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 06:37 AM

You will see that the thread Responses to racism has not (yet) been subjected to imposed closure.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:00 AM

Interesting that a thread where nice things are said about the Mudcat Editing Team still proudly remains on the music section.

When any other birthday thready would be quickly relegated to the BS (Shambles, emphasis mine)

You are not telling the truth as everyone can easily see by searching for threads with the word "birthday" in them.

Birthday threads about known musicians remain in the music section (Martin Carthy, Phil Ochs, Bob Dylan, to name but a few).
Birthday threads about normal (or even less normal Mudcatters, like Joe O.) are usually started with the BS tag and reamin in this section. Birthday threads for normal Mudcatters without the BS tag have (mostly) been moved down. One instance: A Shambles birthday thread.

A birthday thread about a music resource (for instance: Mudcat) belongs in the music section in my opinion.

The reasons you allude to why threads are moved or not cannot be substantiated by looking at the pattern which birthday threads are moved and which are not moved. The pattern you see, wexists only in your head.

And the any other thread is an outright lie.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:04 AM

Shambles-you just are bloody moan too much and make trubble!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:14 AM

A birthday thread about a music resource (for instance: Mudcat) belongs in the music section in my opinion.

It would have in Shambles' opinion too had it been moved to the BS section...

Shambles' judgement on what is right or wrongis dependant on what the moderators do or don't do. They must be wrong - simple as that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:04 AM

Any one care to try and explain and justify why the BS thread Do you support the status quo? was first deleted anonymously with no editing comment of explanation. Then was later combined with the musical thread Do You support the Status Quo, renamed and relegated to the BS?

And why 'any other thread' started (certainly by me) with the same general interest to ALL posters as this Mudcat birthday thread would do - if it were allowed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to remain on our forum at all - would undoubtably and quickly be relgated to the BS section?

Perhaps the sensible answer - to avoid the wrong judgement call being made and to enable all posters on our now divided forum to equally contribute to these discussions - would be to have all such threads on both sections?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:19 AM

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17-Sep-06 - 03:21 AM

Sorry, but I can't sift out all the Guest posts from the others, without messing with a thread more than I feel comfortable doing. I agree that the conspiracy-theory posts add nothing to the thread, and tend to stifle real discussion. guess that's a good reason for blocking Guest posts in the non-music section.
-Joe Offer-

Are posts from guests ('i.e' non members) going to be blocked?

If this is Max's intention can this be stated? If this is NOT Max's intention - can our 'moderators' be instructed to stop publicly 'pitching' for this? To work under the current set-up or to leave and set-up their own forum where they can block who they wish?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:53 AM

I notice that KREX's birthday has not been relegated to the BS section.

So perhaps with our forum's 10th birthday coming up - there is to be a more common sense approach to such things for posters to look forward to in the next ten years?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:31 AM

Very few people would expect a regular football match - with an open invitation for all to take part - to be thought or seen to be a fair contest, when the referee judged it to be acceptable for them to also play in the game as a participant.

Perhaps in order for this to be seen to be a fair game - they may expect this referee to make a choice to either be a referee or to be a player? Especially when they started sending other players off for what they judged to be unfair play.

Even without the referee wishing to play both roles - most people would be surprised that such a game of football would ever get completed - if this referee kept trying to change the rules, in order turn it into a game of rugby. And tried to exclude some players from the pitch altogether, whilst trying to pursuade the rest of players that this change was a far better idea than the original concept.

It would not be too much of a surprise if this referee was not asked or expected to play whatever game they wanted and by whatever rules - but to do this elsewhere and to leave everyone else to get on with their football match.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:41 AM

That really is a gem, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:59 AM

"Shambles-you just are bloody moan too much and make trubble!"

Shambles does moan at times. However, it's others who make the trouble.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? Answer that and you'll know the difficulties don't come from Shambles.

Subject: RE: Just found Mudcat too
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:06 PM

Is this not BS material?

Apparently not - but the following thread is judged to be

When was Mudcat lost?

Subject: RE: Just found Mudcat too
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:09 PM

But if this thread is so judged and relegated to the BS - then so must the following.

Just found Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:47 PM

Judging by your non stop perusal of this site, I would think you'd make an ideal moderator. Only thing is, that if you were one, the rest would probably all leave. Except of course the mysterious Guest that has materialised in you support. Odd that isn't it, you've had more support from one anonymous poster in the last few weeks, than you've had from named Mudcatters in the last 8 years?
How convenient too.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 06:27 PM

Things may change - but only when posters once again feel free to express their views, whatever they may be - free from the fear of the special restrictions, intimidation and bullying we see encouraged here - being addressed towards them.

It would not be surprising if the regular guest posters on this thread turn-out to one and the same. But I am not surprised that many those who post their views now choose do so anonymously - been this be seen as 'support' or the very opposite. . Including those who would feel themselves qualified to anonymously impose their judgement on me and their other fellow posters.

The whole point is to try and enable open discussion to take place on this issue as on any other subject on our forum - the fact that various attempts are made to prevent this and posters are openly encouraged to take part in this, is regretable and reflects very little credit on our forum.

But things may change - let us all hope they will improve.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM

Birthday threads

For some reason it is now judged that having obit threads on the music related section is OK - even when whoever the unfortunate person is has no musical connection at all. There is even a prefix for such threads.

To my mind when someone has died it is really a little late to post nice things about them or to say how they may have influenced your life etc. As they certainly will not be able to read it.

And it is not considered good form (by some posters) to post anything in such threads that may be seen as any way critcal or to be too silly.

Wolfgang's attempt (in this thread) to provide some reasoning behind our 'modertaors' erratic treatment of 'birthday threads' gave me an idea.

As this would remain on the music section, where all contributors would see it. I thought that starting a thread there on some musically related persons birthday (whether they were still alive or not) - would give our forum a chance to say what they wished to about that person, without feeling that they were expected to be reverential. Or posters could decide for themselves whether they wished to post to it at all.

If the featured person were still lucky enough to be alive - there is a chance that they may even read and appriciate it. It seemed to me to be a bit more positive and less depressing to keep reading on our forum the names of all those who had died.

But such is the nature of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's witch-hunt - that the regular's on 'snitchers corner' [The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum] have already suspected and found some terrible motive for such threads and have alerted 'Big Brother'.

Perhaps encouraging all this paranoid silliness can now be ended and all posters be seen to be treated equally?

---

Note: non-music birthday and obituary threads are routinely moved into the non-music section. If it's a thread about a musician that ends up being just congratulations and condolences without music information, it will also eventually get moved. But you knew that already. It has been said many times before.
Yes, it is a matter of judgment and it's not always a clear-cut matter. But that's what we get paid the big bucks for.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM

Obits were originally in the upper section. As were all other headings EXCEPT BS:
After a time Obits may (in fact usually) get tagged as non music and drop below the line

that has been procedure and custom since the heading tage were instituted.

nothing new.

nothing strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 06:49 PM

Subject: RE: Obit: Steve Irwin is dead
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 01:33 AM

Sorry, this has nothing to do with music, should be in the BS section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No need for this notice. Obituaries should be started with the "Obituary" tag, whether or not they deal with music. The Clones and I will eventually move the thread to non-music if that's where it belongs. That process seems easier than having two "obit" tags, one for music and one not.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:05 PM

Shambles, this may piss you off! I have stayed off this thread for ages, I have not asked for you to be removed, I have said that you need some help and / or some space, but the bit that will piss you off is that there is someone else that is more of a pain in the arse than you are (no names, no pack drill!) so you are not number 1 anymore, how does that feel? There is another that pisses me off more than you do! Time to regroup & lick your wounds, time to reflect, time to accept, time to grow up, time to be humble & let this thread die.
Skipy, who will read whatever you write in the future when you let this crap drop.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:25 PM

Skipy, who will read whatever you write in the future when you let this crap drop.

Unlike you - I only have this thread to express my views on.

The only way I will be permitted to post my views elsewhere will be if I am prepared to change them.

I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:47 PM

"I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............"

I guess widdle Shamby Pamby can't see too well. Try this:

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.

Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.

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.

There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:49 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment - as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh this thread.

Note: non-music birthday and obituary threads are routinely moved into the non-music section. If it's a thread about a musician that ends up being just congratulations and condolences without music information, it will also eventually get moved. But you knew that already. It has been said many times before.
Yes, it is a matter of judgment and it's not always a clear-cut matter. But that's what we get paid the big bucks for.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps - as it is not clear-cut - our forum can be left to decide a threads fate? If it is of interest - it will be posted to - if it is not - it will fall off the page.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:54 PM

And then again, YOU, SHAMBOLINA, may have missed the following post:

*********************************************************************
"I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............"

I guess widdle Shamby Pamby can't see too well. Try this:

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.



Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.

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.

There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<))



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:45 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated. If they are responding to him, silly though I believe that to be, that will be allowed.

I am not sure if our forum can expect Catspaw to be eliminated by Big Mick or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:50 AM

"If they are responding to him"

seems to be the operative phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:12 AM

"If they are responding to him"

seems to be the operative phrase.

Who else would a personal attack be responding too but the one being attacked?

As I do not post personal attacks on Catspaw or anyone else and do not respond in kind to the many that are encouraged to be made to me and that I am not protected from - any personal attack posted about me - will be unprovoked.

So even using Mick's strange logic - these personal attacks cannot be justified - by our 'moderators' just because they may share the sentiments.

In some of Mick's earlier posts he encourages posters not to use this thread for discussion - but by this later comment - he is actively encouraging the posting of abusive personal attacks to be made about certain posters in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:33 AM

No the roundabout and underhand, not to mention indirect attack is more your style isn't it Shambles Sweetie?
Agent provocateur is the correct term I think, you are like a little mosquito, anybody within reach will do, but with a preference for clones.
I bet as a little boy,(maybe you still do it), you stamped your feet and said "Shan't" when your Mommy told you to do things. Maybe she should have whupped your ass a bit more often to break you of the habit of being truculent, which is how you come over on here. As a sulking truculent baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 10:36 AM

"I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............"


PLEASE TRY AND RESPOND TO THE OBVIOUS POST REQUEST BELOW....PERHAPS YOU CAN SEE THAT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK FROM MAX, IN WHICH CASE YOU NEED TO GO!!!!

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.


Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.

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.

There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<))





Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM

I have no control over the posting of others and have no wish to. All that I have ever tried to do on our forum is to post my honest views.

That others may judge posting these honest views to be seen in emotive and combative terms like: Attacking, Hijacking, Duplication, Domination, Crowding-out, Controlling, Manipulating, Trolling, Flaming, Spamming Etc Etc - is their problem. The reality is that these are simply views posted to our forum for discussion - which is its purpose.

Why are those who perhaps should know better, now seen to encourage the simple act of of posting to a forum set-up for public discussion to be seen and judged in such terms?      

I suggest it is because they do wish to have control over the posting of others, assume that others are similarly motivated and see any poster trying to express a different view to be a direct threat to their ability to continue impose their judgement on the posting of others.

I suggest that it is time for a change to an open less combative approach - where 'moderators' are not seen to be in open conflict with our forum's contributors and all are seen to be treated equally and not encouraged to subjected to bullying public witch-hunts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 12:48 PM

The thing about public discussion fora, is that they involve give and take on the part of the contributors. Your self centred mania, and refusal to respond to legitimate queries, or discuss your overhyped grievances places you outwith those parameters.
The habit of keeping on asking the same question over and over again hoping to get the answer you want, is a form of bullying, a thing you often complain about others doing to you.
Just because your bullying follows a different format from others who may adopt a more direct line, it doesn't make it any less oppressive to those at whom it is aimed.
JGM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM

"I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............"



PLEASE TRY AND RESPOND TO THE OBVIOUS POST REQUEST BELOW....PERHAPS YOU CAN SEE THAT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK FROM MAX, IN WHICH CASE YOU NEED TO GO!!!!

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.




Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.

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.

There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<))







Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 12:57 PM

"I suggest that it is time for a change to an open less combative approach - where 'moderators' are not seen to be in open conflict with our forum's contributors and all are seen to be treated equally and not encouraged to subjected to bullying public witch-hunts."

Putting all of Shambles past history aside, I think he makes a point. However, is there any evidence to Shambles claims? Yes, I know there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of postings that Shambles have made - but everything I've read seem to be open to interpretation

I would ask this of the forum -

1. Has anyone felt that they have been involved in any conflict with the forum moderators?

2. Do you feel that YOU (I don't mean Shambles, but you the reader) have not been treated equally?

I would love to see anyone who answers "yes" to those questions to please post here - and not as an anoymous "guest". Let us hear from members of this forum to see if anyone besides Shambles truly has this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:04 PM

I've had some posts modified and deleted and some other changes as well. No problem from me. The Mods all do a pretty good job!

Spaw

PS: "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." says the site owner Max!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM

Oh sure, Ron...I have had conflicts! I was at a Getaway, and there was some VERY good beer in a bag ...and Mick & Max & Jeff and Joe Offer were ALL there, impeding my access to it! (Jeri was there, but she didn't get in my way...*grin*)

Why, I was almost ready to mop up on the lot! Then they noticed I wanted a beer, and they not only made way, they opened the bag!

And late at night, we were singing, and I could barely get a song in edgewise for all those folks singing! Why, it's enough to make a feller invent a new identity on the Mudcat in order to harass 'em!

I'm sure Shambles would have let me sing & have a beer!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:15 PM

What Spaw said! I've had posts deleted, and had arguments with the "Management", I don't intend to keep pissing and moaning about it to anyone who will listen, for the foreseeable future either!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:26 PM

"As a sulking truculent baby."

Ennui is a twit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM

I don't think anyone is likely to agree with every moderation decision that has been made here, or at ANY other web site. I would also expect that there are a number of people here who at some time or other have had a dispute regarding some moderation decision - given the number of posts made, it would be almost absurd to think such things have never happened.

What is more to the point is whether I believe that the attempt is made to apply what ever moderation there is (at whatever level there is) on a site is done consistanly and fairly. In terms of that overall picture, it is my belief that the moderators here do a good job.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:38 PM

Of course when Max's public statement is posted - what it says before is ignored and what it goes on to say - is omitted. Such as:

Joe: Do I need to separate you two?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.


Ron - It must be quite clear from the special restrictions imposed on my posting only by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that our forum is not all playing under the same rules - or being expected to. Until we are all seen to be playing under the same rules and posters can feel safe from having the same treatment imposed on them as they see imposed on me - it is hardly likely that any poster will be prepared to take the risk of posting anything that may result in this.

Our current 'moderation' IS well-intentioned. That is why it so supported and why it is so dangerous. But the bottom line is that it simply does not work. Which is even now admitted by its chief achitect. But not only this - it is counter-productive and only encourages (directly and indirectly) the very conflict it is supposed to be dealing with whilst encouraging posters to mind everyone's business but their own.

Very few people would expect a regular football match - with an open invitation for all to take part - to be thought or seen to be a fair contest, when the referee judged it to be acceptable for them to also play in the game as a participant.

Perhaps in order for this to be seen to be a fair game - they may expect this referee to make a choice to either be a referee or to be a player? Especially when they started sending other players off for what they judged to be unfair play.

Even without the referee wishing to play both roles - most people would be surprised that such a game of football would ever get completed - if this referee kept trying to change the rules, in order turn it into a game of rugby. And tried to exclude some players from the pitch altogether, whilst trying to pursuade the rest of players that this change was a far better idea than the original concept.

It would not be too much of a surprise if this referee was not asked or expected to play whatever game they wanted and by whatever rules - but to do this elsewhere and to leave everyone else to get on with their football match.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM

oh, piffle, Roger! YOU are a moderator at a singing session, but I assume you also get your turn! It is absurd to expect that we could FIND mods who are willing to just be moderators and not participate in the discussions!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:48 PM

Shambles - can you simply bullet point your gripe? That last note just rambled. You would be more effective if you could present your case in a clear and concise manner. I have re-read that last post three times and I am still unclear as to the point you are trying to make in regards to my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:56 PM

Did your post make sense, Ron? (Some of them don't.)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM

oh, piffle, Roger! YOU are a moderator at a singing session, but I assume you also get your turn! It is absurd to expect that we could FIND mods who are willing to just be moderators and not participate in the discussions!

Piffle indeed. I am not a moderator at a singing session.

I am a participant in tune sessions and the 'leader' of a regular weekly pub session - where the object is to involve as many musicians as possible to participate in playing sets of tunes at the same time. It is not without its difficulties but the approach taken is that everyone has as much 'right' to be in that public place as everyone else - no matter whatever their musical abilities may be. It does not make things easy but on many nights than not, the end result often rewards and justifies the attempt.

I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable. And if this is not thought possible the down-side and counter-productive results of having referees who also wish to be players cannot just be ignored. Especially after the main architect of the current 'system' has admitted its failure.

Other optiona are to have any 'moderators' at all or to give the choice to our current 'moderators' of just being a referee.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM

good comeback

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:11 PM

"I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable. And if this is not thought possible the down-side and counter-productive results of having referees who also wish to be players cannot just be ignored. Especially after the main architect of the current 'system' has admitted its failure.

Other optiona are to have any 'moderators' at all or to give the choice to our current 'moderators' of just being a referee. "


... or the other option, leave things the way they are.   The majority of posters seem to have no problem with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:28 PM

or the other option, leave things the way they are.   The majority of posters seem to have no problem with that.

If this were the case - would this 'I'm alright Jack' attitude really mean that the current 'system' was seen to be impartial and all poster were equally treated?

If this were the case - would it mean that its main architect's admission of the current systems failure can be safely ignored?

As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. Not until every such action is indicated and explained with an editing comment and all editing comments are limited to where this has been judged to be necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:30 PM

Well, tune session or singing session...moderator or leader, I have no doubt that if there were a real problem you WOULD have to find a way to deal with disruptions. Here, there are many thousands who come in at times, and the law of averages says that there is more opportunity for disruption than at a music session where you can look the offender in the eye!



"I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial ..."

I can well imagine how difficult it would be. PAID mods would be unlikely to understand the issues here, and if they did, they would be unlikely to tolerate your brand of incessant complaining.

"...but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable."

for whom? for youm? YOU are harping on some impossible model of complete impartiality.

You, it seems, will never get the point that YOU are not the arbitor of whether moderators are needed and how the job is delegated, and to whom.

The only way to keep things flowing on a site like this is to have some way to police ourselves....Max decided how and who, and he 'seems' to be ok with how they are doing it. The amazing part is how how much he and his appointees tolerate criticism OF his system and its rules.

That 'could' change.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM

there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form.

nor is there any need for it. The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED.

It is not "our" forum" - it is Max's.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:46 PM

"As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. "

So then you agree to stop posting these notes Shambles? Perhaps you would agree that you have no way of knowing and that your posts are fruitless?

Don't forget - The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:55 PM

Can someone explain to me why any poster would continue to post to support a system as being effective - when the main architect of this system has publicly admitted its failure?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM

As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. (Shambles)

It has been ignored for a long time as a favour to you, because the argument is utterly wrong. Look to the other threads where you multipost that nonsense for a refutation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:17 PM

Because it is not a "failure" as you are trying to read into the comment. That is YOUR opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM

Joe Offer, as the sham very well knows, implied that peace on the forum has failed as typified by the sham's incessant whining attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:19 PM

"As I do not post personal attacks on Catspaw or anyone else and do not respond in kind to the many that are encouraged to be made to me and that I am not protected from - any personal attack posted about me - will be unprovoked."

There's more than one way to provoke a response as you well know. BTW, what makes you think these responses are encouraged by anyone other than you? Another uninformed judgement?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:00 PM

Because it is not a "failure" as you are trying to read into the comment. That is YOUR opinion.

That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum. Others can judge from the actual words and perhaps explain why posters support what they assume to be the status quo - when it is obviously nothing of the sort.

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:08 PM

"That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum."

Seems to me you've been expressing your uninformed opinions in other threads of late - including an uninformed judgement about the moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:15 PM

'The habit of keeping on asking the same question over and over again hoping to get the answer you want, is a form of bullying'

And to rephrase that sentence so that it has equal validity, assuming it had validity to begin with:

'The habit of keeping on giving the same answer over and over again hoping to get the result you want, is a form of bullying'


How many of you folks continue to gang up on Shambles and why? Is he touching your nerves? Bothering you? If so, why do you read his posts? Hell, I have seen at least half of you say at one time or another that the best way to avoid it is to AVOID IT. Fu#k's sake, take your own advice. You have begun to look like a collection of horses' arses.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:24 PM

'The habit of keeping on giving the same answer over and over again hoping to get the result you want, is a form of bullying'

You expect the answer to change? The answer is the answer. If you ask the question you must expect the answer. If you don't like it - tough - perhaps you shouldn't have asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:29 PM

"That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum."

That is not true. If I abused my postings and began similar posts to yours in non-related topics, I am sure that I would be reprimanded.

As for that lengthly clip from Joe that you posted - what does that have to do with anything? Again, give us bullet points. IF that post was meant to show that someone admited failure, I think you failed in your attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:31 PM

Don't forget - The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED.

As if anyone would ever be allowed to forget this.

But I am not sure that this right is in question.

All that is being politely suggested is where and when this is judged to be necessary that it is always indicated and explained to our forum with an editing comment and that all editing comments are limited to only occasions when some form of imposed action has been imposed.

Can some of the witch-hunt explain to our forum what is so devilish about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:33 PM

I didn't. I was rewriting a quote by Giok who was addressing Shambles. Get your head out, will you? Into the light. BTW, I am not Shambles. I am someone who thinks the ten of you who don't like what he has to say should stop reading his posts.

Shambles, you begin to look better than the lot of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:34 PM

Request considered. Denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:35 PM

Same answer. Nothing, it's just that they don't want the bother. They have enough to do as they have explained before.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:42 PM

And I was pointing out that your rewrite was a stupid statement. The answer is repeated in the hope that it will actually be read and understood this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:49 PM

You are no better than Shambles. YOU do exactly the same thing you say he does. I tend to think most statements from you on this thread have been stupid. Piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:51 PM

Just so you know that your seemingly lily-white approach is so fuckin' transparent. Don't insult people and you won't get the insults back.

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:58 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Actually, the moderators are here to help primarily with technical problems, not to be babysitters or a police force. Most "offensive language" is ignored, and we expect Mudcatters to ignore minor squabbling.
Stick to the topic, Shambles. If you go off topic and post your usual repetitive propaganda, your message will be moved to the current Shambles garbage thread. As long as you actually discuss with people and address the issues they're talking about, your posts are likely to be left alone.
-Joe Offer-

As your moderators are clearly still under the impression that their purpose is to protect posters from the abusive personal attacks referred to - [which was the topic introduced into this thread by its orignator and to which I was responding on-topic to] – perhaps this latest version of their role should be passed to them? Although the object of this imposed 'moderation' does seem to change......As do your determined attempts to try and prevent this poster from posting my views on the same basis as other posters.

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:03 PM

Deja vu?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:06 PM

All over again.

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:07 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Actually, the moderators are here to help primarily with technical problems, not to be babysitters or a police force. Most "offensive language" is ignored, and we expect Mudcatters to ignore minor squabbling.
Stick to the topic, Shambles. If you go off topic and post your usual repetitive propaganda, your message will be moved to the current Shambles garbage thread. As long as you actually discuss with people and address the issues they're talking about, your posts are likely to be left alone.
-Joe Offer-

As your moderators are clearly still under the impression that their purpose is to protect posters from the abusive personal attacks referred to - [which was plainly the topic introduced into this thread by its orignator and to which I was responding on-topic to] – perhaps this latest version of their role should be passed to them? Although the object of this imposed 'moderation' does seem to change......As do your determined attempts to try and prevent this poster from posting my views on the same basis as other posters.

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:16 PM

Deja vu?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:31 PM

I...I....hear....hear....an...an....echo....echo....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:50 PM

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush . . . .

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 07:16 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the (now BS) thread.

OK, Shambles, this is the third time you've posted this message - and it's more-or-less the same thing you've said hundreds of times. Does your ability to copy and paste make you feel like a real man, or what? Can't you carry on a discussion like a real human being? What IS your problem?
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps my problem is partly that I have only just discovered you have twice 'silently deleted' my post containing subjects for discussion from our forum?

A post that was perfectly on topic as it was responding to the topic of abusive messages introduced into the thread by its originator.

Is now OK for a thread to remain on the music related section as long as it contains only uncritcal praise for the efforts of our 'moderators'? But for it to be swiftly relegated to the BS at the first sign of anything other than uncritcal praise for the efforts of our 'moderators'?

Can you please stop all this macho nonsense and be seen to treat all posters equally as your actions to prevent posters from saying what you do not want to see - is making our forum look foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 07:40 PM

"All that is being politely suggested is where and when this is judged to be necessary that it is always indicated and explained to our forum with an editing comment and that all editing comments are limited to only occasions when some form of imposed action has been imposed.

Can some of the witch-hunt explain to our forum what is so devilish about this?"

You did make a polite suggestion, and it was ignored.   Time to move on. If this were a business and you made a suggestion to the boss that he or she did not like, would you keep bringing it up like this? You would have been fired long ago.

Granted this is not a business. But it is also NOT a public forum. It is a privately owned website that the public is allowed to post in. There is no need for anyone to justify anything that they do.   The FACT they have given you explanations (which you ignore) and ALLOW you to continue posting is evidence of just how open and fair they really are. No other reasonable website owner would allow lengthy and fruitless bickering to continue on their site. Consider yourself privalaged.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:01 PM

. . .or to have those against Shambles repeat themselves ad fuckin' nauseum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:31 PM

or trolls

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:41 PM

Troll with a name, troll without a name: same same.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:20 PM

not the same at all. You choose to be a guest so you can say things that you would not have the courage to say to a persons face.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:29 PM

No, Ron. Wrong again as usual. I choose to be a guest just because. I owe neither you nor anyone else an explanation. As to telling you to your face--if we ever meet I will be happy to. Now why don't you and your fuckin' gang give it a rest. Your cheap shots at Shambles do none of you any honour.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:33 PM

I look forward to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:37 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:38 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 10:18 PM

Good job outing yourself, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 10:19 PM

No problem, jeffp.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 07:34 AM

Actually, the moderators are here to help primarily with technical problems, not to be babysitters or a police force. Most "offensive language" is ignored, and we expect Mudcatters to ignore minor squabbling.

Stick to the topic, Shambles. If you go off topic and post your usual repetitive propaganda, your message will be moved to the current Shambles garbage thread. As long as you actually discuss with people and address the issues they're talking about, your posts are likely to be left alone.
-Joe Offer-

After years of telling our forum that the object of our 'moderators' was to protect posters on our forum from abusive personal attacks - this and the use of offensive language - is now given the green light in an editing comment from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

Mainly it appears because (some of) our 'moderators' wish to indulge in this along with certain favoured posters who have done little else but post only such things and have been encouraged to do so for years.

Now our forum is told that the main point of our 'moderators' and the focus of their efforts and resources will be focused on trying to prevent me (and me only) from committing the truly terrible Mudcat posting 'crime' of going off topic.......................No matter how petty and foolish this makes our forum appear.

So now we know. Or do we?

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max Explain the BS rules (52* d) RE: Explain the BS rules         26 Oct 99

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 12:09 PM

Posting as a guest etc

The above post has now been closed – with the following editing comment.

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 10:38 AM

I respectfully request, as this threads originator, that it be completely deleted and not just closed.

Not too sure there is anything respectful about any poster requesting that the posts of others in a thread are all deleted.

I think the thread originator is correct in this case. The subject has been discussed, and now it's time to shut it down. Shambles, if you don't want threads like this to be shut down, don't take them over.
-Joe Offer-

If the thread's originator is judged to be corrected in requesting that the entire thread be deleted – perhaps it can be explained why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is only closing the thread?

I can only post my views.

I would like to add two more to the emotive list of terms that are used to judge the simple act of posting– taking-over and abusing.

All these terms really mean - is that someone does not agree with what you have posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 03:20 PM

You flipheads who keep comin' back on this endless FLIPPIN' thread oughta be put outta yer flippin' misery with a blunt objeck to the flippin' head, that's what I say! Flippin' SHUT THE FLIP UP!!! Jeezus. I ain't never seen nothin' stupider than this. Not even in the bars in Sudbury, eh? Not even in the joint! This is the flippin' END. This is the ultamate stu;pidity maxed out to the flippin' last flippin' degree POSSIBLE! If I was any of you what posted more than 10 times on this moron thread in the last month I would throw myself in front of a flippin' bus and end it all right NOW!

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 03:25 PM

Shane! Come back!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 03:54 PM

You oughta be so flippin' lucky, Ron! This is my last flippin' post on this useless flippin' thread, eh? I got beter things to do, like watch the grass grow, sleep or go out to the pastuer and milk the flippin' bull, know'm sayin'?

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 04:07 PM

I got beter things to do, like watch the grass grow, sleep or go out to the pastuer and milk the flippin' bull, know'm sayin'?

No - can you use bullet points?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 04:57 PM

I wish I had a bullet to use, I could rid the world of a real anal retentive twit called Shambles.

Over to you Guest/Bruce!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 05:34 PM

LOL! Good one, Roger... (about using the bullet points)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 05:52 PM

Waht the FLIP! Whaddya mean, bullet points? I don't carry a flippin' gun, you bolthead! Guns are for cops and guys with really tiny little tools who think they can be big men by wavin' a gun in someone's face. Tehy don't flippin' fool me, eh? I know theer probliem. They can't get no sex anywhere cos of their tiny little tools. That is there problem. I dont' need no flippin' bulltet points to make my flippin' POINT. Got that, looser?

And know I am outta here. I mean it. This is my last flippin' post on this thread EVER. You are gettin' no more help from Shane. No way. If you don't like it, too flippin' BAD!~

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 05:52 PM

600!!!!!

Bananas and drinks all around.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 06:09 PM

What happens in Blind River, stays in Blind River... unless Shane finds out.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Grab
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 07:27 PM

Joe: I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time

Shambles: It must be quite clear from the special restrictions imposed on my posting only by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team...

These two statements cannot both be true (emphasis mine to clarify)...

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 07:44 PM

Shane: Do you mind putting down that gun? Then I'll leave.
Joe Starrett: What difference does it make, you're leaving anyway?
Shane: I'd like it to be my idea.

Shane! Come back!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 07:57 PM

After 600 posts it's a little like watching a cross between "Groundhog Day" and a train wreck.You feel compelled to look at it over and over again to see if something different it going to happen this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 08:01 PM

Flip.

What is your rpoblem, Ron? Look, man, if you wanna, like, join my fan club...and it's a big one, eh?....if you do, well, you gotta do a coupla things, okay?

First, I need a 2-4 of Molson Canadian and some smokes. Send 'em by bus to Shane McBride in Blind River. I'll pick 'em up at the bus station.

Next, do the "I'm not worthy!" thing five times. This is: you get down on your knees and say, "I'm not worthy!" and wave yer hands in the air and bow down yer head to the ground and come back up again. Five times. This will show, like, that you mean what you say and you respect me proper, eh?

And get somebody to film it, and send me pictures.

If you do these things, I will consider comin' back, okay?

Good enough.

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 08:04 PM

Shane: You speaking to me?
Chris Calloway: I don't see nobody else standing there.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 08:25 PM

"I wish I had a bullet to use, I could rid the world of a real anal retentive twit called Shambles."

Dear Ennui 1st: Pardon me for saying, but you have used what is commonly called a comma splice in the above sentence. A comma splice joins two independent clauses with a comma when it should use either a semicolon or be split into two distinct sentences with a period. FYI.

Also, it's not nice of you to talk about killing people in that manner. If you don't mean it, it is just mouth. If you do, it is a felony. I have no idea what Shambles could have done to so enrage you, but it can't really be all that bad. If his posts piss you off so much, don't read them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 10:40 PM

I shouldn't do this, but every now & then a slightly different point strike me.

"·... stop all this macho nonsense and be seen to treat all posters equally..."

But, they're NOT all equal. They start equal; that is, with equal privileges- just like citizens of a country. Then, if they do things that violate the standards (rules, laws, etc.), they 'may' be be treated as special cases and have some of those privileges restricted or revoked.

In a country or state, even if they don't break rules, they are not always treated 'equally', nor should they be...people with handicaps or special problems should receive extra help and understanding...etc.

This 'equality' thing is kinda of a slippery concept, Roger, and I have hinted at the point before. You post stuff that wears on the members & administrators alike, until you get someone to take a poke at you, then complain about the poke!
Equal treatment? You know my standard remark...you have even borrowed it...PIFFLE! If your posts go beyond general standards, your treatment "will not be seen to be equal".

Yep, I know, I have wasted my time, and I don't expect you to suddenly see the light...but, gee....I like seeing my brilliant analyses in print!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 10:45 PM

Piffle

In One Man's Meat, E. B. White wrote the single line: "Remind me to discuss the necessity for reviving the word piffle."

I've found no further reference to the word in his writing. Perhaps we failed to remind him.

Because his words were always carefully chosen, we can trust that his request has much meaning. He wanted to discuss, not command. A distinct event must have triggered his thought, because a necessity is created when something has happened, not merely when someone ruminates. I suspect he wrote that line after he had endured so much piffle – among his acquaintances? in journalism? among politicians? – that he felt he must speak out.

Reviving a word suggests that it has no equal in our common discourse today. Why? Often a word goes out of use when it is presumed to offend. We no longer refer to a man as a scoundrel or describe a child as crippled. Bombast is now labeled debate-leading-to-compromise. It's now kinder to describe a liar as someone who is a little economical with the truth. Truth, which offends both as a word and by its very existence, has been sanitized and is now admitted into discourse only so long as it is understood to be subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 10:46 PM

PART DEUX

Walker's Dictionary of 1821, which sits on my own book shelf, doesn't include the word. But a 1936 collegiate dictionary at my disposal, suitably innocent of the corruption of our speech by the modern indignation over our insensitive language – (too many precise words like piffle in the dictionary, too few useless but shockingly profane words, both errors in our lexicon corrected since the 1960s) – defines piffle as: trifling talk or action; stuff and nonsense; noun or intransitive verb.

Gossip, then? Sensational reporting and celebrity-worship? Political speech and correctness? What annoyed E. B. White that he would revive the word, no doubt in order to use it?

Among my treasures I have "a card," apparently one of a mass mailing sent in 1864, not handwritten but printed at my ancestors' local print shop in Farmington, Maine. For printing in their newspaper "false and libelous statements and innuendoes" about him, the author succinctly, scathingly denounces, to one and all receiving the card, that the editors of the Farmington Chronicle are slanderers and liars. There, he said it. I'll never know whether the accused fought back, through the mail or in the courts. But the scoundrels sufficiently annoyed the card-writer to occasion an eloquent outburst.

I don't imagine that E. B. White, certainly being aware how genteel folks of the past used punishing words with such effect, himself intended to disseminate that sort of an accusation, for which he needed the perfect word, piffle. I suspect instead that, due to some annoyance, the word came to mind, and he wished only to encourage its use that people once again might know there was a word for it, might identify stuff and nonsense, pomposity, perhaps, or gossip and call it by name; that, by knowing the word, people might use it, and by using it, might effect a shift in our culture away from tolerance of so much trifling talk or action.

(Just as it is widely held in some cultures that to know someone's name is to have power over him, to know the name for trifling talk or action, stuff and nonsense is to have power over it. Who hasn't had a vague, subconscious sense about something of which he didn't become aware and over which gain control until he could put a word to the sensation?)

I wish E. B. White were here in order that we might remind him. I'd be fascinated to know where he intended to go with it. To his memory as the all-time supreme keeper of words, I humbly pledge to revive the word, piffle.


From the www.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 11:41 PM

well! It never needed to be revived for me...it was never dead. I have used piffle & balderdash as long as I can remember...but only when warrented. A sterling word, piffle! Encompassing myriads of etymological nuances within two innocuous syllables; elegantly explicating instances of gratuitous pomposity with one flourish of dismissive disdain!

But, I do thank you, oh unnamed one, for finding such erudite explanations of the history of the ever so useful term!+

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 11:53 PM

"I like seeing my brilliant analyses in print!"

Ha! Wonderful statement, Bill. It is my belief that that might be the single most compelling reason driving most of us to post on this forum. That, and the fact that we just can't help ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 12:09 AM

"well! It never needed to be revived for me...it was never dead. I have used piffle & balderdash as long as I can remember...but only when warrented. A sterling word, piffle! Encompassing myriads of etymological nuances within two innocuous syllables; elegantly explicating instances of gratuitous pomposity with one flourish of dismissive disdain!"

I had to see that post again. Bill, it's beautiful.

It also showed me that piffle doesn't rhyme with Tripoli.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 05:49 AM

The Piffle and the Pish-Tosh fought,
But neither was the winner.
The Ugly Stubble settled things
By having them for dinner.

from Beastly Rhymes
by Jack Hanrahan and Phil Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 07:39 AM

The following thread has been relegated to the BS section of our forum and then closed by persons unknown and for reasons unknown - as there was no editing comment of explanation provided.

TECH Longer thread titles please

Partly because a fellow poster - having seen it - then decided for some reason to refresh this earlier one.

Tech Problems with thread titles

I may well have refreshed the earier thread had I not made what I thought was the safe assumption that it would have been closed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, along with all the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 08:19 AM

I shouldn't do this, but every now & then a slightly different point strike me.

If you really fell you shouldn't do something - you wouldn't do it. But just like I am trying to do - all you are doing is posting your views to a discussion forum set-up by Max for that purpose. Who do you feel you have to excuse yourself to for doing this? The baying mob?

I am not claiming that by this simple act you are: Attacking, Crowding-out, Abusing, Dominating, Violating, Hijacking or any of the emotive judgements that are encouraged to be made to describe the simple act of me posting my views to our forum.

But, they're NOT all equal. They start equal; that is, with equal privileges- just like citizens of a country. Then, if they do things that violate the standards (rules, laws, etc.), they 'may' be be treated as special cases and have some of those privileges restricted or revoked.

Piffle

Bill - although it may not work all that well in practice - you are lucky enough to live in country that is founded on the princple of equality.

When the behaviour of all is expected to follow whatever 'rules' are in place - then there can be some jusfication for imposing some sanctions upon those who are seen (and usually proved in court) to have broken those 'rules'.

Those who would feel qualified to impose their judgement upon me and other posters must be always seen to be acting impartially.

It is quite simple - if anyone is seen to indulge in and encourge by example the posting of abusive personal judgements and to be seen to ignore this when it is aimed at certain easy targets - their judgements will have no credibilty.

Bill - I suspect you will tell us that we can have a fair sporting contest of football when the referees are seen to not only to choose to partipate as players, but to send some players off for bad conduct, ignore others, and indulge themselves in this bad conduct? And who halfway through, then decide to change the rules in order to get all the participants to play rugby instead. And to do this with a bag over their heads in order to protect their identity?

All I have tried to do is to post and point out that you cannot keep on pretending that such a thing is a fair sporting contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 09:19 AM

I dunno' ShambyPamby..........Doesn't seem fair huh? You may be right. The League Owner/Head Referee/Big Kahuna himself gave you a Red Card and yet you're still playing.

Nope, you're right.........That ain't fair.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM

Not so, Spaw. If the head kahuna had wanted to enforce that, Shambles' address would have been blocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 12:14 PM

I see I was right...he didn't get my point.

I don't suppose a long post explaining to Shambles where his 'sports' metaphors break down would help much..........

but, just to show that *I* know, here's a brief synopsis.

"ahem": In the Mudcat, the 'referees' are by definition, part of the game. We are not on a field playing a game...we are not trying to win any prizes...'fair & equal' means something different when prizes are involved.

that's enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 01:35 PM

Consider the rights of others before your own feelings, and the feelings of others before your own rights.

John Wooden

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 01:59 PM

"You have the right to remain silent"

Miranda warning.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM

Or in the case of government and military personnel: "You have the duty to remain silent (or else!)"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 02:38 PM

That's not funny! -;)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 03:16 PM

Things turn out the best for people who make the best of the way things turn out.

John Wooden

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 03:19 PM

The following thread has been relegated to the BS section of our forum and then closed by persons unknown and for reasons unknown - as there was no editing comment of explanation provided.

TECH Longer thread titles please

Partly because a fellow poster - having seen it - then decided for some reason to refresh this earlier one. (Shambles)

Nonsense, Shambles. If "for reasons unknown" in the first line is correct the use of "because" in the third line makes no sense. However, if you want to use the "because" in the third line you may not say "for reasons unknown" in the first line.

Make up your mind, think, and then try to post coherent thoughts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 03:28 PM

"ahem": In the Mudcat, the 'referees' are by definition, part of the game. We are not on a field playing a game...we are not trying to win any prizes...'fair & equal' means something different when prizes are involved.

Double piffle.

Bill - It explains a lot - when you only judge that people 'get it' when they agree with what you say.

Most of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's deletions, and selective restriction - which you defend - are justified by him on the grounds that what he is trying to prevent is somehow 'unfair'.

Anything other than blind support and admiration for his efforts at imposing this 'fairness' is described by him as 'unfair'. Mainly because he sees them as well-intentioned. And so they are.

Many sporting activities are undertaken only for fun but even the most good-natured of these would swiftly degenerate into bad-tempered shouting matches if referees wished to participate as players. Perhaps you would accept that this would be thought as unfair?

The chief architect of all the counter-productive imposition and the main supporter of all the division amomg posters on our forum - has publicly admitted that these measures have failed to impose the peace he requires. So why are so many people still posting to support these measures as the status quo - when he has given up on these rules and wishes to impose a new set and play a different game? A game in which our non-members would be excluded.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 03:33 PM

"Many sporting activities are undertaken only for fun but even the most good-natured of these would swiftly degenerate into bad-tempered shouting matches if referees wished to participate as players."

Triple piffle. (Be careful not to step in it.)

Firt of all, the comparision makes no sense whatsoever. The situation that Shambles is creating does not happen in sports and Mudcat is not a sport. The arguement does not have any logic behind it and is a red herring.

Last but not least, no one has "give up on these rules" that Shambles alludes to. It isn't a game, the rules can be changed at any time.

IT IS NOT A GAME!! ILLOGICAL COMPARISON!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 03:36 PM

It would be interesting to see shambles take up computer programming. I'd love to see what he would make of AND, OR, NOT, IF, ELSE, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 03:48 PM

thanks, Ron...I couldn't have said it better myself...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 04:08 PM

Shambles IS the pied piper of mudcat. They're biting good today.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 04:15 PM

It isn't a game, the rules can be changed at any time.

Of course - and if you take no responsibilty for the resulting chaos and confusion you can do this as often and for as many illogical reasons as you can dream up. But why pretend to our forum that this is all being undertaken and can be justified in the name of supporting some concept of 'fairness and reasonable discussion?

And why then publicly inform our forum that these best efforts have failed and that the only way to impose the 'peace' you require - is to exclude the free and open access for the public contributions that has made our form what it is?

All this sillyness can be supported - but only if you forget what the object of an open discussion forum actually is and sell all this so-called 'moderation' as an object in itself - which has no purpose but to be served and to which everything else can safely be sacrificed?

It appears now as if many posters have forgotten what the object is.

You cannot enable and support free discussion by introducing and supporting selective and unfair measures and restrictions designed only to prevent it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 04:24 PM

The piffle skiffle, what's the diffle?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 04:29 PM

"And why then publicly inform our forum that these best efforts have failed and that the only way to impose the 'peace' you require - is to exclude the free and open access for the public contributions that has made our form what it is?"

a. I don't think they ever actually said that. Your cut and pastes have never shown that was what they said.

b. Even if they did say it, what is wrong with changing the rules? They own the "playing field" to use your errant analogy once again. If they do not care for the way their forum runs, they can make changes. They pay the bills (with help of course) and we are free to use the site if we wish.

c. If you don't like the rules, no one forces you to "play the game". It is obvious that it won't change, you won't get your way, so why keep kicking your feet and holding your breath?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 04:37 PM

What I do not understand is this: If so many of you don't like what Shambles posts or says, why do you continue to read what he writes? Then post piffle--assuming piffle can be a noun or adjective instead of just an interjection--to what, get even with him? You folks try to portray yourselves as smarter than that, but few of you are coming across that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 04:42 PM

What I do not understand is this: If so many of you don't like what Shambles posts or says, why do you continue to read what he writes?

A similar question could be asked of you but, in any case, I like some of what shambles writes. It is unintentionally hilarious.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 04:48 PM

I enjoy Shambles writing. So, no, the same could not be said of me you presumptuous dink.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 04:57 PM

"If so many of you don't like what Shambles posts or says, why do you continue to read what he writes? Then post piffle--assuming piffle can be a noun or adjective instead of just an interjection--to what, get even with him? You folks try to portray yourselves as smarter than that, but few of you are coming across that way."

So why do you post if you do not care what we are saying?   Sounds hypocritical to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 05:05 PM

I like to read Shambles' posts. YHow many times you need to have that said to you?

You are the one who doesn't like his posts. Why do you add to it all if you don't like his posts? You so enraptured with the mission of 'talking sense' to Shambles that you can't go post philosophy on a thread where it will be appreciated? You guys love walls, because you argue with so many of them. Shambles has done you all one better. And many of you seem too myopic to grasp that as fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 05:32 PM

oh, lovely! We've got the guests bickering and calling each other names! Trolls maybe worth something after all....at least for passing entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 05:43 PM

I don't like guest. It's an idiot who disagrees with someone just because they can't stand him.

He's right about all of you. This keeps on happening because you deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 05:49 PM

Meanwhile, the slow descent of North American parakeets and budgies into moral depravity continues, and no one does anything about it!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 05:53 PM

If Shambles' posts bother you, don't read them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 05:55 PM

stop this NOW

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:01 PM

I enjoy Shambles writing. So, no, the same could not be said of me you presumptuous dink.

I said a similar question could be asked of you.

The similar question is "if you don't like what we are saying, why bother reading"? Why don't you take your own advice and ignore us?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:04 PM

Because I don't like to see one person ganged up on by lots of others. It's cheap.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:04 PM

Yes, Emma! That's what I mean!!!! Shocking, isn't it? Note how they are wide-eyed in shock themselves, realizing that they have been caught by the camera engaging in an illicit act of avian adultery!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:07 PM

Because I don't like to see one person ganged up on by lots of others.

He is not being ganged up on. He keeps post wishing for replies. If you don't like the replies, tell shambles to shut up and then he will not get replies you don't like to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:09 PM

Tell it to the marines.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:11 PM

I don't mind reading your replies. I just don't understand why you make those replies.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:11 PM

Those are b****y big budgies!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:13 PM

Ain't THAT the truth. Cook at 350 degrees and they'll be done in four days and three hours, give or take.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:14 PM

celebrated in folk song too

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:16 PM

I don't mind reading your replies.

Stop complaining about them then.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:21 PM

I'm not. You are full of piffle.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:24 PM

Time for a recipe methinks
G☺☻

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:26 PM

There was a lioness in this picture, but he scared her away.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM

8 ounces lump crab meat
1/4 cup finely chopped celery
1/4 cup finely chopped onion
1/2 small clove garlic, finely minced, or dash garlic powder
1 tablespoon finely chopped red bell pepper
1 egg
2 tablespoons mayonnaise
1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce
1 cup soft bread crumbs
1 1/2 teaspoons Creole seasoning
4 tablespoons butter


As you have surmised, that is a recipe for crab cake.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM

Great Chieftain O' the Pudden Race.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



   * 1 sheep's lung (illegal in the U.S.; may be omitted if not available)
    * 1 sheep's stomach
    * 1 sheep heart
    * 1 sheep liver
    * 1/2 lb fresh suet (kidney leaf fat is preferred)
    * 3/4 cup oatmeal (the ground type, NOT the Quaker Oats type!)
    * 3 onions, finely chopped
    * 1 teaspoon salt
    * 1 teaspoon freshly ground pepper
    * 1/2 teaspoon cayenne
    * 1/2 teaspoon nutmeg
    * 3/4 cup stock

Wash lungs and stomach well, rub with salt and rinse. Remove membranes and excess fat. Soak in cold salted water for several hours. Turn stomach inside out for stuffing.

Cover heart and liver with cold water. Bring to a boil, reduce heat, cover and simmer for 30 minutes. Chop heart and coarsely grate liver. Toast oatmeal in a skillet on top of the stove, stirring frequently, until golden. Combine all ingredients and mix well. Loosely pack mixture into stomach, about two-thirds full. Remember, oatmeal expands in cooking.

Press any air out of stomach and truss securely. Put into boiling water to cover. Simmer for 3 hours, uncovered, adding more water as needed to maintain water level. Prick stomach several times with a sharp needle when it begins to swell; this keeps the bag from bursting. Place on a hot platter, removing trussing strings. Serve with a spoon. Ceremoniously served with "neeps, tatties and nips" -- mashed turnips, mashed potatoes, nips of whiskey.

Yummy !

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:32 PM

ok - favourite recipe for mudcake for mudcatters everywhere

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:33 PM

*****'s Favourite Mud Cake

Ingredients:
1 car - fuelled up and ready to go
car keys
1 purse
money
1 Cheesecake Shop

Method:

1. Place money in purse
2. Grab car keys and hop into car
3. Drive car to nearest Cheesecake Shop
4. Stop car, hop out and take purse with you into Cheesecake Shop
5. Ask lady for a Mud Cake
6. Open purse and hand over money
7. Take mud cake home and enjoy.

Her cooking skills may not be that good, but she makes GREAT lace!

Collected by Bert Christensen
Toronto, Ontario

web site: http://bertc.com

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:34 PM

And to lighten the mood:

Fellow walks by a restaurant where the sign says

Lobster tail and pizza for $9.99

He says to his friend, "Wonderful. Three of my favorite things for under ten dollars."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:50 PM

THE GRAY GOOSE

Well, las' Monday mornin',
Lawd, Lawd, Lawd,
Well, las' Monday mornin',
Lawd, Lawd, Lawd.

My daddy went a-huntin'.

Well, he carried along his zulu.

Well, along come a grey goose.

Well, he throwed it to his shoulder,

An' he ram his hammer' way back.

Well, he pulled on de trigger.

Well, down he come a-windin'.

He was six weeks a-fallin'.

He was six weeks a-findin'.

An' he put him on de wagon,

An'he taken him to de white house.

He was six weeks a-pickin'.

Lordy, your wife an'my wife,

Oh, dey give a feather pickin'.

An' dey put him on to parboil.

He was six months a-parboil',

An' dey put him on de table,

Now, de fork couldn' stick him,

An' de knife couldn't cut him.

An' dey throwed him in de hog-pen,

An' he broke de ol'sow's jaw-bone.

An' dey taken him to de saw-mill,

An' he broke de saw's teeth out.

An' de las' time I seed him,

Well, he's flyin' across de ocean,

Wid a long string o' goslin's,

An' dey all goin': Quank Quink-Quank

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/leadbelly-the-grey-goose-lyrics.html

Also in the DigiTrad

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:54 PM

Ol' Shambles may never come back to this thread. We can all just carry on without him. Shambles, come home. We, well, I MISS YOU!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 07:26 PM

We can all just carry on without him

No. We need shambles for the entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 07:28 PM

Oh.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 09:45 PM

So many people with so little to do on a lovely Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:09 AM

"And why then publicly inform our forum that these best efforts have failed and that the only way to impose the 'peace' you require - is to exclude the free and open access for the public contributions that has made our form what it is?"

a. I don't think they ever actually said that. Your cut and pastes have never shown that was what they said.

That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum. Others can judge from the actual words and perhaps explain why posters support what they assume to be the status quo - when it is obviously nothing of the sort.

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:26 AM

Tech Problem with thread titles after being refreshed and then relgated to the BS section has now been closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 05:14 AM

Subject: RE: Tech: Longer thread titles please?
From: GUEST,Jon - PM
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 10:01 AM

In wanting to prevent the mods from assisting (as they currently do) by using the extra characters (which he agrees are useful) until he can use them too. He only wants that to happen to score a little point over them...

The word assistance can be used for example: if a policeman established where a shopper wished to go then helped them cross a road to enable them to get to their destination.

It would not be a suitable word if the policeman did not speak to them and just decided push them across the road because they judged that the shopper would look better on that side.

There are other words for this.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 06:08 AM

Morning shambles. Perhaps the "incident" with the policeman took place after a football match and the person crossing was the referree who had tried to change the game into the game of rugby and the policeman had been playing for the other side and was unhappy at being sent off?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 06:25 AM

Oh and shambles, I've been trying to express some of your logic in simple computer terms. Here are a couple.

if X <> 2
   print "X could be any number"

if ThreadIsMoved = true
    print "The mods are wrong"
else
    print "The mods are wrong"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 06:26 AM

Whatever side of the road the majority of the people are on, there is one person you can be absolutely certain, who will be on the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 09:17 AM

Thanks Shambles, you proved my point "A" - they never admitted to failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:01 AM

Look at the posters on this thread. The same predictable ten or so. Are they so deluded they think they are the majority? Yep they sure are.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:06 AM

"Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:21 AM

I am a "usual suspect" as well since I keep posting too. I am way too predictable and deluded just like the rest of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:26 AM

Help is available, don't despair.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:33 AM

Thanks Shambles, you proved my point "A" - they never admitted to failure.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

I know that there are no bullet points being used here but even you should be able to understand.

Are you asking our forum to accept that the words And despite our best efforts, AND what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one. - are actually words claiming success of these measures?

Perhaps in an attempt to be more positive - you could make a stab at answering the question posed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:14 AM

Forgive me if I am wrong Shambles, but I am not reading any admission to failure in that statement from Joe, nor have I seen any from Max - who is the ultimate voice. What you have posted is Joe's description of what has happened as Mudcat has evolved and a comment that their "best efforts" have not made improvement to bring peace. That is far from an "admission of failure".

Change is constant and necessary.   Some of us accept change and welcome it. Others rebel at the mere thought. There will always be someone who gripes over what they have no possibility of changing.

My suggestion on how we can bring peace to this place - more frequent deletions of posts like mine and others on this thread. Drop the BS and keep it a site based on folk music.   Mudcat has become an excuse for people to state their opinions on ANYTHING. This is not the corner bar. When the site operated more as a music site, there was more joy to be found.   Rambling discourses on how the site should be run should be trashed.   I would have no problem seeing this thread closed, or my own statements deleted.   The owners of this site have the perogative to do that.   The fact that they have not shows how open they actually are.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:38 AM

My suggestion on how we can bring peace to this place - more frequent deletions of posts like mine and others on this thread. Drop the BS and keep it a site based on folk music.   Mudcat has become an excuse for people to state their opinions on ANYTHING. This is not the corner bar. When the site operated more as a music site, there was more joy to be found.   Rambling discourses on how the site should be run should be trashed.   I would have no problem seeing this thread closed, or my own statements deleted.   The owners of this site have the perogative to do that.   The fact that they have not shows how open they actually are.

The owners of this site had a number of choices available to them - as our forum became more popular. But its main aim was to become more popular and encourage the public's contributions. They could have chosen a strict - keep on topic - take it or leave approach but that was not the choice made. The choice made was a brave one and it was not to (try to) limit discussion to music.

If you don't like a site with rambling discourses on how the site should be run - then find another or take this up with Max. That is way our forum has always been encouraged to work - at least by Max.

The problem is that rather than being encouraged to tolerate different views poster are now encouraged to publicly pass their personal judgements upon the worth of fellow posters and feel that all but the like-minded can now be bullied away.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:40 AM

Ron, I am the guest with whom you had the run-in. I agree with you 100%. You are a good man, Charlie Brown. Pax.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:50 AM

"If you don't like a site with rambling discourses on how the site should be run - then find another or take this up with Max. That is way our forum has always been encouraged to work - at least by Max."

Shambles, you left out a third option.   Enjoy it the way it is. Everything is not simply a yes or no, black or white, Ayn Rand run world.

My worth is questioned, your worth is questioned, everyones worth is questioned. Life goes on. If you feel that you are being bullied, well I am sorry for you. We make our own beds.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:54 AM

"If you don't like a site with rambling discourses on how the site should be run - then find another or take this up with Max. That is way our forum has always been encouraged to work - at least by Max."

Ron - the above was specific advice to you. For it was you who said:

My suggestion on how we can bring peace to this place - more frequent deletions of posts like mine and others on this thread. Drop the BS and keep it a site based on folk music.   Mudcat has become an excuse for people to state their opinions on ANYTHING. This is not the corner bar. When the site operated more as a music site, there was more joy to be found.   Rambling discourses on how the site should be run should be trashed.   I would have no problem seeing this thread closed, or my own statements deleted.   The owners of this site have the perogative to do that.   The fact that they have not shows how open they actually are.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:59 AM

Yes, I know your "advice" was directed at me. As I pointed out, you only offered two suggestions. There are other alternatives, which was the point I was trying to make.

You don't get it - you keep looking at situations with only two options.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 12:14 PM

You don't get it - you keep looking at situations with only two options.

Perhaps because you show no signs of following your own third option?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 12:17 PM

I do follow my logic. I do accept Mudcat for what is is. I do post messages here because I had thought there was some dialogue and discussion. I am not attacking you and I am sorry if you perceive it. I am responding to your points.

Clearly I do understand that this issue will not disappear.   I am really not adding anything to this discussion.   You will see, think and act the way you choose.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 12:53 PM

Sorry Ron - I see very little logic in what you say.

Change is constant and necessary.   Some of us accept change and welcome it. Others rebel at the mere thought. There will always be someone who gripes over what they have no possibility of changing.

Shambles, you left out a third option.   Enjoy it the way it is. Everything is not simply a yes or no, black or white, Ayn Rand run world.

What is it to be? Change or the status quo or are you supporting both?

Ron - I like the way things are. I do not complain about there being any lack of peace. Nor do I wish or suggest a change to a music only forum (as you do). When the public are invited to our forum by Max to discuss anything - there is bound to be some excitement. That in inherrent in the whole concept. All that is required is being seen to be able agree to disagree. that is as good as it gets - and our forum still currently has this. Just........

My problem is with those who take on the role of 'moderators' in the full knowledge that this is their remit but do not really in their hearts endorse it. Who constantly complain publicly about everything and encourage personal judgements to be posted about other named posters. And who then publicly post that:

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Our forum remains a very pleasant place to hang-out and it is pretty obviously still a place to goof off or have a good discussion. It would be even better if those very few posters who publicly post to a differently effect - were to form the members only site that they already treat our forum as and leave the rest of us in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 01:15 PM

You know what, I think I sincerely owe you an apology Shambles.   

While reading your last post a light bulb went off. If I am interpreting your last explanation the way I think you intended, it makes more sense than all the other posts you've made over the years. Maybe all we had was a failure to communicate.

I agree with you - this forum is a good place to goof off or have a good discussion. All that is required is to agree to disagree.

My failure to understand your posts is clear in my bringing up the "staus quo". Change is constant. My interpretation of staus quo is that is a current reflection of evolution and tinkering to find the right formula that will make the most happy.   You can't remain steadfast to old rules when change has occured.

If I understood your last post, I think you are in agreement with that. While I still do not agree with your perception that you are being singled out and "censored", I do think I understand the point you have been trying to make a little clearer.   

In order to achieve a pleasant experience for everyone, I think that moderators should make every effort to be fair and interpret the rules in everyones best interest. Perhaps it is the language barrier from both sides of the pond, but I don't think anyone really singled you out - you just came across in a combative stance and it built up to this. If I am reading your last post correctly, that was not your intention.   I am sure the moderators did not wish to cause conflict either, it just grew.

So, in all honesty, if my "new" interpretations of your posts are the points you were trying to make, I apologize for adding fuel to the fire.   Then again, I've always enoyed fanning the flames of discontent!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 01:42 PM

If I understood your last post, I think you are in agreement with that. While I still do not agree with your perception that you are being singled out and "censored", I do think I understand the point you have been trying to make a little clearer.

It really matters little that I am treated unfairly - it matters if any poster is singled-out or seen to be treated unfairly and posters are encouraged to take part in witch-hunts. Especially as it is supposed to being undertaken in the name of 'fairness'.

You will get a better idea from the discussions and attitudes shown in what I refer to as 'Snitchers Corner' or the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. Which is aptly named as it is the source of much trouble. Posters are encouraged there to post anonymous complaints about and requests for editing action to be imposed on their fellow posters.

http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3310&messages=25

The anonymous complaint was that this thread was spam. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team coments that is was just another boring 'Shambles' thread.

But later proudly states that there will be spam there now - as he has just placed it there.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM

it really matters little that I am treated unfairly - it matters if any poster is singled-out or seen to be treated unfairly and posters are encouraged to take part in witch-hunts.

The only witch hunt is the one you lead shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:04 PM

"The only witch hunt is the one you lead shambles."

No, I'm beginning to see Shambles points. I do think he has onnly hmiself to blame in most cases, but he does have some basis in reality.

Check out the last link he gave. You will see Joe make some comments about Shambles.   Were the comments necessary in public?   No.   Does Shambles deserve it - the jury is out on that one.

Shambles, you joked back at me when I mentioned "bullet points". I was dead serious. You have done your own case more harm then good by the approach you have taken.   I am not dumb, but your comments have become exceedingly hard to comprehend. Maybe it is me, but judging by the reaction you get I'm not so sure.   I think your message has been clouded by your delivery.

Frankly, as I've said previously, the owners of the website can do what they wish with this site. But when you see all the wonderful people who have stopped posting here, it does get you thinking. Some of the U.S. folkies who were the reason I joined Mudcat have stopped posting here. Maybe there is a reason why the music section is 99% British these days. Perhaps those of us in the U.S. have lower thresholds for putting up with B.S. and rudeness.   

If you don't like the service at Macy's, you can always take your business elsewhere.

The inmates are only partially responsible for the riot.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM

No, I'm beginning to see Shambles points. I do think he has onnly hmiself to blame in most cases, but he does have some basis in reality.

shambles makes a list of points, some of which even contradict other points he makes. I too can find some things I can agree with out of the total. One can even get to the point of rationality with shampbles and watch things turn round via having ones words twisted, etc. to the point we are back to everything being the mods fault. Shambles has only one goal and you are mistaken if you believe that goal is peace and harmony (with the mods doing thier job).

Check out the last link he gave. You will see Joe make some comments about Shambles.   Were the comments necessary in public?   No.   Does Shambles deserve it - the jury is out on that one.

As for does shambles deserve what he gets, my answer is, Yes .

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:34 PM

Jon - 24 hours ago I would have agreed with you 100%. I still think Shambles is his own worst enemy.

However, something about his post suddenly made sense. I started looking at some of the posts in the help section that he pointed to.

Yes, the mods are doing their job - and I think they are doing a good one. That does not mean they are perfect - Mudcat will always be a work in progress. I think the frustration that we all felt has boiled over and can be seen in some of the postings that they have made.   

I do feel that ANY forum such as this needs to take their members into consideration and deal with them accordingly. For most of us, they do. There is a difference between laying down the law and becoming abusive - even borderline abusive.

If I were in their shoes I would have probably said a lot worse. Shambles is the extra starch in the shorts, the grain of sand in the shoe, the gnat that won't leave the picnic. I do not have the patience that the moderaters have shown. Still, there is evidence in those threads that there is indeed a witch-hunt for Shambles.   

Maybe it is time that the moderators reflect on how they dealt and will deal with Shambles. Get rid of Shambles or treat him without prejudice based on his past actions. The alternative is to go on "as is" and all the sniping, grumbling and whining will continue to where it hurts Mudcat even further.

I would also say the same goes for Martin Gibson - they got rid of him or her and things seemed "comfortable" for awhile. Now, Shambles is the new Martin Gibson.   Perhaps it is time to deal with the situation honestly and openly?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM

Well Ron, I think you will find "honest and open" has been tried before.

I disagree with you but good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:42 PM

Sorry, Ron, I am 100% with you on.

Get rid of Shambles or treat him without prejudice based on his past actions. The alternative is to go on "as is" and all the sniping, grumbling and whining will continue to where it hurts Mudcat even further.

I've felt that decision should have been made one way or other for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:47 PM

And I hope the decision would be to treat him without prejudice. Forget the editorial comments - answer his questions directly. The answers might not be what he is looking for, but if the responder is direct and to the point and leaves out the personal comments, the action is much more effective.   Bullet point answers as well - "no, we will not be moving this thread because of X Y & Z". Done. Then when it is questioned again, the answer is there.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:49 PM

and what do you do when four years after the answers he still hasn't accepted them?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM

If the answer to the question has been repeated, perhaps it is time for someone like Max to make a decision. Is he happy with the response to the question?   A note to the individual stating that the policy will not change. If it keeps up, a warning is issued. If it continues, the person is blocked.

Mudcat has the right to make changes.   That is not even a point of discussion.   The problem is that Mudcat has danced around the problem and not been effective. They stooped to a level of name calling that should not be part of the vocabulary of a moderator. If they believe in what they are doing, they need to have the balls to make decisions, issue ultimatums, and stand by them. That has not been fair to Shambles, or to the rest of us who have witnessed this in numerous threads.

I remember something that Harry Chapin always said - "when in doubt, do something".   It is time to do something or to continue to let the fish flounder until it starts to really stink.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:59 PM

They stooped to a level of name calling that should not be part of the vocabulary of a moderator. If they believe in what they are doing, they need to have the balls to make decisions, issue ultimatums, and stand by them.

They don't have the power to issuse the "or you are gone" ultimatum, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 03:01 PM

"They don't have the power to issuse the "or you are gone" ultimatum"

No, but somebody does.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 03:04 PM

I know...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:31 PM

A neighbour throws a party and invites a,b,c,d and e.

a,b,c,and e have had a long standing gripe going with d.

They spend all evening bitching at him and about him.

The neighbour has chosen for d to be invited to the party and has no intention of asking him to leave to suit a,b,c and e.

Everyone else at this party has to listen and watch a,b,c and e whinge all night. None of them have a problem with d either.

Who is ruining the party?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:36 PM

Of what relavence is that, GUEST?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:37 PM

You call that a "party"?

The question should be not who is ruining the party, the questino should be what the host is going to do to make the next party more successful. If the hosts parties keep turning into a bickering match, the reputation has been cast and it will be tough getting f, g, h, and i to attend.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM

But the hosts parties are very well attended... by hundreds or more. Comprising of many nationalities, religious persuasions and politicial leanings.

Only a.b,c and e bicker.

f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y and z are quite happy with the party and don't feel the need to bicker with another invited guest.

Who should not turn up at the next party?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:49 PM

abcd goldfish? L, mno goldfish! OSAR goldfish!

see...bickering is a natural part of the alphabet.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:49 PM

So then why the worry?   Everyone should shut up and go on about their merry way. If they aren't bothering anyone they can stay. If there is a problem, the host needs to do something to fix it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:51 PM

Guest. The person complaining about the party is d.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,perty host
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 06:42 PM

It's my party and I like d otherwise I wouldn't have invited him. If he offended me I would lock the door so he couldn't get in.

If I invite guests to my party it is bad manners for a very small minority of those guests to spend all night berating somebody in my home.

It isn't their place to tell me who I should throw out.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 06:43 PM

Guest. The person complaining about the party is d.

d is just trying to party.

But is pretty pissed at a,b,and c keep trying to get them thrown out and trying to turn the party into something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 07:18 PM

I still think Shambles is his own worst enemy.

This view is understandable really - When the 'crime' I am accused of is posting - every time I post to our forum, I can only be seen to be confirming the accusation.

Especially by those who are encourged to make a fuss about and mock my posts appearing but proudly state they do not ever read them or claim they are unable to understand them.

Every time a post of mine is seen to be moved, 'silently deleted' and another thread closed - this only confirms to many posters, that there must be some reason and justification for our 'moderators' to do this.

When of course there is none.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:01 PM

"But is pretty pissed at a,b,and c keep trying to get them thrown out and trying to turn the party into something else."

You are not alone in that, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:10 PM

"But is pretty pissed at a,b,and c keep trying to get them thrown out and trying to turn the party into something else.

LOL Shambles, you are the one wanting things changed from how they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:17 PM

Yes, he is. And it's about time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:17 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:26 PM

Excuse me for that. I got distracted by some bickering in the corner.

OK slowly this time - it's my home. It's my party. I have invited shambles to my soiree. He is a guest of mine and no other guest of mine has the right to tell me who should or shouldn't wear out my carpet.

Anyone not happy with my choice of guest has a number of exits to choose from. My patience is wearing thin and I can't hear the music over the cat calling.

Pass the Pringles please.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:30 PM

You are right Party Host. However, the next time you throw a party you might receive a number of "declines" from people who stopped having a good time. You may have a lot of leftover Pringles. It is entirely your call.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:33 PM

By the way - I am not saying that the host should NOT invite the guest. The host should be laying some ground rules and putting a stop to the fights so that everyone enjoys the chips and dip.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:41 PM

That's IT, Ron O: Mudcat is definitely suffering from an excess of superfluous Pringles. It was a situation waiting for the perfect metaphor, and you nailed it.

No, I don't wish to judge a fellow poster's worth, but I see WAY too many stale Pringles around here. Place is choking with 'em, and they attract vermin, too.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:47 PM

Smart vermin will not eat Pringles, because they are utterly lacking in any real nutrient value and they also give you a tremendous salt overdose.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM

Yep. No one here but us self-righteous folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:57 PM

Come on, spread a little Cheez Whiz (from the spray can, not the jar) on those Pringles along with a can of Fresca, maybe a Slimjim or two and you have a party!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:08 PM

I am heavy into health foods. That works for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:14 PM

Fresh water is good, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:24 AM

To extend the analogy a little. As it has been complicated further.

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

The host wants one form of party with an open invitation to all to attend.

Some of the bouncers, like each other's company and feel that it would be a far better party if there was not an open invitation for all to attend (and if they were now allowed to screen every guest before permitting entry). [When it was accepted that should this suggestion be implemented that any Mudcat non-members excluded from posting to the BS section would only post on the music section - the suggestion was then made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that he first screened every post before it appeared]

One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation...............

So what should these bouncers now do? Just carry on - when all the other guest now know these bouncer's wishes and as a result - that any attempts by these bouncers to preserve the host's open invitation - will be seen to be half-hearted ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 04:33 AM

Geez......This is getting complex. Let's get back to the real heart of the matter. Shambles......Bite me.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 04:49 AM

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

I disagree with the word bouncer but at least you have got one important word in there, "appointed". What you fail to add is that the appointments were made by the host.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:20 AM

If the answer to the question has been repeated, perhaps it is time for someone like Max to make a decision. Is he happy with the response to the question?   A note to the individual stating that the policy will not change. If it keeps up, a warning is issued. If it continues, the person is blocked.

We agree that Max certainly can block who he wishes. Perhaps you will accept that he can also un-appoint any 'moderator' he wishes? Or perhaps he feels that he can't?

But why would posing a question for discussion on a discussion forum ever be judged grounds for blocking a poster – when such posts can be so easily just be ignored? It may be judged to be boring, irritating or whatever, for some posters to see the same or similar questions - but if being boring or irritating were judged grounds for blocking a poster - would there be any posters left?

But seeing a question on the many different aspects of this subject which may be judged to be boring or irritating to some regular posters - will be news to others. Who may well be able to bring and add a fresh view to the issue. If they can find a thread on the subject that has not be closed, littered with posts containing spam, recipes, personal judgements and many other 'fun' things designed and encouraged to divert and prevent discussion of the thread's subject.

They will have no such difficulty in finding a thread open in which to place uncritical praise for the efforts of our 'moderators'. Which you will NOT find to be intentionally littered with spam - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Nor containing recipes, personal judgements and many other 'fun' things designed and encouraged to divert and prevent reasonable discussion of that thread's subject.

For example: Mudcat's tenth birthday You will even find that such threads are allowed to remain on the music-related section of our forum.

That said – the so-called 'moderation' of our forum IS largely well-intentioned. I suggest that should it continue - it needs to be seen to undertaken fairly and openly by those who are seen to share Max's commitment to the open invitation for the public's contributions.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Another voice in the wilderness.
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 06:26 AM

"We agree that Max certainly can block who he wishes. Perhaps you will accept that he can also un-appoint any 'moderator' he wishes? Or perhaps he feels that he can't?"

So it IS a war against the moderators, or is it perhaps just one in particular? Because if you're trying to get rid of Brother Joe, you're wasting your time. It's because of him that Max doesn't have to deal directly with a pain in the ass like you, so he performs a useful service for Max, and for us all, by confining your burblings in one place.

If a bouncer throws d out of the party, and then he comes back in the rear entrance and starts taking the piss out of the bouncers, they're bound to get a bit annoyed don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 06:35 AM

LH fresh water is only any good after it has been through a brewery.
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 09:34 AM

This whole party analogy is starting to make sense... and that is frightening me!

I have been to parties where guests have been asked by the host to work as "bouncers" - helping to keep the peace and keep the party flowing. While they have been given a role to play, they are also going to enjoy the party to the fullest. The host is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the event, and he or she will make adjustments as the evening progresses to make sure everyone has a good time and a safe time.

The rules have to bend.   The spinach dip may start on the coffeetable in the living room and and be moved to an end table in the end before someone picks it up and moves it back again. No one will get upset, except for the one guest who was sitting on the couch in the living room expecting to be in front of the dip. You can't please everyone.

Some guests may get out of line, start fights, needlessly pick on another guest, or talk about their grandchildren or try to sell insurance. It is hard to get away from the latter.   Does the host tell offensive guest to pack up their snapshots and hit the road? Of course not. The host MIGHT explain that people are bored with the endless shots of grandson Jimmy getting his diaper changed, or the host might choose to ignore it. Let the part flow as it needs to and let the guests work it out for themselves.

You might also have a guest who thinks that the party belongs to them and that they are the owners of the house. They start tending bar, take over the grill duties, or decide that it is time for the limbo contest. The host may have had other plans, and they will either put a stop to the actions or just let the party flow.

At the end of the evening, everyone who is still able to grabs their carkeys and drives home.   The ride home might consist of the spouse berating their partner for the actions that they indulged in at the party, or a lot of gossiping about what went on. Usually, they will keep their opinions to themselves.   Sometimes they will start to tell others what they thought - and that is when the trouble begins.

So what is my boring description of the local get together proving? Absolutely nothing. The host might tweak the invitation list next time they throw a shindig so that more people have a good time, or they might keep inviting the same guests that set others on edge.   

For those of us who receive an invitation, we have a choice to make. Do we go and start a fight? Do we go knowing that someone is going to pick a fight with us? Do we go and try to have the party run according to our schedule and plans? Do we ignore the invitation and sit at home and lope the mule?   Whatever our decision is, there is a reason we do the things we do.   We all have to decide for ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 10:17 AM

lope the mule--never heard that before.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:29 AM

It's a typo, he meant to say love!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:32 AM

Nope, it is an expression - lope the mule.

I guess you could say it means "love".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:33 AM

Gotta hand it to ya, ron . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:39 AM

ouch!!   good one guest!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:54 AM

It's great so see someone who's managed to keep his sense of humor, Ron. I admire that you acknowledged some of Shambles' points. I don't agree with 100% of what Shambles says either, but by da good laird he has the right to say it.

Joe has done and continues to do one helluva job, and I don't doubt that much of the crap he has to deal with on a day-to-day basis does eat into his first love with this site: MUSIC. Frankly, I have found that the music part of Mudcat has within it

1) more worth
2) more value
3) more satisfaction

than 99% of the BS section in its entire history rolled up in one big ball. I get tired of the line: 'It was SOOO much better in the old days' because that is bullshit, but it's the type of bullshit people cling to when their world changes. People never see themselves as being exclusive or hurtful--but many people on Mudcat are that way. They have been for years. Some even have edit buttons. And some folks with the edit buttons should have them taken away. But that won't happen, either.

Yes, Shambles can be a pain, but he is not filled with malice. The same cannot be said of some other folks. With that, I am off this thread.

PS I am the guest who got into the pissin' contest with you. Reading your subsequent posts, I apologize for that. And I'd tell that to your face also.

Keep well, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 12:33 PM

From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:24 AM

To extend the analogy a little. As it has been complicated further.

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

The host wants one form of party with an open invitation to all to attend.

Some of the bouncers, like each other's company and feel that it would be a far better party if there was not an open invitation for all to attend (and if they were now allowed to screen every guest before permitting entry). [When it was accepted that should this suggestion be implemented that any Mudcat non-members excluded from posting to the BS section would only post on the music section - the suggestion was then made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that he first screened every post before it appeared]

One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation...............

So what should these bouncers now do? Just carry on - when all the other guest now know these bouncer's wishes and as a result - that any attempts by these bouncers to preserve the host's open invitation - will be seen to be half-hearted ones?

Yes, but then the host asks one of the guests to leave. What do you do when he hangs on, and starts having a go at those appointed to help run the party?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:26 PM

"Yes, but then the host asks one of the guests to leave. What do you do when he hangs on, and starts having a go at those appointed to help run the party? "

It depends on what kind of time I am having at the party. The question is really one that the host should be answering, not me if I am just a guest. If he isn't having a go at me, I would probably sit back and watch the fireworks. If he is annoying me, I would speak up.

The host has to make the call, not the guest, not the bouncers, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:30 PM

in what I refer to as 'Snitchers Corner' or the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. ... Posters are encouraged there to post anonymous complaints about and requests for editing action to be imposed on their fellow posters. (Shambles)

Having these lines by Shambles in mind I had a good laugh when I saw that shortly after in that 'Snitchers Corner' an anonymous poster asked for a separate BS thread for cookery enthusiasts Shambles started exactly that thread.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:55 PM

by the way... thank you for the kind words Guest, I do appreciate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:56 PM

Glad to see you have not lost that famous sense of humour. Thanks for letting us know Wolfgang - I had not seen that request - when I started Jolly good recipes Not that there is any shortage of threads with recipes....

It is a good idea to try to and avoid looking in Snitchers Corner too often.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM

So it IS a war against the moderators.

Yep. Try any thread with shambles and you will find that even if he starts off with a seemly well inteligent suggestion that might have some merit, it soon swings round to the moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Shambolic
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:00 PM

"One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation..............."

A self elected and unrepresentative one of their number! Who gave you the stripes? I didn't ask you to speak on my behalf, and not only that but hundreds other Mudcatters also didn't authorise you to speak on their behalf. You are a self appointed trouble maker Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM

I like you Ron. As the party host I did once think that I should ask d to leave the soiree. But then I thought about it and realised that hundreds turn up to my parties and it's always the same few, and I do mean VERY FEW who complain about d.

They are the 'not so silent minority'. But just because they speak loudest does not mean they have the most to say. So logic told me that d is accepted and liked by the majority of my guests. And the grudge that the 'not so silent minority' hold is an all consuming obsession that they should redress themselves.

I am not helping them by removing the object of their obsession. They would wait for the next guest to come into my house who they think differently to and it would start all over again.

So I decided to not only let d stay, but hope he stays, because he is doing a grand job. He is presenting his opinion in a non confrontational way and despite being met with insults and ridicule by the 'not so silent minority', he maintains his decorum and good naturedness.

I choose my bouncers carefully. Some are level headed and objective. They can be relied on to do the housekeeping without rancour. Others are more like pit bulls. They smell blood and go for the jugular. I keep them for comedy value. Because the majority of my guests see them as very humorous and slightly lacking in social skills.

But in the event that my booked cabaret doesn't turn up one night, I live happy in the knowledge that some of my appointed bouncers unwittingly provide the entertainment.

They don't hold that much power outside their head. If they did they would have ousted d a long time ago. I hold the power and the door keys and that is a situation that works. I have not pandered to the 'not so silent minority' and have no intention of doing so. That would be wrong.

It would be sending a message that those who shout loudest get their own way and my parties don't run like that.

One criticism of your scenario is the spinach dip. It isn't something I serve but I will stock up just for you because I like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:27 PM

Sounds like a plan! As long as you have a plan, and as long as it is one that you will bend with the circumstances and not be afraid to enforce. Then it sounds like most of us will have a good time.

Simply opening up the doors to your house and letting us run amok would not make for a very good evening - except for maybe a few of my friends from Jersey. They could have fun anywhere and anytime.

Oh, don't bother with the spinach dip on my account. I only serve it because others like it.   Cheese in a can is enough to keep me happy. Don't bother with fancy crackers either. Nothing beats a Ritz.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:48 PM

If that's the case, can shambles please be allowed to post on equal terms with the rest of us and have his restrictions removed. It's only fair if he is a useful part of the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 03:07 PM

"If that's the case, can shambles please be allowed to post on equal terms with the rest of us and have his restrictions removed. It's only fair if he is a useful part of the party."

I would suggest that the answer to the above question should be between the moderators and Shambles in private. It should be a private matter and really should not involve public discussion.

If someone has been accused of getting drunk and peeing in the punchbowl, the host and the accused need to work it out. Did it actually happen? What was said? In essence the party will keep going on with none the wiser if the host takes the necessary steps to make sure everyone is happy.    I would hate to see anyone accused of something and being banned from the party, especially if they have a lot to contribute.    When it is turned into a group decision, no one will be happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 03:23 PM

Well Ron, in that case, all I can say is I hope the host and d do manage to work things out.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 03:30 PM

Same here. The guest could have a lot to offer to the party. It is going to take both parties to find a comfortable middle ground.    Respect is a two-way street to quote a cliche.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM

It's a shame the host is so busy hosting the party. Hanging up coats, replenishing the ice buckets, dry roasting the nuts etc...

Maybe he leaves some discretion in the hands of the bouncers. And would the bouncers wish to appear to be back tracking by removing the restrictions?

Because after all these restrictions are only in place to suit the VERY FEW who have a problem with d.

Did the host request the restrictions? Were they suggested to him? Does he realise the problem has been blown up out of all proportion by the vocal few?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:01 PM

GUEST 03.49

This problem has been going on for many tears with Shambles opening multiple threads to make the same point, going onto non-related threads to spread his own gospel and generally making a nuisance of himself over the forum. Granted he may have a lot to offer but he also causes a lot of aggravation, mostly, it seems, down to the fact that a thread title was given a minor change without his approval.

Have a look at his posting history - you may understand then why there is a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM

jacqui VERY FEW of you take pains to point out your percieved problem. The vast majority of people on this site do not respond negatively to him. What, when and how shambles chooses to post does not upset the majority of people here.

You have every right to continue berating him. But please realise you belong to a very small club. Can you really not ignore him?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM

Problems, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder - good to see the "silent majority" having a say for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:11 PM

I wouldn't worry about it Jacqui, regardless of any of our feelings and beliefs, Ron IMO, is right with:

Get rid of Shambles or treat him without prejudice based on his past actions. The alternative is to go on "as is" and all the sniping, grumbling and whining will continue to where it hurts Mudcat even further."

It seems things are moving one way and that has to be better than indecision and we "vocal few" arguing. I'd say try to move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:20 PM

"Have a look at his posting history - you may understand then why there is a problem"

I did exactly that, and you know what, there is some merit to what he says.   I would add something else - take a look at the posting history of the people who have complained about him (myself included). If you read it, the focus has been on the annoyance factor of Shambles personality, his lengthy and repitive posts, and his nearly verbose-way of stating his issues.   He has become the person that would cause you to cross the street to avoid having to say hello. You would not ask him how he is feeling because he just might tell you.

Still, his "problem" may not have been handled in the most professional of manner - probably brought on by his own "nuisance factor". Yet, I think most of us are simply dismissing his complaints because it is Shambles.   I will be the first to admit that.

It may be true that only a small portion of Mudcatters have a problem with Shambles, but the reality is that only a small portion of Mudcatters are reading the threads he posts to.

Frankly, I wish the host and the guest would simply take the issue outside and deal with it. Whether it is 1 person or 100 people affected by it, there is something that is disrupting the party that does not need to be dealt with in such a fashion by either side.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:29 PM

Ron, peeing in the punch bowl, doing the limbo, SPINACH DIP - now that's what I call a party!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:32 PM

Did you get the invite for the Halloween party????

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 07:25 PM

Ron I don't have an issue with d. If I did I would have took him outside and left him there. I have realised that it is a very small handful of other guests of mine who have an issue with him.

And I am not here to be the bouncer's bouncer. I am here to make superflous quantities of spinach dip and throw a party for my many hundreds of guests who do not spend time in my house sniping.

The snipers can stop or carry on. They won't win because this is a party not a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 07:43 PM

Party host - I would hope that you would not think your party is a war. That doesn't sound like a fun theme.

I could care less who you like and who you don't like. If I received an invitation, I am going to have a good time.   I expect that if you invited me, you would want me to enjoy myself.

You make the decisions and you deal with what happens. When you open the doors, the image you create will determine how many people enjoy it. Perhaps you only want a party for a handful of friends. That is your call to make.   You might have an open house that you hpe will attract a wide and diverse group of attendees.   Hopefully your goal is to let your guests have a good time.

Hopefully it will be a party that most people will enjoy and hope to come back for the next one.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 08:19 PM

What do you mean 'if' you recieve an invitation. You're top of the list. I like everyone I invite to my parties. But they don't all like each other alas. But I figure they are grown up enough to bury the hatchet or go into different rooms. Either way they are welcome to partake of my nibbles.

But as soon as they start drowning out the music by telling me who I should kick out - well then they ruin the atmosphere for everyone. My party becomes pooped.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 09:41 PM

Then you aren't taking control of your own party and you have no one else to blame if the party becomes pooped. You own the house, you paid for the booze and eats, you chose the music that is playing - you make the decisions.   Don't cop out and say it is your guests fault. If you focus on the people who are telling you that you should kick out so and so, you will miss the bigger picture. You are the key, but from your last post it sounds like you don't want the responsibility that comes with throwing a party. Maybe you should never host one.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 02:34 AM

Frankly, I wish the host and the guest would simply take the issue outside and deal with it. Whether it is 1 person or 100 people affected by it, there is something that is disrupting the party that does not need to be dealt with in such a fashion by either side.

Ron - my 'crime' is to try and post my views, others do not like these views and are currently encouraged to feel, by the example set that is in some way noble or 'fun' to be seen to try and prevent my posts (and my posts only) from appearing as posted.

That I may be generally perceived as public enemy number one and have clumsy special posting restrictions imposed on my posting is in reality seen to adversly affect our forum far more than the posts of any single contributor. That these accusations about named posters are made publicly by our 'moderators' is the way they have always operated. This dog has been given a very bad name indeed.

But I am not THE problem - all this is only the most visible and inevitable symptom of the real problem. To which any judgement of my posting - (to which these restrictions are themselves a reaction) - must be seen only as a confused reaction. They are mainly to air the following concern.

Can any poster who sees the value of our host Max's continuing in our forum's commitment to open public access now feel sure that this principle will be given a fair shot - when (some of) our 'moderators' are publicly seen not to wish this to continue?

And why would anyone wish to continue in such a role when they have publicly stated that they have no longer any interest in the host's concept or of ensuring that it succeeds? Could they not been seen to have a vested interest in ensuring that it does not succeed?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 03:34 AM

No Ron the bigger picture (with time) has come very clear into view. The only problem I have are a VERY FEW guests who have a problem. But as time goes by they are becoming laughable and not to be feared as they pose no threat, but some comedic value.

Their problem is for them to sort out. The majority of my guests do not take offence at d. The 'not so silent' minority can continue to whine in a little group huddled in the corner near the dried flower decoration or they can grow up.

Either way I am not responsible for THEIR problem and neither is anyone else. And far from the number of guests dwindling in numbers because of the VERY FEW, they are in fact growing and seeing through the VERY FEW.

That to me is a much better result than kicking d out because I only listen to the loudest. The silent ones have said so much more without even opening their mouths.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 04:01 AM

Which one was 'd' again?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 05:07 AM

Well if the problem if only a "vocal few", set shambles free fron his restrictions. He should not be restricted because of what others are doing which is what you are saying amounts to.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 05:25 AM

The situation where the host would knowingly have his bouncers lock a guest in a room for not being a problem is unusual to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,alternative party host
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 05:56 AM

Does the party host know he has been locked in the room? Did the party host suggest it? Did the bouncers shout and scream and throw trifle around and exaggerate the problem to get their own way? Is the party host labouring under the misconception that the 'not so silent minority' in some way represent the 'silent majority?'

Is the bouncer who suggested the lock in big enough to find the key and do something more constructive such as the washing up, which by now is teetering in the kitchen?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 05:59 AM

The party host most certainly knows now.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 06:44 AM

At the risk of introducing yet another analogy to our parties etc - it would be difficult for anyone not to notice if whole buidings were knocked about and demolished with heavy machinery in order to swat an irritating fly.

That that is pretty much the case on our forum with entire music threads being 'silently deleted - undeleted - combined and then relgated to the BS section, other posts moved and threads like TECH Longer thread titles please being closed.

All this - along with posters being encouraged to publicly join in the witch-hunt - is indeed very distracting and also unfair. And for it all to be attempted to be justified by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in the name of fairness and enabling reasonable discussion - there is more than the sense of a ludicrous French Farce about it.

Does anyone here really think that all this is really being seen as proportionate to what the original problem is supposed to be?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 06:50 AM

What was the original problem again?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 07:13 AM

Well it all gets very confusing. As far as I understand it at so far. The party host had decided that d was a problem but later came to realise that a.b.c were the only people who have a problem with d and that the problem is there's and that d in fact isn't a problem.

In the meanwhile, d who we now know is not a problem remians locked in a room and is held by bouncers, some of whom we have learned are like pit bulls.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 07:46 AM

Wasn't d's invitation withdrawn, and wasn't this on the basis that while he may have been publicly chastised in an inapoproprite way, the fact remains that he still commited a dismissable offence?
The bouncer/s may have over reacted, but the person who's party it is did back their original decision that d should be suspended sine die. Ergo whatever anonymous supporters may say the management's decision is final.
Unfortunately there is a tendency for d, and his supporters to assume that this party is a democratic, which of course it isn't.
As Lesley Gore almost said.
"It's his party, and he'll sine die if he wants to"
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 08:13 AM

Please don't suppose that being totally fed up of the equally boring and repetitive, offensive and whining pack of hounds that follow Shambles into even the music threads is necessarily a demonsration of support for him or his posts; although, if anyone actually bothered to wade through the verbal diarrhoea, they may see he makes some interesting points.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 08:17 AM

Unfortunately there is a tendency for d, and his supporters to assume that this party is a democratic, which of course it isn't.

The only thing that is unfortunate is that needless divisions are now being created on our forum and posters are being encouraged not only to see our forum split into different sides - but that they are expected to be seen to publicly support one side or the other.

There is no WAR - no CAMPAIGN - just different views trying to be expressed for discussion on a forum set up for this.

Perhaps posters can just be permitted to do this - without being restricted or drowned in well-intentioned recipes?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 08:18 AM

But Shambles - you have publicly posted multiple times that you desire neither to tell Max how to run his site; nor what other posters should post. So how do you justify doing both?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 08:32 AM

Shambles does indeed make some interesting points amidst his other points. A problem is that shambles does for example reach exactly the same conclusion from sets of contradictory evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 09:08 AM

Wasn't d's invitation withdrawn, and wasn't this on the basis that while he may have been publicly chastised in an inapoproprite way, the fact remains that he still commited a dismissable offence?
The bouncer/s may have over reacted, but the person who's party it is did back their original decision that d should be suspended sine die. Ergo whatever anonymous supporters may say the management's decision is final.

In the heat of the moment yes it was. In the ensuing aftermath it is no longer shambles who is the problem.It is the baying pack who chortle and slather.

If I asked d to leave and he didn't I would eject him forcibly. However as a human I can reflect and decide my initial response was the wrong one. I can sit back and watch the unsavoury mob whip themselves up into a very embarrassing frenzy.

Their numbers are dwindling as the more tuned in ones recognise what they have become. The hard nosed among them are clinging onto non existent straws. I don't have a problem with d. The majority of my guests don't have a problem with d. The VERY FEW who do have a problem with d are going to either implode ( which adds some kind of perverse entertainment) or skulk away.

But either way d is my guest in my house by my choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 09:16 AM

'our forum split into different sides'

The forum has been split into different sides for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 09:30 AM

Was this party B.Y.O.B.???

Shambles is absolutely right, he is NOT the problem here. He has an invitation, he has not been thrown out of the house, and he can continue to have fun.   We may not care for the way he gets his point across, we may not agree with his stance, but he is following the rules that have been laid down by the host.

If this WERE a party, many of us might walk into another room because we do not want to hear his stories again. There may be some people at the party who have such a grudge against Shambles, that they will go up to him and pick a fight. It might even go past name calling and get physical. At that point, the rest of the partygoers drop what they are doing to watch this fight take place.   The whole ambiance of the party has changed.

The party host can follow the philosophy that he or she said earlier - "Either way I am not responsible for THEIR problem and neither is anyone else", but that could be their downfall.   Perhaps the word "responsibility" is too much, but maybe not. If I let person D have too much to drink and he throws up in the fishbowl, oh well - we have a story to share at future parties. However, if person D has too much to drink and wraps his car around a tree after running down Sister Mary's 2nd grade class, then I am going to be sued as host for allowing him to drink so much. The host IS responsible in some ways for the actions of his guests and the actions they in turn inflict on others.

If one of my guests takes offense at Shambles sharing pictures of his summer vacation and takes a swing at him, I(as host) could find myself getting sued since the action to place on my property.   I may not take the swing, but I am in a position of responsibility for the party.

No matter what, the host is the ultimate reflection on how people look at the party.   You never remember a party by the name of the guest, it is always the host's party that you will refer to.   What action or inaction the host takes determines how people will view the party, and who will return for the next one.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 09:30 AM

A return to only one section

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 09:39 AM

In the correct order here

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 09:43 AM

In the meanwile, the wronged d is still in the custody of pit bull like bouncers.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 09:47 AM

Wronged, my goodness there's a weasel word if ever I heard one, is it complete absolution you're looking for now?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 09:54 AM

No. I am following what party host said. Really, if you think about it from there, as d is not a problem, we should all be trying to see him allowed in all of the rooms and participating in everything, shouldn't we.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 09:58 AM

Well, we should give D his or her space, but that does not mean that the rest of the guests have to open their arms to draw that person in. Life doesn't work that way.   I do agree that it would be unfair of the host to allow others to block the doors if that is not the hosts wish.   It all goes back to the person in charge and what they allow or disallow. This party is being held in a private home, not a public venue. If it were in a public venue, there are other authorities who would be in charge anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:03 AM

d is not barred from participating in all the party rooms, merely from spreading gloom and despondency there, by sowing disaffection, and repeating complaints already voiced in other rooms.
d is quite humourous and intelligent when dismounted from his hobby-horse.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:06 AM

But would you not agree, Ron, that it is somwhat unusual to have or allow one geust to be placed under special conditions for not being a problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:08 AM

"d is not barred from participating in all the party rooms, merely from spreading gloom and despondency there, by sowing disaffection, and repeating complaints already voiced in other rooms."

How is that accomplished?   Has D been told they can't enter certain rooms and to stay away from the shrimp bowl?

If D has been given restrictions, then everyone would expect D to honor them. If D continues to fight them, then it is up to the host to make a decision - and the rest of the party goers to abide by it.

IF the hosts decides D needs to leave, he should call him or her a cab.

IF D is allowed to stay, with restrictions, then everyone should shut up and allow him or her to particpate as the host allows.

IF D is allowed to stay with no restricitons, then the remaining guests need to assess whether they want to stay and follow the rules that host allows.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:10 AM

Taxi for Mr D !
G ☺☻

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:15 AM

"But would you not agree, Ron, that it is somwhat unusual to have or allow one geust to be placed under special conditions for not being a problem? "

Not at all unusual.   The guest may be put off by the request, but as host is is my call. If I have a guest that I know drinks too much, I would tell them to stay away from the beer. If there is a guest who has a habit of attending parties and then eating all the pigs in a blanket, I might tell that person that they are off limits just to him or her.

Is it fair? It doesn't really matter what is fair since it is my house and my party. If I want the rest of the guests to have an opportunity to snack, I might restrict one person. You might not like me as a host, but that is something I have to live with. It is my responsibility and my decision.   If you don't like it, you don't attend.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:16 AM

By the way... be sure to try the cheese puffs.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:26 AM

Fair comment, Ron. I just hope that d is aware that this is the party host's decision and not the random act of performed by the pit bull like bouncers.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM

Although of course, Ron, getting too drunk or eating all the food are problems to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM

You better believe they are problems to me!   As I pointed out, if my guests becomes sick or gets in an accident, I am responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 11:13 AM

Only if you forced them to partake of your food and drink, or it was contaminated, apart from that they came and consumed of their own free will.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 11:22 AM

Ron I like the way d's status has elevated to D. Good move.

I think it is time the pitbulls were muzzled for everyones well being and the doors were opened to D.

I don't for one minute believe that the party host decided to restrict D. I believe over zealous pitbulls enjoy the sport, suggested the move (or not) and watch with tongues lolling and spittle drooling on the sidelines.

The only change is the pitbulls are now being watched very carefully and the viewing ain't pretty.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 11:28 AM

I am very confused - because the "party analogy" that everyone seems to be using recently is a concept that was rejected by shambles as having no pertinence to the situation when this whole mess started.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 11:45 AM

I am very confused - because the "party analogy" that everyone seems to be using recently is a concept that was rejected by shambles as having no pertinence to the situation when this whole mess started.

Don't worry MMario -I shouldn't take too much notice of my views.

You don't usually.

But perhaps you could tell our forum where do you stand on the members only proposal? Are you in favour of such a change or do you support Max' continued commitment to our forum being open for the public's contributions?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 11:48 AM

I am vehemently oppossed to members only posting.

and BTW - "Don't worry MMario -I shouldn't take too much notice of my views.

You don't usually" is a totally false statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 12:11 PM

I am vehemently oppossed to members only posting.

I am glad to read this. I am only surprised that I know this only because I asked you and you answered. Or have I missed you saying this before - in previous discussions on the subject?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 12:12 PM

"I think it is time the pitbulls were muzzled for everyones well being and the doors were opened to D."


"Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:03 AM

d is not barred from participating in all the party rooms, merely from spreading gloom and despondency there, by sowing disaffection, and repeating complaints already voiced in other rooms.
d is quite humourous and intelligent when dismounted from his hobby-horse.
Giok"

I repeat it is only on one topic that d is prohibited from swamping the other rooms at the party [sic]
Or don't you read the sudden rash of birthday threads ?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 12:16 PM

yes - you have missed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 12:16 PM

Chubby Checker's Birthday

Pitbull wasn't my term BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 12:24 PM

Not that it really matters what any of us think or suggest, but my opinion is that we should restrict to members only posting.   I know there is another thread on that topic so I won't sidetrack this discussion any further.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 12:27 PM

Hear hear Ron.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 12:35 PM

Not that it really matters what any of us think or suggest, but my opinion is that we should restrict to members only posting.   I know there is another thread on that topic so I won't sidetrack this discussion any further.

Ron - the subject matter on this thread now ranges from spam for porn sites to rice pudding recipes and all point between - so I this subect can be safely covered here.

I also think you will find that the thread you refer to has been closed long ago.

I note your preference and your provisos - but a change to this does not appear to be our host's intention for the party does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 12:52 PM

No, it does not appear to be our hosts intention. While I wish it were different, I can accept the decision and it won't bother me. My feeling is that SOME people might think twice before making a rude post. I don't buy the arguement that it would restrict discussion, most sites that I visit have similar arrangements and it works quite well.

Again, it really doesn't bother me either way, but if I had a preference and a vote (which I don't), I would opt for members only.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 02:53 PM

Again, it really doesn't bother me either way, but if I had a preference and a vote (which I don't), I would opt for members only.

Ron - You are entitled to express your preference but as you are not (as far as I am aware) one of our moderators - those of us who have always been strongly in favour of our host's open invitation for the public's contribution to our forum to continue - do not have to worry that you may not be using your best efforts to make our host's open house party work or worry that you may have a vested interest in ensuring that his party does not work?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 03:03 PM

I think you asked me 12 questions in that run-on sentence, and I apologize but I am not sure what you are actually asking me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 03:32 PM

Ron - You are entitled to express your preference but as you are not (as far as I am aware) one of our moderators - those of us who have always been strongly in favour of our host's open invitation for the public's contribution to our forum to continue - do not have to worry that you may not be using your best efforts to make our host's open house party work or worry that you may have a vested interest in ensuring that his party does not work.

Is that better?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 03:41 PM

What is a sesh?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 03:42 PM

Well, at least it doesn't end as a question!! :)

I am still a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.

a. I am not a moderator
b. I have no "vested" interest in Mudcat, other than as a research tool, discussion forum, and a fun place to visit.
c. My opinions have no impact on the hosts decision making process - nor does your opinion, Mmario's, Giok, etc. We are all just speaking our minds and the host has the ultimate calls to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM

Ron - As you have now publicly expressed the preference you have - perhaps you may accept that IF you were a 'moderator' - those of us who have always been strongly in favour of our host's open invitation for the public's contribution to our forum to continue - WOULD have to worry that you may not be using your best efforts to make our host's open house party work or worry that you may have a vested interest in ensuring that his party does not work?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 03:53 PM

I think an assumption that a moderator has a vested interest in this becoming a member only site (if I am reading the Shambles' hypothesis correctly) is a fallacy. my opinion, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 04:01 PM

I note that my theory has proven absolutely correct! The symbiotic relationship between Shambles and Ron Olesko has resumed after only the briefest hiatus and has in fact exceeded the probability rates I predicted and is stabilizing at a level of 15.378219773502M, a truly stunning statistic. This is excellent. My life's work has been vindicated and the Nobel Prize will soon be mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 04:02 PM

I see your point now. I had thought you were accusing me of something by the way your posts read.

IF I were a moderator (and I can guarantee you that I am not - nor would I want to be one), I am not sure if I would make my opinion known in that fashion.

However, lets assume that I am a moderator and that I did express my preference publicly.    Sure, you probably should worry if your opinion was different from mine.   Sure, I could try to make it easier to implement my policy.   And before you ask the question - no, I would not stop posting and no, I the owner would not prevent me from keeping on with business as usual.

What are your options? You can continue to post and hope that others will understand your points (such as what happened with me this week).   However, getting back to the "party" analogy - our opinions do not matter.   The host and his appointed bouncers are running the show.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 05:25 PM

Ve haf ways uf making you comply!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 05:59 PM

Shambles,

since you have mentioned the idea to start birthday threads in this thread, may I ask you here to include the respective date in the title. That would make these threads more user friendly. Look how much more informative one of your birthday threads is now with the addition of the date by an unknown volunteer fellow poster for unknown reasons.

This is not a judgement of your worth it is just a suggestion how the worth of the birthday threads could be increased.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 02:29 AM

What is a sesh? has now been relegated to the BS.

This is not a judgement of your worth it is just a suggestion how the worth of the birthday threads could be increased.

Then rather that post here only to judge - please by all means place there anything that you judge would make those threads (and any other threads) more interesting and informative. I place only the little information I do to encourage others to post their contributions. I also learn a lot form this and also from surfing to find the information.

That used to be the postive way things used to work on our forum - before posters were encouraged by the negative example given ONLY to pass judgements on the worth of a thread or post or of the worth of the poster and to call them names. And encouraged to simply swoon with horror at the thought of seing the titles of more than one thread at a time.

If it is a thread with little information - why not encourage other posters to provide it?

If a thread is questionably music related - then add it and attempt to keep it there - rather only judge it and than ask that it be relegated to the BS.

These birthday threads were an idea to try and return some of the old spirit of shared fun and joint discovery that makes our forum different to those sites obbsessed only with order.   

To encourage the act of posting - not to find ways that CAN only inhibit the posting of reasonable discussion.

It is very telling what the reaction (from some) to these threads have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 03:54 AM

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the main object of your scorn, has stated on this forum that he's not too keen on birthday threads of course, does it?
I suggest that all birthday threads regarding non-Mudcatters be allowed in BS only.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 04:36 AM

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the main object of your scorn, has stated on this forum that he's not too keen on birthday threads of course, does it?

In a rather small way perhaps it partly does. But it is no secret that on this issue the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and I will always have very different views.

It was Wolfgang's earlier post on the subject of birthday threads that gave me the idea. He suggested that birthday threads of musical worthies stayed on the music section. I thought this was partly a way of bridging the chasm that now seems to developed and is now firmly enforced by our 'moderators' - between music related subjects and friendly banter. To the detriment of both sections of our forum.

But the bigger picture is that in my view 'moderating' is simply enabling posters to post what they wish to to on our forum. It is not inhibiting posts which may not be to a 'modrators' personal taste.

But what you have again highlighted is the problem caused when 'moderators' are seen by our forum to have personal likes and dislikes. As Ron has stated here, in the following.

IF I were a moderator (and I can guarantee you that I am not - nor would I want to be one), I am not sure if I would make my opinion known in that fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 05:10 AM

Big Stick's messages were deleted. They were just weird.
-Joe Offer-

The above editing was inserted into the following thread.

Amish shooting. Where will it all end?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 05:40 AM

Birthday Threads   From the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum (otherwise known as Snitchers Corner).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 05:57 AM

Joe Offer - Hijacker alert

The above thread has been closed.

Does anyone wish to have a stab at what the difference is between what is referred to as 'thread-drift' and that charged term 'hijacking'?

All they both describe is someone posting to a thread.

Perhaps hi-jacking a thread is a term best reserved for when some anonymous 'moderator' judges and imposes the various actions that move, alter, delete, close threads and prevent posting?

In the sense that these imposed judgements and actions prevent posters fron judging for themselves - and all ordinary posters CAN do is (try to) post - perhaps our 'moderators' are the only true thread hijackers on our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 06:11 AM

Well Roger if anybody should know what the definition of hijacking a thread is, you should.
It is when you ignore the subject of said thread, and post one of your complaints/attacks, usually a repeat posting from several other threads, in order to bring your pet peeve to the notice of people you think just might have managed to avoid it!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 06:38 AM

Well Roger if anybody should know what the definition of hijacking a thread is, you should.
It is when you ignore the subject of said thread, and post one of your complaints/attacks, usually a repeat posting from several other threads, in order to bring your pet peeve to the notice of people you think just might have managed to avoid it!

Ah- it is as I thought. Hijacking is an intentionally emotive term to describe a post in a thread saying what you don't want a poster to say - but which no is forcing you to read or respond to and which you can easily ignore.

So by the same logic - thread drift is where a whole gang of posters are encouraged that filling a thread on this subject full of recipes or an any other subject - is great fun.

And hijacking is not of course to be thought as imposed action by some anonymous fellow poster who decides to silently delete an entire thread - complete with every poster's contribution to it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 10:10 AM

Shambles,

was your 05 Oct 06 - 02:29 AM post meant to be a response to my suggestions that you may add dates to the birthday threads?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 11:58 AM

was your 05 Oct 06 - 02:29 AM post meant to be a response to my suggestions that you may add dates to the birthday threads?

No.

It very clearly was a response to your suggestion that I may add dates to the (titles of) birthday threads.

http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=1848983

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 12:48 PM

Interesting. I have read nothing in that post which I could interpret as a reaction to my suggestion.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 12:55 PM

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men. '

Strother Martin in "Cool Hand Luke"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 06:41 PM

You deliberately avoid any real discussion, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 08:09 AM

Another gem from The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum.

Please delete personal attack

You can see from (some of) our 'moderators' current comments on that thread - that as far as they are concerned - the move to members-only posting is not a question of if - but of when.

When we see this changed being publicly pushed like this - is there any reason for those of us who have always supported Max's policy of the public's access to our forum - to feel that our host's vision is currently 'safe' in the hands of our current 'moderators'?

As far as I can see their best efforts are just to demonstrate how this change is the only solution to the many problems that our forum has had to deal with since its inception.

Perhaps Max would be kind enough to finally inform our forum and our 'moderators' what his intentions are in this regard?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 08:15 AM

Shambles,

that echolalic language does not fit into a discussion between adults. The last time I could enjoy such a discussion was roughly 45 years ago.

If you know you're wrong in this particular point and just want to avoid admitting it I don't mind. I too have my weaknesses. Maybe next time I ask you something you choose to respond.

If you really think you are right here you have a problem that is not my business to care about.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 08:25 AM

Perhaps suggestions as the following from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - with such drastic potential consequences for all posters - should be placed for open discussion by them - on the music section of our forum - rather than for the benefit of the conspiratorial and 'faithful few' in Snitchers Corner?

Then our forum can be informed what such a change is thought to be the only way to deal with the very same problems that the our current set-up has dealt with for 10 years? Has there been any real change to warrant such a move?


Subject: RE: Please delete personal attack
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05-Oct-06 - 04:25 PM

I know, it's a tossup about deleting nasty posts. If we delete such stuff while they're here and watching, they just post it again. I've seen Shambles do it eight times in a row, and then post a dozen messages complaining about the deletions.
If we don't delete the nasty stuff right away, then a dozen Mudcatters respond to it. Seems like a losing battle. I'm beginning to think that the only way we can bring it under control is to have members-only posting in BS, and a way to screen non-member posting in the music section before it becomes visible to the public.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 08:36 AM

In time Max will of course let us know, in the meantime it is wrong of you to assume what he feels regarding members only posting either way. As far as I can remember the only clue available is in a post from Joe Offer saying that AT THAT TIME Max was not convinced of the need for this.
It's my guess however, that during the course of the many ensueing rubbish threads started by Guests, along with the nasty comments contained in other threads by them, he may just have changed his mind.
Members only also means that controlling the ingress of undesirable posters is a more exact science.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 08:39 AM

If you know you're wrong in this particular point and just want to avoid admitting it I don't mind. I too have my weaknesses. Maybe next time I ask you something you choose to respond.

Wolfgang you have played so many childish games in posts to me - for the benefit only of the watching crowd and your own brand of humour - that such high-sounding allegations from you can be safely dismissed.

You posted with a suggestion as to how you judged I should post - and explained your reasons. Feeling perhaps that you had some right to do this.

I could have responded by telling you that you had no such right and that how and what I choose to post was none of your business, But:

I responded with a suggestion as to how I judged you should post - and I explained my reasons. Feeling that as you felt you had the right to do this to me - that perhaps I had as much right to do this to you.

Hopefully the end result will be that those threads will be as interesting as posters wish to make them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 09:23 AM

What crowd?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 09:45 AM

The In Crowd!

I'm in with the in crowd;
I go where the in crowd goes.
I'm in with the in crowd;
And I know what the in crowd knows.
Any time of the year, don't you hear?
Dressin? fine; makin? time.
We breeze up and down the street;
We get respect from the people we meet.
They make way day or night;
They know the in crowd is out of sight.

I'm in with the in crowd;
I know every latest dance.
When you'e in with the in crowd,
It's so easy to find romance!
Any time of the year, don't you hear?
If it's square, we ain't there.
We make every minute count;
Our share is always the biggest amount.
Other guys imitate us, but the original is still the greatest.
In crowd!
In crowd!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 09:55 AM

Gosh you are deluded aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 07:37 PM

In time Max will of course let us know, in the meantime it is wrong of you to assume what he feels regarding members only posting either way.

It does tend to be the case that what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wants and rattles on about publicly on our forum - usually does happen.

What I have done for a good few years now is post to our forum on the basis that Max, our host - has been happy with the open invitation he has extended for the public's contributions. If that is an assumption on my part - then perhaps it is a reasonable one?

As Max has not changed it - he and many other posters still appear to be happy with posting on this basis and with our forum as it is. But this does not seem to prevent many of those who are not - from publicly groaning on about members only posting being the answer to all of 'their' problems.

As I have suggested before - those who think that members only posting is such a good idea - are welcome to go and start one on that basis. They are not welcome to keep publicly pushing in an attempt to turn our forum into the private members club that many already treat our forum as (to its detriment).

If our current 'moderators' are finding they cannot cope or control the posting of others to their statisfaction - (without asking Max to change the whole posting principle of our forum) - then perhaps there are others who can be asked and who would be willing to try?

ANALOGY WARNING..................

It is rather like the employees of a brewery - after many years of making beer - telling the owner that they can't manage to make beer anymore but would be able to manage to make lemonade.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 07:51 PM

"They are not welcome to keep publicly pushing in an attempt to turn our forum into the private members club that many already treat our forum as (to its detriment)."

Not welcome by whom Shambles? Got a mouse in your pocket?

I for one am all for members only posting. The best forums I go to are all run that way. And I'll express my opinion whenever I want to on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 09:10 PM

SHAMBLES SAYS: "What I have done for a good few years now is post to our forum on the basis that Max, our host - has been happy with the open invitation he has extended for the public's contributions. If that is an assumption on my part - then perhaps it is a reasonable one?"

No Piss&Moanmeister, it is NOT a reasonable assumption that YOU should post to this forum on ANY basis. LOL....Are you mental? Can you not read? Try again:

MAX (Our Host) SAYS: "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."

Farewell to you. Don't let the door hitcha' in the ass on the way out!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jerry Craymore
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 09:18 PM

I find the tone of that last post offensive, and I demand an immediate apology from the insensitive clod who posted it! Have you no respect for your peers, sir? Fie! For shame! If you were in range I'd smack you in the face with my glove, you impudent swine. How dare you stoop to such divisive invective?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 10:00 PM

"No Piss&Moanmeister, it is NOT a reasonable assumption that YOU should post to this forum on ANY basis. LOL....Are you mental? Can you not read? Try again:

MAX (Our Host) SAYS: "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."

Farewell to you. Don't let the door hitcha' in the ass on the way out!"

And as I said once before, if Max really wanted Shambles gone, he would have blocked his ability to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 02:51 AM

I for one am all for members only posting. The best forums I go to are all run that way. And I'll express my opinion whenever I want to on the subject.

Wesley S - due to Max's wishes, and as you are not to my knowledge a 'moderator' of this forum - you can express any view you wish and that view in particular without compromising our hosts current wishes to continue to keep our forum open to the public's contributions or confusing the many posters who have supported our forum on that basis for many years.

But why would you be supporting a change that has not even been proposed by our host? Is this not a little disloyal to Max? Is the fact that we are expressing different views on this issue needlessly divisive to our forum? Who has publicly proposed it - and who is constantly pushing the change?

And like others that express this view - do you not like our forum currently? Is this forum not thought by you THE best or even one of the best forums you visit?

If not - why do you visit. Why do you not stick with your other members only posting sites or form one of your own?

Our forum is the fine and well-supported forum it is now BECAUSE Max has encouraged the public's contributions over many years and despite the problems inherrent in this. He, our forum and that principle needs your support.

Most of the problems that (some of) our 'moderators' constantly moan on publicly about, blame posters and take no responsibility for - have actually been caused by their failed attempts to control and shape our forum to their wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 12:23 PM

Hey Shambles,

You accused Wesley S of being disloyal to Max. Aren't you being disloyal to Max by constantly asking for the removal of the moderators that Max chose to monitor the site. I'm sure that Max reads what is on the site and knows what the moderators are doing. I'm also sure that he has read some of your postings and knows how you feel. If Max wanted to replace a moderator then he would have done it. Constantly asking for their removal is just as disloyal to Max as requesting that this be a members only site. Any comments?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 12:45 PM

"the many posters who have supported our forum on that basis for many years."

"Our forum is the fine and well-supported forum it is now"


Roger because it is not a Members Only posting site, you and MG and others, have been allowed to post drivel, and filth and downright rudeness on this forum mostly un censored .
Due to that this site is neither as well supported as it was, nor frequented by as many of the posters who used to support it over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 01:48 PM

Shambles, I visit here mainly because I have become accustomed to doing so. It's a habit. It's an addiction. My experience of Internet forums is very limited, so I don't really know if this one is better or worse than the average, but I'd say it's pretty good as far as I can tell. It certainly has a lot of interesting characters.

I agree that there are various people here who try to control other people's activities here, and it sometimes gets out of hand. I think that happens in any club or group of people after awhile. Those who have been members longer feel that they have more "pull" than newcomers, and they favour their friends and sometimes pick on certain people they don't like so much. That is the case in any organization.

More fun for some people than for others...

You've got to put in time and effort to gain (or lose) respect among a group of people who gather on a regular basis.

When a group fragments into several battling interest groups...well, then you have a mess on your hands! Like the American political system. ;-) Or any political system, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 03:54 PM

I know, it's a tossup about deleting nasty posts. If we delete such stuff while they're here and watching, they just post it again. I've seen Shambles do it eight times in a row, and then post a dozen messages complaining about the deletions.
If we don't delete the nasty stuff right away, then a dozen Mudcatters respond to it. Seems like a losing battle. I'm beginning to think that the only way we can bring it under control is to have members-only posting in BS, and a way to screen non-member posting in the music section before it becomes visible to the public.
-Joe

Apart from the fact that it mentions me by name and those bits are totally misleading - am I really the only poster who reads posts like the above with concern? Especially with concern about the ability and will of those 'moderators' publicly expressing such views, to really been seen to do their best to continue to make work - Max's long-running and current open invitation for the public's contribution to our forum?

Does the use of words on our forum like 'we', 'they', 'losing battle', and 'control' - sound out-of-place, combative and devisive only to me? If our 'moderators' see their role to battle against posters to our forum in such terms - is it any real surprise if they then get this battle in return?

The object of having moderators is not surely to been seen to in conflict with posters and to attempt to control and inhibit their posting - but to enable and encourage posting? And for them to accept the current posting policy of the site's owner - rather than to be seen to find constantly find fault and be seen to keep trying to change this policy into something else?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 04:22 PM

You've got to put in time and effort to gain (or lose) respect among a group of people who gather on a regular basis.

Do you? Perhaps on a members only forum this would be the case but our forum has always been different (or perhaps a better word is special). There are those regular members you refer to - but because our forum has never been limited to those regular members - many of the 'intersting characters' you refer to have found our forum.

Many have left (for many reasons) but as long as Max's open invitation continues - others can find it and hopefully stay and refresh the mix. This has always been our forum's strength. It is only seen as a weakness by those who do not really accept the reality of what our forum is and who wish to limit it and already treat it as a private members club.

It may be the 'intersting characters' that attract you - for other posters it will be other things. I tend to be more interested in what people have to say - rather than who may be saying it.

But sadly perhaps very few seem to see Max's open invitation for the public's contributions as the main reason they like our forum. Perhaps this is taken for granted too much and not really valued as it should? It certainly has a down side but I suggest the trick is to encourage posters to accept these aspects - rather than to be seen to constantly fight them.

Poster will see things (at least in the thread titles) they would rather not - but rather than being encouraged to complain about this - perhaps they can be informed that it is the price they pay for being able to post what they wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM

Well, clearly my statement which you quote referred to members, not Guests. Only members in a club normally have the investment of time to gain or lose other members' respect.

But perhaps you can find an exception to that? I suppose a persistent enough Guest who always posts under the same name can do what a member can do in that respect...only...how do we know it really IS that person when they post?

We don't.

I could easily, for example, log out and pretend to be Gargoyle or Martin Gibson and post something to embarass them (assuming it's possible to do that...). Heh!

I'm not going to, but I could. ;-) So could anyone else.

This is one reason why it's a much better idea to post as a member than a (named) Guest. As for anonymous Guests, well, that's a different matter again. They take no risks and present no known face, real or imaginary.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 05:53 PM

This is one reason why it's a much better idea to post as a member than a (named) Guest. As for anonymous Guests, well, that's a different matter again. They take no risks and present no known face, real or imaginary.

Very possibly this judgement may be the case but posters do currently have these choices. And currently anyone who finds our forum can contribute there and then. Plus you can send a link to someone and they can respond directly the the thread - without becoming a member.   

If the only way you could contribute to our forum was to become a member first - there would not be the same ease as there has been, in obtaining new blood. And many who do not now wish to have cookies or reveal their details etc (for many reasons) would be then excluded.

But as most the problems our 'moderators' seem to have IS with the posting of members - there would appear much more to be lost by their proposed change than there is to be gained.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 06:54 PM

Hey Shambles,

You accused Wesley S of being disloyal to Max. Aren't you being disloyal to Max by constantly asking for the removal of the moderators that Max chose to monitor the site. I'm sure that Max reads what is on the site and knows what the moderators are doing. I'm also sure that he has read some of your postings and knows how you feel. If Max wanted to replace a moderator then he would have done it. Constantly asking for their removal is just as disloyal to Max as requesting that this be a members only site. Any comments?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:29 PM

"Plus you can send a link to someone and they can respond directly the the thread - without becoming a member." Shambles

Unless I am misunderstanding, that statement isn't factual. A Guest (someone who is not a member)has no address that a member can reach, therefore said Guest cannot receive a link. Other than in the thread itself.

Am I mistaken?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:43 PM

Constantly asking for their removal is just as disloyal to Max as requesting that this be a members only site. Any comments?

Perhaps - if I had done this. But I simply do not understand why any 'moderator' would wish to continue carrying our the owner's policy - if they did not agree with it. Or why any poster can be expected to see their constant complaints about and their wish to change the status quo on our forum - as these 'moderators' best efforts to support the status quo.

So it is hardly my actions that are currently confusing our forum's loyalties - is it?

But (some of) our 'moderators' are constantly asking for my removal - perhaps that could also be judged as also being disloyal?

The answer to our divided loyalties would seem simple.

Those 'moderators' who do not like our forum being open for the public's contributions - as Max has wished it from the very beginning - can form their own private members club and leave the rest of us in peace. On their own new forum - if they cannot stand the heat of working in their own kitchen - they can moan about and throw pots and pans at and exclude whoever they wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:51 PM

Am I mistaken?

Yes.

You do of course need the e mail address. I have often sent a thread's URL in an email to enable friends and others who I think may be interested or who may be able to help - to directly respond to a thread or to a specific point in a thread.

If this proposal is implemented - they would not be able to continue to do this without first becoming a member.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 09:39 PM

If Max monitors the site, which we assume to be the case, then he knows what the moderators are doing. If he din't approve then he would replace them. Therefore, if you question the moderators that Max has approved and keeps track of then you are being as disloyal as Wesley S.

The moderators are asking for your removal because Max has previously stated that maybe you should leave. That is Max's policy and not the moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 03:57 AM

The moderators are asking for your removal because Max has previously stated that maybe you should leave. That is Max's policy and not the moderators.

Although our 'moderators' and their supporters would like to give our forum that impression - the issue here is never one single poster i.e currently me. The situation is exactly the reverse of what you suggest.

Because of all the fuss made and encouraged publicly by (some of) our 'moderators' and their attempts to prevent our forum from discussing this issue and my attempts to ensure that our forum could discuss the true nature and current level of censorship on our forum, Max made the public statement he did. I suggest you read all of it - rather that just the piece that my detractors refer to.

Just like I have done Max made a number of suggestions but his policy since then towards me has clearly been not to be seen to block my postings after all these years. But that does not prevent (some of) our 'moderators' from still publicly encouraging this course of action as some form of solution to their problems.

In exactly the same way and for the same reasons that since the public admission of failure and the proposals made to improve our forum on their behalf - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - (some of) our 'moderators' continue to push for this - despite there having been no sign of this change since then or no public statement by Max confirming such a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 06:13 AM

The good ship Mudcat currently has (some of) its volunteer crew sailing off - (Fletcher Christian like) in one direction whilst the ship stall attemps to maintain the original course under its Captain.

Perhaps it is only sensible for any current and potential passengers, to be informed of any change of destination - rather than to be seen and expected to take sides in open conflict on deck.

That such a situation would and is dividing loyalties on our forum is pretty obvious - and it is a situation not caused by any attempts to bring attention to this situation, discuss it and to end this division of posters loyalties on our forum.   

So that when the word 'we' is used - it will once again mean ALL posters to our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 06:30 AM

Only members in a club normally have the investment of time to gain or lose other members' respect.

The only respect that needs to be encouraged to be shown on a discussion forum such as this one, which continues to be open for all the public's contributions - is respect from all contributors to all contributors.

All that has ever been required is the recognition of what our forum is and for all contributors to be able to accept that being seen openly to be able to agree to disagree - is about as good as such a forum can get.

If anyone wants a private club - they can find or start one. Our forum has not been that place - is not now that place and Max has given no public indication of implementing the change that would make our forum such a place.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Partridge
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 06:57 AM

Shambles,
What are you like in person? I ask this because having read this thread and some of your other postings you sound like a human terrier - once you get hold of something you never let go, you are very persistant. Can you understand that just repeating something doesn't make it true?
I can't work out what it is you really want. If the forum was run the way you wanted it to be would you become a regular poster?

I know you don't write in capitals but I can't help reading some of your posts like you were shouting!

What you are trying to do clearly is not working and you seem to have caused a lot of ill feeling. I hope that you manage to sort out your grievances soon, because alot of us are very fed up with the constant moaning. C'mon, life is for living - get yourself a secret santa for gods sake!

Pat x

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 09:02 AM

What are you like in person? I ask this because having read this thread and some of your other postings you sound like a human terrier - once you get hold of something you never let go, you are very persistant. Can you understand that just repeating something doesn't make it true?
I can't work out what it is you really want. If the forum was run the way you wanted it to be would you become a regular poster?

For the purposes of contributing to our forum does it really matter what any of us are like as a person? I am just a fellow poster. All you have to do is read or not read - respond or not respond to my posts. It is as simple as that.

I will try to respond to your views and questions - even if they are just repeating those that have been asked and asnswered many times before. But I have no wish to make personal judgements of your worth - based only on what you post? What point is there in encouraging one poster to post only personal judgements of another named poster? Or in your case an un-named one.

Why do you not also ask your other questions of those who have just as terrier-like, pedanticly and persistently tried for many years to prevent my posts from appearing on our forum as posted? And who impose all these means to inhibit, restrict and prevent posts containing only reasonable discussion - and attempt to justify this as somehow enabling reasonable discussion?

When you have your answers from them - ask me again about my reaction to this. In the meantime perhaps you could actually address the real issue and answer some of the questions that have been posed on this issue in this thread?

As I have had a whole pack of terriers constantly nipping at my arse - you may not see the very best of me displayed. And to judge my worth from my attempts only to deal with these terrier's attempts to chase me away - without also judging the worth of the chasing pack - is perhaps a little unfair?

I have found that those terriers who use such tactics as a first and only resort - do not appreciate themselves being on the receiving end of the same sort judgement and treatment that they freely dish out. They then consdider this to be unfair.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:01 PM

"Am I mistaken? " Eb

"Yes." The Sham

Huh? In what way was my assumption mistaken? You had not mentioned emailing.

"You do of course need the e mail address. I have often sent a thread's URL in an email to enable friends and others who I think may be interested or who may be able to help - to directly respond to a thread or to a specific point in a thread.

"If this proposal is implemented - they would not be able to continue to do this without first becoming a member. "

"They would not be able to continue to do this without first becoming a member" And how difficult is that, Roger? And if the subject is so interesting what would stop you from copy and pasting pertinent parts and sending it to friends through email?

I am in favor of members only.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM

"They would not be able to continue to do this without first becoming a member" And how difficult is that, Roger? And if the subject is so interesting what would stop you from copy and pasting pertinent parts and sending it to friends through email?

The point of course is not that you can copy & post interesting bits to one's non-member friends - but that they can click directly on the to the thread's URL and contribute directly to the discussion. They may not have the time or wish to become a memeber to do this and may not make any contribution if they were forced to. After this easy way - they may even choose to become a member. It is a good way of our forum to get new blood - but this does not appear to be a concern to many posters. Who perhaps do not really want any new blood?

I am in favor of members only.

Then what are you doing posting on our forum and pushing to change it?
Why do you just go and form one where you can exclude who you wish - rather than feel you have some right to change our forum to your requirements and force these limitations on other posters?

Our forum is so much more that what many posters tend to see it as. The way Max has set it up - it is a way that you can see the whole world's views and it can see yours. The opportunities for all of us to learn are endless by this - so why limit it to the like-minded only?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM

Where is Ron Olesko? His absence is throwing doubt on my theory of symbiosis, as demonstrated by the back and forth postings between him and Shambles. Is this a deliberate attempt to discredit my work and deny me the Nobel Prize? If so, I shall take legal action, be assured. This is not a trivial matter.

Ron, I know what you're up to. You don't fool me. Your failure to post in the last many posts is deliberate on your part and is aimed at me in a most malicious manner. You will pay for that, sir.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Coerbeill
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 02:05 PM

Shambles, I am pleased to see that you are in favor of Guest postings such as mine. That speaks well for your general level of tolerance and compassion.

You say to a member, "Then what are you doing posting on our forum and pushing to change it? Why do(n't) you just go and form one where you can exclude who you wish..."

Oh my, yes! What a brilliant notion. Let's ALL immediately go and FORM an internet forum all of our own where we can each have everything just as we want it. Oh boy! Well, how does one do that? I wonder? How many people here even have the slightest notion of how to form an internet forum? Precious few, I would guess.

Forming a forum is a lot of work. You have to know all the software routines and be able to build a website. It's more work than most people can be bothered with and most people don't know a thing about it. If one did form a forum where everything was exactly as one wanted, I submit that its membership would necessarily have to be restricted to an enrollment of ONE! (meaning, the person who formed it) That could get deadly boring rather soon, couldn't it?

Is that what you are suggesting?

If so, I think you are a nincompoop who says things he hasn't thought out properly. You just don't like it when other people disagree with you, that's all. In that respect you are no different from the other people here whom you are telling to leave and form a forum of their own. I bet they tell you to leave too, don't they? Wouldn't it be funny if you ALL left simultaneously and joined some other forum under new names...and after about 6 months of arguing suddenly reached the awful realization one day that it was all happening all over again?

Ah...ha! ha! ha! What a farce.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 02:54 PM

Roger, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you bemoan what the 'Cat has become and on the other you shout: Don't change it! Which is your true feeling?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 03:12 PM

No Ebbie, shambles is reasonably consistant on that. He would like things back to older times. I think many would...

Where we part on that particular issue is:

I believe the slightly increased levels of moderations are a reaction to a higher number of "bad" posters.

Shambles appears to believe that the removal of such moderation would improve the "general standard" of posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 03:20 PM

It depends on who has the edit button. Some people deserve to have it. Some don't. Those with agendas of their own should pack it in.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 03:25 PM

re: Members only. Shambles suggests that it would be somehow a problem...unfair, cliquish, restrictive, exclusive....etc.
But, membership is NOT restrictive. Anyone may join. All "members only" would do is require one to show their card at the door in order to post. It would simply be a way to keep track of which members were posting when. It would **NOT** even require real names, or even identify where one lives....all it would do is reduce the confusion that occurs when 23 'guests' are all posting at once...(or is it one guest with 23 agendas?) It would also allow private responses to some issues when it would better if everyone were not reading the details. I suspect THAT is one of the major reasons many folks who take contentious positions don't join. I don't know what to say to those who just have a phobia against being recognized, even by a pseudonym!

Note again the point..***ANYONE*** may join and participate....the only rule would be that NO ONE may do absolutely anything they wish. Management of a site like this always has the right to exclude anyone who is deemed disruptive, dangerous, or generally offensive.
   There have been only 2-3 of these in 10 years.....that is a pretty 'open' attitude by internet standards. (Martin Gibson was banned for repeated offenses, and even he was given the benefit of the doubt and warned many times first!)

As guest 'Partridge' indicates above, it has become really difficult to discern exactly what Shambles wants. He doesn't want "judgments imposed", but even the oft repeated phrase "impose their judgments" has lost any clear meaning when he uses it to refer to ANY editing done. He certainly doesn't like having moderators, but he particularly doesn't like having any of them being unknown to Shambles....despite the fact that Joe has explained that 1) There WILL be moderators, and 2)that it may be best if some of them remain anonymous. This policy is approved by Max!

In short, The Shambles crusade to have some idealistic "totally free & open" forum where everyone is responsible for their own posts and everyone respects everyone else is inviting anarchy. When 95% of all posts were music related, it was close to the ideal, but once we got 'found' by the general public, it was just no longer workable to be without moderation.

One suggestion is to allow 'guest' posting in the MUSIC threads, and require ID to kibitz 'below the line'....I don't know how technically feasible that is, but it might be worth testing. In the meantime, we can either keep debating Shambles, just for the humor and practice, or we can ignore him, like he suggests. Would that it were possible!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 03:52 PM

We tried it about a month or two ago, Bill. It was quite humorous to watch. Every morning Shambles would cast around trying to bait someone. He got more desperate as time went on. He was limited in his ability to troll to just this thread. He was not limited in others as long as he wasn't trolling for his campaign. He got quite panicky. I thought that experiment proved what many have said all along. He is a troll, and has a need for attention.

Unfortunately, there are those that just can't ignore. It makes a very strong case for members only posting, and controls. Of course, my opinion is Shambles should leave, as he is the one so disenchanted. But he invites everyone else to leave. Shows how he has it all backwards in the convoluted way of thinking of his.

Shambles, the mod's will continue to do the job they do, the way they do it. You are unhappy with that, then leave. Max suggested that you do that. I concur.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM

Roger, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you bemoan what the 'Cat has become and on the other you shout: Don't change it! Which is your true feeling?

If it is not broke - stop keep trying to fix it and avoiding taking any responsibility for the results of this constant tinkering.

This latest proposed change is a major one bur it is only the latest one - in a never-ending list of changes required by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and (some of) his team and those who seem to blindly support them. And whatever changes they impose on our forum to judge and shape our contributions to their requirements - these still do not satisify them.

My only reservations are about the need for these constant changes and the reasons behind them. Our forum remains a simple concept but one that (some of) our 'moderators' - by their constant need to publicly express their reservations and judgements and propose changes, have clearly never accepted or really understood.

All these changes have unforseen complications but no responsibilty for these is ever taken by our 'moderators' - who continue to moan about and to judge and blame other posters. An example of posting set, that is not surprisingly followed. To the extent that now some posters are encouraged to think they have some right to post only personal judgements about the worth of fellow named posters, seems to be seen to be our forum's main purpose.

My true feeling is that our forum is currently a reflection of the example of posting behaviour shown by (some of) our 'moderators'. And if they do not like our forum in this form - they must first take some responsibility for this. And be prepared to change this example before any more changes are proposed. Any 'moderator' should be required to be seen, by the example they set, to be committed to making Max's current posting policy work.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:09 PM

There was a time I cared. That time is past. I will be a member when it's convenient to me and a guest when it's convenient to me. Both are allowed to post, so it's not an issue. Remember, two legs good, four legs bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 08:08 PM

As guest 'Partridge' indicates above, it has become really difficult to discern exactly what Shambles wants.

That is clear, it is Joe Offer out of "office" and probably the heads of a few mods.

While he is reasonably consistant with his return to old times. Even those arguments will return to that point.

---

Whatever you say is probably true, except that I don't understand what you said.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 02:27 AM

As guest 'Partridge' indicates above, it has become really difficult to discern exactly what Shambles wants.

Not if you read it - and not what other posters say that I want.

Bill D - But what do you want?

You appear to support anonymous 'moderators' - however ineffective and counter-productive this may be to our forum and no matter how much (some of) our 'moderators' then moan about the results - as part of the Max approved status quo.

But you then point our the advantages of a change to members only posting - and ingnore that this is NOT the Max approved status quo.

If you don't like Max's basic posting policy that our forum has always operated on - why have you stayed posting (and moaning) for so long and why do you not form your own private club? Why do you think you have some right after all this time, to impose your requirements on other posters on our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 04:06 AM

The moderators are NOT, as far as I can see, ineffective.
They sweep the crud out of this site as soon as they see it, or it is brought to their attention. They give people enough rope, and then let them hang themselves; sometimes I think they give them too much rope, but that's my personal opinion.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 04:23 AM

Please delete spam

The above is another gem from The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum.

In which the latest thinking behind the now hysterical and brave fight against spam on our forum is well demonstrated.

Posters are now being encouraged to get spam deleted – by copy and pasting it all on to Snitchers Corner instead. In addition to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team dumping it in this thread. But never fear – you will see that he has finally found the solution.

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07-Oct-06 - 03:24 PM
We get Spam in the Dubliners thread almost every day, so I finally decided to close the thread. It appears the Spam is being sent automatically.
-Joe-

The next step of course, following on from such logic – to solve all the problems our 'moderators' get their knickers twisted about – is to close the entire forum.

Give me spots on my apples but leave me the birds and the bees
PLEASE.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:14 AM

You really are weird aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:48 AM

The stalker's up early chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:10 AM

Thanks T.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Partridge
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 08:48 AM

I'll give you spots on your apples, and hopefully a big yellow taxi will turn up!

cheers

Pat

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 09:16 AM

"Where is Ron Olesko?"

I'm right here Prof. Lucy, watching with great amusement.

I know we all love analogies, and the latest one that I can come up with is that this forum is starting to remind me of all the Star Wars and Star Trek fans.   Ever watch these group of fanatics picking apart the minutae and telling the powers that be how things should be run?

It seems that is what we have here. NONE of you have any impact because the management of this operation obviously enjoys sitting back and watching.   If they aren't going to do anything to bring about change, then the die is cast. Whatever will become of Mudcat is due to their decision to either make change or do nothing. It is not Shambles or any of us.   The host of the party has chosen to open his doors and let everyone run amok.

It is really time to find a new party - the company in this one is starting to become very boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 09:32 AM

It is really time to find a new party - the company in this one is starting to become very boring.

No matter how much care they put into the preparation - the host tends to get the blame for the worst parties. Often unfairly as they can only do so much and making the party go well is really up to the guests.

For the very worst parties are those where none of the guests make any effort and just moan about their fellow guests. When these moaners have gone home - the party often comes to life.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 09:46 AM

You make a good point about the moaners going home and letting the rest of the guests have a good time, but ultimately it is the host who makes the guest list and keeps the party going.   

You do make the mistake of assuming that the moaners are the one with the problem.   Often a host will let an obnoxious guest run herd over the festivities. The ones that you are calling "moaners" may have a legitimate gripe and would certainly do themselves a favor by finding another shindig. It would be no loss to them for leaving such an awful affair.

True, the host can't be blamed for having the party turning dismal, but they are the ones footing the bill as well as have the authority to make changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 11:16 AM

The fact that my bouncers are too keen on moaning and sniping is WHY they are my bouncers. Pleasant, good natured, sociable people have a life to be getting on with and lots of parties to attend and wouldn't want to spend all their time picking crumbs up off my shag pile.

Swings and rounabouts. But we just turn the music up and drown them out. Nobody takes them too seriously. And they keep the carpet clean.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 12:07 PM

The ones that you are calling "moaners" may have a legitimate gripe and would certainly do themselves a favor by finding another shindig. It would be no loss to them for leaving such an awful affair.

If only that were the case. When the bouncers are the main ones setting the example of constantly moaning about and judging the worth of the host's invited guest - that rather sets the moaning tone and some of the guest think it OK to follow it.....

But when everyone has been invited equally - everyone has a equal right to be there and enjoy themselves. If you find your fellow guests to be a pain - and the host is not seen to wish to throw them out - the only option open to you is to find another party.

A 'moaners only' affair.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 12:25 PM

Shambles, I agree with you that perhaps the bouncers may be doing some moaning, but if that is the case there seems to be an overwhelming number of bouncers present!

No one has an "equal right".   The host can decide who stays and who goes.   If the host doesn't like the way someone (anyone) is behaving, he or she can make a decision. There are no grey areas here - it is the hosts call to do something or to do nothing.   No matter what happens at the party, the reflection goes back to the host. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts" - it is the hosts party.

When you get down to it, it really doesn't matter who is doing the moaning. The dessert tray has been left out in the sun too long - somebody is going to get an upset stomach. Either remove the tray, get new cream puffs, or watch where you step.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 01:34 PM

Far from there being an 'overwhelming number' the opposite is true. Many, many more are enjoying the ambience and partaking of the hospitality.

Just because the FEW seem to think that incessant moaning is a good night out please do not think their number is overwhelming. There are ten hard core moaners here. Click your fingers and they come running every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 01:47 PM

Shambles, I agree with you that perhaps the bouncers may be doing some moaning, but if that is the case there seems to be an overwhelming number of bouncers present!

Yes it sometimes appears that way. Posters tend to do this anyway - unless it is discouraged, so a forum like ours does not need to be seen to encourage posters to moan about what others choose to post. But as it is (some of) our 'moderators' who set this example, it should really be no surprise that usual easy targets - once named - will have no shortage of those willing to follow this example.   

The same few moaning posters can make their number appear a lot larger and once you give a dog a bad name - others will join in who have no real idea what all the moaning and personal judgements are all about and whether there is really any justification for them.

It is clear that the example set by our 'moderators' and their supporters will be followed as acceptable posting behaviour. And it is this behaviour that our 'moderators' then moan about and blame posters for.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 02:05 PM

Don't you think you might be one of the moaners shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 02:08 PM

Guest, my thought exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM

"Far from there being an 'overwhelming number' the opposite is true."

Guest, I do agree with you. That was the point I was trying to make. The number of "moaners" seems to be significantly higher than the number of bouncers/moderators.

There are "moaners" on both sides of the arguement too. It is not a one way street.

Screw examples! That is a red herring here. Very few people live up to the standards that they themselves set, and when it comes to our "party" the happy medium is always the best solution. I've been to parties where the host has too much to drink, but he is also taking car keys away from others before they can drive off. Leading by example is always a goal, but we are all human (thank god.)

People make mistakes and will go to the party and give the hosts rug a cigarette burn, and the host may spill the coffee over a guest as well - but we move on. Mistakes happen, no big deal. Apologies, if needed, are said. The ground rules might be repeated, and the party continues on.   If you dwell on the fact that someone threw up on the cat, then the fun stops. If someone has to leave, so be it. If the host has to tighten up the list, so be it.   Clean up the cat and party on.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 03:03 PM

Shambles will never admit that he is a moaner, part of the problem, unrealistic or wrong. He is a total ostrich when it comes to seeing where he stands in relationship to the rest of Mudcat. It is obvious from the fact that few people support him that his views are not what the remainder of Mudcat wishes for. It is his belief that everything should change for the benefit of only one...Shambles. It ain't gonnna happen brother.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 03:43 PM

"The dessert tray has been left out in the sun too long - somebody is going to get an upset stomach. Either remove the tray, get new cream puffs, or watch where you step."

For a second there I thought you were going to break into

"Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!"

Thank you for NOT doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 03:52 PM

I try to express my views.

A look through my posting history will show that I rarely moan about or post only personal judgements about my fellow named posters or respond in kind to the many I am subjected to and not protected from.

An example that if followed would solve many of the things that our 'moderators' constantly moan about and encourage other posters to moan about.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM

I think "moan" is probably open to interpretation - as are the rules.

As I've said earlier, I do think Shambles has been attacked far too often here.   Unfortunately, everyone will post personal judgements - as Shambles himself does when he says the "moderators" constantly moan and encourage other posters to moan.   I know that last sentence may cause Shambles to start cutting and pasting supposed examples, but this lengthy thread already has them and I encourage Shambles to save his energy - we've seen the examples.

"Moaning" could be interpreted as the attacks made on Shambles, or they could be interpreted as Shambles seemingly endless postings that seem to be making the same point over and over.   Moaning could also be interpreted as my interjections in this discussion.

Moaning could also be interpreted by my repition of the the following sentence - it really doesn't matter what any of us think or post, it all boils back to how the management deals or does not deal with it.   Let the forum speak for itself.   We are all shithouse lawyers with time on our hands and our "moaning" about either side of the supposed issue means diddly squat.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Wolfy Dan
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 04:05 PM

Owooooooooooooo....! Owooooooooooooooooo...!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 04:40 PM

Non posting of judgements week

If all these post containing only judgements of my worth have proved anything - is that posting only such judgements about named fellow posters in these witch-hunts are a complete waste of poster's time and effort.

Perhaps it is better to just discuss the issue and views posted or just ignore it - if you find any aspect of a post annoying or irritating?

The concept that any poster has the right to try (in any way) to prevent another from expressing their honest views on our forum (as often as they wish to) is at the heart of this.

It is quite clear that all of the justifications given for the current Chief of the Mudcat Mudcat Editing Team' imposing special restrictions on my posting only - are bogus. Whatever your personal judgement of me may be - this abuse should concern you and you should request that these restrictions are lifted.

For it is obvious I and any other poster could endlessly post warm uncritical praise of our 'moderators' efforts many times and in as many threads as they wished (and some do) - and there would not be any action imposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 04:43 PM

Nine HUNDRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bananas, mangos, and drinks all around!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM

'For it is obvious I and any other poster could endlessly post warm uncritical praise of our 'moderators' efforts many times and in as many threads as they wished (and some do) - and there would not be any action imposed.'

That's true. But say something they don't like and it will be deleted relentlessly, and often. They look out for their own, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:07 PM

"They look out for their own, that's for sure."

This is also true of the Chicago police, the North Side Gorillas, the South Side Baboons, and every other organization I'm familiar with...

So what other pearls of wisdom ya got for us today?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:17 PM

Peel the banana so it will insert more easily. Howzat?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:25 PM

I always peel the banana before I eat it. I'm not stupid. How about I grease up a nice cold iron rod for you, pal? Sounds like you need one right about now.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:47 PM

Does he have to take his finger out first?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:50 PM

"Bill D - But what do you want?

You appear to support anonymous 'moderators' - however ineffective and counter-productive this may be to our forum..."

I would not support them if **I** considered them ineffective! I consider moderators essential...anonymity is almost irrelevant in my opinion...if something needs edited of deleted, I don't really care whether I know who did it. YOU are the one who seems to care.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But you then point our the advantages of a change to members only posting - and ingnore that this is NOT the Max approved status quo."

Totally different issue! I am aware that Max has not seen fit to institute this...I am merely noting my view of how it might help. I am not campaigning for this change, I am discussing it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you don't like Max's basic posting policy that our forum has always operated on - why have you stayed posting (and moaning) for so long and why do you not form your own private club? Why do you think you have some right after all this time, to impose your requirements on other posters on our forum?"

THAT is utter balderdash! You have taken my simple comments and twisted and re-stated what I said until it no longer resembles my opinion, my attitude or my intent! I don't WANT a private club..THIS is not a private club- anyone may be here. I would rather they be identified, but as you see, I live with the fact they are not.....and just where do you get off suggesting that I am even TRYING to **impose** anything on other posters?

   You, Shambles, are trying harder than anyone to impose one viewpoint on others. Insisting that no editing be done, that no anonymous moderators be allowed, that YOU are the judge of what language is appropriate, that nothing be changed without 'advanced permission' from a poster..etc..etc...is just as much an attempt to "IMPOSE" as any of the things you complain about! You are so wrapped up in your personal cloak of righteous indignation about imagined problems, that you can't see that most of the censure you receive is only BECAUSE of your own behavior.

It IS hopeless to talk to you. I now retire once more to the shadows. I don't like it when I catch myself beginning to tilt at windmills!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:57 PM

'How about I grease up a nice cold iron rod for you, pal? Sounds like you need one right about now.'

You perverted friggin' monkey. COLD IRON? Sheesh. Anyway, who's gonna learn shit from some guy that had Fay Wray in his hands and proceeded to let her get away? Eat yer banana. You need the potassium.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:05 PM

I agree with Wolfy Dan.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 07:32 PM

I would not support them if **I** considered them ineffective! I consider moderators essential...anonymity is almost irrelevant in my opinion...if something needs edited of deleted, I don't really care whether I know who did it. YOU are the one who seems to care.

But of course you do care very much about posters being anonymous - you have been moaning on and on about it for years and you still are.

all it would do is reduce the confusion that occurs when 23 'guests' are all posting at once...(or is it one guest with 23 agendas?)

But whether you or my Scottish friend consider our 'moderators' efforts to be effective - the fact is that THEY have admitted that they do not consider their best efforts to be effective. Which is why they now push MAX to change our forum into members only posting. Perhaps you should take this point up with them?

Their best efforts are either currently effective or they are not - which is it? If they are effective as you claim - why do they see the need for a further change to members only posting?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 04:45 AM

Totally different issue! I am aware that Max has not seen fit to institute this...I am merely noting my view of how it might help. I am not campaigning for this change, I am discussing it.

As indeed I am trying to do - when you refer to this as a campaign (or tilting at windmills). But you are seen to be publicly supporting the 'best efforts' of those who are publicly still pushing Max for this change - even though they have admitted the failure of their 'best efforts'. Could you expain to our forum why?

Subject: RE: Please delete personal attack
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05-Oct-06 - 04:25 PM

I know, it's a tossup about deleting nasty posts. If we delete such stuff while they're here and watching, they just post it again. I've seen Shambles do it eight times in a row, and then post a dozen messages complaining about the deletions.
If we don't delete the nasty stuff right away, then a dozen Mudcatters respond to it. Seems like a losing battle. I'm beginning to think that the only way we can bring it under control is to have members-only posting in BS, and a way to screen non-member posting in the music section before it becomes visible to the public.
-Joe-

You are so wrapped up in your personal cloak of righteous indignation about imagined problems, that you can't see that most of the censure you receive is only BECAUSE of your own behavior.

Am I also imagining the problem of these selective restrictions on my posting only? The record will show that my posting record is setting a far better example than the one shown by many of those who would judge me. It must now be clear to aall posters that my contributions are only restricted by (some of) our 'moderators' only because they do not like my views and do not wish to see them discussed.

But you can see from the above someone is certainly 'imagining that I post 'nasty posts' and for their own reasons is now publicly mis-imforming our forum of this fabrication. However, when when our anonymous 'moderators' find bogus reasons to 'silently delete' my posts - I have no way of knowing this has occured - as no editing comment of explanation of this action is given. So quite reasonably I try to post it again. Is it really any surprise that a poster may not be happy with such treatment of their posts on our forum?

Quite how the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges he can further control what he sees as a problem by the introduction of members only posting is unclear. What is clear is that he now wishes to first personally vet and aprove every single post to the music section. And following his recent example - if some post does manage to slip him by - he will have no hesitation in closing the entire thread.

Perhaps he will be finally happy when he can prevent everything he does not agree with from appearing or until he has managed to prevent ALL posting - to finally ensure that our forum is shaped to his requirements only.

I am sure BIll D - you will also been seen to support this? Or perhaps you may support it - but no one will then be able to see you support it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 05:05 AM

Please delete spam

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04-Oct-06 - 02:04 AM
I think we're going to have to live with Spam in that Dubliners thread. It's a long thread, so moving all the "good" messages would be difficult.
We've had maybe 25 Spam messages in that one thread. We delete them as we see them.
-Joe-

Then a bit later.

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07-Oct-06 - 03:24 PM
We get Spam in the Dubliners thread almost every day, so I finally decided to close the thread. It appears the Spam is being sent automatically.
-Joe-

Poor old Dubliners – it certainly isn't their fault- or mine. Or is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 05:45 AM

Poor old Dubliners – it certainly isn't their fault- or mine. Or is it?

No but I doubt whether than anyone other than you would complain about taking an action because of the ongoing problem of spam. It is difficult to know how to deal with it, there does seem to be automated "spam bots" around and the problem seems to be getting worse.

Here is a blacklist file for domains from MediaWiki (the software used by Wikipedia).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 05:57 AM

(I'd doubt that MC has a fraction of those "problem domians" btw. I think the Wiki list is more an indication of how things can go).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM

No but I doubt whether than anyone other than you would complain about taking an action because of the ongoing problem of spam.

Jon - it surely depends on what that action and its effect is. I suggest that closing threads and deleting things is not the cure-all answer to every problem on our forum. If indeed it is the answer to any?

Sometimes we become so intent on solving a problem that we may not notice that the so-called cure is in fact doing more harm that the original problem is supposed to cure. This I would suggest is the situation here.

I would prefer to read and contribute to the Dubliners thread - and ignore any spam - than not to be able to read, contribute or refresh the thread at all. Which is now the case - what next?

We got used to static on the radio - most of us tend to treat spam in the same way, do our best to ignore it but not allow it to spoil our enjoyment. Few of us would have thought that throwing the radio away or not making any programmes - would be a sensible reaction to deal with static.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 12:50 PM

Please forgive the cut and paste but below is a Shambles post from the summer of 2000!!! It might easily fit into this thread. It's the same story folks and he's been making people post and respond for all that time. He'll never stop as long as we keep feeding him reasons to. I also apologize for THIS post but I wanted you all to see that if you think you're going to change anything by responding to him, well, it hasn't worked in over SIX years!!!

***************************************************************


Music threads are routinely retitled and consolidated and cross-indexed as part of our indexing process, to help make it easier for people to find songs by song title or songwriter name. If space permits, the original thread title is retained, with clarifying words added. Non-music threads are occasionally retitled for clarity, but the need to retitle non-music threads does not arise as frequently because non-music threads are not used for reference.
-Joe Offer-

Yes it is mostly well-intention but perhaps it is as well to forget the fancy words and the 'spin'? Routine censorship imposed by anonymous volunteer posters - upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without their prior knowledge or permission is what we are talking about here.

My main point is that "our" indexing process does not seem to involve obtaining the agreement of the contributors. When the issues here - like whether a thread is combined into one - left as the poster made it - or have a link to others - are largely a question of personal taste - as Jon's post indicates.

The question is - whose personal taste? Why not mine, Jon's or your's?

As you can't please all of the people all of the time - perhaps it is better that the personal tastes of each contributor are respected and any changes to their contribution are only made with their agreement?   

We could all argue forever about the merits of each imposed change - (that is why it is better not to impose one's personal taste and judgement upon others). But Jon mentioned the Cyril Tawney thread so I will express my personal view on that imposed change.

A link to the two threads would have been better as one was started when he was alive (if very ill) and the others was started after his death. The originator of the later thread - did have the option of refreshing an existing one - but chose to start a new one.

Perhaps poster's freely made choices like this - can be respected by all our volunteers (especially the anonymous ones) - from now on?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 01:15 PM

I think Shambles made some good points in his last post and the 2000 note.

Can I ask one question Shambles? (no, that was not the one question!) After repeatedly making your point well known, and realizing that you are powerless to change the minds of the "hosts" of this party - what drives you to keep making your point?    The silence of the host, and the repeated examples that continue to occur serve to make your point. Why bother to continue making the same suggestion when it appears that it is falling on deaf ears, and you end up becoming the victim of scorn because of your persistence?

Again, I am not knocking your opinion nor do am I attacking you - I do see your points more clearly, but it is obvious that the powers that be aren't going to change.   Could you expain to our forum why you continue?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 01:33 PM

Ron,

Shambles just enjoys being argumentative. He knows that he won't change anything but he likes the attention that he is getting. The fact that so many people respond to him both postively and negatively charges his battery. If everyone would just stop responding, like we did about a month ago, there wouldn't be much left for him to say. Read 10 posts from Shambles. They are all basicly the same.

Perhaps it is time to end this thread once and for all and, if Max so desires, finally send Shambles into cyberspace with Martin Gibson. He really is annoying the hell out of too many people. There isn't any site that I know of that is unmoderated and that doesn't do selective editing. Moderators have the right to do WHATEVER THEY WANT. If the site owner, Max, doesn't like what they do he can replace them. If a poster doesn't like what they do he can go post somewhere else.

Sambles, stop making everyone miserable with your constant bellyaching. You said you piece, no one cares to do it your way so stop!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 01:48 PM

Guest - the ONLY way that Shambles can make you { or anyone else } miserable is if you give him the power to do so by reading his posts. So.........

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM

Jon - it surely depends on what that action and its effect is. I suggest that closing threads and deleting things is not the cure-all answer to every problem on our forum

shambles, the idea that is considered to be a "cure all" is aomething that I believe only exists in your mind.

While deletions may still be needed, the answer (if there really is one) to spam in the longer term is likely to focus more on improving defences in order to prevent as much as practical getting as far as appearing on the forum. In the meanwhile, the mods just have to do thier best with the limited tools they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 01:53 PM

" He knows that he won't change anything but he likes the attention that he is getting. The fact that so many people respond to him both postively and negatively charges his battery"

Guest - I think the two sentence that I copied above speak volumes. Are all of us being a bit hypocritical?   The "anti-Shambles" posts are doing the exact same thing that they are accusing Shambles of - you won't change anything but you like the attention. The fact that he responds charges the batteries of the posters. We are all the same when you get right down to it. There is no difference.

I honestly would love to hear Shambles response to my question instead of everyone else putting their words in first.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 02:03 PM

I would prefer to read and contribute to the Dubliners thread - and ignore any spam - than not to be able to read, contribute or refresh the thread at all. Which is now the case - what next?

What we do know is this:


Subject: RE: Tech: Error 503 Service Unavailable
From: Max
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 09:26 PM
[snip]

2. Spam is increasing. We get hammered every day with thousands upon thousands of attacks from people and worms and spiders trying to use our site for nothing we want. We usually have more manpower to deal with it, but:

3. We're down a very key member of our staff due to an ongoing family emergency. Our planned upgrade for the 10th anniversary includes a great deal of behind the scenes defense systems, but is delayed due to this issue that I will talk more about pretty soon.
[...]

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 03:17 PM

I think Shambles made some good points in his last post

Not really, Ron. His points were based

a) on the false premise that closures and deletions are believed to be a "cure all". This is something that has been pointed out to him on numerous occasions but he continues to use it to make his points.

b) apparently under the belief that user prefererence is the only factor.

I know of no site owner who would willingly, at his own expense, advertise irrelevant material which is often dubious in content for an unknown 3rd party. I also know of no site owner who would wish to encourage such "advertisers" by allowing the material to remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 03:38 PM

Guest, I was referring more to Shambles suggestion that deletions and closures are often based on personal choice, and I do think that is fair to say.   I also agree with you that no site owner would willingly leave certain posts up, which is where there seems to be some issues.

No one is going to agree with every reason. No one is going to like every posting. My take is that everyone should make their point and then get on with life. If the powers that be have not shown an indication to change, it won't happen. It is no longer a question of right or wrong, because the only person that has the "right" answer is the host - who will do as they please.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 04:08 PM

Guest, I was referring more to Shambles suggestion that deletions and closures are often based on personal choice, and I do think that is fair to say.

Again Ron, this is something that has been hammered out time and time again...

I wouldn't use the wording "personal choice" but I don't think anyone disputes that many decisions are based on "personal judgement" and can not be taken by rules that are written in stone. I also would doubt you will find many who at least in thier own opinion believe that on occasions a wrong decision has been made.

I do not know exactly how things work now but when I was a clone here, there was a structure and the clones only used powers of deletion in very limited circumstances (eg. a duplicated post, perhaps blatant spam , etc. - things where there was no question).

Anything further was dealt by Joe and Jeff, and "in consultation" with Max.

There also was, and I believe still is, a clear complaints procedure where one takes a matter to Joe Offer first and then onto Max.

Things might have changed a little from there but is my belief that a structure and chain of command still exists and that ultimately the "judgement calls" are in fact done under what I will call "Max's editorial guidelines".

By contrast, shambles' "mudcat view" appears to be based on Joe Offer sort of taking control and not acting in accordance with any "editorial guidelines". It is a situation that I do not believe exits.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 05:00 PM

If the powers that be have not shown an indication to change, it won't happen. It is no longer a question of right or wrong, because the only person that has the "right" answer is the host - who will do as they please.

Ron - your view is a reasonable one for a poster who has found our forum in the state of evolution that you have. But if you look back at Max's public statements - you will not see the 'take-it-or-leave attitude to the wishes of our forum's posters - that you quite reasonably express.

Again it must be pretty obvious that our 'moderators' next step - of members only posters - being allowed to post only what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has first personally vetted and approved of, before he allows it on to our forum - is not very much to my liking. And that I (and others posters) would have been very unlikely to be attracted by a forum containing all this anonymous interference, restriction and judgement. So it must be pretty obvious that our forum - that I and others posters found on Max's site - was a rather different one to the one posters see now (and largely accept as it always being).

What you refer to as the 'powers that be' were then only my fellow posters - not as you now see - my judge, jury and lynching party.

Again, I am not knocking your opinion nor do am I attacking you - I do see your points more clearly, but it is obvious that the powers that be aren't going to change.   Could you expain to our forum why you continue?

Things change - and it is right that they do - but my view is that there is never any need to be seen to carelessly throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I just try post my views to encourage and take part in discussion - as I always have and I will always try to. In the process of this debate, there is the hope that a little bit more of our precious freedoms - will not be as thoughtlessly curtailed as they might have been. There is some evidence to support this view.

Ron - that is the simple answer to your question. Perhaps the question you need to be asking is why it is thought necessary to make such a fuss in order to try to encourage so many different ways to prevent me and other posters from continuing?

With all due respect - perhaps you will accept that 'the problem' is not me or any other individual poster - no matter what posters may be currently encouraged to accept. Perhaps we can now go back to discussing the issue of closed threads and deleted posts?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 06:06 PM

Back off children, back off now! His objective is to take this through the "K". Don't help him, he can post and post and post but let him do this alone.
He can come back to the fold when he wishes to, but don't help him to do this. He is running rings around you for his pleasure. He repeats, you repeat, stop now.
Skipy (his next target)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 06:14 PM

"...the ONLY way that Shambles can make you { or anyone else } miserable is if you give him the power to do so by reading his posts. So........."
-Wesley S


Just because a person reads a post by Shambles, he or she becomes miserable??!

In my opinion, if a person becomes miserable after reading a post of this forum [or any other forum] that is written by Shambles [or any other person], then the problem is that person's and not the person who wrote the text.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 06:18 PM

Yep, skipy. I will try to go back to just reading yet again...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 06:24 PM

I've been delighted after reading some posts on this forum.

I've felt energized after reading some posts on this forum.

I've been angry after reading posts on this forum.

I've been sad after reading post on this forum.

But miserable? Naw.

Of course, different strokes for different folks.

I guess some people could say that when I felt happy, energized, angry, sad etc after reading certain post on this forum, I gave people the power to influence my mood. But even when I felt sad at some of the Mudcat goings on, I didn't feel miserable.

But-on second thought-there have been some name calling posts that may have made some individuals feel miserable.

I don't count Shamble's posts among those miserable posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 06:35 PM

But-on second thought-there have been some name calling posts that may have made some individuals feel miserable.

I don't count Shamble's posts among those miserable posts.

Well one hopefully final comment from me for a while. We all vary but personally I find polite round about methods like".

"which others might consider not to be truthful"

can be more offensive than

"I believe he's a fu**ing liar".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 10:07 PM

"With all due respect - perhaps you will accept that 'the problem' is not me or any other individual poster - no matter what posters may be currently encouraged to accept. Perhaps we can now go back to discussing the issue of closed threads and deleted posts?"

I agree with you 100% on that!! Shambles, I think you have eloquently stated your case and as I said earlier in this discussion, it took me awhile to understand your points.   While I don't agree with everything you say, I do think you have the right to say it (unless the host shuts down the party!). Others (including myself at times, and I apologize) have either goaded you into needless argueing or taken an opportunity to swipe at you, and it has sidetracked and clouded the whole discussion.

However, because the owners of this site seem to condone the behavior of the guests and bouncers, this argument will never reach a conclusion. We are just using this thread as an excuse to spout off whatever we wish, seemingly without reprecussion.   None of us have anything to complain about as we are doing what we wish.

I wish you success in your endeavour.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 10:21 PM

Just don't say anything at all that is not ass-kissing about the queen bee or your posts will be deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:04 AM

Others (including myself at times, and I apologize) have either goaded you into needless argueing or taken an opportunity to swipe at you, and it has sidetracked and clouded the whole discussion.

Bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:25 AM

The silence of the host, and the repeated examples that continue to occur serve to make your point. Why bother to continue making the same suggestion when it appears that it is falling on deaf ears, and you end up becoming the victim of scorn because of your persistence?

When you are encouraged by the example currently set - to post publicly ONLY to judge the worth of and to call other posters names - this will always say far more about you and your shortcomings than it does about the object of your scorn.

But it has always appeared to me that our forum's host has provided just about everything that all of their invited guests could require. For those who think that a good party is making personal judgements about and jokes at the expense of certain of their fellow guests - to other guests - Max has even provided personal messages where this can be done without inflicting it on our forum as an example of public posting behaviour to be followed.

The bottom line is - would any host who effectivly invites the whole world to their party - really expect everyone to be of a like-mind?

I strongly feel that it is up to any guest who appreciates Max's invitation to freely express their views - NOT to be seen to support (even by their silence) any unfair attempts to deny to other posters - what they themselves accept as a right. No matter how these attempts may be disguised and justified.

That does not of course mean that our host has to have to live with any old shit posted up on their walls. Our host has every right to throw away the foul-smelling bath water by all means - but please take care to leave the babies behind?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:27 AM

And the walls...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:31 AM

perhaps the host is silent because he wants to spare himself "making the same suggestion when it appears that it is falling on deaf ears"?

Does your remark about the bathwater mean you accept it's ok for moderators to delete spam?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:48 AM

Does your remark about the bathwater mean you accept it's ok for moderators to delete spam?

If you actually read my posts - you will see that my problem is NOT with our moderators deleting spam or with spam being deleted from our forum automatically.

I do have a problem when having removed the spam - entire threads are then closed by our 'moderators - because of the possiblity some more spam MAY appear in it. To me that does not seem to be very sensible, proportionate nor to be showing much respect to the poster's invited contributions to that thread.....Does it to you?

If any should appear - then delete JUST the spam - do allow our 'moderators' to be seen to use it as yet another excuse to close yet another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 06:09 AM

... allow our 'moderators' to be seen to use it as yet another excuse to close yet another thread.

Nonsense shambles. The idea that the mods go round looking for an excuse to close threads exists only in your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:58 AM

Nonsense shambles. The idea that the mods go round looking for an excuse to close threads exists only in your mind.

Is it only in my mind that (for his own purposes) the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has intentionally littered this thread with the very same type of spam which its appearence there - he has used as an excuse to closed the Dubliners thread?

I expect any minute that he will use its presence in this thread as a excuse to close this one down too................Even though it was the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who placed the spam here, unbidden in response to an anonymous 'compalint'.. Please delete spam

Not of course an act that would be described as 'hijacking' a thread. As those sort terms are now reserved for a poster simply posting any views that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not agree with and wishes to prevent our forum from seeing.

Rather like the use of the term 'complaint' and the restrictions now seen to be imposed on any post so judged and described by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team as any view that he may not agree with. When any poster is seen to be permitted to express any flattering views about our 'moderators' efforts as often and in as many threads as they wish without getting relgated to the BS section.

But where 'complaints' in posts, from one poster about the posting of another are not restricted or discouraged at all, but actively encouraged on our forum and where there is now even a special Snitchers Corner set-up for this - called The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:06 AM

Nonsense shambles. The idea that the mods go round looking for an excuse to close threads exists only in your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:24 AM

not to be able to read, contribute or refresh the thread at all. (Shambles)

You may not know it, Shambles, but you can read that thread.
click
So one part of what you say is simply not true.

As for posting and refreshing, you are invited by Joe to post to other Dubliners' threads and I'm sure he'd be pleased if you just start a follow up thread with a link to the old thread in the first post. That would be a constructive act instead of headbanging.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 09:15 AM

Nonsense shambles. The idea that the mods go round looking for an excuse to close threads exists only in your mind.

No - the idea exists alright - in Snitchers Corner

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:24 PM

The suggestion that our forum be a place where all threads remain open to be refreshed by any poster - may seem totally idealistic to many posters - when it is of course nothing of the sort.

So routine has thread closure now become that it may be news to some posters that our forum managed perfectly well for many years without any threads being closed at all. It was only fairly recently that our 'moderators' were armed with this weapon.

I see that as a sad day for our forum. For now our 'moderators' scratch around to find an excuse to close a thread and encourage other posters to suggests candidates for closure - and give the impression that this has always been the case and that it achieves something.

The reason I refer to it as finding an excuse - is that although the act of imposing closure on threads has now become routine it makes no difference to the running of our forum nor improved the level of posting behaviour on our forum.

The hysteria now generated on our forum by the concept of imposing closure on threads has become nothing but a counter-productive distraction. an end in itself. Playing about with posters invited contributions now appears to have become a bit of a fun game for our 'moderators'.

Posters are now encouraged to take part in this game by finding threads to be closed - (along with other imposed actions on the post of others) - rather than be encouraged to simply concentrate on their own posting. It would be nice to see a return on our forum to where all threads remained open.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:28 PM

Go slag a mod. The post will disappear within 12 hours. Especially posts about the queen-bee mod.

Rip the shit out of a regular member and the shit will stick around. Shambles is right about much he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:29 PM

The power of the private edit button.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 11:22 PM

And here I don't even know who the 'queen-bee mod' is. The sham is SO right; there is real hysteria about.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:44 AM

You may not know it, Shambles, but you can read that thread.
click
So one part of what you say is simply not true.

Thank you Wolfgang - You have a backward way of saying it - but I am glad you accept the rest of what I say is being perfectly true.

A poster cannot refresh a closed thread as they cannot post to it. The only way any poster can read a closed thread (once it falls of the bottom is if they search for a thread they will not know even exists, or if there is the link to the thread provided.

Perhaps - IF THESE ROUTINE THREAD CLOSURES ARE TO CONTINUE - Our 'moderators' can always ensure that there is a record of the thread kept for posters to see and a permanent link provided to enable posters to read the clossed thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 03:18 AM

The only way any poster can read a closed thread (once it falls of the bottom is if they search for a thread they will not know even exists, or if there is the link to the thread provided.

Surely that applies to any thread - closed or not? Once it's gone off the bottom, you've got to take some action to find it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 04:28 AM

Surely that applies to any thread - closed or not? Once it's gone off the bottom, you've got to take some action to find it.

Yes of course. But having taken this action and the time and trouble to find it, being able to read a thread is only one part of the inter-active experience that is our forum.

For having taken this time and trouble to find a thread - you may then wish to contribute to it. Which you not be able to do - if the thread has been subject to closure for some unspecified reason by some anonymous 'moderator'.

And of course you will only know - after you have read (or scrolled down) the entire thread - if you do wish to add something. And only at this point will you see a little note by the box you are about to make your contribution in, telling you that you cannot do this - as the thread is closed..........

Then when you have started a new thread on the subject - you will find a post from some helpful poster (often a 'moderator') who will inform you and our forum - that we have already discussed this subject in an earlier thread (perhaps not being aware that it was not possible to refresh this earlier thread.

Even when you find that the in question thread is not closed and it is possible to refresh it - posters are not sure if this is judged to be the best course of action. As after you have done this - you will find a post fron some helpful poster (often a 'moderator' telling you and our forum that this is not the right thing to do and suggesting that starting a new thread would be the correct course of action.

I have seen both actions to be publicly judged right and be judged wrong by our 'moderators'. No wonder posters are confused.

So in addition to the direct inhibition cause by our 'moderators' intentionally making it impossible for a poster to refreash a closed thread - there is indirect inhibition cause by this uncertainty about whether either of these actions will be seen to be judged wrong by our 'moderators'.

I would have thought that the role of any 'moderation, would be to be seen to enable and encourage posting and would not wish to be seen in any way to inhibit any poster from contributing. That does not now appear to be the case on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,He Who Shall Not be Named
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM

I support Shambles for his bravery here, and for his ability to expose Corporate Mudcat for what it is.

This place is a cesspool of much anti-American activity.

Mudcat and al-Qaida, arm in arm against America.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:42 AM

approximately 50 closed threads out of over 95 thousand threads. yes, horribly oppressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:13 AM

Blah, blah, blah...

Worse than CNN.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:18 AM

Maybe. But Shambles tells more truth than CNN.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:24 AM

Has Art Blakey's birthday been 'hijacked'?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:27 AM

approximately 50 closed threads out of over 95 thousand threads. yes, horribly oppressive.

When all 50 of them were started by you - perhaps you may think it so?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:39 AM

The closed threads were not all started by one person unless that person is posting under multiple identities.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:52 AM

I recall 2 threads I started that were deleted (well, "closed", actually)...

In both cases it was due to what I regardes as harmless humour but that someone else deemed offensive to some particular group of people (but not the same group, by the way). (in one case I was making fun of really obnoxious rappers, most of whom are assumed to be black, generally speaking) (in the other case I was posting in a ridiculous quasi-Japanese accent...but the person who deleted the thread has no way of knowing that I respect and like the Japanese far more than most other westerners do...but so what?)

I was surprised to have my threads terminated. Both times. I didn't expect that. I momentarily was a bit irritated about it. Then I accepted the fact that (1) I don't control the rest of the world and I never shall; and (2) it didn't matter much anyway.

And I moved on. I suggest you do the same. Think of the time and energy you will save which can be put to good use doing something constructive.

Think of the time I have just wasted typing out this piece of advice which you will surely not follow. ;-) LOL! We are all big time wasters when it comes right down to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:53 AM

Has Art Blakey's birthday been 'hijacked'?

Yes, Shambles, it has, and you've been the one to start that with your response to a simple suggestion, a response that had nearly nothing to do with my request but all with your crusade.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM

SO if you don't like the behavior you adopt it?   Hmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:02 PM

And I moved on. I suggest you do the same.

Thank you for your suggestion.

But it was only the fact that that I have carried on that enabled you to make your suggestion in this thread.

And as a result of this thread remaining open for free and open discussion of this subject (so far) - perhaps the next time your humour and intentions are misunderstood - your threads containing this - will also be allowed to remain open?

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestions for Mudcatter-made SS gifts
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:04 PM

SS gifts - the mind boggles..........

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestions for Mudcatter-made SS gifts
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM

Only yours Shambles... or what passes for yours.

Damn good idea Kat!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:17 PM

SO if you don't like the behavior you adopt it?

No, I address it, so that next time Shambles may respond to a simple suggestion with a simple response and not try to make his response part of his obsession.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestions: Mudcatter-made SecretSanta gifts
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:19 PM

My point is made and and at least partly taken.

For my Mudcat Secret Santa - I would like all posters to be able to make nice long thread titles - like this one now is.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:32 PM

You address it by adopting it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:33 PM

O wad some Power the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
(from Robert Burns: To a louse)

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestions: Mudcatter-made SecretSanta gi
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:58 PM

Can we please not have to endure this moron cluttering up this thread too....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 01:03 PM

Amen..

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 01:18 PM

Art Blakey's birthday squabble

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 01:21 PM

Art Blakey's birthday (11 October 1919)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 01:33 PM

Well, I think the moderators should be applauded for doing their job. Adding "squabble" to the one thread makes perfect sense and the other thread remains to contain on target conversation about the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:01 PM

Another gem from Snitchers Corner.

Please remove Shambles

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:30 PM

Adding "squabble" to the one thread makes perfect sense and the other thread remains to contain on target conversation about the topic.

That is your view - which unlike me - you are welcome to express on any thread you wish.

But as all the hysteria and restrictions on my posting is justified as protecting our forum from 'duplicate posts' - and the 'hi-jacking' of threads - my view is that all of this anonymous imposition, suspicion, paranoia and fuss over creating two of these birthday threads on our forum - makes very little logical sense to me.....

What would make sense is to enable all posters to make longer thread titles. See this (now closed) thread.

TECH Longer thread titles please

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:38 PM

"my view is that all of this anonymous imposition, suspicion, paranoia and fuss over creating two of these birthday threads on our forum - makes very little logical sense to me..... "

I do agree,the fuss over the two threads make very little sense to me. The moderator resolved it, like it or not, and it becomes time to move on to bigger things.

And I do agree with you Shambles, some of your threads are hijacked by posters (such as what occured in Art Blakely)without any reason.   The topic is started, let it alone. There is no need for ANYONE to drift or attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 03:09 AM

Well, I think the moderators should be applauded for doing their job. Adding "squabble" to the one thread makes perfect sense and the other thread remains to contain on target conversation about the topic.

Perhaps? I suggest that any applause be reserved for such time as there is any evidence that such actions are seen to be entirely free from any suspicion of being part of selective and personally motivated witch-hunt on our forum.

For until other poster are seen to be able to post abusive personal judgements only and be safe from any censure and the 'hi-jacking of other threads by them containing this are NOT encouraged to be subjected to such a public frenzy - which seems to be reserved for selective posters only - perhaps any applause is rather hollow? For example.

2,600 Iraq civilians killed in September

But the bottom line is always - is this action actually having any positive affect for our forum - or is it counter-productive? I think there is much evidence that this continuing patchy and unequal treatment of posters by our 'moderators' is counter-productive and very little evidence that it is at all effective. Nor what its aims are.

Whatever these aims may be - they do not appear to include ensuring that our forum can continue to be open for the public's contributions - as it always has.

There could be some suspicion that in fact (some of) our current 'moderators' are actually set on creating a situation where their favoured concept of a change to members only posting is considered by Max more favourable than it currently appears to be.

---

Crap deleted and discussion moved here (click) to another thread on the same subject. Thanks for pointing that out, Shambles.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:57 AM

C'mon, Ron,

when I make the same suggestion for the second time I'm already adpting Shambles? You must have read all that nonsense. But I'm repeating it once more:

my first request:
may I ask you here to include the respective date in the title. That would make these threads more user friendly.

Shambles' response:
Then rather that post here only to judge - please by all means place there anything that you judge would make those threads (and any other threads) more interesting and informative. I place only the little information I do to encourage others to post their contributions. I also learn a lot form this and also from surfing to find the information.

That used to be the postive way things used to work on our forum - before posters were encouraged by the negative example given ONLY to pass judgements on the worth of a thread or post or of the worth of the poster and to call them names. And encouraged to simply swoon with horror at the thought of seing the titles of more than one thread at a time.

If it is a thread with little information - why not encourage other posters to provide it?

If a thread is questionably music related - then add it and attempt to keep it there - rather only judge it and than ask that it be relegated to the BS.

These birthday threads were an idea to try and return some of the old spirit of shared fun and joint discovery that makes our forum different to those sites obbsessed only with order.   

To encourage the act of posting - not to find ways that CAN only inhibit the posting of reasonable discussion.

Was that a normal response to a simple question? Something like "good idea" or "No, I'm not going to do that"? Nearly all of the "response" was completely unrelated to my question and made no sense in that context. As for the place there anything that you judge would make those threads (and any other threads) more interesting and informative that did miss my point. Whatever I add will not be in the title and therefore not show in the forum search which I prefer as long as the super search is not updated. I may want to look in a year or two who had birthday on a certain day and was mentioned already in MC. With the super search not updated this will be a time consuming and tedious task.

When I asked him in this thread once more he reacted not like a more than 50 years old adult. Had he said anything clearly here and not acted like a child I would never have asked the same request in a music thread. I do not think that repeating the same question again and again and again after a clear response is a valid way of arguing. But if I have not read a serious response I may ask again. That's what I did.

And I did include his first response so he could see why I was asking again. I did hope that outside of this Shamblecentric thread he would act a bit more reasonable than he does in here. I care about MC as a music resource and therefore I try to make it more useful whenever possible. I still think my suggestion to include the birth date in the title is a good one. Shambles was reading in(to) that request another attack upon his holy right to post in whatever way he likes.

Since more than two years he does not react to simple suggestions or corrections of fact or questions how he has meant a post in any remotely reasonable way.

He did choose in the music thread not to give me a clear response but to mention his crusade against the moderators:
The problem - as you well know is that - with the longer names - ordinary posters like me - do not always have enough characters available to them to place the birthdate in the title.
That had again no meaningful relation to my request so I did ask on for the simple reason that I did not understand the reasoning behind the words. (Same as you do when you ask him something)


Finally then, for the first time Shambles gave a reason why he is not willing (he says "able") to follow my suggestion:

I have already explained to you that with the number of characters available to ordinary posters - it is not always possible to include the birthdate in the title. When that problem is addressed and solved - I will then be able to do what you keep on requesting me to do.

My God, if he had written something like that as the first response he could have saved a lot of typing and would not have ruined a music thread he had started.

I clear English he says:
I won't include dates in birthday threads even if it is possible as long as the moderators can use more characters in titles than I can.

The reasoning behind this argumentation makes not much sense to me and once more reminds me rather of a stubborn boy than of a grown up person but it finally a clear statement.

There is no need now any longer to repeat my suggestion more often than perhaps once a year.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 07:37 AM

I clear English he says:

I won't include dates in birthday threads even if it is possible as long as the moderators can use more characters in titles than I can.

Wolgang: The way you have post this indicates that it is a quote. Perhaps you would confirm that it is not.

In any discussion about what another poster should or should not place in a threads title - the fact that our 'moderators' still have more characters available to them for this purpose than ordinary posters is of course perfectly relevant.

Especially when our 'moderators' are seen to judge our efforts to try and make thread titles informative as wanting - when they impose their judgement and use the additional characters available to them - to create a longer title. And to do this without the originators knowledge or permission.

Ron - please make Wolfgang happy and tell him what he wants to hear. Please tell him that you agree that I am acting like a child and that he (and a few others) are not. The important point is that this situation is seen to place very little credit at all on any of us on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:13 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment, as it was inserted into an existing post (even though no editing action was imposed) and did not refresh this thread.

Crap deleted and discussion moved here (click) to another thread on the same subject. Thanks for pointing that out, Shambles.
-Joe Offer-

[Sound of deafening applause]

Thank goodness for all these tireless and selfless efforts - as a result of which - we can all sleep soundly in our beds all night.

Or some of us can. Some of us wake up to find that we have judged, our posts are no longer there, no longer as posted or the the entire thread has been anonymously deleted, moved, combined or closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:51 AM

Wolfgang asks:

Was that a normal response to a simple question?

Perhaps you would have preferred a response like the following?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:34 PM

Request considered. Denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:27 AM

So Wolfgang, if I am reading your posts correctly, you admit that you are acting just like Shambles? And that solves what exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 11:05 AM

There are numerous 'silent deletions' on threads. The queen is at it. Loves that edit button.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 11:49 AM

An offer not to be refused

I have no idea what this thread was about and I don't expect that our forum will ever know.

Some things are just none of your business, Shambles. Threads and posts that are spam, or sales gimmicks, do not require your input. It is neither sought nor desired. Mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM

Life goes on.

Again, I don't see this as a problem. It is nothing to lose sleep over, and I do not consider this censorship because of the way the site has ALWAYS been designed.

The moderators (assigned by the owner of this site) can edit as they see fit. You have the right to complain, but understand they have the right to do what they do.

Of course that is my opinion, and I realize that you have a different one Shambles. The fact will always remain, it is not our show.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM

You have been told by an official editor, Shambles. TOLD, do you hear?

Of course he has. Discussing it with him has been tried for years. Doesn't work, mainly because he doesn't want it too. No discussion. This is how it is. Mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 12:18 PM

The fact will always remain, it is not our show.

The fact is that it does remain our show.

It is not our anonymous Mudfelf's show? He, she or it is just a bouncer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:19 PM

"The fact is that it does remain our show. "

No it is not. We are guests at their show.   

Bouncers rules, like it or not, is what we are required to live by. If you can't convince the host to make changes after all this time - it probably won't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:43 PM

Bouncers love KARMA.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:51 PM

Actually, they are not the bouncers' rules. They are the owner's rules. The bouncers just enforce them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 02:12 PM

Ron - Our bouncers are simply posters like you and I (except the masked ones) who were encouraged to have a say in the way our forum appears. All posters to our forum were encouraged to see and support our forum in a similar way – even if they were not all favoured with edit buttons..

Rather like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm - posession of this edit button seems to lead them to now consider themselves to be more equal than others.

It is not a question of our host making changes or not. I question why any 'moderator' who is not seen to be committed to supporting our host's continuing open invitation for the public's contributions and making this work - would now wish to continue.

For there must be some question if they can be seen by our forum to be making their best efforts for our forum. It may be thought that those who openly call for a change to memebers only posting may have an agenda of their own.

I suspect that if our host considers this to be a minority concern on our forum - he may well see no good reason to make any changes. But it is difficult for anyone to tell if this is really the case. As any poster who is seen to post anything but uncritical support of our 'moderators' - is considered to making a personal judgement of the individuals concerned (even the anonymous ones).

Again you tend to support the principle of 'moderation' as an immovable 'done-deal' - whatever its effects - when my concern is more with measuring the effectiveness or the counter-productive results of this particular brand of 'moderation'.

It seems that where there may be choice between obtain the same result through its imposition and other methods - the former will always be the preferred option – whatever the reaction. As think the following example demonstrates.

Please combine threads?.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 02:26 PM

No sense covering the same old ground, so I won't repeat myself. I've already addressed your points.   

The bottom line is - you have repeated your case numerous times and the host is not budging. You are either being played for a fool by the powers that be, or they just aren't understanding you.

I guess there is also a third possiblity, the host doesn't care - yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 02:29 PM

Two legs good, four legs bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 02:38 PM

Didn't Orwell write that the other way around?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 02:59 PM

The host clearly doesn't care enough to do anything about it...and I believe that would accurately describe the attitude of most of the membership as well. ;-)

I mean, bitching about it all the time is one thing...but actually DOING something about it?????????????????????

You GOTTA be kidding, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 03:01 PM

That would require exercising some force of will! It would also take up a bit of time and EFFORT. And...and...being organized enough to make that effort effective too, eh? Geez. Whaddya want?

Like I said, you gotta be kidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 03:04 PM

Here's a heady idea. While we're at it, let's all put together a project to land on Venus! Yeah. I think that the membership and management of this here forum needs an objective they can really sink their teeth into, and this thread just doesn't do it. Not a big enough deal. We need a whole new and compelling reason to turn on the computer in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 03:21 PM

See, Little Hawk, that's just the kind of defeatist thinking I deplore. Mudcat's owner has not appeared to change his mind on the matter so it might behoove us to carry on toward the goal? (OK, everybody, on your feet. On to Venus!)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 03:25 PM

YES!!!! ON TO VENUS! By God, I feel new energy pouring into my veins...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 03:25 PM

And what's wrong with Mars ??

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 03:50 PM

On to Venus

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:01 PM

[PM] Max Max's Thought for the Day - Aug 7, 2000 (43) A Rant (Pondering Aloud) 07 Aug 00

Max's Mudcat Job Description: To make sure the Mudcat works, technically. To continue to upgrade and enhance to compensate for increased volume. To add and edit features to make the Mudcat more usable and just plain better. To work with those who support the Mudcat and provide a resource to Mudcat users and the folk world in general such as Folk Legacy and Camsco Records. To help users with technical problems and login issues.

Do you see what is missing? Well it's not missing at all.
I AM NOT A THERAPIST. I AM NOT A BABYSITTER. I AM NOT A PROFESIONAL MODERATOR. I DON'T SETTLE ARGUMENTS. I DON'T CARE.

I created a Web site, a discussion forum, a community about and for music. This is what I do care about. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy and am proud of the personal nature of our little forum here. I don't mean to discourage such activity, I hope it continues. However, I am not Dad in the front seat of the car trying to settle a dispute between the children in the back seat.

I remember during the Congressional hearings about Clinton and Lewinski each Congress Person had a chance to address the Congress with a statement. One of our Congress Women used her allotted time to talk about her grandchildren. You see, everything said in the Congress is a permanent historical record. So in protest of the insane and pointless use of our powerful government's resources, she used the time, she used her reserved little spot in American History, to say Hi to her grandchildren and their grandchildren and so on.
I also believe that the Mudcat is a historical record, and I am equally certain that it will last forever. A record of Song and Story and Life. A record of me, a record of us. A record that will exist forever. One that our grandchildren will see, and their grandchildren.

My thoughts and feelings and silliness and actions are all on display here. for good. When I post a message, I might stop and think that about that. Good ol' Tom Jefferson always believed that you should judge your every action as if the whole world was watching. Well they are folks. and they will be forever.
The first reason for everything I do is always the same.
THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS
If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.

Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:04 PM

"THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS
If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.
Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy."

Good words. I have not noticed those last two sentences before. They speak volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:12 PM

Good words. I have not noticed those last two sentences before. They speak volumes.

Yes good words indeed - there are many more such good words from Max.
Sadly not everyone now seems to see it that way.

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:21 PM

Okay - I am still trying to understand this:

You have said you do not wish to tell Max how to run his site.

You have said that you understand that the forum is part of Max's site.

The moderators are delegated by Max to do the day to day running of the site; (which you have said you don't want to tell Max how to do)

So why do you want to discuss changing things if you don't want to tell Max how to run things, when they are doing what Max has requested of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:23 PM

"If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.
Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy."

Sometimes you can't fight City Hall. Sometimes you need to pick your battles. It doesn't make you wrong, it just makes you smart.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:42 PM

It's karma, man, karma.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:22 PM

Please note that the quote from Max that Shambles uses is from the year 2000. Here is a more current quote:

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: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:33 PM

And here is a bit more of that same quote that my friend Mick left out.

Joe: Do I need to separate you two?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:37 PM

998

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:37 PM

999

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:37 PM

1000!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:41 PM

You piss me off, Offer. I have never claimed one of the 100 or 1000 posts. After all these years, you just couldn't let me have one, could you? LOL.

Got any good recipes?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:42 PM

Sometimes you can't fight City Hall. Sometimes you need to pick your battles. It doesn't make you wrong, it just makes you smart.

And when it is obvious that it is a case of City Hall picking their battles - and choosing you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:47 PM

I know, Mick. It was cheap and tawdry, and I'm ashamed of myself.
[grin]
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:48 PM

I KNEW we'd reach one thousand before I left the office today. But truth be known I've got my eyes set on 5,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:50 PM

Oh no, you volunteered. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:55 PM

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS
If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.

Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy.
Max


It used to make some posters happy to post only to claim 100th posts.

It used to make (some of) our 'moderators' happy to delete these posts.

And it used to make the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team happy, to let them.

It did not tend to make those who were happy to post them - very happy to see their claims deleted.

Happily this has now changed.

Now it seems to make him happy to post such claims himself.

I am happy to have played some part in bringing about this welcome change on our forum and to enable all this happiness. It is small thing - but an encouraging start.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:01 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:04 PM

"I am happy to have played some part in bringing about this welcome change on our forum"

That would have sounded better if you'd said 'some SMALL part'. Keriste, Shambles, in the confluence of issues and problems, do you seriously think this is all that important? I have been one of your ardent supporters with regard to some aspects of your complaints. Getting Joe Offer to post 1000 in big letters didn't rank right up there if you catch my drift. Look up the term 'Pyrrhic victory'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:16 PM

If you can't convince the host to make changes after all this time - it probably won't happen.

This may have been a small change - but it shows that posters making the attempt is not the totally futile exercise that many on our forum may have come to think it is.

Perhaps it may encourage other posters to try - and give the lie to the idea that any changes on our forum are now confined to only those that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is in favour of.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:20 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: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:23 PM

The goal is elimination
Of all duplication
Can't you get this into your brain?
I'll make sure that you will
Finally swallow this pill
As I will say it again and again

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:28 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: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:36 PM

Now Mick - you've told us off often enough - don't fall into the same trap. Just put the keyboard down and walk away....good man

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:57 PM

It's his karma. The queen will be along to delete this really soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:04 PM

"And here is a bit more of that same quote that my friend Mick left out.

Joe: Do I need to separate you two? " the sham

I knew a guy who couldn't be blackmailed because the kinds of things that embarrassed other people, he bragged about.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:51 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: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 12:07 AM

" And when it is obvious that it is a case of City Hall picking their battles - and choosing you? "

It means that you won't win! Pretty simple to figure that one out.

Choose your battles carefully, before it is too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 01:40 AM

Shambles, just to quote Joe again, with my emphasis in bold:

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

Which just goes to show that this is not considered to be a serious discussion. I suspect that many here view this thread merely as a form of entertainment - I know I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 06:53 AM

Which just goes to show that this is not considered to be a serious discussion. I suspect that many here view this thread merely as a form of entertainment - I know I do.

I am glad it makes you happy. You are of course welcome to make that judgement (as long as you always accepted that others may not agree with it) and unlike me, in anyt thread you wish to. But perhaps posting to this thread only to express it, to talk about recipes or as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has done - to claim the 1000th post - could be descibed a 'hi-jacking' the thread.

Or it would be if - if our 'moderators' were scratching around for some excuse to justify some form of imposed censorship - in order to prevent our forum from reading views and taking part in discussions that they would rather perfer our forum didn't.

This is certainly a thread containing a serious discussion on this subject as far as I am concerned - as it it the ONLY THREAD I AM PERMITTED TO DO SO. That is serious enough as far as I am concerned. And I remain very concerned.

Perhaps you could at least respect that, when making your judgement of whether this is is a thread containing a serious discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 07:05 AM

Choose your battles carefully, before it is too late.

Two words to take issue with - 'Choose' and 'battles'. And I am also not sure what you mean by 'too late'?

It has never been my choice to battle at all.

All I try and do is post my views. Others appear be encouraged to see it as a battle to be joined in order prevent this (in many and ingenious fun ways).

Are you suggesting that I must change my views as a result?

And change them not because I have seen any argument that has persuaded me to change my views - but simply because of attempts to bully?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 07:29 AM

I knew a guy who couldn't be blackmailed because the kinds of things that embarrassed other people, he bragged about.

Thanks for that gem Ebbie. The fact that you would not see the irony and humour of you posting such a thing at this point - does explain a lot. But why would you wish to blackmail the guy you refer to or anyone else?

Just where is the moral-high ground supposed to in this example? And do you see yourself as one of the attempted blackmailers - or the potential victim? It seems to me that there is little credit to be had for either side in your senario.

Do you judge that the attempted blackmail of someone - really something for the would-be criminals involved in the attempted blackmail to bragg about then? Or that this attempt then entitles the criminals to pass judgement on their victim?

My only 'crime' on our forum is to try and post my honest views when many others try to find noble-sounding reasons to justify their various attempts to prevent this. Where as I don't see this as anything for me to bragg about - I certainly don't see it as anything I could be blackmailed for. Or anything that I should be intimidated for.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 08:03 AM

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS
If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.

Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy.
Max

I would like to suggest that the above words of Max be copied as an automatic response from our 'moderators' to any complaint or judgement made by one poster about the posting of another?

And that The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum is confined to dealing only with requests for corrections to a posters own contributions?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 09:19 AM

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: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 10:38 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh this thread.

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 11:10 AM

I am glad it makes you happy

And I'm glad that you're glad that it makes me happy. After all, as you have pointed out many times -

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 11:35 AM

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: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 11:52 AM

This is getting good. I reckon if we stick around someone not a million miles away from here is going to implode.

How is it shambles can post with wit and eloquence, while his detractors have to shout in capslock and spew bile?

The bouncers are in need of a battery cahnge.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 02:42 PM

"Two words to take issue with - 'Choose' and 'battles'. And I am also not sure what you mean by 'too late'?"

Choose - figure out what is really important to take a stand on.
Battles - simply another word for taking an alternate position
too late - before it reaches a point where you suffer the same fate as Martin Gibson

"It has never been my choice to battle at all."
It depends on how you define "battle".

"All I try and do is post my views."
You do, and you keep repeating it and repeating it. That is your tactic in battle, and I understand that.

"Are you suggesting that I must change my views as a result?"
Hell no!   I have actually come around to see your points and I do agree with some of the things you say.

"And change them
There is nothing wrong with changing a view, if you see another side. I changed my view about you and what you are fighting for. My "suggestion" that you inquired about would be that your point has been made, anything else you are adding to it is not helping your cause even though you may think so. There is no proof that you are getting any closer to your goals and merely proving points over and over is tedious and a poor reflection on what you have to offer. You can do better than this.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 06:27 PM

'How is it shambles can post with wit and eloquence, while his detractors have to shout in capslock and spew bile?'

Many of the people who keep slagging Shambles have edit buttons. Think about THAT for fuck sake!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 07:02 PM

Wit & eloquence? Wit and eloquence???????

There does seem to be some confusion over whether simply abstaining from capital letters and naughty words equates to sense, reason & eloquence.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 07:08 PM

No confusion here. I wonder if like humour, Shambles doesn't 'travel well.'

There is a definite pond divide on who does and doesn't 'get' Shambles. With a couple of exceptions. Hi Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 09:57 PM

Subject: RE: Some buggars died.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 12:54 PM

Sometimes, when one is driven by self serving, and neurosis driven, goals, they fail to see the 2x4 in their own eye.

There is nothing wrong with changing a view, if you see another side. I changed my view about you and what you are fighting for. My "suggestion" that you inquired about would be that your point has been made, anything else you are adding to it is not helping your cause even though you may think so. There is no proof that you are getting any closer to your goals and merely proving points over and over is tedious and a poor reflection on what you have to offer. You can do better than this.

Ron - I have struggled with your post. You keep referring to fighting and battles - when I am simply trying to post my views. And in most conflicts - isn't any appeal for peace and calm - usually isssued to both sides?

Surely for any assumed battle on our forum to cease - it only requires those few posters and 'moderators' intent on trying to prevent discussion, to cease this attempt (and to be seen to lift the special restrictions on my posting)?

You refer to - my point being made and that adding to it is not helping 'my cause'. When I have no cause - and being able to continue to post in free, open and informed discussion on this issue and others - I see as an end in itself. One that is currently being denied to me.

Would you have been able to change your view - had I not (no matter how tediously) continued to try and post to discuss the issue and those trying to (equally tediously) to prevent this - had succeeded in their self serving, and neurosis driven, goals?

I can only hope that - like you - other posters may be prepared to change their mind or at least to give the issue some serious thought and be able to freely discuss all aspect of our forum.

I suspect those few who wish to prevent this discussion - would hope that that posters will not. Perhaps you could advise or make some suggested course of action to them also?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 10:01 PM

There does seem to be some confusion over whether simply abstaining from capital letters and naughty words equates to sense, reason & eloquence.

It is probably a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 10:30 PM

"Ron - I have struggled with your post. You keep referring to fighting and battles - when I am simply trying to post my views. "
I have to disagree with you, at least the way it appears to me and perhaps others. Posting views is one thing, but the repeative nature turns it into a "battle". I will grant you that you end up taking most of the "hits", but you are also wearing a target for a t-shirt.

"And in most conflicts - isn't any appeal for peace and calm - usually isssued to both sides?"
Very true.


"Would you have been able to change your view - had I not (no matter how tediously) continued to try and post to discuss the issue and those trying to (equally tediously) to prevent this - had succeeded in their self serving, and neurosis driven, goals?"
I might have changed my mind if you got to the point earlier (remember my bullet point comments?). I think you have clouded the issues and made it difficult to understand what you are trying to accomplish.   

"I can only hope that - like you - other posters may be prepared to change their mind or at least to give the issue some serious thought and be able to freely discuss all aspect of our forum."
I think we do. I think you have become a special case for a variety of reasons that have been previously discussed. Sometimes a change is tactics is not a bad idea. These are not issues that can't be solved without compromise.

"I suspect those few who wish to prevent this discussion - would hope that that posters will not. Perhaps you could advise or make some suggested course of action to them also?"
Sure. Ignore this entire thread is one way - if you can't add anything constructive to the conversation, stay out. Simply knocking Shambles or any poster does not help - it merely shows that the poster has run out of ideas and can only attack the person.

What I did was to actually look at some of the threads you posted and I could see SOME of the issues in a different light.

Once again, we are subject to the whims of the owner and the designates of this site. If change is made, or if no change is made, it is the reflection of the "host". You and I can speak our minds, but we are not going to make the change. It would have happened already.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 12:09 AM

I agree with Ron. Change ain't gonna happen. However, you have every right to keep posting Shambles. I agree with about half you say, and thank you for keeping on saying it. Part of the reason I drop in to this thread either as a 'guest' or as me is to see which of the crew is slagging you yet again. You have received much vitriol from people and it's interesting to see that many offensive posts to or about you are allowed to remain. C'est la vie I s'pose. I admire your guts, and I'll say this: you have a pair of brass ones, because basically you have been mostly alone in your fight with all kinds of folks here, and in the final analysis you have acquitted yourself in a more dignified manner than many of your adversaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:00 AM

Once again, we are subject to the whims of the owner and the designates of this site. If change is made, or if no change is made, it is the reflection of the "host". You and I can speak our minds, but we are not going to make the change. It would have happened already.

Some of us may be able to freely speak their minds.

Our forum may well be subject to the whims of the owner but I do not see that our forum is also to be subject to the whims of their designates - for are they not very much part of our forum? And is it not claimed, that they are only there to carrying out Max's 'rules'.

Though as they do know what actions each other are imposing - quite how Max is supposed to know what they are - let alone approve - is unclear. This latest gem from Snitchers Corner will demonstrate the on-going level of confusion.

Misleading title changes

My concern, posted now for many years follwing many similar 'cock-ops' is that no measures appear to be implemented as a result of them, in order to prevent these sort of 'cock-ups from happening in the future. It all appears to be a bit of a game that is played, with our forum's contributions as the football, combined with some elements of Ground Hog day.

Many posters support our 'moderators' efforts - largely as they believe them to be well-intention - and they are. But most posters do not have the information to express an informed opinion as to the effectiveness or counter-productive nature of these efforts.

To address this, I have made the suggestion for editing comments to be inserted where any form of imposed action is judged to be necessary and for editing comments to be limited to only where some form has actually taken place.

Then, not only would posters be able to judge the true nature and current level of these actions and for the first time express an informed opinion on them - our 'moderators' would also know what action each other were taking.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:02 AM

Our forum may well be subject to the whims of the owner but I do not see that our forum is also to be subject to the whims of their designates

It isn't. Your whole case is based on a nonsensical idea that the mods regularly act against the wishes of the site owner.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:06 AM

Face the fact Shambles. If what you say is true and the mods could act according to thier own agendas, you would have been banned by a few of them from this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:06 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp - PM
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:51 PM

Actually, they are not the bouncers' rules. They are the owner's rules. The bouncers just enforce them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:40 AM

Shambles, you just proved GUEST's point with your quote :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:04 AM

" Some of us may be able to freely speak their minds. "

What you say perfectly illustrates the fact that this forum is subject to the whims of the owner and the designates.   I'm with Peace, I think you have every right to voice your opinion (even though I feel that you are being too repititive) and your points and suggestions have merit.

Lets face facts. The sanctions that have been imposed on you appear to be arbitrary and by reading the threads appear to have been introduced in an attempt to keep you quiet. People (moderators and other posters) have taken offense to your posts on various threads and single you out for thread-drift and other infractions (although it occurs daily by so many others)and you have been practicly rendered useless.

You have become that party guest that most people try to avoid. They don't want to look at your vacation pictures or have you try to sell them insurance. The really sad part is, they won't try to have a legitimate conversation with you either. When you enter, they leave the room or pick a fight - as if a fight were a way to justify their own egos and shortcomings. The atmosphere at the party changes and people move to other rooms. Meanwhile, the owners sit back and have a good laugh.

For change to be truly implemented, a voice of reason is required. You will have a very difficult time being that voice of reason, even though many of your posts are well-thought out and valid.   Perception becomes reality and you are perceived in a negative light by many people who have influenced this website.   I'm not saying that is right, far from it actually - it is just the way things are.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM

I'm not saying that is right, far from it actually - it is just the way things are.

It certainly would appear to be the way things are or the way a few now wish them to be. But in reality the majority of posters (if they are allowed to) still tend to respond to my posts as they would any other poster. Without knowing that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has fingerered this one individual poster as our forum's current public enemy number one - why would they not?

It would be nice to get these restrictions on my posting lifted but apart from that - my own treatment is less of an issue for me. I have always realised that trying to continue expressing my honset views was hardly going to make things easy.

The concern is the way posters are now generally treated and he attitude now shown to them by those few who have always ignored the reality of our host's open invitation for the public's contributions and have always treated our forum as if it were their own private club, to be shaped to their reqirements.

If I were Max - I would consider the attitudes, actions and wishes of these few posters to be the main problem now to enabling and encouraging new blood and to continuing free and open discussion on our forum. As these few do not really appear to see this (or every poster's happiness) as our forum's main purpose.

The difficulty is that many do have (or now feel they) have a personal relationship with Max. And many do have regular contact together outside of our forum and as a result of this, tend now to look inward in posts on our forum rather than outward.

What is referred (wrongly in my view) as the Mudcat Community is both our forum's biggest strength and its biggest weakness. This aspect is fine but in reality it tends to limit what is an open invitation from Max to the whole world - to the level of an exclusive (rather intolerant and bitchy) private club.   

Actions to reinforce this concept are counter-productive and most of the conflict is with and from those posters who feel intentionally excluded by these actions from this cosy club or have no wish to join any club that would have them as a member. But mostly because common sense tells us that an open invitation for the world's views - will NEVER produce a cosy like-minded group. Again, this is both a strength and a weakness for our forum. I see it mainly as our forum's strength and what makes it special.

I really think that the answer IS for a private online members only forum to be created to accomodate those who publicly express their wish only for this.

Our forum could then continue for those who can still see the value in Max's open invitation for everyone to join the party and for new posters who may wish to. And for every poster to largely be left to decide for themselves what to read, respond to or ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:21 AM

His points are invalid.

If his points had anything to do with concrn of the Mudcat policy of... , he might have some validty.

While he centers everything around a belief that everything wrong centeres around the Chief of Editing and has nothing to do with policy set by the site owner, he is talking nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:25 AM

Shables, if what you said was truthful, Big Mick for one would have banned you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 12:30 PM

You have become that party guest that most people try to avoid.

No Ron, he has become the scapegoat for a VERY FEW 'grown' men and even FEWER dubious women to kick about. Presumably they feel very powerless in real life. Shame.

Never be under the impression that they represent MOST.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:11 PM

FWIW, I have also had a change of heart in regards to Shambles' posts and now feel that there is some validity to what he says. The posts of a few long time members, who seem to be obsessed with attacking him, have influenced the shift in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:25 PM

"he has become the scapegoat for a VERY FEW 'grown' men and even FEWER dubious women to kick about."

Good point guest! It is really hard to gauge who thinks what, but you start seeing the same names over and over.   

All it takes is a few grains of sand in your bathing suit to make a day at the beach miserable!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 05:51 PM

Interesting that you use the day at a beach analogy. I always imagine the detractors rolling in like waves, albeit VERY SMALL waves.

It starts with a ripple, then a couple of 'I need to jump in here while it's going my way' detractors join in, then it rolls along steadily for a bit, then it reaches a crescendo as it gets very heated/irate/petulant. Then it crashes with a boom. Then it all goes silent.

Then they have another unproductive day where they are not taken too seriously and feel the need to build up into something they equate with power. And so it starts again and again and again.

Like Bobad, Shamble's VERY FEW detractors have behaved so ridiculously, they have done him a huge favour.

The funniest posts though are the regular as clockwork ' I know I should be ignoring him, but I just have to say this and then I will ignore him.' But they can't ignore him. It amazes me no end why his detractors are physically unable to not open this thread.

Shambles is all powerful.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:07 PM

Good point guest! It is really hard to gauge who thinks what, but you start seeing the same names over and over.   

Like Shambles and now Ron Olesko...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:10 PM

Sometimes we like to correct shambles blatant lies, guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:11 PM

Ah poor old guest 6.01 doesn't like it when the object of his/her bullying has supporters. Much more fun kicking someone around when there is no one there to watch eh? Carry on you are giving us all a great laugh now. Trouble is it is at your expense.

If you take out the false teeth and whistle real slow you might sound like the start of a wave.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:12 PM

Calling a sheep a dog will not make it bark.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:13 PM

Ooops here we go - guest 6.10 is joining in the ripple effect. Altogether now..........whoooooooooossssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:14 PM

LOL. With or without our teeth in?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:15 PM

Ah poor old guest 6.01 doesn't like it when the object of his/her bullying has supporters

Worng guest. I dislkie anyone who supports shabmles' perpetual bullying of the mods.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:17 PM

Hey guest 6.15 put those teeth back in they are interfering with your sepllnig.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:18 PM

I also dislike supporters of lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:19 PM

whoahhhhhhhhh there we have ourselves a breaker - go fetch those boards chaps. Surf's up.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:22 PM

That was pretty good: "We have ourselves a breaker."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:23 PM

IMO, we need more humour here and less bullshit.

Two guys driving down the road. One says, "Hey, what's in the bag?"

Other guy says, "I got a bottle of wine for my wife."

First guy says, "Good trade."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:25 PM

Well give us something better than that tired old joke then.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:28 PM

No, no. no. It's your turn.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:29 PM

BTW: Forget this 'us' bullshit. You speak for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM

Where's the fuckin' joke? get yer shit together. C'mon, I got stuff to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM

OK, if you do not like us.

Please don't bore our forum with such tedious jokes.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:38 PM

At great risk of stating the obvious: The forum belongs to Max. There IS no 'our'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:40 PM

I know. Please tell that to shambles. I only used it because he keeps refering to "our" forum. If I was to correct that, you would moan about shamble's detractors.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:41 PM

An elderly man in North Carolina had owned a large farm for several years. He had a large pond in the back, fixed up nice; picnic tables, horseshoe courts, and some apple and peach trees. The pond was properly shaped and fixed up for swimming when it was built.

One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the pond, as he hadn't been there for a while, and look it over. He grabbed a five-gallon bucket to bring back some fruit. As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee.

As he came closer , he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond. He made the women aware of his presence and they all went to the deep end.

One of the women shouted to him, "We're not coming out until you leave!"

The old man frowned and replied, "I didn't come down here to watch you ladies swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked." Holding the bucket up he said, "I'm here to feed the alligator."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:42 PM

Tell me when I post a joke you like. It would make my day.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:45 PM

A male surfer had just caught a great wave and was paddling out when a beginning female surfer took off on a wave, wiped out and her board headed directly toward the male surfer. Sure enough, her board hit him, and he immediately clasped his hands together at his crotch, curled up on his board in agony. The woman rushed over and immediately began to apologize. She then explained that she was a physical therapist and offered to help ease his pain. "Ummph, ooh, nnooo, I'll be alright... I'll be fine in a few
minutes", he replied as he remained in the fetal position still clasping his hands together at his crotch. But she persisted, and he finally allowed her to help him. She gently took his hands away and laid them to the side, loosened his board shorts and put her hands inside, beginning to massage him. "Does that feel better?", she asked. "Ohhh, Yeah....It feels *really* great", he replied, "But my thumb still hurts like hell!"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:47 PM

Try again. That was an improvement. It did raise a smile.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:48 PM

Peace's joke raised the smile. I dodn't think Bobad is trying yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:54 PM

Two goldfish in a tank. One says to the other -

























Do you know how to drive this thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:56 PM

One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orang-utan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's The Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books"?
"Well," said the orang-utang, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:56 PM

This is more like it. Keep 'em coming. But let's move to the 85 billion thread, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:01 PM

Are you sure? My money is on this thread beating the 85 billion thread to 85 billion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,surf's up
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:02 PM

Make your mind up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:04 PM

I'm trying.

How's about we ask the mods to move the jokes from this thread to help the 85 billion thread along?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:10 PM

Too risky. Is there an R in the month and a prevailing wind?

Let's just move.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:12 PM

OK

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:56 PM

" Like Shambles and now Ron Olesko..."

Or the same guest

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:15 PM

Don't make the thread unhappy again Ron. We left it as a happy fun thread. Come join the 85 billion thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:15 PM

Pshaw!   Who is making it unhappy?????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:40 PM

Those unhappy with the mods, those unhappy with those who are unhappy with the mods and those unhappy with those who are unhappy with those who are unhappy with the mods.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:44 PM

"Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing"

.. excerpt from Shiny Happy People REM


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:44 PM

The Shambles: Blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EDITORS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EVERYONE blah blah blah blah blah TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah THIS IS WHATS REALLY WRONG WITH THE WORLD blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY TOOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah YOU JUST DONT GET IT blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah.....................

Guest: YAWN.

The Shambles: Blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EDITORS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EVERYONE blah blah blah blah blah TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah THIS IS WHATS REALLY WRONG WITH THE WORLD blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY TOOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah YOU JUST DONT GET IT blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah.....................

Guest: YAWN

The Shambles: Blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EDITORS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EVERYONE blah blah blah blah blah TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah THIS IS WHATS REALLY WRONG WITH THE WORLD blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY TOOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah YOU JUST DONT GET IT blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah.....................

Guest: YAWN

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:22 PM

Are we at #2000 yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:22 AM

Jolly good jokes

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 08:31 AM

At great risk of stating the obvious: The forum belongs to Max. There IS no 'our'.

The website that our forum is on may or may not still belong to Max. The view has always been encouraged that our forum is what all the contributors make it.

Perhaps those who do judge this to be our forum can take this issue up with the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team?

[PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: musical traditions
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 12:15 PM

thread name clarification

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 01:36 PM

as I read the rules, Shambles may post certain types of commentary ONLY on this thread...I saw nothing in the rules to prevent others from posting on this thread. A few jokes might dilute things a bit...*grin*


so, there were two goldfish in a bowl, and one says to the other, "Ok, smarty, if there's no God, who changes the water?"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:55 PM

List of all joke threads

Where you will be able to place your own jokes and find plenty of others for you to grin about.

And where you won't have to see my posts or feel you have keep refreshing this thread only to moan about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:58 PM

Isn't refreshing this thread a good thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM

Shambles: Have a good day.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 03:16 PM

Isn't refreshing this thread a good thing?

Are you confused now and need someone to tell you what the current plan is?

Well it wasn't to be a good idea - then it was - then it was plan B....

Wesley S - if you you have something to add to the subject under discussion in the thread - which is clearly indicated in its title - then yes, it is generally judged to be a good thing to refresh any thread with your contribution.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM

Trying to control others' posts again, Roger?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 03:29 PM

Huzzah! 1100 is fast approaching!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 03:45 PM

A brain walks into a bar and says, "I'll have a pint of beer please." The barman looks at him and says "Sorry, I can't serve you." "Why not?" askes the brain. The barman replies "You're already out of your head."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM

"Wesley S - if you you have something to add to the subject under discussion in the thread"

I'm guessing that the operative word is "add". What if I don't have anything new to say? What if I just want to rehash the same things over and over and over again? Then is it a good idea to refresh this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:00 PM

lol, Wesley...I think you're onto something!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:03 PM

who gets the honor?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:12 PM

Well Bill - Wouldn't you agree? I'd hate to refresh this thread if I had nothing new to say. If I was just going to rehash the same things over and over and over again it would be pretty much senseless. A waste of time. Repetative too. AND redundent.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:14 PM

Shambles - You have an entire thread here where you hash the same crap over and over and over and you tell Wesley to add something new to it? Heed your advice buddy. How much time do you have on your hands that everyday you reply to this thread and search through past posts and threads and cut and paste like crazy to prove a point to the world that no one cares about. Do you ever go outside? Do you ever turn off your computer? Do you only get one channel on the internet and it's Mudcat???

Heal thyself!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:18 PM

Please come to the 85 billion thread if you want to give people shit. We all love it when people give us shit because it helps the thread grow and come closer to its goal of 85 billion posts. Stop being such friggin' wankers on this thread. Come to the 85 billion thread and be wankers there.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:21 PM

Nothing new to add just yet. But - I'm working on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:26 PM

"A brain walks into a bar and says, "I'll have a pint of beer please." The barman looks at him and says "Sorry, I can't serve you." "Why not?" askes the brain. The barman replies "You're already out of your head."

Now that joke certainly deserves a Mudcat award ... of some sort.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:06 AM

Second joke thread of 2006

Subject: RE: musical traditions
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:17 AM

Wolfgang (more sad than amused by a completly unnecessary thread; at least in this form)

Now you have informed our forum of your judgement of what others post - why would you think our forum should care what your judgement of them is or even be interested in such a post?

If you don't like the thread - why take the time and trouble post to it and refresh a post that is not to your taste - just to say so and be seen to make some pedantic observation?

Why not simply ignore this thread or start one that is to your taste?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 06:47 AM

Chili Oil

*Ingredients:
2 cups olive oil
4 teaspoons dried crushed red pepper flakes

*Preparation:
Combine the oil and crushed red pepper flakes in a heavy small saucepan. Cook over low heat until a thermometer inserted into the oil registers 180 degrees F, about 5 minutes.

Remove from heat. Cool to room temperature, about 2 hours. Transfer the oil and pepper flakes to a 4-ounce bottle. Seal the lid. Refrigerate up to 1 month.




*Preparation Time: 2 min + 2 hours
*Yield: 2 cups

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:01 AM

Notice how Shambles can't answer my questions that actually deal with the thread? Sooooooooooo surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 10:12 AM

Shambles - if you you have something to add to the subject under discussion in the thread - which is clearly indicated in its title - please do so. But to refresh it by adding links to joke pages is just plain wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 10:20 AM

Maybe "just plain wrong" is too strong of a phrase. But it does obscure the serious discussion that many of us are trying to have on this most important of subjects. Get with the program please.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 11:17 AM

Some time ago - Wesley S came up with the following - it says more in a few lines than I can ever manage, in my long-winded way.

Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others


Not posting to a thread

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 12:07 PM

For you Roger

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM

A young man walks onto the stage of Stars in their Eyes, on crutches, with a plaster cast from his feet to his hips. Matthew Kelly introduces him as Simon.



"It's very brave of you to come out here," says Matthew.



"Please tell the audience what happened?"



"Well" replies Simon "about a year ago, I was driving with my uncle when we had a really bad accident. Unfortunately my uncle was killed outright but I survived. I was trapped in the car for six hours before I was eventually cut free."



"The doctors had me in surgery for 12 hours but they couldn't save my legs."



"That's terrible. But I see you have legs now. Are they artificial?" asks Matthew.



"No Matthew, while I was in hospital the doctors informed me that my uncle had in fact died, but that his legs were fine and with all the advances in medical science, they could graft the bottom half of his body onto mine. As you can see the operation was successful. I have been having physiotherapy for six months and hope to be walking fully again by the end of the year."



A huge round of applause erupts from the audience. Kelly responds with: "That's an unbelievable story. So tonight, who are you going to be?"



Read down



















You are really going to love this…………







































'Tonight, Matthew, I am going to be Simon and Halfuncle'

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 07:35 PM

Guest, regarding Shambles not answering direct questions, I think it's part of the syndrome. I don't think he evades. I don't think he's capable of answering them, and no, I'm not trying to insult him or even argue. I think his inability to answer these questions, the memorization and repitition of phrases, the obsession with Joe and editing/moderation/whatever, and the inability to understand subtle clues about how serious Joe isn't when he says he doesn't like birthday threads or counting posts, are part of a syndrome. He doesn't understand what Max meant with his invitation to leave because Max is going to have to do something a lot less subtle for him to get it.   

I don't think he can stop, but I don't think some other people can either. And I may be wrong about the syndrome thing, but it doesn't matter. It's one thing to argue with someone who's capable of understanding you, but it's quite a different thing to continue to try to expect understanding and agreement from a person who only posts because it's part of his routine, and who can neither see nor care about the effects of his obsession.

It makes it easy for me not not get involved in discussions about editing. I see no logical evidence he's really trying to change anything, or even discuss the issue. Posting is just something he has to do. Depersonalizing Joe ("Chief of the...") and complaining about anyone with an edit button, whom he catches doing anything at all, is just his hobby.

The bottom line is that I don't think he can help it, and I can, and if he can't help it, it's harder to be angry at what he says.    It's easier to develop negative opinions of those who keep pushing his buttons, but I guess everybody needs something to inspire them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:07 AM

Piffle

All I have even done is to continue to try to post my honest views to a discussion on a discussion form set up for that purpose on an issue that some would rather was rather not discussed. This to enable all posters to be seen to be having a fair shake.

It is those who judge this using emotive words like obsession to describe my posting (because they do not agree with my views) but by NOT such words to describe the many and varied attempts that are encouraged to be made to judge and prevent this who are now adding to the problem.

A problem that will only be made worse by a few posters (in hundreds of posts) being seen to encourage and support the imposition of more restrictions or managing to prevent one poster fron contributing to our forum at all.

The answer to anyone who is not interested in discussing this issue has always been simple - don't open the thread to read it and don't post and refresh the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 05:53 AM

Right boys and girls, let's do just that. Let's not post here any more!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 07:49 AM

Right boys and girls, let's do just that. Let's not post here any more!

It's one thing to argue with someone who's capable of understanding you, but it's quite a different thing to continue to try to expect understanding and agreement from a person who only posts because it's part of his routine, and who can neither see nor care about the effects of his obsession.

Jeri - Does it really follow that the reason someone may not agree with you is because they are not capaple of understanding you? Have you ever considered the possibilty that you are wrong? Or the fact that it is not necessary to reach agreement or to gang-up and grind any who continue to disagree into the ground? Only to be seen to agree to disagree?

Posters have been encouraged to post and call me many things and many aspects of my mental health have been diagnosed. Many judgements of my worth have been made and the simple act of my continued posting on our forum, has been described in every negative enotive term possible- by people I have never even met.

But if all these assesments and speculations were true - So what?

As no one is being forced to read or respond - are not all posters entitled to be as boring and as tedious as they wish, on our forum?

Isn't it the truth that all this fuss - is the distraction and not the problem at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 09:03 AM

Shambles- I believe Jeri may have been defending you in a way so you should apologize.

Try using all the energy, time and thought that you put onto this board into something more constructive like world hunger, homelessness and world peace. Make a real difference in this world besides worrying about a moderated message board. Good grief man do something worthwhile!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM

seems apropos

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 10:45 AM

It's easier to develop negative opinions of those who keep pushing his buttons, but I guess everybody needs something to inspire them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 12:03 PM

It wasn't funny the first time Big Mick. Grow up!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 12:33 PM

I thought it was hysterical...both times...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,KB
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 12:46 PM

I thought it was a gas.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 12:53 PM

"Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill because they really pissed me off."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 01:20 PM

"God grant me the Senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, The good fortune to run into the ones I do, And the eyesight to tell the difference."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 04:11 PM

I'm reading right now (for reasons that have nothing to do with this thread, but with my interest in a skeptical approach to personal experiences) Graham Reed's The psychology of anomalous experience which is a bit old (1988) but still interesting to read. The book does deal with normal people (in sometimes not so normal situations) and not with clinical cases.

I was reminded of the party metapher some hundred posts ago when I read the following in a subchapter about Anomalies in the flexibility of associations (p. 182f):

"The best example from everyday life is preoccupation, when our minds revolve around a single topic...Far from there being any conscious diminuation of mental activity, preoccupation often involves furious thinking - but the thinking revolves around one particular theme. Commonly, this theme has to do with some matter of significance...But often the focus of preoccupation processes possesses little personal significance or affective tone.

...Brooding [is preoccupation]...by a belief that life is treating one unfairly, or because one has been a victim of a slight (real or imagined).

...Preoccupation is usually triggered by a particular event or problem. But the same sort of delimination of cognitive energy may in certain individuals be such a habitual pattern as to be classifiable as a personality characteristic. At the opposite extrem from the person we describe as having a 'grasshopper mind' is the one with a 'one track mind'. This is somebody who tends to 'harp on' about one topic, to worry interminably about some difficulty, or to give protracted consideration to an idea that does not seem to merit such close attention.

...The inveterate one-track-mind is liable to be regarded as a bore, to be avoided at all costs. At social gatherings, he is likely to be a 'party pooper', not by intent or malice, but simply because his conversation is ewarnest, circumscribed, repetitious, and generally tedious. His inability to abandon his topic of choice, or even to approach it from freh viewpoints, impedes the spontaneous flow of conversation and deadens the lightness of tone associated with an enjoyable party. Furthermore, even the most well-intentioned of one-trackers will display a fiendish ability to turn the line of talk back to his focal theme, should attempts be made by others to change the subject." (End of quote)

Big Mick,
I can understand the temptation to try to be as repetitive as Shambles is and to repeat ad nauseam the same Max quote. But you are bound to lose that game and there is nothing you can do about it for two reasons:
(1) The repetitions by Shambles get under your skin on the long run, but Shambles is completely immune to repetitions (or arguments) by others.
(2) Your repetitions will look stupid to yourself after some time (as they should), but Shambles' repetitions will never look stupid to him.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 04:17 PM

The book isn't full of typos, but my typing is.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 06:48 PM

The party analogy is not of course a totally accurate one.

For if my main protagonists and I were at the same party (rather than the reality of just posting to the same discussion forum) we would not be able to recognise one another for a start.

And unlike the party setting - it is quite possible for any poster here to completely ignore any fellow invited guest they find to be boring or otherwise not to their taste - without having any affect on the party atmosphere.   

As our forum is not a party - the one-track poster, trying to talk abour closed threads and deleted posts - is perhaps only what you would expect to find in a thread with this one's title.

To find in this thread posters being encouraged to swap recipes or tell jokes or to judge and speculate on the mental health of their fellow posters - is perhaps more unexpected. Especially given the whole justification attempted for this witch-hunt.

No - our forum is not a party. It is a online discussion forum - so any individual poster attempting to continue posting their views to it - is not a strange situation calling for assessments of that poster's state of mind. It remains the object of the exercise.

The various (and fun) means used to try and prevent any individual poster from doing this and to attempt to find some noble sounding justification for this online bullying is the questionable activity.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 08:38 PM

Uh huh.............ayup...................

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 08:57 PM

I disagree Shambles, our forum is very much LIKE a party. You are entitled to your opinion, and I hope someday you will be able to share it in other spots.

No, you cannot always avoid someone you do not care for at a party. If you are in a small room and the person keeps interjecting in conversations, you are stuck. Often words are said.

Sometimes you can go into another room to avoid that guest and hope that he or she won't follow.

Often, conversations that appear to be going along are hijacked by someone who wants to make a change.

Of course, all of this is approved by the owner. That is just the way things go and the partygoers have to deal with it.   The enjoyement of the party will ultimately be theirs - they can try to have fun. Often, it is up to the host to determine how things go.

Yes, Mudcat is very much like a party.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 09:02 PM

Ron, Shambles isn't prevented from sharing his opinions in other spots. Never has been. What he is prevented from doing is taking this argument to other spots. In fact he has been given a whole thread just for his complaints. But he is not allowed to hijack other threads to complain about the mod's and the running of the Mudcat. With all due respect, your understanding of this issue doesn't go back far enough to understand why this occurred. This man earned the treatment he gets.

But I repeat. He is not banished from other threads. He simply cannot take this discussion to them.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM

Mick, I realize that I do not know the "whole" story, but I am not sure why others can take arguements to other threads and he can't.   IF there is an issue with Shambles that has him being treated differently from others, perhaps he should be banned completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 02:30 AM

No, you cannot always avoid someone you do not care for at a party. If you are in a small room and the person keeps interjecting in conversations, you are stuck. Often words are said.

Yes - Ron, I agree.

That is exactly why the party analogly falls down. That is exactly what posters can do on our forum. The reality that no poster can have any control of what another choses to post and as a result - there is little point in anyone trying to - this must slowly be dawning even on my regular accusers and name-callers?

For it is not one party. The threads are a series of themed parties. It is perfectly possible to avoid any subject that is not to your taste - without being encouraged to be seen to gang-up in concerted efforts designed to have restricions imposed upon a a fellow guest and for these posters to be denied the invitation that that you take as a right.

That is not the guest's/poster's call. It is our host's. If Max decides to ban me from posting after all this time - for trying to continue to post my views - because of the 'distraction' generated by those who should be setting a better example, have never accepted the realities of our forum and who are now seen to have their own agendas - it will be a sad day for me.

But it will be a sadder day for our forum. For bullying will have been seen to have achieved its object, the lynch-mob will move on to another scape-goat and the party will be over for anyone but the like-minded.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 04:55 AM

Mick, I realize that I do not know the "whole" story, but I am not sure why others can take arguements to other threads and he can't.

Ron - I suggest that you do indeed know the whole story.

You appear to have just come to a different conclusion (and are brave enough to express it) from those few who seem to judge that being seen to disagree with their views on our form - requires them to be seen to gang-up and bully others into agreement. And if this tactic does not succeed - to use all of their efforts to be seen to try drive their fellow guests out of the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 09:24 AM

Shambles, I do not know the whole story because I have not followed it from the beginning, and it appears that some of your posts were deleted if I what I have read is true. It is hard to get a complete picture.   I do see a number of people who seem to continually harp on you, make comments about you in other threads, and then complain that YOU are the obsessive one! How odd is that?

As for the party, I am not sure how many parties you go to but usually the ones I attend will have more than one conversation going on at a time. In a corner of the living room there will be a group discussing sports, in another corner of the room there may be a discussion over the latest episode of CSI. In the kitchen there may be a discussion of movies going on. People drift in and out at parties, just like they do on Mudcat.

When I go to a party, I realize that my "rights" are restricted. I am following the hosts rules - as strict or relaxed as they make them. I have witnessed people ganging up on individuals when there is a disagreement (New Jersey parties can be rough!!) and the host is usually the final arbitrator.

As you say, it "is not the guest's/poster's call. It is our host's". If anyone calls for your banishment, it is utimately the hosts decision.   Of course, that works as a two way street. If you are claiming that individuals do not have the "right" to impose their views about you, then you do not have the right to post your views about any change you would like to see in the way this system operates.

Because there has been limited action taken by the host, the posts will continue. People will continue to gang up on you, and you will continue to state your case.

Just to be clear - I do not want to see you banned. I did not want to see Martin Gibson banned either.   I respect the hosts decisions, even if I don't always agree with them. They do what they feel is right for the system that they operate.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 10:09 AM

Agreed Ron, that it would be hard for you to get the complete picture. And I also agree that there is a certain set that do respond negatively to Shambles. Take a look at the names. Bill D, Wolfgang, Catspaw, Jeri, myself, as well as many others. Most of these folks have been here a long time, and are well respected (myself excluded). Ask yourself what would make a Bill D respond to Shambles. This man is a gentle, good natured, and intelligent poster. Same with Wolfgang. Jeri is awfully hard to set off. Spaw and I, well sometimes our passions get the best of us. Take a look at MMario's comments in this forum, then ask yourself why such a decent guy would respond in a negative way to Shambles.

You just get to the point that you tire of him bringing nothing to the party but bitchin' and whingeing, and his attempts to twist threads to his vendetta. That is why he has been relegated to one thread for this. It got to the point a few years back where every thread was being hijacked. There are places where his obsessiveness actually were a benefit. I think of the PEL situation. I believe I was the first of the Mudcatters to write at his request, to the authorities. But overall, he just was so out of control, and his arguments got so self serving, and his out of context cut and pastes got so tiresome, that this is the outcome. Quite frankly he got off easy. Joe actually stood up for Shambles. I was, and am, in favor of banning him and deleting any posts he puts up. I have been overruled on this.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 10:13 AM

If you are claiming that individuals do not have the "right" to impose their views about you, then you do not have the right to post your views about any change you would like to see in the way this system operates.

Ron - you will accept that there is a difference between you or I simply posting to expressing a view or making a suggestion on this or any other subject - to when some anonymous fellow poster - not only judges our post as wanting in some way but imposes that judgement, by taking some form of action?

But talking of 'rights' will lead us to contentious areas.

The latter example now seems to be generally accepted as some form of 'right'. But posters do not now seem to have ANY 'rights' at all on our forum. I can't help feeling that they once used to......

The latter may well be a 'right' - but I am less concerned about it being a 'right' than I am concerned about the effects of being seen to so ready to exercise that 'right'. As its main protagonists now publicly question its effectiveness - it may be a time for posters to seriously examine and discuss what I consider to be the counter - productive effects of this - before we just plough on?

It would seem to me that those who wish to be surounded only by like-minded posters - in order to express personal judgements about - really do need a members only forum. But that it does NOT follow that our forum must be changed to accomodate those wishes. I feel it is time that the tension cause by this uncertainty of the future direction of our forum is finally settled.

Either Max is happy for our forum to be led by (some of) our 'moderators' towards a change to members only posting or it needs to be made clear to those calling for this (and to our forum) to be informed that this is NOT going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 10:22 AM

There are many opinions and statements about people that are disgusting and have been left on the boards. Shambles, although he disagrees with aspects of the forum's editing, has never been rude to people. Contrary to what you say, Mick, there are instances where mods have taken arguments from this thread and carried them over to others. Eoither Shambles is entitled to his opinion or he isn't. That alternative is NOT that he should then be entitled to my opinion, your opinion or someone else's opinion. There is no alternative. Ban Shambles and I will forward a request to Joe that he also ban me completely, because it may as well be that way. Shambles has done nothing for which he deserves to be banned--other than piss you off. Don't pretend to support a fairly harmless form of free speech such as is often exemplified on this forum when at the same time you try your best to quell it.

The consistent posting from many mods has given Shambles a great deal of air time. Take a good look at yourselves before you slag Shambles. If you want to do something constructive, get to the 85 billion thread. Do it there. We welcome any and all posts, even from mods.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 10:22 AM

'Either Max is happy for our forum to be led by (some of) our 'moderators' towards a change to members only posting or it needs to be made clear to those calling for this (and to our forum) to be informed that this is NOT going to happen"

Once again you appear to be dictating to Max how he should run his site. He is under no obligation to inform the posters of this site what he plans or may plan to do. He has not yet made the forum members only - and while he may or may not have plans to do so in the future it is his decision. Just as it was his decision to appoint moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 10:24 AM

Peace says:Shambles, although he disagrees with aspects of the forum's editing, has never been rude to people" - not true. There is a difference between rude and crude. I will admit that the shambles is careful to not be crude - but more then one person will admit to feeling he is not only rude but calculatedly so.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 11:30 AM

PS I don't doubt that my being banned would give about a dozen people their jollies for the day. That's just the way that is. But banning Shambles because he disagrees with the way moderation is carried out is a method of eventually controlling all posts and shaping them as some people wish.

I have not seen the rudeness, MMario. (Not over this issue I should clarify.) I have seen some rudeness directed at Shambles. You have too if you have been following this thread. Please address that also.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM

Peace - if you haven't seen rudeness from the Shambles you haven't been following the issue long enough to even begin to understand it. That is fact.

I do not excuse my own or others rudeness to him; but to claim he has never been rude to others on this forum is just an out and out falsehood.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 11:43 AM

Bcak up a bit fella. I was saying I have seen no rudeness from Shambles on this thread, NOT on this forum. You want to call me a liar about it, do so. But for fuck's sake, call me a liar for something I said, NOT something I didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 11:47 AM

my apologies Peace - this thread is the culmination of **SIX YEARS** of the same issue. We were talking apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 11:52 AM

Mick, I agree with your points. I believe that I am a fairly patient person, and I too have flown off the handle. I also agree that the names of the people you mentioned (yourself included) are some of the most reasonable and level headed people on Mudcat. When I see posts from those individuals, I take notice.

Yet, as you say, all of us have become upset with Shambles posts. I think it is because of the tactics he uses and what seems to be a case of him not listening to what we are trying to say.   He becomes very defensive and seems to have a need to justify every single point he makes.   When Shambles says something like "Either Max is happy for our forum to be led by (some of) our 'moderators' towards a change to members only posting or it needs to be made clear to those calling for this (and to our forum) to be informed that this is NOT going to happen" - that should be the end of the story. He made his point, he is not adding anything new to his arguements, and the rest of us get frustrated.

I do think that some of his points are well taken.   I do think he can be annoying.   I also think that all of us who are posting and continue adding to the discussion have a touch of the same problems that we blame Shambles for having.

We can't seem to let the issue rest, we keep coming back, we keep repeating ourselves. Are we that different from Shambles??

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 11:58 AM

After 1148 posts it is a real pleasure to see people taking cogent and objective stands, admit their own shortcomings, being prepared to acknowledge misunderstandings AND apologize - perhaps there is hope yet......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:12 PM

Hey, MMario--it's cool. (That's an old expression from the 1960s. It means it's ok, no prob, back atcha, sorry for the misunderstanding, screw the goat--wait, screw the goat is from a Scottish thread. Sorry. Anyway, not to worry.)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM

He made his point, he is not adding anything new to his arguements, and the rest of us get frustrated.

You get frustrated?

At least I am making a point for discussion. You don't even have to read it - why should you be frustrated?

Do we get one? We then we get a post just accusing me of being rude. Providing no evidence for this and totally ignoring all of the offensive personal judgements and name-calling that I am subjected to and not protected from as if it was of no consequence. It would be had I indulged in anything like this.

Perhaps I am due some little credit for not responding in kind?

For one of the main culprits then justifies all this and describes the posters and 'moderators' responsible for setting this example of posting behaviour as gentle, good natured, intelligent and decent posters!

If you are frustrated or bored - then leave the subject to some newer posters who may be prepared to discuss the issue - rather than be obsessed with simply judging personalities.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 02:08 PM

Shambles, you are not interpreting my comments in the way I meant them. I am not judging personalitites - are you?

Yes, we get frustrated, and it is obvious that you get frustrated as well.

You are making a point for discussion, which as you say we don't have to read. However, assuming that you meant it when you say you post to have a discussion, our frustration comes when it appears that you ignore or never seem to acknowledge that our points could have some validity.   Your steadfast insistence on re-posting and continually arguing your case should probably be admired, but instead in results in frustration because there does not seem to be a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 03:09 PM

You are rude. You may not couch it in filthy language, but you are rude nonetheless. It reminds me of the child that doesn't listen, and talks over everyone in the room. Your rudeness extends to taking quotes out of context, years old, hijacking threads, and refusing to accept Max's right to run the site as he sees fit. Your rudeness includes making petty arguments over whether the volunteers here have the right to modify thread names for clarity sake. I could go on and on.

You surely are rude, but as Mario says, you just don't do it in a crude fashion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 07:43 PM

You forgot to put IMO mick.

Many don't find shambles rude. I find him witty and extremely gracious. You don't agree with him. You are as obsessed as his other VERY FEW detractors and regularly have to post to tell us all to stop responding.

Jeri summed you and your merry band up best.

You admit if it was your call you would ban him.It really grates on you that you do not have the power to do that. You should be able to get a grip on this one and move on and stop opening this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 08:40 PM

Fair enough. You are absolutely correct. That is simply my opinion. I would correct you on a few minor points. It doesn't grate me that I can't ban Roger. I have made my opinion known, and I am fine with whatever decision is ultimately made.

As to Jeri, she is entitled to her opinion as well. We may be friends, but we don't agree on everything.

One of Shambles tactics is to twist the truth to serve his arguments. He does this with out of context quotes, etc. Sometimes he gets so caught up in his crusade he ends up arguing both sides. Just because I am a moderator does not take away my ability to have an opinion. I stay out of most of this back and forth, but occasionally I think it is important to point out misstatements.

As to your opinion of me, nothing has changed nor do I expect it to. All I have to do is wait and you will cease to be able to take your sniper shots from the bushes of anonymity. I can do that.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:32 AM

It's sadly all about misplaced power with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:24 AM

However, assuming that you meant it when you say you post to have a discussion, our frustration comes when it appears that you ignore or never seem to acknowledge that our points could have some validity.   Your steadfast insistence on re-posting and continually arguing your case should probably be admired, but instead in results in frustration because there does not seem to be a discussion.

There is just about discussion here, despite the recipes, jokes etc and the attempts to make the whole discussion cetre around the worth of one individual poster. However, there may not be total agreement. But should there be?

I am not sure that I try to carry on posting my views to be admired - do you?

However, in reply to your point, it is necessary to repeat arguments from time to time - both in reply to posts and for the benefit of those posters who may not be as obsessed as others and to which these points will be new. And there are lots of aspect to this discussion, probably too many for one thread.

But if we find that threads and posts that others may admire - bore or frustrate us - should we then blame the other posters for our boredom and frustration ? Or should we just accept that there are all tastes and move on to another thread? Or should we been seen to try to shout-down and remove those posters who may bore and frustrate us?

Ron - are 'you' not equally frustrated by those posters and 'moderators' who are seen to encourge the idea they have some right to be seen to publicy judge another named poster? And to to be seen to do this on regular basis with a view to preventing discussion and with the aim of bullying them into agreement, into silence or off of our forum completely?

I know that I am. But I accept that I have no control over the posting of others. And no matter how frustrating I may get - perhaps you will accept that I do not respond in kind to these. I have found your views and actions to be frustrating but have I questioned your mental health or made any personal judgements of your worth?

Many posters here appear to pay only lip-service to the idea that posters are free to express their view. Perhaps you would agree that this remains the whole point - no matter how frustrating you may find it in practice?

In the course of this discussion I have accepted many points and agreed with many other posters - I have found that the level of my regular detractors frustration does not appear to relax any as a result of any agreement shown on my part. You may be different.

On the contrary, I have found that this frustration actually looks to increase - in the unlikely event that some other poster does make a contribution to the discussion - one that is not limited only to a post making some personal judgement of me. Or heaven forbid - a post that could be viewed as providing any sort of support to any of my views........That really raises the frustration level - if the resulting increase of posted one-line judgements and recipes are any guide.

I try to carry on posting - in the face of this (largely engineered) frustrated reaction against it, partly to show that the problems raised and the many suggestions made to solve them will not be examined - if a certain few of our fellow posters are not in favour of them. The same few who now appear to be set on engineering a change to members only posting.

Hopefully this will show that as long as a poster does not provide any grounds for Max to ban them - EVERY POSTER MUST ACCEPT THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO PUBLICLY CALL FOR ANY FORM OF CENSORSHIP ACTION TO BE IMPOSED ON THE POSTING OF ANOTHER NAMED POSTER.

If (as Max informs us) this site is about happiness - the encouragment of posts only containing judgements of the worth of other named posters - by the example currently being set on our forum - can only result in the very opposite of this happiness.

I have found that there is little need for for me to respond to Mick's posts (in kind or at all). These posts demonstrate the basis for MY argument - far more eloquently than I can ever manage.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:14 PM

We can't seem to let the issue rest, we keep coming back, we keep repeating ourselves. Are we that different from Shambles??

Yes Ron. Some of 'us' are far worse and in fact those who are most obsessional about posting only personal judgements about me and other named posters and who feel they have some right to set this example - have a far worse posting record than me - for which there is little shortage of evidence.

Ron - You will not see any evidence placed here to support my detractors claims about what a terrible poster I have been - simply because there IS NONE. If there was - do you really think that the ace pedants among my detractors would not have provided it by now?

Perhaps Ron you will now accept that all this is a completely BOGUS attempt to distract attention from the real issues. There is certainly a public enemy that has been 'fingered' - but there is no evidence of any proportionate 'crime' to support such a label?

It not that my posts are any more repetive, or boring than anyone else's. The fact is that a very few poster (following the lead of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) do not approve of me expressing my views and have used every tactic they can justify (and many they can't) to try and prevent this.

That this attempt has turned into the 'distraction' it is seen to be by our host - is entirely due the abuse of privilege by those who have been seen to lead this attempt.

It may not make me very popular with some on our forum but I can do little or nothing about this, except try to continue to post in spite of this attempt to prevent it and to point this out to our forum, in the hope that it will finally be addressed. But before it can be addressed - it first has to be recognised for what it is.

For at the heart of this (also commented on by our host) is a simple personal disagreement between two long-term posters. Niether of whom wish to be subjected to any form of judgement - one who has no wish to impose their judgement on other posters and one who does.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:24 PM

Shambles - what you appear to be saying in your last post is this:

I want to tell Max how to run his site and will continue to post until he does it my way.

If this is untrue - could you please explain to me how complainng about the procedures max has established and the personel he has chosen to impliment them and demanding they be changed is differnt then what I have stated?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:40 PM

mmario why don't you address that one to mick. He wants max to ban guest postings. Is mick also at fault for not allowing max to run his site as he chose?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:44 PM

Mick hasn't publicly claimed to not want to tell Max how to run his site. In fact, Mick has publicly stated that he and Max differ in opinion and Max is doing what Max wants.

the shambles has been complaining about the way Max runs his site for six years - but also claims to not want to tell max how to run his site. Then demands changes in the way Max runs things. I just want to know how he reconciles the two actions - or whether he is willing to admit that he DOES want to tell Max how to run his site.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM

I want to tell Max how to run his site and will continue to post until he does it my way.

MMario - the above are your words not mine. But so what? If they are my views - they are only my views.

As you know my concern is NOT how Max runs his website - my concern is only our forum.

I could equally say that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is effectively saying, by his public posting - I will continue to moan on about peace being impossible until Max finally changes our forum to members only.   

Perhaps you could tell our forum what the difference is. Except that one is supposed to be seen to be using their best efforts to make Max's currenly preferred posting policy work.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:50 PM

It not that my posts are any more repetive, or boring than anyone else's

Yes, it is, Roger. They are, by far. This is not something you care to face up to, nor to change, but it is so, I can assure you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:00 PM

I would respectfully suggest that the difference might be that Joe IS moderator of this forum as appointed by Max - who owns the forum and all content on the forum. And he is doing his job.

You cannot seperate the forum from max's website. it is part of Max's website - it is wholly owned by Max and Max reserves the right to edit, delete, move etc any posting or thread etc, etc, etc. Joe is a moderator of the forum and operates by appointment by Max as Max's proxy.

BTW - I didn't say those were your words - I said that was what you appeared to be saying.

Am I correct or incorrect?

Because if You are not saying (in paraphrase) "I want to tell Max how to run his site and will continue to post until he does it my way" a lot of people have totally misunderstood your postings for a long time and clarification is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:05 PM

Yes, it is, Roger. They are, by far. This is not something you care to face up to, nor to change, but it is so, I can assure you.

I'm sure you have posted that judgement that before......have I ever posted a similar judgement of you?

Amos if I were the most repetitive and boring poster and I were to admit this - would that be grounds to restrict, prevent my posting and get me banned?

If it were - perhaps many other will be similally judged and subject to the same treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:13 PM

Shambles, you asked a number of questions in your posts of 7:24am and 12:14pm. Let me try to respond

No
No
No
Yes
maybe, but "shout down" is open to interpretation by the reader
yes
yes
no - and how have my views had that effect on you?
not sure
open to interpreation
I do not understand the question as you posed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:16 PM

"I will continue to moan on about peace being impossible until Max finally changes our forum to members only."

Roger - does that mean that the "campaign" stops when the Mudcat becomes a members only forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:26 PM

Roger - does that mean that the "campaign" stops when the Mudcat becomes a members only forum?

The only campaign on our forum - will have then suceeded in its aim.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:39 PM

Roger - it appears to me - in my opinion - that you don't like to answer direct questions. So let me ask you this: If the Mudcat were to become a members only forum - if Max were to institute that change - would you continue to post here?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:30 PM

How about closing this thread or deleting about 1200 posts?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:07 AM

You are making a point for discussion, which as you say we don't have to read. However, assuming that you meant it when you say you post to have a discussion, our frustration comes when it appears that you ignore or never seem to acknowledge that our points could have some validity.   Your steadfast insistence on re-posting and continually arguing your case should probably be admired, but instead in results in frustration because there does not seem to be a discussion.

It would be nice if the discussion could move on to the issue - rather than continue to focus on one named poster - for this IS only the distraction to the issue itself . But the following post demonstrates well some of the reasons for the above perception.

Roger - it appears to me - in my opinion - that you don't like to answer direct questions. So let me ask you this: If the Mudcat were to become a members only forum - if Max were to institute that change - would you continue to post here?

If I don't provide an answer - in the eyes of some posters - I will confirm the accusation that I don't like to answer direct questions. And if I do answer - in the eyes of some posters - I will be seen be repeating myself. Which is the worst?

Rather like MMario's posts - which ignore everything else and wants only repeat the point made many times - that I have stated that I have no interest in running Max's site and that he sees some conflict in this, between my position towards our forum. As if making this small point (yet again) is the most important aspect of this discussion.

My position towards a change to a members only site can be clearly seen in this thread and the many others that Wesley S has contributed to. He appears to want me to repeat it (which will only provide more ammunition for that charge) so he can (again) make the point that if I will not be interested in posting to this changed forum - that will be a good reason alone for its introduction.......

So you can see that with the same few posters ignoring the main issue and concentrating on scoring personal points and with them accusing me of not answering direct questions, if I should avoid answering them again - there may not appear to be much progress in this discussion.

Yes it is frustrating. However there IS some slow progress - and being able to continue a discussion on this subject at all - is an end in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:12 AM

Amos if I were the most repetitive and boring poster and I were to admit this - would that be grounds to restrict, prevent my posting and get me banned?

Amos - it appears to me - in my opinion - that you don't like to answer direct questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:58 AM

" It would be nice if the discussion could move on to the issue "

That is very true, but don't forget you made a point about yourself and then asked me a question to which I responded. If you are going to drift the thread, you can't complain when people follow.

All of my comments were meant as constructive criticism and not a reflection on your worth. As you have posted, I am not being rude or attacking you. Wouldn't you agree that all of us have faults?

I don't want to cloud the discussion any further. If you truly wish to keep this on topic, you would not respond in public to the negative comments about you and defer all comments and responses of the type to private messages.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:46 AM

Ron - can you tell me why 'moderators' who have publicly stated here they are not in favour of a change to members only posting - would allow the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (who is in favour of this change) - to publicly speak for them?

If you can't tell me perhaps they will tell us?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM

Damn.
All this time, I thought I was speaking for myself - at least on my proposal for members-only posting.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:05 PM

It is sad that the use by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team of words like 'I' - 'we' - 'our - 'us' - does not any longer refer to all of our forum'. All these words now refer to and are used to speak for the actions of an unspecified few.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

It is pretty clear that the reference to 'our best efforts' and the stated shortcomings of these collective efforts are referring to and speaking on behalf of all of those involved in these efforts.

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit
Joe Offer.
------
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
Joe Offer
------
Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:23 PM

Say "Goodnight Gracie."

"Goodnight, Gracie."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 06:03 PM

"And THAT'S the way it is,"

""Good night David. Good night Chet"


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 06:16 PM

Goodnight'Grandpa. Goodnight,Grandma. Goodnight,John. Goodnight,Olivia. Goodnight,John-Boy. Goodnight,Jason. Goodnight,Ben. Goodnight,Jim-Bob. Goodnight,Mary-Ellen. Goodnight,Erin. Goodnight,Elizabeth. Goodnight,Curt. Goodnight,John-Curtis. Goodnight,Cindy. Goodnight,Ginny. Goodnight,Baldwin Sisters. Goodnight,Yancy. Goodnight,Ike. Goodnight,Corabeth. Goodnight,Aimee.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 07:10 PM

That is where I disagree with you Shambles. I think Joe has every right to speak for himself, and I don't think his actions have set any influence or directed actions to meet his suggestion. True, I don't think I would have voiced an opinion but he did, and so what?

Personally, I think you both should take this outside and settle it in the schoolyard so the rest of us can back to our studies.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:03 PM

"Good night, and good luck."

I think Ed would have that right with this thread.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:05 AM

That is where I disagree with you Shambles. I think Joe has every right to speak for himself, and I don't think his actions have set any influence or directed actions to meet his suggestion. True, I don't think I would have voiced an opinion but he did, and so what?

As a fellow poster - of course this individual has everyright to speak for himself in as many threads as he wishes to (unlike me) and he does this.

But this was not the point being made - was it? It was this individual being seen to be speaking for others.

You may not judge this have set any influence or directed actions to meet his suggestions - but I have a different view. But perhaps you will accept the intention to incite is there - whether any posters take any notice of it or not.....?

In this role of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - both in editing comments and in posts here and on the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum - and by the use of words like 'we' 'us' 'our' etc, this poster is seen to speak on behalf of others. Which quite understandably, will then be seen by many posters as an official Mudcat line.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's favoured private agenda of a change to members only posting of BS and of him first approving any music related posts - does NOT currently appear to be the official line (although the way it is being pushed publicly by some of our 'moderators', it will come as little surprise if it does come to pass).

It is not an agenda that appears to be shared by all of our 'moderators' but it is an agenda pushed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team as the only solution the the problems on our forum that he now appears to see as insurmountable, without such a radical change.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

No - I for one do not agree with that statement - nor the only suggested solution to it - do you? But can any poster who does not agree and who values Max's open invitation for the public's open contribution and wishes for it to continue - really accept that this policy is in safe hands?

Given the push for this agenda - can posters really be expected to trust that our current 'moderator's' best efforts are being made to make Max's current posting policy work? Or could they reasonably suspect these best efforts are being made to demonstrate that it cannot?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:26 AM

I'm trying to stay away from this circular thread, as all it does is rehash all the same old arguments, comes to no conclusions and never will, and most of the people concerned don't take any notice of what the other contributors say.
Roger won't change anything about how the Mudcat is run, and may in fact be the single largest factor in any decision to go to a members only posting scenario. Especially as he seems to attract more Guests than any other contributor, and I know for a fact that many of those Guests are Mudcat members.
Anyway, having posted when I know I shouldn't bother as it is a waste of cyber space, I will tell you why I came back to this thread.
I have discovered a new word which perfectly describes this thread, along with it's main subject and contributor, the word is...........

BOREGASMIC !


Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 09:47 AM

Sorry Shambles, I have to disagree with you. I do think that Joe might have been better served if he did not make his feelings about you known publicly to eliminate the appearance of "mis-use" of his authority.   I don't think he has done anything wrong other than deal with people as human beings. His emotions are just like any of us.

I also think that you have the opportunity to post your views in other forums, but you have been instructed not to discuss your views about this particular subject in threads other than this. Is it right or wrong? I am not sure. Is it the result of lengthy disagreements that have boiled over for years? Yes. It really should be a private matter.

Giok is right. This has become a circular discussion. I am sure you are going to knock apart the above two paragraphs that I wrote by using quotes gathered over the last 7 years in an attempt to disprove my views.   That is your choice. This ceased to be a fruitful discussion a long time ago. My posting and the postings of others probably say more about our own faults then it does yours. The point is, we all have faults. Mudcat is not a forum where lives are at stake, or our freedom of speech.   We are human beings and like the music that draws us to this site, we wear our emotions on our sleeves. We do not have to read any thread, we do not have to post. Yet human nature draws us to these subjects. We like to see our words in print. We blow off steam by calling people names, knowing that we will never have to face that person and deal with it honestly. We cower under the cloak of anonymity which allows us to be something we aren't.

To make my rambling short - we make mistakes. We deal with it. Live goes on and harping on problems of minor consequence only dulls our senses for the real important issues.   I realize that you feel this is an important issue Shambles, but I hope someday you will realize that even though you have a good case, it isn't worth wasting an effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:04 AM

I don't think he has done anything wrong other than deal with people as human beings. His emotions are just like any of us.

The issue is not who has or who has not done anything wrong. For I hope that none of us would claim to be perfect?

What matters is the effect on our forum of - what has been seen to be done and the way this is seen to be done.

Our 'moderators' have largely been able to do as they wish - but they refuse to take any responsiblity for the result - which they go on to describe as. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

Ron - I don't agree with this - do you?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do think that Joe might have been better served if he did not make his feelings about you known publicly to eliminate the appearance of "mis-use" of his authority.

Ron - you slip this in as if this were a minor criticism and if it were of little or no account and just to be accepted - when it is the main cause of all of this, and badly needs to be adressed and corrected. Perhaps you would accept that a start could be made by removing the special restrictions on my posting?

All posters must be seen to be receiving equal treatment from any 'moderator'. Otherwise none of them have any protection from any accusation from posters that these 'moderators' have "mis-used" their authority.

For not only are these personal views, assumptions and speculations about possible motivations made known - in posts and editing comments - they are also seen to be acted upon.

If the personal feelings of our 'moderators' about any named posters were not made public on our forum - other posters would not feel that it was acceptable posting behaviour to follow this example by posting only their personal judgements of named fellow posters. BUT THIS EXAMPLE WAS SET - AND IT CONTINUES. It is no form of solution to anything and will only further and quite needlessly divide our forum, should it be allowed to continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:38 AM

Ron, You keep falling for Shambles' baiting and engaging him in a discussion that you will never win or even score points in.

Shambles, Why can't you understand that almost everyone here just doesn't care about your views. No one will ever change anything because you are the one asking them to do it. It's like in the Broadway show 1776, no one would do anything that John Adams wanted because Adams was obnoxious, a bore, a pest and just totally unpleasant to be with. Does that sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:43 AM

Groundhog Day?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 12:57 PM

Like I said Shambles, there is nothing further to debate. I've already answered all your questions and points. I've already stated which points of yours I agree with and which ones I don't. No sense in repeating myself, yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 01:03 PM

FYI

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 05:53 AM

I don't think he has done anything wrong other than deal with people as human beings. His emotions are just like any of us.

I certainly appear to have been judged as having done something wrong - as I am under some punishment for this. Have I?

Do you think then that I HAVE done something wrong - in trying to engage in discussion? For unlike many who would feel qualified to judge me - I have not encouraged the example of posting only abusive personal attacks and name-calling - no matter how high my emotions may be running or how frustrated I may have become.

It is not only possible for posters to do this - it is vital that our 'moderators' are not to be seen to indulge in this. It is just as vital that such posting from them - is not seen to be excused. Especially when the consequences for other posters are to be seen so severe.

Ron - you appear to me to be supporting a unfair and unequal double standard of posting behaviour. One that to my mind is responsible for all of the things on our forum that our current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team now finds fault with and has led him to state: And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion

Do you agree with that statement or not? For I have asked you twice and if you have answered - I have not seen this answer.

My view is that until drastic change happens and a more positive example of posting behaviour is set by our 'moderators' our forum will just reflect the current negative example back.

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Can you? I suggest the first thing is for 'moderators' not to be seen to be indulging in conflict on our forum with individual named posters. For if you wave a red rag at a bull - you can hardly be surprised at the bull's reaction.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 06:39 AM

A load of bullocks?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:25 AM

"Do you agree with that statement or not? For I have asked you twice and if you have answered - I have not seen this answer."

Come on Shambles. Don't be upset that Ron didn't answer you. You're the one who always avoids answering direct questions. Are you now expecting a double standard from someone else?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:40 AM

Shambles, I have already answered your questions. Please refer back to my posts that are found among the nearly 1200 posts to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:18 AM

"For if you wave a red rag at a bull - you can hardly be surprised at the bull's reaction."

Any rag actually. Bulls are colour blind I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:24 AM

It's a metaphor Bruce!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:28 AM

I've never cared for metaphors myself. I prefer the giant economy size metaphives instead.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM

I never metaphor I didn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM

But I am going.................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:35 AM

to go for it and get...........

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM

1200

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM

1200

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:38 AM

Damn, just missed screwing you up. Shit!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:39 AM

Make that Lane and Swan then?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:40 AM

Had it all planned out....multiple windows and all......I NEVER play this game because I never get close or I have to add 4 or 5 posts.....But since this is such a complete POS thread anyway.....WTF!!!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:44 AM

1205

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:45 AM

1206

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:45 AM

1207

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:48 AM

15:48 here

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 01:16 PM

"What's a metaphor?"

Hell, I don't even know what a meta IS!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 01:19 PM

Shambles, I have already answered your questions. Please refer back to my posts that are found among the nearly 1200 posts to this thread.

No harm in repeating it. For if you did provide it. I honestly don't know what it was. Perhaps for purposes of discussion - someone else may like to provide their answer?

Do you agree with the following statement? Which given the radical change to our forum which is suggested to solve it - is a crucial one.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

My view is that if anything is wrong it can easily be solved. As it is largely as a result of these efforts. Which are now seen to to limit and shape our forum to the wishes of a few posters, rather than be seen to enable our forum to accomodate many and varied requirements of the the majority.

I also consider that the public push to change our forum even further to a members only forum - is just the latest piece of limiting and shaping by a few posters to their requirements. And the statement - just another tactic by these few to achieve this end.

If those who make this statement and those who support them - really feel this our forum is now so poor- no one is forcing them to stay on our forum and not be able to be able to goof off or not be able to have a good discussion.

And as most of their efforts (on this thread) seem to be designed to prevent good discussion rather than contributing to this one - should they leave to start their own private members club - their presence on this discussion forum will not be missed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 01:56 PM

Can't hold a discussion with someone who will only answer those questions that suit them, and ignore all others.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 01:57 PM

Yes, there is harm in repeating my views again, which are very evident elsewhere in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:00 PM

I ask you to clarify your point and you say that the question is irrelevant to the discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM

MMario & Giok - are you directing your last posts to me? I believe I answered questions and clarified my points numerous times.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:03 PM

"If those who make this statement and those who support them - really feel this our forum is now so poor- no one is forcing them to stay on our forum and not be able to be able to goof off or not be able to have a good discussion.

And as most of their efforts (on this thread) seem to be designed to prevent good discussion rather than contributing to this one - should they leave to start their own private members club - their presence on this discussion forum will not be missed. "

What about you Shambles? You're the one who is doing the most complaining on "our" forum. Perhaps you should consider leaving and starting your own non-edited, say-whatever-you-want forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM

sorry ron, no my remark was directed at the Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:21 PM

and mine

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:24 PM

Thanks. Just checking!!   :)   It gets confusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:49 PM

If you truly wish to keep this on topic, you would not respond in public to the negative comments about you and defer all comments and responses of the type to private messages.

Ron - If posters were not encouraged to post only such negative comments - as if this could pass as discussion - I would have nothing to respond to and for you to judge me amiss for?

Perhaps you could ask that posters do not post only such things and refrain from this yourself?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Can you think of any other suggestions?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:52 PM

Here's a novel idea for you. Let it go.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:55 PM

"Here's a novel idea for you. Let it go."

Neat idea for a book. Good title, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM

Please do not cloud the discussion Shambles, and please do not put words in other peoples mouths. I did judge you "amiss". You should also state that it is your view concerning who is encouraging what sort of negative comment.   Nor do I have a reason to refrain either since my discussion is not of the same substance or concern.

I think the suggestion of members only posting has great merit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:12 PM

I do not see what is wrong with members' only posting in BS. Would you please explain that, Shambles? I fail to see how that restricts free speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:13 PM

I think the suggestion of members only posting has great merit.

Can you think of any other suggestions - for our forum?

If this is still a place to goof off and have a good conversation - why should our forum be changed so radically from the posting policy that Max has followed from the beginning?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM

"why should our forum be changed so radically from the posting policy that Max has followed from the beginning?"

Because things change. It's not the same forum it was 6 or 7 years ago. If Max wants to change HIS forum he can. And we can either like it or leave. Max hasn't asked me - and I doubt he will - but I'd like to see his Mudcat become a members only forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:26 PM

I do not see what is wrong with members' only posting in BS. Would you please explain that, Shambles? I fail to see how that restricts free speech.

Our forum has managed without this for 10 years - firstly is there any evidence that this proposed change (or anything at all) would bring about the peace required on our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

And if anyone is not happy with the current posting policy - what is preventing them from starting a forum with whatever policy they wish?

But that is only half of the proposed change. Because as a result of this change, non members unable to post BS, would then be free to post on the music section - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has offered to first review any post there before it appears on the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:27 PM

No I can't think of any better suggestions.

The answer to your second question has been previously given, and my opinion doesn't matter anyway. It also has no bearing on whether or not there should be changes.   Change does not necessarily need to be made to "fix" something.

Plus, it is not "our" forum.   Damn.. I said that before.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:32 PM

"Our forum has managed without this for 10 years - firstly is there any evidence that this proposed change (or anything at all) would bring about the peace required on our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?"

Along with many others Roger!

I know you like to blame Joe for everything that you don't like on Mudcat, but your statement is misleading. As your statements often are!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:32 PM

" is there any evidence that this proposed change (or anything at all) would bring about the peace required on our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? "

Evidence is not required to try something new.

"what is preventing them from starting a forum with whatever policy they wish?"
That question has no relevance. What does starting a different forum have to do with this one?    Change can still occur here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:35 PM

My I offer {pun intended} a suggestion? Perhaps the term "the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team " should be changed to "Max's chosen moderator". It would be more accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:45 PM

Roger likes to think of Joe as a temporary appointee, it makes his Quixotic campaign seem a bit less pointless.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 05:34 PM

That question has no relevance. What does starting a different forum have to do with this one?    Change can still occur here.

It is of course perfectly relevent. As for some time now, the first response encouraged to be made to any poster who would dare to make a suggestion for any improvement (that the few didn't not want implemented) - would be to tell that poster that if they did not like our forum - they were welcome to go elsewhere.

It is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who is publicly saying the following - And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

If this is the case - should he and those who agree with this be the ones to go elsewhere to indulge in the (questionable) merits of a private members club? For if our forum IS still judged to be a place to goof off and have a good discussion - there is no reason to change it - is there?

So is it or not?

We are back to our football game where the referees, are not satisfied with making up their own rules as they go along, being able to send players off but who now wish to kick the ball and join the teams and want to turn it into a diffrent ball game altogether.

Perhaps it is time to stop humouring such referees, accept that they will NEVER be satisfied and start enjoying the game without them?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 05:43 PM

To use another analogy we might say that the referees - appointed by the president of the league - have gone to dinner and ordered fish for dinner. However the private dining establishment they have gone to wants to serve them beef instead. So in a huff they decide to ride orange bicyles across town and have Tex-Mex food and pizza instead.

But wait - while eating pizza their bicyles are stolen and they have to ride the bus home. Whereupon they feed their tropical fish and go to bed. And in the morning they have blueberry muffins for breakfast. With coffee and green beans.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 07:32 PM

Excellent Wes!!! That's the first sensible analogy I've read here.

See, then you can alter it easily and see that if the Columbian supplying the coffee and Redneck supplying the green beans have a discussion and decide to jointly raise avocados the bus driver will have to revert to feeding the tropical fish and the cat which arrived after the kids left.

Really works doesn't it? Just the kind of thing that the Piss&Moanmeister can understand as it resembles many of his own postings!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:05 PM

" there is no reason to change it - is there? "

There is no reason except for the choice to make changes for the sake of change. The host of this party can do whatever he wishes, should he choose. Nothing ANY of brings up including whatever chief cook and bottle washer on duty suggests, means anything.   Whatever suggestion is ultimately implemented or left alone is up to the host.

This discussion is getting to be like discussing the pros and cons of the sun burning itself out. Not a damn thing any of us can do except for complain.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 02:33 AM

Not a damn thing any of us can do except for complain.

Those 'moderators' who publicly complain about our forum thus: And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

And those who agree with this this and those who see the merits of a members only forum as the only solution - can leave and form one that is to their requirements. That will leave those poster who do not think this and who do not complain to concentrate in discussions on how to make Max's posting work - rather than finding fault with it.

And those who set the example of publicly posting only to complain about the worth of their fellow posters, to judge the threads and to intentionally find ways to prevent and restrict open discussion - can follow them - or stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 03:58 AM

Ach zo, today der Mudkatz und tomorrow de vorld, ve haff vays off
borink you till you leef, und zen ve are in sole charge ja?

For you Tommy, ze var ist over!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 05:41 AM

Nothing ANY of brings up including whatever chief cook and bottle washer on duty suggests, means anything.

Careful Ron - that sounds close to heresy. Perhaps you would accept that everything that we post means that others are likely to follow this example?

And when the chief cook and bottlewasher on duty is seen to publicly suggest things like the following - that this example is likely to be followed by other posters? And that it certainly has been?

Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit
Joe Offer.
------
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
Joe Offer
------
Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a damn thing any of us can do except for complain.

No Ron - that is the ONLY thing 'the chief cook and bottlewasher on duty' encourages you to do - by being seen to set the example of constantly complaining about our forum, blaming everyone else and taking no responsibilty themselves for what this example has created.

And when those posted complaint post are about our forum and other named posters such complaints are encouraged BUT NOT REFERRED TO AS COMPLAINTS.

The only posts that are judged as 'complaints' by 'the chief cook and bottlewasher on duty' are any posts that do not moan about our forum and fellow named posters - but are seen not to be in complete agreement with the many public complaints of 'the chief cook and bottlewasher on duty' and the example of posting behaviour this has now set.

What all posters can still do is to discuss this. I can only try to discuss it in this thread - in between the posts containing personal judgements of my worth, the recipes, jokes and the spam that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has littered this thread with.

Despite all this - I remain a great supporter of Max and our forum. In order to continue to support our forum (with the example set by our 'moderators') In effect and along with this - I have been expected to accept a double standard of posting behaviour. Other posters may be prepared to support this - (openly or simply by not being seen to challenge it) but I see no place for this on our forum.

For being seen to support any part of this double standard of posting behaviour (even if you consider the end may justify the means) will just turn us all into hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 06:13 AM

"Despite all this - I remain a great supporter of Max and our forum."

Poor Max; that's a bit like Sweeney Todd supporting the Barber's Union.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 08:48 AM

Can someone perform a mercy killing and close this thread now? Better yet, can someone do something to stop these constant ramblings by Shambles. Hell, I'll even become a member if "our" site goes members only if that is the only way to shut Shambles up. At least then the act will be done and he won't have anything left to ramble on about.

Max, if you are reading this please do something to put Shambles out of our misery.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Tweed
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:22 AM

WAIT!! Don't close it yet Joe! There is still the matter of the errant manatees to discuss. Somehow the original thread was mistakenly closed but I have started a new one to deal with the migration of these lovable and delicious animals to Memphis.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:35 AM

Hey Shambles, Your days are numbered!!!!

Subject: RE: Open Letter to Max
From: Max
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:17 AM

Our priority number 2 is to beef up the back end security of the site so that we can confront such issues. I cannot currently effectively enforce a ban on the savy. It would be too easy for them to find a workaround and get back in, now angry. Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM

"And those who agree with this this and those who see the merits of a members only forum as the only solution - can leave and form one that is to their requirements. "

It just won't sink in with you, will it? It doesn't matter who has the better solution. It isn't your call to make. People can do whatever the hell they want as long as the host allows it. Change can come to this precious forum whether you like it or not, and whether your arguements are just or not.   You have every right to complain, and keep posting, but whatever is going to happen will happen regardless of your efforts, my efforts, or Joe's efforts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 10:22 AM

I don't have a persecution complex - I am being persecuted. (Shambles)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:11 PM

Are you beginning to feel the walls closing in on you Shambles? Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Maybe if you stopped ranting and raving then this can be prevented. No one says that you have to like what happens here. You just have to accept that you can't change it.

The clock is ticking...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 03:02 PM

You have every right to complain, and keep posting, but whatever is going to happen will happen regardless of your efforts, my efforts, or Joe's efforts.

Do I still have this right?

It does not now seem as if I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 03:23 PM

You have the rights that have been made available to you as per the host.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 03:48 PM

tick tock, tick tock. We will soon be members only Shambles and you will soon be history.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM

You have the rights that have been made available to you as per the host.

My rights are now different yours and every other poster - how do you know this is what our host has now made available to me - has our host told you this?

Our forum has certainly been told what restrictions the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has decided to impose on my posting. Are you telling us that our host agrees with this?

Our forum has also been told that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that:
And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.
And that:
So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-
Perhaps you could tell us if our host agree with this as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM

"Our forum has certainly been told what restrictions the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has decided to impose on my posting. Are you telling us that our host agrees with this?"

Oh Roger why do you persist in regarding Joe and Max as two different entities? Max owns the site, Joe and others help him run it and maintain it, they are synonymous. Logic dictates that IF Max disagreed with what Joe is doing, then he'd stop him doing it, think about it man!

As CH said on another thread, and I agree with him for once, you seem to delight in going out of your way to prove all your detractors right, by constant repetition of questions you already know the answers to.

Many of your points are valid, but are lost in the constant fug of repetition. Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf.

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM

Oh Shambles, please. You are asking me to repeat myself again and again. You know exactly how I know, just like you know.   

The host knows all, and you know that as well.

Enough already, I am tired of hashing out the same points in this repititious excuse for a discussion. You have suckered me in again and again and I can only blame myself. I apologize to everyone else on this thread.   See my previous notes before asking more questions to get the same answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 04:39 PM

He will ask and ask until someone tells him what he wants to hear. If it takes forever then he will ask forever.

But Shambles, your days are numbered...you don't have forever.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 07:44 PM

Why, on reading the last few posts of this thread, do i suddenly feel like the theme music for Dr Who is most appropriate....?


He will ask and ask until someone tells him what he wants to hear. If it takes forever then he will ask forever.

But Shambles, your days are numbered...you don't have forever.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

To be continued.....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 02:50 AM

The host knows all, and you know that as well.

No I don't and with all due respect Ron - nor do you. All our forum knows about what our host knows or thinks is what he chooses to tell our forum in his few public statements.

I have yet to read a public statement wher Max has stated that his views are synonymous with mine, yours or anyone elses - have you?

However, a few other posters (with agendas of their own) insist on telling us that our host's views ARE synonymous with those of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Or are they really trying to tell us that Max is now 'being led by the nose' and that Max would not dare not to do as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly requests?

These few posters choose to ignore and not to provide any answer to the following - which clearly demonstrate that our host's views are NOT synonymous with those of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - as they claim.

Our forum has also been told that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that:
And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.
And that:
So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-
Perhaps you could tell us if our host agree with this as well?

Max's more recent public statements have not given a firm answer either way to whether our forum is the further changed to a members only forum to meet the public request for this - made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's to suit his requirements. Perhaps Ron you know and can tell our forum why Max has chosen not to do this? One thing is sure - posters appear to read from these statements and see in them - what they wish to.

But that no reply had been given by Max to this request was made clear in the post where the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team made the above statement. So why this claim that our host's views should be seen to to be synonymous with the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - when he himself is under no such impression?

By the same token - why do a few posters so vocally support the continuation of 'best efforts' that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has publicly stated have not been able to make Mudcat - a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 07:06 AM

PM] Max No BS: The Mudcat Is Shutting Down (72* d) RE: No BS: The Mudcat Is Shutting Down 02 Nov 01

>snip<
There is a Mudcat clique, or core group, if you will. I call you the 1%ers. Half of my design efforts, functions, doodads, are for the 1%ers, half are for the other 99%. The 1%ers are so because they're here a lot, and they post a lot, not for any other reason than that.

I ask more of you. I ask the 1%ers to simply represent us, the Mudcat, with pride, patience, empathy, tolerance, and love. I've seen some testiness lately. Don't you think I get pissed off? See me do much about it in the forum?

You are the 1%, which means you are not the majority by far. Try not to forget about the other 99%.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 07:09 AM

[PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00

Thank you Shambles. I think some may not catch what your trying to do.

The Mudcat's gonna grow. There will be a lot more content, a lot more people, a lot more posts, a lot more media, a lot more songs. We can't stop that now. But does this change anything? Some of us may get nervous that our happy world here may change, but what ever stays the same? The Real World is what it is, as is the Mudcat, and both are changing and growing everyday. Fear not the future, fear not the growth, fear not the change. It all comes down to one simple thing:

It will be what we make it... PERIOD

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 07:26 AM

You somehow believe that supports you don't you Roger?   How, I have no idea. Take a leap back to reality.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 09:28 AM

"No I don't and with all due respect Ron - nor do you. "

Stop playing a game of semantics. You know very well that the host can do what they want and they will.


"why do a few posters so vocally support the continuation of 'best efforts' that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has publicly stated have not been able to make Mudcat - a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion? "

Again you ask the same question and if we take the time to answer you will disregard it again. Stop the game playing, this is not a way to have a discussion about the serious issues you brought up.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 11:01 AM

Stop playing a game of semantics. You know very well that the host can do what they want and they will.

No - Ron this not a game it is a discussion. That our host can do what they want is a quite different point of this discussion and one that you know that I have long ago accepted in this discussion and in this thread.

You stated that The host knows all, and you know that as well.

Our forum only know what our host knows - when he tells us what he knows in his few public statements to our forum. Everything else is assumption.

As for me posting Max's public statements in support of my views - that is not it at all. It is to show that I support his views as expressed in his public statements.

To show that I am no idealist who just makes these things up. Ron you appear to have gained your views (from your somewhat shorter tenure as a poster) and seem to feel that the 'take-it-or-F*** *** attitude that you now pecieve on our forum has emantated from our host. The view that it is our forum - is one that host has encouraged. If Max's view has changed - I have not seen a public statement from him to that effect.

If you have answered the following - I have yet to see the answer.
By the same token - why do a few posters so vocally support the continuation of 'best efforts' that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has publicly stated have not been able to make Mudcat - a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion?

But it is a point for discussion........For it remains a mystery to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 11:17 AM

Sorry, I'm tired of playing word games. For you to tell me where my thoughts come from is very disrespectful and unfounded. I do not care to have my words turned around and misinterpreted. I have clearly stated how I feel about this site and I do not appreciate being played with like this.

Also, my "shorter tenure" extends at least 8 years on this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 11:28 AM

LMAO.......Well there ya' go! You really are a mental case Shambolina!

Here's one guy who really tries to work it through and see your points and stand up for you with some solid reasoning............So you aggressively go out of your way to piss HIM off?!?!?!?!

I have a bad case of the giggles and it's hard to type..........The irony and your inability to perceive anything.............geeziz    LOLOL ................you're really mental........LOLOL

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM

Goodnight, sweetheart, well, it's time to go,
Goodnight, sweetheart, well, it's time to go,
I hate to leave you, but I really must say,
Goodnight, sweetheart, goodnight.

(repeat)

Well, it's three o'clock in the morning,,
Baby, I just can't treat you right,
Well, I hate to leave you, baby,
Don't mean maybe, because I love you so.

(chorus)

Now, my mother and my father,
Might hear if I stay here too long,
One kiss and we'll part,
And you'd be going,
Although I hate to see you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM

Read the thread spaw. Most people don't find you funny. Most people are sick of you and your little group. Carry on laughing . Inanity suits you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM

You are digging your own grave Shambles.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Repent sinner. The end is near!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 01:38 PM

shure am a lot of annoymous predictions about what Max will do as he addresses the situation. I am making no assumptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 01:40 PM

Ron, you are getting a dose of what has driven otherwise decent folks so solidly against this person. He has been twisting words and taking things out of context on this interminable argument since early on in this forum. I find no redeeming value in his posts, and am dismayed when decent folks get sucked into them. This is all a game for this sad man. It is about getting attention, creating red herring arguments. When he is ignored, he starts tossing bait out until some person answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:00 AM

Open letter to max

The above thread - after being relgated to the BS has now been closed by persons unknown for reasons unexplained.

But not before at least one recipe (and a good few sensible post) could be posted to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:30 AM

Sorry, I'm tired of playing word games. For you to tell me where my thoughts come from is very disrespectful and unfounded. I do not care to have my words turned around and misinterpreted. I have clearly stated how I feel about this site and I do not appreciate being played with like this.

Ron - I am sorry if you really feel that I have been playing games with you (or if you have now caught the dose referred to):-)

However, a look back will show that if anyone was playing games here and playing to the crowd - it was you. As for me telling you where your thoughts come from and you judging his to be disrespectful - this was something that you started. And a look brief back will show hardly a post from you has gone by when you have not been judging my worth and telling me what I should do. Like the in the following.

If you truly wish to keep this on topic, you would not respond in public to the negative comments about you and defer all comments and responses of the type to private messages.

Although it was unasked for, I will take this advice starting with your posts - which rather clearly demonstrate the double standard of posting conduct, that some now consider to be acceptable on our forum. If you wish to post any more advice to me or personal judgements about me (or any other poster) you are welcome to do this via PMs.

If you wish to post to enter in to a public discussion on our forum - you may just get one but you will never get the 100% agreement you appear only to accept as a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:39 AM

The above thread - after being relgated to the BS has now been closed by persons unknown for reasons unexplained.

That thread does now have an inserted editing comment of explanation for its (eventual) closure. As follows:

OK, so now it's time to say goodnight and to close this thread, since we only allow one Shambles thread to be active at a time. Say goodnight, Shambles.

Goodnight, Shambles.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:41 AM

Say goodnight, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 05:33 AM

Perhaps our forum can be told, how exactly a 'Shambles thread' is now defined?

It would now appear to be any thread that our 'moderators' wish to close - but only of course after they have set the example of posting their own personal judgements (of other threads) in it?

Like the following:

Subject: RE: Open Letter to Max
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 01:42 PM

The birthday threads are obviously intended to be obnoxious, but the nice thing about them is that we can add actual music information to them and reverse the obnoxiousness.

We all have our own opinions on what we judge to be obnoxious intentions or not - perhaps our forum should be left to decide for themselves what those things are?

I may judge the intentions behind these imposed restrictions and thread closures to be obnoxious - but unlike an open thread - it is not possible for posters to 'reverse this obnoxiousness'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 09:23 AM

Yes Shambles you are 100% right about selective editing. The Open Letter thread was not hijacked by you...yet. While the thread had absolutely no purpose and much of it was in poor taste there is no reason whatsoever that it should have been considered a second Shambles thread. Perhaps a moderator would like to comment on this. Shambles certainly had a right posting to that thread and defending his actions on the birthday threads. I think that the mods jumped the gun on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 09:27 AM

There you go again, twisting my words. I don't know why you call it "judging your worth" when someone offers criticism or suggestions. That is a slimy way to garner sympathy and you are certainly not a martyr.

If I am guilty of "judging you", it was when I came to realize that your points were valid and you are indeed the victim of scorn and derision that is simply not necessary. Yet you accuse me of seeking "100% agreement". The fact that I don't agree with all your statements and tactics has you calling me part of "the crowd" and catching a "dose". You can't seem to grasp that some people can make judgements and interpretations on their own.   Shame on you.

As for throwing out a line that you did not ask for advice, perhaps you have been a big guilty of that yourself?

I am not asking for 100% agreement from this forum - I could care less how the majority or the minority feel. As you very well know, it begins and ends with the host. I know you hang on to that one post made many years ago, but it is not "our" forum in the sense that you are trying to make it. This has been discussed over and over.

You asked for examples on how you are rude and how you've attacked people. Look at your last post directed at me. You can continue to attack me if you would like, but when you do, think again the next time you accuse people of attacking you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 09:57 AM

Guest you answered your own question really, you said it was not a Shambles thread YET. It was however well on it's way to becoming another one of his platforms. You also said it served no purpose, and was in poor taste.
Work it out for yourself!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:51 AM

You guys are a riot!!

This thread has now become a daily "lunchtime" read for me ... along with the Daily City segment of the Saint John Telegraph news. The part of the paper were one reads about the Mayor, city councellors arguing about such matters on what is the most efficient way garbage can be picked up, or defining what constitutes an unsightly building. In effect nothing is ever resolved, but the debates are very entertaining.

"And THAT'S the way it is,"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 11:02 AM

It's a hobby! It beats watching Springer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 11:32 AM

I see it the same way. It's a form of slightly tacky but definitely amusing daily entertainment. Much better than a Hollywood gossip column and less depressing than the evening news.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 11:43 AM

A lot of it reminds me of Professor Irwin Corey. Makes just about as much sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 11:50 AM

"A conceit is a figure of speech which makes an unusual and sometimes elaborately sustained comparison between two dissimilar things."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:02 PM

I wonder if Shambles realizes how many people are laughing at him. I'll bet that he probably doesn't care.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM

There you go again, twisting my words. I don't know why you call it "judging your worth" when someone offers criticism or suggestions. That is a slimy way to garner sympathy and you are certainly not a martyr.

Ron - The start and finsihing point is that you consider we both have the right to express our views for purposes of discussion.

Following on from that all that is required is for us to stick to the issue. Unlike yours - most of my suggestions and questions are largely limited to just that.

If you judge what I have posted to you to be an attack - then how would you judge some of the regular posts from the likes of Mick and Co? Which example - if I have to remind you - you were more than happy to follow - until you say you came to realise that my points were valid.

If my points are valid - I consider that any of my (many) personal short-commings are secondary to this discussion - as are yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:10 PM

I rather laugh at someone who thinks we should care about the insults and opinions of a nameless "guest". Or should I say troll?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:42 PM

"If you judge what I have posted to you to be an attack - then how would you judge some of the regular posts from the likes of Mick and Co?

We've been throught this. I answered this weeks ago. I agreed with you.

Enough with the repeats. Stop making accusing me, I'm not accusing you. You make it hard to stick to the issue when you do this. Don't try to invalidate me, I'm not doing that to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:48 PM

Obfuscation is Shambles middle name Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 01:12 PM

Shambles: Ron has been the fairest poster here with regard to your 'campaign'. IMO, you owe him an apology. It is a bit disheartening because I too agree with very much of what you say. Willows survive Canadian arctic winds because they learned to bend a little.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 01:17 PM

For what it's worth, I think Spaw is VERY funny....

And Ron? You're a good man, I feel your pain....

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 01:22 PM

People who think they are funny are generally the bane of those suffering their 'wit.'

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 01:30 PM

People with no sense of humour often post as Guest!

[BTW Guest this post is just as accurate as yours.]

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:05 PM

Ron,

That's the payback you get for trying to befriend Shambles and defending him more then most people do. He obviously intends to disagree with anybody and everybody. It would probably be in your best interest to refrain from trying to engage him in a debate since it is obvious that he does not know how to debate. He is way too stuborn to even contemplate that his ideas may not be 100% right.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 04:29 PM

I'm am certainly not laughing at Shambles .... or at anyone who posts to this thread ... I just find it very entertaining.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 04:38 PM

"Willows survive Canadian arctic winds because they learned to bend a little."

Also .... the roots of a willow tree are strong, wide and deep .... keeping it stable and secure.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 05:03 PM

I'm not sure about the willow tree.   From what I know, they do not have deep roots which is why they thrive near sources of water. They are strong to support the massive bulk of the tree, and they do spread, but they are not very sturdy.   Two years ago an approximately 50 foot willow narrowly missed my home when it crashed during a noreaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 05:21 PM

Sorry, Ron. I'm in forestry country. A fifty-footer is just a sapling.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 05:27 PM

I did not think that willow trees grew much higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 05:55 PM

OK Ron ... you are correct ... the roots of a willow tree don't go down deep ... but they sure as hell spread out and will grab hold of anything they can.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 06:33 PM

Southeast Alaska's topsoil isn't deep and we have LOTS of rain so almost all of the trees - and we have LOTS of them - pancake instead of sending their roots down to much of any extent. (On the other hand, we also have giant trees, primarily of spruce and cottonwood, so we also have a certain amount of downed trees.)

Just about any lawn up here has a network of roots outlining the tree's system. I remember a few years back when the house museum I was living in got new sodding, a new lawn from start to finish. For a few months it was smooth and even but very quickly the roots became evident and mowing once more became a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 07:35 PM

That is true BiLL - I still have roots that were spread 5 or 6 feet from the trunk. Tough to get them out of the ground.   It was amazing to see it when it fell over - the base was huge.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 07:39 PM

I've never in a long time seen anything so funny as Ron Olesko's reactions coupled with Peaces comments. Do these people really not think many of those who got caught up in "shambles" things have not been there.

Can they not now admit they now know why what seems to be instant judgements to them have occured over a 6 year campaign...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:01 PM

Aw c'mon. Let's ban guests in the BS section - what would it hurt.

Besides,1300 is the new 1,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:10 PM

Thirteen hundred!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:14 PM

GUEST, Jon: You are addressing two issues in one sentence.

1) The fact that I had a run-in with Roger about 1 1/2 years back has bugger all to do with the fact he's correct with some of what he says on this thread.

2) Roger has not been offensive to me here. I don't think he will be. But it's this way: I do not like people who hunt in a pack. If Roger IS offensive with me, I will deal with it. NOT me and my posse. Got it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:23 PM

The inconsistancies are the same Peace.

Sure Shambles makes some valid points. He centres this campaing around issues such as levels of censorship, degrees of power held by moderators, etc.

These are undoubtably areas readers may be concerned over - although ~I'm sure for example that for every reader that feels things are to loose here, Mr Murdoch, another will feel are too tight.

There is no right or wrong there and these points of shambles have been noted for years.

The problem with the shambles viewpoint is that he has the ship single handedly taken over from Max by Joe Offer.

That is where you will find his illogic creeps in. He is not about genuine concerns but twisting everything to fit a grudge.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:31 PM

Fair enough, Peace, but I would make two observations. 1) A busted clock is right twice a day. 2) Just because there are a number of folks tired of this man's crap, doesn't necessarily mean it is the pack mentality. When one runs down the names, they see a fairly significant number of decent folks, thoughtful, and the furthest thing from "lock steppers". One could not accuse Bill D, or Wolfgang, or a number of others of being something other than independent thinkers. I understand the comments about me. I have gotten pretty intolerant of Roger's shenanigans, and I am one of the mod's. By the way, I regret some of my intolerant comments. But I reiterate. The fact that a large number of folks are tired of his crap, doesn't mean they are sheep.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:32 PM

taken over from Max by Joe Offer.

(Against the will of Max that is)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:34 PM

Then why don't they ignore him?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:49 PM

But it's this way: I do not like people who hunt in a pack. If Roger IS offensive with me, I will deal with it. NOT me and my posse. Got it?

And Peace, not at all. I really do not see any possible posse here. My own relationship with MC has been iffy, ranging from being a one time "star" here to having serious dissagreements with Max, Wolfgang has not been known for following these threads but has pointed out severe errors of logic, Mick is perhaps what I would describe as "party line", etc.

The "backgrounds" are incredibly different, the likelyhood of a posse is about nil, but the conclusions reached are amazingly similar on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:52 PM

Mick: My post was aimed at no one in particular, and certainly not at you. I have seen you stand up and say what you have to on a few threads. You did not always receive support for your actions. It just seems that a dozen folks have decided to 'have a go' at Shambles. If there is history there, so be it. However, whether or NOT there is history, it does not detract from the fact that Shambles has a few valid points. As a BTW, I do not agree with all of Shambles' points. But a few of them I agree with wholeheartedly.

Mr Freeman, thank you. "You'll be right from your side, and I'll be right from mine, and we're both one too many mornings and a thousand miles behind." (Thank you, BD.)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:07 AM

Dammit! I stayed too long at Frankie's drinkin' shooters and yakkin' with Chachi and the boys and MISSED my chance to do the 1300th post! Shee-it. You snooze, you lose. Now I gotta wait for another 1392 posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:26 AM

Does anyone wish to actually discuss the issue?

I thought some kind of agreement had been reached that posters have a right to post their views - so what more is there to say about one individual poster trying to do just this?

Anyone wish to discuss the various attempts to restrict and prevent this and how our forum appears as a result of being seen to try justify this?

By the way, I regret some of my intolerant comments.

Not perhaps as much as those posters who are seen to be subjected to these intolerent comments from a 'moderator'.

An apology to them and our forum and some reassurance that these unspecified comments will not be repeated - and a more positive example will be shown in future would be more welcome gesture and show that some of our 'moderators' can take responsiblity for the results of their actions on our forum........

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 03:06 AM

By the way, I regret some of my intolerant comments. But I reiterate. The fact that a large number of folks are tired of his crap, doesn't mean they are sheep.

Yes Mick, you do reiterate.

Posters are not the sheep you refer to but perhaps you will agree that they will understandably follow the example of posting behavious seen to set by our 'moderators'?

And perhaps you would also agree that our 'moderators' do not appear to much like the forum that results from their posting example being followed?

And perhaps you could explain why a few posters so vocally support the continuation of 'best efforts' that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has publicly stated have not been able to make Mudcat - a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion?

And is the view that Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion - your view also? If so - apart from the banning of one long-term named poster - what do you propose to do to address it? I suggest that a good start would be to hand in your edit button. How about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:39 AM

Conspiracy theories abound, while those who also have issues with the moderation on this site side with Shambles on a basis of 'My enemy's enemy is my friend'. Others feel the Mudcat's integrity is being threatened by this petty squabbling and point scoring, and protest accordingly.
No doubt in my mind that this is not a perfect site, but then it's not a perfect world, in spite of the efforts of our own Captain Swing, the site WILL evolve, and if members only posting is the way to go, then that's what it will have to be.

Giok

Captain Swing

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 09:22 AM

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Shambles, with all of your constant repititions and petty nitpicking I hope this happens very soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 09:36 AM

More proof that the "BS" section should be for members only.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 10:21 AM

"Does anyone wish to actually discuss the issue?"

No Shambles, they don't. You don't know how to discuss an issue. You charge on ahead without listening to others. Also, there is nothing to discuss. Max will do what Max will do. The moderators are agents of Max and do his bidding. If Max didn't like the job that they are doing or doesn't approve of their methods he would replace them. You are the only one who doesn't accept this. That is not grounds for a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 10:23 AM

bingo

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:11 AM

If an employee had admitted that their best efforts to sell your product had failed - but they would be prepared to sell a completly different one which better suited their requirements.

Would you part company and get a better employee?

Or would you feel you had to change your product?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM

Any smart employer would look at the reasons.    It is not a black and white scenario as you try to make it out.

For one thing, your words indicate that the employee is faulty based on the first sentence.   Any smart employer would realize that there is more to the story. Not everyone passes judgement based on a single incident.

There is a word that you have never mentioned - "context". You can't make an analogy or clip a statement without looking at the context. Not everything can be accepted at face value, and you have to factor for errors - either in product or judgement. No smart employer would jump to conclusions or build up walls simply because something did not happen "by the books".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:34 AM

True. But any smart employer would also check the agendas of the employess--in this case, volunteers. As you said, Ron, the street isn't one-way. Shambles: the street isn't one-way.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:40 AM

If an employee had admitted that their best efforts to sell your product had failed - but they would be prepared to sell a completly different one which better suited their requirements. (Shambles)

If my employees would tell me that a change of the product (not: a completely different one, as you wrongly write) might appeal to more customers (not: suited better to the employees requirements, as you wrongly write) or better to most customers, I'd change the product.

And : If there was one customer who complained since years about my employees without giving it a break and his complaints made no real sense though he may have been wronged once, I'd fobid him to enter my shop from now on.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:50 AM

Good point Peace, and I was trying to infer that the employer look at ALL sides.

Frankly, everyone has an agenda and that is something that should be admired. I would hope that anyone that works for me has plans and ideas and would not simply follow instructions by rote. An employee that simply follows a set of guidelines is not going to help growth. Without goals and creativity, the company will stagnate. As long as the agendas for the company, employee and ultimately the customer can co-exist, there is no need to "fire" anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:50 AM

"Posters are not the sheep you refer to but perhaps you will agree that they will understandably follow the example of posting behavious seen to set by our 'moderators'?"

Some of us "independantly minded" regulars certainly would NOT agree with any such sweeping generalization!!!!! I make up my own mind!

Roger- you pride yourself on not stooping to name-calling and personal insults, as you note has happened to you at times, but that quoted sentence IS an insult to most of the folks who have tried to discuss this for the last few months or years!

You have taken that "seen to be" phrase into realms where it doesn't naturally venture!...most of the "seen to be" means only that YOU choose to "see" it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:52 AM

And any employee who is off on his or her own agenda ought to be spoken with so that it doesn't interfere with or go against the corporate philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:01 PM

This is not a one product company, and it is entitled to try new lines, or drop old ones.
It is also entitled to hire and fire staff as it sees fit, as it is Sole Proprietor, and does not have shareholders which it must satisfy.
It is also not required to conduct business with someone it doesn't want to do business with.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:09 PM

Once again, we are using an analogy that doesn't quite fit. It is too easy to drop certain details and make a comparison to something that doesn't match in "real" life. "Does anyone wish to actually discuss the issue?"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:12 PM

We've been trying that for about 8 years Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:16 PM

What's the policy on overtime?

Also ... is there an annual bonus that is fairly calculated for all employees?

I hope this is not a scent free environment. :)

"And THAT'S the way it is,"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:20 PM

Max will do what Max will do. The moderators are agents of Max and do his bidding. If Max didn't like the job that they are doing or doesn't approve of their methods he would replace them

The above sums up the situation. What is there to discuss?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:32 PM

No smart employer would jump to conclusions or build up walls simply because something did not happen "by the books".

It would probably not be a smart employer who allowed their employees to be seen to publicly bad mouth not only their product - but their customers.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:36 PM

Ron, you can see in these last few days a prime example of how this goes. This poster will post a flawed analogy, or create a flawed premise, and then get you all to debate it until you realize that you have been duped. This is one of the many behaviours that have been going on for years. You have also seen, and been the recipient of another of his unacceptable behaviours, that being his intolerance for any deviation from his absolute view of how things should be.

Here are a couple of more examples of setting a false premise:

.... they will understandably follow the example of posting behavious seen to set by our 'moderators'

This shows the lack of respect Shambles has for the intelligence of posters, as if they are led by us. Proof to the contrary is how some posters react when we post our opinions.

....perhaps you would also agree that our 'moderators' do not appear to much like the forum that results from their posting example being followed.....

Of course I wouldn't agree. If the moderators didn't like our forum, in the main, they wouldn't stay. I can't speak for the rest, but I love this forum, but am very disturbed when someone bullies others, and covers it up with a phoney "nice" demeanor.

And perhaps you could explain why a few posters so vocally support the continuation of 'best efforts' that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has publicly stated have not been able to make Mudcat - a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion

Simple. This is because the owner has not, as of yet, been able to take time from living a life, raising children, getting married, making a living, etc., to deal completely with this. Furthermore, he keeps this thing alive out of his own pocket, assisted to a small extent by contributions from some of us. But Shambles, locked in his little world, can't see that and continues to try and make this in his vision. He contributes nothing financially, very little musically anymore, and tries to tear down the structure that Max has in place which allows Max to keep it going. I know this is hard to see from the mental place that Shambles is locked in, but Max has other things in this world. Mudcat, on a scale of the most important things to occupy his time, probably finishes a poor 6th or 7th to the family and making a living, and if he weren't so committed should be about 20th. Shambles inability to see this, along with his being a self centered twit, is why I am so intolerant.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:59 PM

Why can't you ignore him?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 01:06 PM

Roger- you pride yourself on not stooping to name-calling and personal insults, as you note has happened to you at times, but that quoted sentence IS an insult to most of the folks who have tried to discuss this for the last few months or years!

You are welcome to your view and unlike me - you can still express this view in any thread you wish.

My view is the quoted sentence would not be judged an insult to anyone who is not scratching around trying to find one. Sadly some posters do not have to scratch around looking for insults they can own - these are only now too evidently encouraged on our forum.

Bill -I can show you what an real insult is in PMs - if you wish? In fact I would take great pleasure in being able to restore the balance.

No it it is not an insult. It remains a simple basic fact, if one, as a proud defender of the double standard of posting behaviour on our forum, you do not wish to accept.

Any new poster will assume from one of Micks best posts - containing only his self-confressed 'intolerant comments' - that if it is seen to be good enough for our 'moderators' on our forum - such posting is good enough for them also. Despite posts like the following.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated. If they are responding to him, silly though I believe that to be, that will be allowed.

And if our 'moderators' are seen to take no action when favoured posters like Catspaw is in full scatological personal insult mode - a new poster could safely assume that no action will be taken and that it would be safe for them to follow this posting example.

And many have. But have not been eliminated........

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn - PM
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM

Shambles-you piss me off.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 01:07 PM

"It would probably not be a smart employer who allowed their employees to be seen to publicly bad mouth not only their product - but their customers. "

Not necessarily so. First of all, your label of "bad mouth" is simply your opinion. The quote that you have cut and paste numerous times is simply an opinion from Joe. Most "employers" would not disagree that an honest evaluation of pros and cons will actually help the image of the company and go far to improving. Companies need to be open and honest.

As for bad mouthing a customer, it is easy to say that it is a no-no. However in reality there are often circumstances where it is necessary and will actually build respect. A customer who tries to get away with behavior that disrupts my business needs to be dealt with. Hopefully things won't get out of hand, but sometimes they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 01:11 PM

wrong question. Why 'don't' you ignore him? Because he has for several years criticized the basic way the place is run, and made ridiculous insinuations about the moderators and various members, pretending that if he complains 'nicely', it excuses the incessant nature of it all.

You could ask HIM whay he doesn't (or can't) accept how things are done and not keep this crusade going.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 01:26 PM

What Bill said. Or, I could answer you this way.

For the same reason you can't ignore me, or him.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 01:39 PM

I like the analogy used by Shambles. If I was another customer more contented with the employees I'd consider it extremely impolite if one customer not contented with the employees would complain loudly each day in the shop about the employees both for the customers and the employees to hear (we know this type of customer, don't we?). I'd think the adult way of action would be to bring his issue to the attention of the employer and if the action or inaction of the employer would not what he would like it to be to shop somewhere else instead of daily repeating the complaints in the shop for everyone to hear. As I said already I like the anylogy introduced by Shambles.

Just BTW, Shambles, have you ever complained privately at Max about his volunteer employees and if so, what was the gist of his response?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM

Wolfgang,

You should know better then to ask Shambles a direct question. He never, ever answers them. He only asks questions of others.

This is not a store, a business, a party or any other analogy that has been made. This is an internet message board. As such, it has its own set of rules and regulations. What is proper conduct here is determined by the owner of the board. It is not run to make money so it doesn't really matter if those who come here like the rules and regulations. No one says they have to stay or come back. The owner receives nothing for satisfying them and loses nothing if they are not satisfied.

This message board was founded to be a source of information on folk and related types of music. This is confined to the top of the line. Any other message board that I take part in enforces sticking to the theme of the board. There is not one other board that I know of that would allow any of the postings below the line here to stay on their board. These postings are not relevant to the theme of the board. Shambles, you should give credit to Max and the moderators for even allowing below the line threads. They are certainly an optional part of this board. As such, they can be run by whatever rules Max ALLOWS. By not stopping the actions of a moderator Max is allowing those actions to continue. It's his call and no one elses.

Go to any other themed message board and see if there are any posts similar to what appears below the line here. They are edited out and it is expected that they will be. You should thank Max for even allowing this foolishness to continue. Criticisms are certainly not called for. Where I come from you would be considered a bore, an ingrate and someone who should be kept from encouraging others to view the owner and his agents as negative influences. On any other board you would be banned for life. I know that you could care less what anyone says but that's what it is like in the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:05 PM

Not necessarily so. First of all, your label of "bad mouth" is simply your opinion. The quote that you have cut and paste numerous times is simply an opinion from Joe.

Ron - you will accept that: The quote that you have cut and paste numerous times is simply an opinion from Joe is simply your opinion?

I will post it again so any posters new to this discussion can make up their own minds, if it was simply this? And to for them to be able to judge for themselves what its intention and effect on our forum was.

Even though the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not limit his opinions to posts or limit his editing comments to only where some action has been imposed - I have little doubt what the intention and effect of the following is.
And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. It may be only my opinion - but it is one based on the facts rather than in spite of them.

First - it is stated to be For the record. and the use of the words 'our' and 'we' more suggests that the poster is speaking on behalf of like-minded other 'moderators' but it is not clear if these were even aware.

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit
Joe Offer.
------
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
Joe Offer
------
Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:15 PM

Unfortunately for your premise, Shambles, cause and effect are reversed - as many, in fact MOST of your qoutes occur AFTER the changes that you claim came about because of the actions of the moderators.

Though I will admit it becomes bvery hard to tell just WHAT premise you are trying to defend, given the number of unrelated and irrelevant qoutes you include.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:15 PM

Go to any other themed message board and see if there are any posts similar to what appears below the line here. They are edited out and it is expected that they will be. You should thank Max for even allowing this foolishness to continue. Criticisms are certainly not called for.

I do thank Max for this. It is not me who is complaining about his posting policy toward BS nor is it me who is suggesting it should be changed to suit my requirements.

Or do you not consider the following to be the most fundamental complaint and criticism of our forum?

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.
Joe Offer

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:16 PM

And finally, Ron, you see another of his neurotic tools. When folks start to enunciate what is wrong, he will then cut and paste ad nauseum and try to overwhelm the conversation. This has been going on for years. He apparently cannot accept the fact that there are other views, and other logic. And he cannot seem to understand that this is just a message board, and not the center of the universe. It is attitudes like his, rather than Joe's, that make it hard to be a place of good feelings and discussion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM

Ron - for everyone's sake - will you tell Mick what he wants to hear?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:21 PM

Rather than an analogy, I'll offer an actual event that happened with a person I knew. This person endlessly complained about a particular hair dresser in a beauty Salon that she went to. No matter how much the hair dresser tried to satisfy this person, she was always extremely critical after each visit. This person complained so endlessly that she finally succeeded in getting the hair dresser fired. There was so much upset in the beauty salon among the other hair dressers that the employer investigated the matter more thoroughly and discovered that the problem was the customer, not the hair dresser. The hair dresser that was fired was well-liked by her other customers.

The next time this person came to the beauty salon to have her hair done, the owner spoke to her and told her that she had caused so much trouble with her endless complaints that she was no longer welcome in the store and was told to take her business elsewhere.

This is not an analogy. The woman was a close friend of a woman I was dating at the time.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:21 PM

There ya go again Roger, calling it a discussion when it isn't!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:22 PM

Well Wolfie its been a long time since we tried that tack! But of course we have as you know. Shambolina is just going to go and on................Everything has been thoroughly hashed from every conceivable angle and the stupid shit still goes on and on..........

It will end.

When the new baby arrives and Jeff's troubles are passed, a time will come when Max and Jeff will invest the energy and hours/days in doing the updates around here that they have been hoping to accomplish. The crash stuff is finally cleared so when they get ready to clean up the rest of that, they'll make some updates which they have been wanting to do. Numbnuts has been told in every possible way that he needs to cease and desist or he will be non-entity when that time comes.

Until then, those who like Roger need to tell him the fight is over and it would be in his best interests to call it a day. Hell, I used to like Roger's poetry and songs but this vendetta kinda' kills off any good feelings. But once again let me try...............

Shut up Roger.

You've stated all of your opinions far too many times already. Your vitriol comes across as an indirect if not totally direct attack on Max. Enough. Focus in on the reality. Here it is:

FROM MAX--"Our priority number 2 is to beef up the back end security of the site so that we can confront such issues. I cannot currently effectively enforce a ban on the savy. It would be too easy for them to find a workaround and get back in, now angry. Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can."

He's talking about you. Can't you see that? Shut up now Roger and enjoy what this place does offer you. Just stop. I said once before that I would support you (not that you give a shit) if you'd just drop the vendetta. Stop.

But I know, or at least suspect, this all falls on deaf ears and you will continue to be the pain in the ass you take pride in being right up until you find yourself outside and looking in.   Go ahead and keep weaseling around. I truly love reading the way you can twist and modify virtually anything to your arguments. Your garbled syntax and wacko logic has become some of the most enjoyable stuff that many of us read here.   But it will end. Whether you believe it or not, it will end. Why not try and stop?

Nah.....Can't do it can you?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:31 PM

There you see another testament, Ron, to Roger's problems. When someone addresses someone other than him, it is bothersome. He will rail on, cut and paste, and try to shift the premise. I see that response as a lack of respect for both you and me. But that is OK, because the feeling on my part is mutual.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:32 PM

"Ron - for everyone's sake - will you tell Mick what he wants to hear?"

Sure thing.

Shambles has agreed not to say another word.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:34 PM

LOL.....Good one Ron!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 02:45 PM

Actually Ron, I would be happy if he would just contribute something positive and get off this incessant carping. But that would be like asking him not to breathe. It is not possible.

You should not worry about telling me anything about Roger. I am posting on this thread, simply to give you some background as to why things have gotten this way, and so you get something other than a one-sided view. I am quite certain you are plenty smart enough to draw your own conclusions. Agreement with me is not required, or desired. Guys like Peace disagree with me more than not, but I think the world of him. I know his motives are good. I cannot say the say for this poster.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 03:00 PM

Ron,

Better yet, will you tell Shambles what he wants to hear?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM

I am not in a position to tell anyone what they WANT to hear. Just like everyone else on this thread, I am giving my opinion and reflections on what I see.

Since this thread has reached War & Peace proportions, let take the soapbox and sum up what I see.

1.) Shambles has some legitimate concerns about his treatment, and he also made some good SUGGESTIONS.

2.) Some of the comments made against Shambles are unnecessary. I sincerely suspect that most of the comments would not be made if you were face to face. If someone said some of those things to my face, they would be paying a visit to the dentist.

3.) Joe (as well as the other moderators)has done an amazing job as a volunteer on this website. Personally, I feel that he has said a few things publicly that perhaps it would have been better to keep to himself. That does not make him a villain, nor is it grounds for dismissal.

4) In my opinion (let me stress that), I feel that Shambles does not possess very good debating skills and he has a difficult time making his point.   He would have been better served to simply outline his gripes, bullet point his suggestions, and avoid responding to all the garbage thrown at him. If he kept more to his course, he might have been more effective.

5.) Life sucks and then you die. People are going to be people, and some thing are beyond changing. It would be nice to have civil discussions and for everyone to take the time to examine another view. It won't always happen. You do not have to like everyone you meet. You are not required to have a good time. You can ignore what you want, respond to what you want, and say what you want - unless instructed by the owners of this site to do something else.   

As long as we are allowed in the pool and given loose guidelines, we can do what we will. Unless there is a sign posted to remind us not to pee, someone will spring a leak.

6.) Some perspective and context is needed.   This is a folk music forum after all. No ones life is in danger. Civil rights are not being violated. Children will not go to bed hungry because of what we do here. Women will not lose the right to vote because of things we type. All this self-righteous anger (and I include myself in this) is not necessary.

So, we go on. I have already apologized to Shambles for statements I made earlier in this discussion. I finally saw what he was trying to say, and I agreed with some of it.    I can't agree with everything, nor can I agree with the importance he places on it.

Life is.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 03:26 PM

As the number of shambles OCD'ers dwindle they have to post more to keep up the charade that they speak for the majority. Note how their posts are littered with self reassuring descriptors - that they speak for large/many numbers. We are left with 5 maybe 6 of them flapping around like guppies.

But what you are being treated to here is a totally one sided manipulative view of proceedings. The thread 'Open Letter to Max', that was started with the sole intention to yet again gang up on shambles, turned into the opposite. The posters criticising the OCD'ers far outweighed those berating shambles.

And lo and behold it was closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 03:43 PM

Re 3: While I can agree some things would perhaps have been said better or not said at all, my opinion is that considering Joe Offer has more or less been accused of wrong doing, each day for the past 6 years, he has overall kept his patience pretty well. Given what you say about trips to dentists, Ron, I can not believe you would have handled the situation anywhere near as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM

What's an OCD?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 03:59 PM

"Ron, I can not believe you would have handled the situation anywhere near as well."

You are correct. I give Shambles credit for not responding in the same manner.   Of course, a case can be made that Shambles retaliates in his own manner, but I will give him the benefit.

However, I don't know if I would have let the situation reach a point like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:07 PM

Of course, a case can be made that Shambles retaliates in his own manner, but I will give him the benefit.

Retaliates? The accusations come from shambles. shambles is the agressor. The mods, notably Joe Offer constantly wind up defending themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:09 PM

It's always easier to not respond "badly" when someones "bad" behavior is provoked by yourself in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 06:10 PM

what's OCD?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 06:12 PM

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 06:17 PM

"Oh, help me in my weakness,"
I heard the drifter say,
As they carried him from the courtroom
And were taking him away.
"My trip hasn't been a pleasant one
And my time it isn't long,
And I still do not know
What it was that I've done wrong."

Well, the judge, he cast his robe aside,
A tear came to his eye,
"You fail to understand," he said,
"Why must you even try?"
Outside, the crowd was stirring,
You could hear it from the door.
Inside, the judge was stepping down,
While the jury cried for more.

"Oh, stop that cursed jury,"
Cried the attendant and the nurse,
"The trial was bad enough,
But this is ten times worse."
Just then a bolt of lightning
Struck the courthouse out of shape,
And while ev'rybody knelt to pray
The drifter did escape."

drifter's escape .... B. Dylan


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:28 PM

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.
Joe Offer

Any chance of a discussion on the above?

1. Have they really been ALL of 'our best efforts'?

2. Is really Mudcat no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion?

3. If you think not - then what is the motivation behind such a 'for the record' public statement and what is its effect?

4. If you agree that Mudcat IS no longer pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion - what suggestions can you make to improve it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:33 PM

Whenever I happen by this thread I am reminded of the scene from the Fellini movie "Amarcord" where one of the characters threatens suicide by prying his mouth apart.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:44 PM

I can't agree with everything, nor can I agree with the importance he places on it.

Could this have something to do with the fact that you are still free to express your view in any thread you wish - and I am not?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:50 PM

Ron, for posterity's sake, I will correct mistatements so someone later doesn't believe a falsehood.

Shambles is not curtailed from posting in any thread he wants. He is allowed to post anywhere he so chooses. The only restriction on him is that he is not allowed to hijack the threads over to his personal crusade, as he has done many times in the past. This is what precipitated his restriction to having one thread to discuss his objections to how the forum is run. He is also restricted to one thread on this subject at a time. For a period of time he would start multiple threads on essentially the same subject, all with just a slightly different name. It got so bad that he was restricted to one thread. This is treatment that he earned.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 08:16 PM

and, he has gotten adept at 'skirting the line' with threads that 'almost' get into his crusade. The 'birthday' threads were in that area, but have become something else, due to mostly being 'on topic'.

I post to them at times...Like Mick, I'm not against Roger posting interesting stuff, even silly stuff. I just am weary with his flogging a dead horse until the quivers of the body LOOK like there's still life!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 08:23 PM

Finally, Napoleon emerges from the farmhouse, upright and carrying a whip.

It is the most shocking thing the animals have ever seen. It goes against everything that they have been taught up to then. Just as it seems that someone might object, the sheep break into a deafening chorus of "Four legs bad, two legs better."

They went on for five minutes, during which the pigs walked briefly around and then returned to the farmhouse. The chance to protest is gone. Clover goes to the gable wall and brings Benjamin with her. She asks Benjamin to read for her what is on the gable wall.

All the commandments are gone, and all that is written there now is "All animals are equal, But some animals are more equal than others."

From Animal Farm by George Orwell

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 09:20 PM

Half Brain Good. Full Brain Better.

How many times are you going to post that? It has no meaning here at all. Equally, you are not a martyr to a cause or a staunch defender of freedom............You are on the other hand, unable to see the forest for the trees. Soon one will fall on you.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:18 PM

YIPES!

I have little clue....but when you are through....please pass the bottle of Absenth.

Sorry I invited any of you folk in here....this is worse than a Fellini "Meets Friday the Thirteenth" or "Coney Island of the Mind" waltzing with Whitman across "Thorough's Pound." (did you wipe your behind?)

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:30 PM

Garg, that may be your finest post ever. Well done.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:33 PM

The Garg is always capable.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:36 PM

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:12 AM

"If you agree that Mudcat IS no longer pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion - what suggestions can you make to improve it?"

For starters Shambles you can stop beating a dead horse. But that will never happen. So therefore you will soon be gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:20 AM

If Shambles wants to beat a dead horse, why does it bother you? Lots of worst posts are on Mudcat and the editing team doesn't give a shit about them. So way single out Shambles? This makes no fucking sense. He's posting this stuff on ONE thread. If you don't want to read it, don't. Simple, really. True, maybe Shambles IS beating a dead horse, but to even THAT up, gangs beat on Shambles. FAWK!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:55 AM

That has always puzzled me Peace .... I guess deep down everyone likes Shambles ... or their buttons have easily been pushed by Shambles, but I can't see people being that stoopid.

Overall I can't see what all the squawking is all about ... Shambles says what he says ... some of it makes sense, some of it doesn't ... so what ... I certainly wouldn't call the hangin' judge in over it.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:59 AM

I guess deep down everyone likes Shambles

I think you may be right, Number 6. His constant repetition and his flawed logic and paranoid rantings are obnoxious, but I can't help wondering what stunt he's going to pull next. He's a likeable fellow, despite himself.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 04:42 AM

What has liking anyone got to do with the public being invited to post their views on a discussion forum - and just as importantly, what has it to do with all posters being expected to tolerate the views of others?

The following is the important thing to be seen to publicly discuss.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.
Joe Offer

It is clear from this (for the record statement) that these 'best efforts' of closing threads and deleting posts have not provided our 'moderators' with what they require and that Max has been asked and has not yet implemented the requested change. So if you agree with this statement - what can you suggest to improve our forum.

And if you don't agree with it - this may be your only chance to be able to say so. Before:

It is the most shocking thing the animals have ever seen. It goes against everything that they have been taught up to then. Just as it seems that someone might object, the sheep break into a deafening chorus of "Four legs bad, two legs better."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 05:39 AM

You're right, Shambles. I like you just fine, but

I can't tolerate all this repetition!!!! Aaaaaargh!!!!

Whew!
It feels better now. I'm OK. I just needed to let it out, for once...
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 05:40 AM

What again?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 06:13 AM

The ancient incurious at the Ted Rachel gavin and ground of bugle the shadow warrens abstractly to resonating capasity in the villagers plus and minus to consecutive

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:26 AM

" The following is the important thing to be seen to publicly discuss.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion."


Shambles, if no one seems to be willing to discuss your point, perhaps you would accept that no one has any serious objections or they would be bringing up points to support yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:38 AM

But if one person says it one time and Shambles picks up on it then it must be the God's honest truth. After all, Shambles is the official speaker of what is best for Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM

"And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion."

Oh. I get it. If I report that in my opinion the Mudcat is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off and have a good discussion then I'm disagreeing with Joe Offer, which makes Joe a liar and therefore he must go.

Am I right?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM

No Ebbie, you would be disagreeing with a moderator so you must go. Better yet, according to Shambles, your comment would be edited out and you would be permanently persecuted by the moderators and lynch mobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 03:06 PM

Of course, your presence here gives the lie to that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:02 AM

Am I right?

Why have you posted but not told us what your opinion is. There is nothing to discuss - if you do not. So perhaps you could simply tell our forum what it is your opinion on this statement?

Do you agree with it and the proposed solution to it - or not?

Ebbie - perhaps you would accept that it is the public posting of this 'for the record' statement by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that is causing you and our forum the sort of problems and conclusions you refer to? All I am doing is asking for these problems to be discussed and addressed.

For this is exactly the sort of division that I refer to. In all truth your opinion either supports this statement or it does not. So why should you feel you have to struggle to make your opinion fit with any 'semi-official' party line and feel you need to be seen to be on the right side? Especially a side that appears never to be satisfied.........

In my view there has only been one side to take and that is to support our forum and the open invitation for the public to post and the continuation of Max's posting policy. To my mind, any poster who does not support this and requires it to be changed to better suit their requirements - has never been posting on the right forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:40 AM

Shambles, if no one seems to be willing to discuss your point, perhaps you would accept that no one has any serious objections or they would be bringing up points to support yours?

It is the most shocking thing the animals have ever seen. It goes against everything that they have been taught up to then. Just as it seems that someone might object, the sheep break into a deafening chorus of "Four legs bad, two legs better."

Yours may be one view? The evidence would not support this. There are a number of poster who do have serious objections - they just make less noise, are not encouraged and are understandably reticent about posting anything that may look like supporting my views (especially in this thread).

Your view is that I do not have a very good debating style. Perhaps you would accept other posters may feel that I do, that I am saying exacly what they may wish to and that they will watch while I take all the public 'stick' that seems to be the result of trying to discuss certain issues on our forum? Such a view is possible?   

Perhaps you would also accept that all the justifications provided to support the special restrictions are bogus? That it is what I try to say that is the real problem? And that this is clearly demonstrated in the fact that I and any other poster would still be free to say what a wonderful job our 'moderators' are doing in any thread (as they are doing) and be able to do this as often as they wished - without any accusations of hijacking?

And that certain posters are encouraged to post spam, jokes, recipes in this thread - safe from any accusations of this hijacking? And that anyone who supports this - is seen to be supporting a double standard of posting behaviour on our forum? One where online bullying is now seen to be encouraged by the open participation and encouragement of some of our 'moderators'?

And where is the support here for the (for the record) statement? Even the fellow poster who made it - seems reluctant to now discuss it or indicate to our forum if this view has changed in the period since it was made, or whether this is still their view.

Although the poster cannot seem to be quite able to ignore this thread or resist posting to it but adding little to the discussion. One blessing is that these contributions are at least being posted conventionally and do refresh the thread - rather than being contained in editing comments, which do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:45 AM

There ya' go Ebbie. You have received right from the horse's ass a Shambolina Classic. Syntax and logic both are garbled and beyond recognition. The last "policy" Max had towards postings by the Piss&MoanMeister was a request he leave.

Got a mirror Roger? I mean do you have one your wife will allow you to use without fear of breakage? If so, please look into it and say, "Geeziz, I am really an asshole." Repeat this one hundred times and then perhaps you will be able to read what Max has actually said and see that you are not his defender but his antagonist and your ass is about to get the boot as outlined for you previously.

Do yourself a huge favor Roger and go back to your poems and songs and drop the vendetta. Just a suggestion mind you, but it's a good one.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 08:34 AM

Rather than an analogy, I'll offer an actual event that happened with a person I knew. This person endlessly complained about a particular hair dresser in a beauty Salon that she went to. No matter how much the hair dresser tried to satisfy this person, she was always extremely critical after each visit. This person complained so endlessly that she finally succeeded in getting the hair dresser fired. There was so much upset in the beauty salon among the other hair dressers that the employer investigated the matter more thoroughly and discovered that the problem was the customer, not the hair dresser. The hair dresser that was fired was well-liked by her other customers.

As an analogy - this story rather depends on who you are encouraged to see as the complainant and who you see as the customer and what is the aim.

I cannot view the following as anything other that a complaint of the most fundamental kind, and this after a never-ending list of public complaints about posters, made by the same individual over many years.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.
Joe Offer

To go on from the hairdresser story - this the equivalent of the shop's manager complaining about the staff to the customers and to the customers about the staff and telling the shop's owner that they require the hairdressers shop to be changed into a chip shop.

Such a statement does little to help the morale of the staff, very little to encourge the existing customers or any new ones who still turn up expecting their hair to be done . It may be some encouragement to those who like chips - but as has been pointed out many times - there are no shortage of chip shops eleswhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 08:47 AM

Hey Shambles:

Thanks for taking an extremely straighforward, actual occurence and making it into an incomprehensible analogy.

Only you.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:18 AM

Thank you Jerry. You will notice that I will not make any personal judgement of your worth, in my post but will continue try to discuss the issue.

You will acept that it is true that their are plenty of chip shops needing to be managed.

Though quite how many owners would tolerate their managers being seen to constantly complain about their customers, their staff and their policy - is not sure.

But the other option is for those complainers to start one of their own. But again I am not sure how many customers would be attracted to a shop with such a policy - but this would be a fair test and more honest approach than to try and dictate terms to and changing an established business to suit the manager's requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:11 AM

Despite the best efforts of our Police, they have not eliminated crime. We should get rid of them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:11 AM

"Your view is that I do not have a very good debating style. Perhaps you would accept other posters may feel that I do, that I am saying exacly what they may wish to and that they will watch while I take all the public 'stick' that seems to be the result of trying to discuss certain issues on our forum?"
No, I don't see such evidence. There are people who agree with you, including me, but I see very few that agree with the level of importance that you place on it.

" Such a view is possible? "
Anything is possible, but is it probable?

" Yours may be one view?"
Well duh!   

Of course, my view could also be shared by hundreds, as could yours. Not that any of our views matter.

" And where is the support here for the (for the record) statement? "
Apparently the support is there from the owner of this site. That is all that is needed.

"this the equivalent of the shop's manager complaining about the staff to the customers and to the customers about the staff and telling the shop's owner that they require the hairdressers shop to be changed into a chip shop.

Such a statement does little to help the morale of the staff, very little to encourge the existing customers or any new ones who still turn up expecting their hair to be done ."
So? The owner of the store can take the business in any way they choose. True, it may hurt the morale of the staff and customers, but the business decision is not theirs to make.

"You will notice that I will not make any personal judgement of your worth, in my post but will continue try to discuss the issue."
Seems like a statement like that just made a judgement about Jerry. It appears that you feel superior to Jerry by saying things like that.

You don't have the option of controlling how people discuss issues. It is not your job to moderate and your suggestions are not being taken seriously because of the way you are supposedly "discussing" this issue. Shutting down other views and turning yourself into a martyr does not help your case.

"But the other option is for those complainers to start one of their own."
Let us know where you start one. I will be sure to visit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:15 AM

Stop maoning shambles. We of the the Moab continuium have just lost about 7000 posts...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,lightnix
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:20 AM

Shamble, I think you need to get over yourself. As a long term forum user and occasional moderator, I've developed the following view over the last few years...

Nobody has a "right" to post anything, in any web forum, anywhere, other than the Adminstrators, to whom the site belongs. Web forums are not democracies, they are privately owned and run websites and if the owners don't want to see certain things in their websites then those things don't go in.

Forums are not "services" in the strict sense of the word. They (and the various functions and facilities they offer) are merely courtesies extended by the voluntary administrators who run them, often at their own financial expense (especially in the short term) and their moderation team. As long as membership is free, nobody has the right to expect (let alone demand) any level of service of any kind, particularly one that is higher than that which the voluntary team who run a forum are prepared to provide.

Nobody forces anybody to visit, register with, or post in any forum. The whole process is entirely voluntary and if a member doesn't like the way a forum is run, the best thing to do is not go there. Getting involved in the politics and starting fights, especially with moderators will get you precisely nowhere (except maybe a ban). Nobody is going to change the way they run their forum just to suit the wants and whims of an individual member or two, especially once the total membership number has risen beyond a few tens / hundreds.

Moderators are not censors, they are closer to being newspaper sub-editors. When somebody makes a post to a forum, it is as though they are writing a letter or submitting copy to a newspaper and, as with a newspaper, the editor and sub-editors may go through that copy and edit (not censor) it, so that the message published in the paper is clear, concise and in line with the "profile" of the publication.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:06 PM

Apparently the support is there from the owner of this site. That is all that is needed.

It is a fact that in the time since this (for the record) statement/complaint was made on forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, the site's owner, our host Max has not seen fit to implement the only suggestion contained in this statement.

So how do you equate that as the site's owner's support for this (for the record) statement and the wishes of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made it?   

If Max was seen to be supporting this (for the record) statement - surely our forum would already had been changed to accomodate the wishes of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Or at the very least, some form of public (for the record) statement of its intended implementation would have be given to our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:13 PM

Nobody is going to change the way they run their forum just to suit the wants and whims of an individual member or two, especially once the total membership number has risen beyond a few tens / hundreds.

Perhaps you need to explain this to the poster/'moderator' who made the following (for the record) request? For he appears to think that our host will change the way they run their forum just to suit the wants and whims of an individual member or two.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM

Boring

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM

Boring

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM

Boring

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM

Boring

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:22 PM

Boregasmic

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:22 PM

My recent research has indicated that overuse of the word "perhaps" can lead to sterility and impotency as well as general mental and physical deterioration. This may be because "perhaps" is a word that refuses to commit itself definitely one way or another. Test subjects began to show symptoms of general debilitation when they used the word "perhaps" more than seven times in one hour or 85 times in one day, and they also began to ramble on in a fashion which could be amusing to some, confusing to others, and irritating to still others, depending on various different personality factors.

The message is clear: restrict your use of the word "perhaps" to an absolute minimum in order to avoid ill effects!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:02 PM

"It is a fact that in the time since this (for the record) statement/complaint was made on forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, the site's owner, our host Max has not seen fit to implement the only suggestion contained in this statement."

So then what is the problem?

"So how do you equate that as the site's owner's support for this (for the record) statement and the wishes of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made it?"
I think you read too much into that. You make it sound like Joe's suggestion was some sort of set-in-stone, take-it-or-leave-it, dealbreaker.   Most people have discourse and move on. Seems like Joe & Max have that.   Nothing much to discuss here.

"Perhaps you need to explain this to the poster/'moderator' who made the following (for the record) request? For he appears to think that our host will change the way they run their forum just to suit the wants and whims of an individual member or two."
Not much to discuss or explain there. You can interpret comments any way you choose, but actions speak louder than your words. IF something will happen, it will happen. If not, so be it. La dee da.

"Or at the very least, some form of public (for the record) statement of its intended implementation would have be given to our forum?"
No reason for anyone to respond to that.

Your circular reasoning is getting you no where. Anyone who looks hard enough will come up with an answer to either make your case or disprove. The simple fact remains that while many of us see your points, by the lack of action no one seems to feel sufficiently moved to join you on your quest. You receive some sympathy, a few pats on the back, but what we witness by reading these threads is that no one is out there fighting the battle or even discussing what you consider to be the issue.   

You keep cutting and pasting a comment about this place not being fun anymore and then ask people to discuss it.   A few people have stated why they don't agree with you, I have not seen anyone who supported the statement, and then you complain that no one wishes to discuss the issue.   Your point was made, reasons against were offered - and that is the discussion. Why do you wish everyont to repeat their statments?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:25 PM

I'm very concerned on how Taylor guitars are being slammed dunked (unfairly I may add) up in the current 'Taylor' guitar thread.


"And THAT'S the way it is,"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:45 PM

Why do you wish everyont to repeat their statments?


I don't, but why do you insist on responding to points that you see no reason to respond to?

Why do you keep on opening the thread and posting to the effect that there is nothing to discuss?

If you do not wish to discuss this issue - who is forcing you or anyone else to do this?

Your opinion is that this (for the record) statement is of no account - no one is asking you to repeat your opinion - so why do you do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:54 PM

OK Ron, this is another of the tactics that has been going on for 6 to 8 years. This person continues to bait, and troll, and throw out as much data as he can to elicit a response, then turns the argument to "Why do you respond?". When folks do a concerted effort to not respond, such as was done a month or so ago, he then complains that people are ganging up on him and not responding. See how it works?

Lunacy......

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:57 PM

OCD alert. OCD alert. OCD alert.

I know I won't refer to him by name and then my obsession will appear to be abating.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 03:57 PM

" I don't, but why do you insist on responding to points that you see no reason to respond to?"

I'm responding to QUESTIONS that you have asked. That is how a discussion usually works.


"Your opinion is that this (for the record) statement is of no account - no one is asking you to repeat your opinion - so why do you do it?"

No fair, I asked you first.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:13 PM

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

The system is being upgraded now. Your days of repeating the same inane comments will soon come to an end. Goodbye and good riddance. Perhaps in the spare time that you will have after you are banned from Mudcat you should consider taking a course in debate. A debate includes listening to the other side...not just repeating the same comments over and over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM

Well, Ron....after your heroic effort to be fair, reasonable and understanding with Shambles, I see you now asking him the same questions I and others did 2-3-4 years ago....and I see him baiting and evading you with rhetorical and repetitive replies as he has done in response to others for those several years.

   He 'seems' to be saying that it would be fine if NO ONE replied, and left him to post away, unnoticed, forever....but I suspect that a few months of NO ONE opening his threads/posts would not satisfy him at all.

After 5-6 years of following this, I'll confess, I have lost the point of the original complaint...though I can name several current ones that branched off FROM the ongoing complex of responses.

It's funny...if any of this took place in a room at a live gathering, I'll wager it would be much easier to either debate or ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 05:08 PM

Ron,

You've become a glutton for punishment. You always have seemed to be the voice of reason. Stop trying to best Shambles at this game. No one will win because no one has the patience to ask the same thing over and over and then search for isolated sentences posted years ago that justify the point in question. As a matter of fact, there really is no point in question because Max can do whatever he wants irregardless of what anyone or everyone thinks about it.

Just ignore Shambles because he will always find a way to weasel away from any logical discussion. A discussion may prove him wrong so he doesn't enter into one. Just accusation after accusation.

Give it up guy!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 05:23 PM

Joe:-

I'm trying to be helpful at this point.

Can you tell me if anything I've posted has been edited out?

As far as I can tell, nothing has.

If I'm right about that, there may be something for posters to learn.

Again IF I'm right, all that's required is to post sensibly (?!),interestingly (?!), vaguely to the point, without pointless abuse, or libel.

If that is all that it takes to steer clear of being edited out, then this ginormous , for want of a better word, discussion just might evaporate.





    Ivor

---

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,lightnix
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:11 PM

The system is being upgraded now... Perhaps in the spare time that you will have after you are banned from Mudcat...

Ooo, does this mean you'll be getting some "real" forum software - that'll help. I moderated on a forum that used Invision, it was great. We operated a "three strikes system", after which an offending member would be placed under "pre-moderation" i.e. they could still post, but their posts would remain invisible until approved by a moderator; any posts which didn't make the grade were binned with no further warning, notice or explanation. If pre-mod didn't work then we could either suspend them (can log in but not post) or ban the IP address (can't even lurk). OK - an IP ban is bypassable, but your prose style will always give you away eventually.

In the meantime, the best thing to do with Shambles and his ilk is just ignore them. It's hard sometimes, but remember: every time you respond to his/their trolling and baiting, all you do is give them the attention they so desperately crave, because they are sad and lonely people with no lives. People like Shambles have few, if any real points to make, all they want is a reaction and every time you answer their posts, you give it to them.

In the meantime: if you don't like a forum or the way it is run, just don't visit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:21 PM

The last comers disappeared in the church and the sound of singing came faintly to Jehiels ears. Although he was the sexton he rarely was in church for the service, using his duties as an excuse for absence. He felt that it was not for him to take part in prayer and thanksgiving. As a boy he had prayed for the one thing he wanted, and what had it come to?

If it doesnt let him promptly heave a ZUG after it; the two together canhardly fail to bung the hole; but if, by a miracle, they SHOULD fail, let

His uncle had grown very pale during this speech, and at the last words he recoiled with an exclamation of horror. There was a silence in which he looked at his nephew with the wide eyes of a man who sees a spectre. Then he turned away into the furnace-room, and picking up his lunch-box brought it back. Here, you, he said, roughly, part of whats troublin you is that you aint had any breakfast. You eat this and youll feel better. Ill be back in a minute.

He looked up at the lofty crown of the pine tree, through which shone one or two of the brightest stars, and felt a new comradeship with it. It was a great tree, he thought, and they had grown up together. He laid his hardened palm on it, and fancied that he caught a throb of the silent vitality under the bark. How many kinds of life there were! Under its white shroud, how all the valley lived. The tree stretching up its head to the stars, the river preparing to throw off the icy armor which compressed its heart -- they were all awakening in their own way. The river had been restless, like himself, the tree had been tranquil, but they passed together through the resurrection into quiet life.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:42 PM

"Ron, You've become a glutton for punishment. ...
Give it up guy!"


You are right. I apologize for wasting more time and space. At least I feel good that I made my points coherent, thought about the issues, and came to what I feel was a reasonable point of view.   Shambles has some legitimate gripes, but it won't go anywhere. It is not worth repeating the same points over and over again, and to be goaded into doing that. That is a tactic of Shambles that is very rude, yet it is something he won't acknowledge.   There are no new points being made, and it is obvious that some people refuse to listen and really think the issues through.   It just isn't worth it. Over a website? Please!!

Have fun everybody!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:08 PM

Good decision Ron. It would be great if everyone stopped posting to this thread like what happened a short time ago. It sure was fun to watch Shambles do a daily posting looking for attention. Why don't we try it again.

I'm signing off now. Maybe eveyone else would be willing to do that.

Great idead lightnix about prescreening someone's posting. If a poster is obnoxious he/she deserves to be edited out.

Good bye to this thread...forever.

Soon goodbye to Shambles...forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:27 PM

I'll but that. I'm outta here.

See ya..

Jerry

Subject: BS: Ignore CT & DP
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:31 PM

Let's try to ignore Closed Threads and Deleted Posts again. It was so much fun seeing Shambles panic a short time ago when no one would answer his desperate attempts to get attention.

Post here instead of giving Shambles what he wants. It should be a lot of fun seeing how he reacts this time.

Andy

Subject: RE: BS: Ignore CT & DP
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:39 PM

I don't think it is right to start a "boycott" unless there is a specific reason. The tone of the above post is that we should avoid talking to Shambles just to piss him off.   I don't care to be a part of that.

IF there were a reasonable attempt to discuss issues, or ideas, then I am all for it. Unless there is something to add, I won't post to the thread - but I reserve the right to post in any thread that the moderators and owner of the site will allow me to - provided I obey their policies and if I feel that I can make a contribution to the discussion.

If you don't have anything to say, then don't say anything. If you legitimatly want to converse, then converse. If you want to engage in a pissing contest with another Mudcatter - you know where to find the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:52 AM

As for discussing the (for the record) statement - the following post indicates some of the difficulties caused by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie - PM
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM

"And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion."

Oh. I get it. If I report that in my opinion the Mudcat is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off and have a good discussion then I'm disagreeing with Joe Offer, which makes Joe a liar and therefore he must go.

Am I right?

Posters will free to repeatedly post here to repeatedly judge me and my posting of repetition and and of being the cause of every ill known to mankind. To post jokes recipes, jokes and the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will litter this thread with spam - but due to the division now actively encouraged on our forum - no one appears to feel free to post either agree or disagree with this statement and its suggested solution or to actually discuss it at all.

Some - rather than simply not discuss it, will even post at length to discuss all the good reasons why it does not need to be discussed.      

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread (where no editing action had been imposed) and did not refresh the thread.

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

This of course despite my request that all editing comments are limited to only where same form of action has been judged to be required and that editing comments are always used to indicate where this has occured.

And of course had this simple suggestion been adopted - there would have been no need for any poster to worry or inquire publicly if any of their posts had been 'silently deleted', nor for the reply to made in an inserted editing comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:58 AM

"And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion."

Some good advice following - from a guest poster to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

In the meantime: if you don't like a forum or the way it is run, just don't visit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:16 AM

Some good advice following - from a guest poster to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

In the meantime: if you don't like a forum or the way it is run, just don't visit it.
No Shambles - that was a message to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:08 AM

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

Is anyone still buying this double standard?

Who is it that deletes these 'direct attacks on people' when these post are seen to be from our 'moderators', from the favoured few (who none of these 'rules' apply to) or are seen to be attacking and name-calling certain easy targets?

As for 'stalking' posts being deleted - again it rather depends on who is doing the 'stalking' and who is being stalked.

If the following is the case:

"And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion."

Would this be any surprise - given the example set by some of our 'moderators' and if they really think this of our forum - why do they stay?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM

"It is a fact that in the time since this (for the record) statement/complaint was made on forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, the site's owner, our host Max has not seen fit to implement the only suggestion contained in this statement."

So then what is the problem?

Well Ron - since you ask.

Those of us who do consider our forum is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion, who like our forum and who don't see merits in a change to members only forum, may be disapointed and confused about the current and future direction of our forum.

They may question if the 'best efforts' of our 'moderators' are really being made to continue to make Max's posting policy work, or to show that it cannot - in order to serve their own, quite different agenda.

Especially as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made the following (for the record) statement and despite its lack of implementation since then - is still publicly posting about these changes being his required solution to the sad situation he describes (but will not solve for himself, and other, by going elsewhere).

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17-Sep-06 - 03:21 AM

Sorry, but I can't sift out all the Guest posts from the others, without messing with a thread more than I feel comfortable doing. I agree that the conspiracy-theory posts add nothing to the thread, and tend to stifle real discussion. guess that's a good reason for blocking Guest posts in the non-music section.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:12 PM

Okay, this is very good. You broke down the BS and made some logical statements.   There are actually three points to your last post that COULD be open to discussion.

1.) "Those of us who do consider our forum is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion, who like our forum and who don't see merits in a change to members only forum, may be disapointed and confused about the current and future direction of our forum. "
Granted.   Is there anyone else out there who may be confused? I would ask that anonymous guests do not reply to my question because it would be very easy to make acccusations that those replies are coming from one person.   If you are a MEMBER of this forum, do you agree with Shambles statement that you don't see merits in a change to members only forum?

Personally, I would welcome a change to members only forum.

2)"They may question if the 'best efforts' of our 'moderators' are really being made to continue to make Max's posting policy work, or to show that it cannot - in order to serve their own, quite different agenda."
Does anyone feel that the moderators should not be participating?   

Personally, I think they should continue to be involved as much as they wish. I don't think that there is a problem here.


3)"Especially as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made the following (for the record) statement and despite its lack of implementation since then - is still publicly posting about these changes being his required solution to the sad situation he describes (but will not solve for himself, and other, by going elsewhere)."
Does anyone feel that Joe is causing a problem?

Personally, I don't feel that there is any problem and Shambles is taking this out of context.


Now, without all the hyperbole and comments directed at Shambles I would suggest that people give LOGICAL answers to the very direct questions that he has posed.   Perhaps a REAL discussion will indeed put this issue to rest.

I also caution that Mudcat members respond. While guests are free to post their comments, it is impossible for those of us who are reading this to figure out if it is one person who is "stuffing the ballot box" when you sign in as a guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:38 PM

Personally, I would welcome a change to members only forum.

Care to explain why our forum should be changed to suit your requirements and why you and others who feel this way, cannot find an existing one to suit these requirements?

Personally, I think they should continue to be involved as much as they wish. I don't think that there is a problem here.

Why do you think that? Can our forum really be expected to accept that any 'moderator' with such an agenda, to provide their best efforts to make the current policy work?

Personally, I don't feel that there is any problem and Shambles is taking this out of context.

Why do you not see this as problem?

My view that it was bad enough that a few posters were shaping our forum to their requirements - but when the (for the record) statement was made and it was clear that this agenda would be pushed by these few until Max felt he had little choice.

And it was in trying to inform our forum of this and trying to enable it to be discussed (when others were trying to ensure that it was not) that has resulted in the restrictions being imposed on my posting.

No it is very much in context.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:45 PM

I prefer a Members Only scenario, as it would then be easier to stop spammers, and to exclude those who's interests don't coincide with those of this forum.
The Secret Santa thing could be run on the Help Forum as it is presently constituted, because one can post there without logging on. This would make it possible to make the whole main site members only.
All the clones would really need to worry about spam wise would be the help forum then.
It is difficult or well nigh impossible to ban a poster using his IP address only, as some of our posters already know, so membership would make mavericks easier to detect.
It might be possible to register 2 identities as a member if they wanted to, one for normal posts, and one for SS or anonymous posts, the people who run the site would still know who was who, and thus control could be maintained
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM

1.) "Those of us who do consider our forum is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion, who like our forum and who don't see merits in a change to members only forum, may be disapointed and confused about the current and future direction of our forum. "
Granted.   Is there anyone else out there who may be confused? I would ask that anonymous guests do not reply to my question because it would be very easy to make acccusations that those replies are coming from one person.   If you are a MEMBER of this forum, do you agree with Shambles statement that you don't see merits in a change to members only forum?

Personally, I would welcome a change to members only forum.


I AGREE WITH YOU RON. - It would be refreshing to KNOW who is making statements and might just lead to less nastiness from those who, whilst they may be members, are too chicken to post unpleasantness under their own names.


2)"They may question if the 'best efforts' of our 'moderators' are really being made to continue to make Max's posting policy work, or to show that it cannot - in order to serve their own, quite different agenda."
Does anyone feel that the moderators should not be participating?   

Personally, I think they should continue to be involved as much as they wish. I don't think that there is a problem here.


I AGREE WITH YOU RON - I have never had a problem with any of the moderators and, when they have altered my thread titles I have seen the logic in the change.


3)"Especially as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made the following (for the record) statement and despite its lack of implementation since then - is still publicly posting about these changes being his required solution to the sad situation he describes (but will not solve for himself, and other, by going elsewhere)."
Does anyone feel that Joe is causing a problem?

Personally, I don't feel that there is any problem and Shambles is taking this out of context.


I AGREE WITH YOU RON - Joe does an excellent job, given the work he does on the site as a whole. I, personally, have no beef with what he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:48 PM

I have previously answered your questions, but to sum up.

1. I believe a members only posting helps prevent some of the attacking that goes on here. It won't cure it, but I think it is a good deterrent and would help improve things.

2. As this is not a website that hinges on life and death, I think the moderators should be able to post their views and still operate on a friendly and infomative basis. I feel that Joe has been honest, and while I may not have posted some of the comments he made, I feel that he operates with a fair and open mind.

3. As I said, I think you took this statement way out of context and there is no "evidence" in the mountains of cutting and pasting that you have done that would convince me that Joe's so-called "agenda" is causing any problems except for yours. You have become a special case and I do not wish to drift this thread beyond the three original questions you posed. PM me if you would like a further explanation, or re-explanation.

Nuff said on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:53 PM

For the Record:

1) I DO consider 'our' forum still a pleasant place to hang out and and goof off or have a good discussion (and much more) and I DO support members-only in the BS section. Think of the annual Getaway: if Guests showed up in random numbers no one would know how much food to cook or how many beds to provide. There is a reason that one registers. Registration eliminates confusion.

2) Continuing the Getaway analogy, YES, I definitely support the officials' participation even if on occasion they have to settle a dispute and sometimes rule against my views.

3) Say the officials are participating in the current music scene but on occasion make it known that they hope to someday move the whole shebang to another location that is more to the liking of most of the participants, Sure. Why not? We'll live, and may even love the new location.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:56 PM

By the way... I won't respond to any questions or posts for the next 24 hours. Shambles, I would ask you to do the same. I think it would be interesting if everyone JUST posts their views for the next 24 hours and give some reasons, like I did in my second post today. Then perhaps after 24 hours we can have a legitimate discussion instead of all the "traffic" that takes apart each others comments.

Lets hear from Mudcatters and really listen for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:01 PM

Ron - do we take that any poster who wishes our forum to be changed into members only - are all not only in agreement with the following) for the record) statement being made public, but are also in agreement with its content? For they do rather tend to go together.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

And perhaps they could inform our forum what their intentions are towards judging our forum to be no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion - as Max has not seen fit to implement this change and should Max indicate that he has no intention of implementing this change?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:03 PM

I will see you in 24 hours Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:14 PM

Ron, I have answered all of those in a serious fashion as well as a smartass one and it makes no difference. But.....once more for you....totally serious.

1) There are other ways of changing the posting policy that are probably being looked into as well. Without going into all of them, I'd simply say that a change will undoubtedly be made from the status quo. I think you can take that much to the bank. Is it needed? Certainly. Mudcat has become far too large to go on the way it has. The trick will be.....and I have faith that both Max and Jeff will pull it off.....to retain some of the flavor of the old Mudcat and the things which we have all valued such as free roaming discussions from cooking to condoms and a lot of good music as well!

2) Mods are almost always members of the forums they moderate but in the larger forums they are almost always anonymous, known by only their Mod name when they are "working" and their usual handle otherwise. This is done so that all complaints are not sent to individual Mods but the admin instead. Admin can and sometimes does replace Moderators who step over the line and that is as it should be. As a Mod you wear two hats and your "job" is to enforce the rules and wishes of the admin.

Additionally, no forum of any real size allows long running discussions about policy. I think Max will always allow that to some degree. But I also believe he will join with the larger forum thinking in halting threads like this one at their inception and taking action against posters who insist on complaining. No one minds constructive criticism or suggestions but when they become whining complaints or angry critiques, they stop. The posters responsible are asked first to tone it down and or other action may be taken.....and it is, no quarter asked and none given. Just ZAP!!! Generally, these threads and posts are deleted from the forum with no explanation. If we all know the rules then we don't need an explanation do we?

Again, I don't know how far Max and Jeff will go in that direction but I'd be pretty sure it's a helluva' lot further down that road than we are now. I imagine he'll use the same Mods as he does now as he shows no sign of finding their work unsatisfactory. And do note that he finds (from his public postings) Shambles to be a pain in the ass and someone he has already politely asked to leave. The Mods will continue as they have and I see no problem either except that so many are known and Sham has used this against them.

3) Over the past 8 or 9 years I have fought with Joe, laughed with Joe, fought about Joe and for Joe and laughed about Joe and at Joe. I have at turns loved him like a brother and wanted to kick him in the balls. He has a tough job which at times is made harder by Joe's own sense of doing the right thing as he sees it. Many times this means trying to explain when I think he just needs to say nothing! Shamby has pushed him over the edge a few times and then exploited the results. Joe tries hard to be fair....it's the midwestern "right" thing he grew up with. Ya' know, the only times I think Joe causes a problem is when he tries to explain some action when in fact NO EXPLANATION is needed or should be given. Joe cares very much about this site and the people who come here and THAT more often gets him in trouble than anything else.

That's a little long for 2 cents but wtf...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:34 PM

I'm for a members only BS part
The moderators should of course take part in the discussion, anything else is an obvious nonsense as has been pointed out several times.
Joe does a very good job.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: ranger1
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:50 PM

I, for one, think that the mods here do a great job. A lot of us are very impressed that they continue to put up with the same juvenile antics of some people (who ought to know who they are but probably don't) over and over again. Shambles, if you don't like the way the site is run, why don't you just go away and start your own site?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 03:16 PM

Shambles, if you don't like the way the site is run, why don't you just go away and start your own site?

If you hadn't noticed - is is not me who is saying:   

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

So why don't you ask the person who is saying this?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM

probably ranger1 noticed that you have complained about:

moderators
editing
thread titles
thread deletions
thread closings
where and how Joe responds to complaints
where and how other moderators respond to you
Max's response or lack thereof to your complaints
Other posters language
other posters references to yourself
Other posters qouting you
Other posters qouting other posters
other posters choice of subject
birtrhday threads
recipe posts

overall you give the impression of being very very dissatisfied with this forum - and since you have publicly stated you have no desire to tell max how to run his forum...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 03:39 PM

Comeon, lets have a little self-control. 24 hours without commenting on others.   Let's let people post their opinions of the three questions that Shambles posed and I phrased at 12:12pm.   This thread has been going on since August 7.   Can't we let others post their views without having to respond to every little point for JUST 24 hours?    Lets let others post their views during that time and then we can have a discussion starting at 12:12pm ET on October 31.    I realize that no one can control postings, but couldn't we try this for one day? Shambles has complained that no one wants to discuss the issues - lets give everyone a chance to post their views.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 03:42 PM

Shambles absolutely does not want to discuss his views or anything else. He want to cut and paste and criticize. He never once answers any question.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 03:48 PM

Ron, you mistake what Shambles wants. He doesn't want a discussion, which would lead to resolution. He would be very happy if this thread went on, with you responding to him for another 6 months. I salute your motives, they will not yield fruit. They have all been tried before. When you see folks that are intolerant of this guy, like myself, Spaw, and others, it isn't because we enjoy being this way. Over the years we have all tried to reason with him, but this isn't about reason. It is about a pathological need to see himself in a Quixotal (howzat for a word?) way. He fancies himself a messiah crying out in the wilderness. He will not go quiet, but continue to nitpick. I have tried to point these things out to you, but you feel the need to try. Good luck on that, and I will watch with interest. My prediction: won't work, you will try for a quite a while, and eventually give up in disgust.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 03:51 PM

If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 03:52 PM

overall you give the impression of being very very dissatisfied with this forum - and since you have publicly stated you have no desire to tell max how to run his forum...

No - it is not me who made the (for the record) statement that:

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

I have made many suggestions toward how other poster's public dissatifactions and complaints can be adressed. But they seem to think that our forum and poster's contributions should be judged and shaped to suit their requirements. I do not agree with this as I rather like our forum and Max's posting policy.

Unlike others, I find our forum is still a place to goof off and have a good discussion (and that considerations about Secret Santas are low on my list of priorities) and I only question the actions of those who are so disatisfied with Max's policy for our forum and who set such poor posting example for others to follow and then moan constantly and publicy about the inevitable result.

MMario - I am right in thinking that you are in agreement with me and do not wish Max to make a change to members only posting?

Do you also agree with me that our forum is still a place to goof off and have a good discussion? Or is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team speaking for you in his public (for the record) statement, that? And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 03:57 PM

I'm out of here. That last post from Shambles really showed his true colors.   I hate to judge people, but I also hate to see people using people. That is the sign of a moron.

Every dog has its day.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:19 PM

I hate to say it Ron but you will be back. He keeps drawing you in like a fly in a spider web. You've already stated at least three times that you are gone but you keep coming back. Shambles comments haven't changed since you started saying that you were finished posting. You just have a lack of will power like everyone else. Shambles is like the Pied Piper. He blows his own horn and everyone follows him...even if they are disagreeing as they follow.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:20 PM

There you go, ignoring what people are saying in favour of your own crusade again.

YOU have complained about all I mentioned above. Yes, Joe expressed an opinion and made a suggestion for a possible change. So what? You have expressed your opinion repeatedly and made many many suggestions. You also publicly claimed to have no deire to tell Max how to run his site. However, the entire basis of this thread contridicts that statement - and when asked which is the truth you refuse to answer.

Joe and others have repeatedly answered most of your points and questions. but when you do not recieve the answers you are looking for you just start in on the same things again.

My stand re: members only posting is both public and in the record. I leave it as an excercise for you to remember what it is - as I have told you before, and quite recently.

there are times this is a very unpleasant place to visit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:21 PM

It has been unanimous amongst us all (and for some time now) that we all feel it should at least be members only posting in the BS. Lets hope we don't have to keep posting these posts in this thread the same time next year.

Joe is an outstanding individual. It amazes me how he can still retain a sense of humour and put up with all the crappola that goes on here. As far as I'm concerned he does a good job here in the cat. My hat is certainly off to the guy.

"And THAT'S the way it is,"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:41 PM

Ron, many of us have tried over and over to be part of the solution over the years. That is why we are now very intolerant. This "moron" has shown us over and over that he is a troll of the first order. I am sorry you are learning the hard way. You are a good man, trying to do good things.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM

"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."

"Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can. That's about you leaving Shambles."

Hey Shambles,

You aren't the only one who can cut and paste. It's almost time to say Goodbye.

I hope that you find whatever web site that you go to next a better and happier place for you. It's about time that you had some fun.

Bye bye!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:54 PM

One last thing - I am sorry I used the word "moronic".   That was directed at the idea, not the individual. I don't know Shambles well enough to pass that kind of judgement.

Bye!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:03 PM

One last thing - I am sorry I used the word "moronic".   That was directed at the idea, not the individual. I don't know Shambles well enough to pass that kind of judgement.

You did not use the word 'moronic'. What you said was:

That is the sign of a moron.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM

Dear Shambles,

I have appreciated much about your tenacity and many of your arguments. However, you continue to attack Joe and that is

1) not right
2) bullshit

I have had more run-ins with Joe than most people who've ever come to this forum. On some occasions I have found him to be right and on others to be wrong. However, I am not about to say I think Joe is a bad man, bad editor, bad person. You seem to have a single-minded focus on Joe and how bad he is. That is just not right. Joe has said many times that he has erred/made a mistake/screwed up. Hey, guess what? That is human and gutsy. In fact, if I had a place such as this, I would want someone very much like Joe Offer to run it--as he saw fit--because despite what I perceive to be the occasional mistake on his part, he is even-handed and honest.

I agree with Joe--and it seems a few other folks here--that BS should be a members onl;y part of Mudcat. To suggest that that approach would limit anyone's 'free speech' is much like suggesting that a diatribe to 'letters to the editor' limits free speech because it has to be signed.

This is not 'our' site. True, much of the Mudcat is the result of either primary or secondary research by many people. Other aspects are the results of original writing. In that regard, the Mudcat is 'ours'. But, the place 'we' have chosen to do the above belongs to a guy named Max. I would suggest that if you have a beef with Joe Offer, message or e-mail him. This thread has become like a soap opera. Tune in any day and it's the same. From everyone. Now, I am off this thread for good. Scout's Honour.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:10 PM

Wow. You are right. I really do apologize. That was uncalled for on my part.   That is why I should get out of here. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:28 PM

I have had more run-ins with Joe than most people who've ever come to this forum. On some occasions I have found him to be right and on others to be wrong. However, I am not about to say I think Joe is a bad man, bad editor, bad person. You seem to have a single-minded focus on Joe and how bad he is. That is just not right. Joe has said many times that he has erred/made a mistake/screwed up. Hey, guess what? That is human and gutsy. In fact, if I had a place such as this, I would want someone very much like Joe Offer to run it--as he saw fit--because despite what I perceive to be the occasional mistake on his part, he is even-handed and honest.

That is your view gained from your experiance and you appear to be welcome to post such a view in any thread you wish and as many times as you want to. I cannot do this - for I have a different view. This is formed from a different experience and different circumstance to yours. For example I have never posted on our forum under any other name than this one.

However, I do take issue with your accusation that I 'attack' anyone.

Most of what I post is in fact the exact words of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. For example when he makes a (for the record) statement like the following:

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Do you agree with this assessment and the proposed solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 02:06 AM

Wow. You are right. I really do apologize. That was uncalled for on my part.   That is why I should get out of here. Sorry.

Thank you. But perhaps it is a bit too late for that? For you finally managed to follow the example set by our 'moderators', and you have finally said what Mick wanted you to and now become part of the problem. So that is alright then.

Your word 'moron' is now in safe hands and just another name to add to the list. Other than causing great delight to Mick - it will add nothing to the discussion and make no more difference than all the other posted names and personal judgements have done.

Ron, many of us have tried over and over to be part of the solution over the years. That is why we are now very intolerant. This "moron" has shown us over and over that he is a troll of the first order. I am sorry you are learning the hard way. You are a good man, trying to do good things.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 08:25 AM

Shambles, you really are a *&%#@*!!! It's one thing to constantly pour out this stupid BS that you do so many times each day. It's totally another thing to attack Ron who is probably the most decent person on this website and one of the few who even attempts to defend you. To jump on someone who has apologized for choosing the wrong word to express his feelings is definately the most despicable post that you have ever written. If you have any feelings you would be ashamed of yourself but something tells me that is not applicable to you.

Ron, don't take Shambles comments to heart. You are a 100% better person then he is. You can at least admit when you are wrong (which you really weren't in this case). Shambles won't even admit to himself that he is loony.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 02:29 AM

It has been unanimous amongst us all (and for some time now) that we all feel it should at least be members only posting in the BS. Lets hope we don't have to keep posting these posts in this thread the same time next year.

All I see caused by this (for the record) statement is division.
Do you mean by 'us all' - the usual few who have posted their support for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's (for the record) solution? Even some of them don't agree with the basic assessment that find's our forum so wanting and requiring this change.

But just how many is that - so far?

But do you agree that? Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

If you don't - why is there any need for such a radical change to address anything?

And if you do agree - why cannot you go elswhere and find or start something that is to your requirements?

Why do you think that Max should change his long-running posting policy to suit you? Especially as he has not implemented such a change since this (for the record) statement was first made?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:41 AM

It has been unanimous amongst us all (and for some time now) that we all feel it should at least be members only posting in the BS. Lets hope we don't have to keep posting these posts in this thread the same time next year.

If you don't like it - you don't have to keep posting to this thread or indeed to this forum at all - do you?

Perhaps the fact that 'you' have been encouraged (by some of our 'moderators') to post your requirements (and for some time now) and that Max has not changed our forum in that period, in order to suit your requirements - should be telling you something?

Perhaps it is that those posters who are unanimous - have no need for a forum - for they have nothing to discuss?

And that if they want a like-minded private club where they can exclude who they wish - nothing is stopping them from going away and forming such a place.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 11:52 AM

"Perhaps"..."perhaps"...

Oh, dear, oh dear! Did you not pay attention to my earlier post on the dangers of the overuse of the word "perhaps", Shambles? Do go and read it again! There may still be time to undo the damage you have doubtless done already to your health and sanity through this pernicious verbal habit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 12:17 PM

Perhaps?


And perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain to our forum what happened to the BS thread in question here Winona Ryder's birthday thread(s) ?

The entire BS thread and all of its posts - has sinply vanished - without trace or explanation.......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 12:28 PM

it's already been said that an hour or so of posting immediatley prior to the upgrade appears to have been lost. thread was probably within that timeframe.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 12:33 PM

Omygod !!! The Winona Ryder's birthday thread(s) ? Gone - FOREVER ?? Alert the media.

I for one am heartbroken.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 12:54 PM

As well you should be! Threads on Winona Ryder outweigh the importance of any other 100 threads put together. Everyone knows that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 01:02 PM

it's already been said that an hour or so of posting immediatley prior to the upgrade appears to have been lost. thread was probably within that timeframe.

MMario - My first attempt to post that thread to enquire about the fate of the original one, was NOT lost in any update - was it?

Despite my request for all cases of censorship action to be indicated and explained in a editing comment - and for all editing comments to be limited to where some form of action has actually taken place - this has not been adopted by our 'moderators'.

So - any poster who cannot find their contribution still has no way of knowing if this is because it has been censored, lost in some software glitch or is as a result of us being in the 'Twilight Zone - have they?

If my suggestion were adopted - when posters did not see an editing comment - they could be sure that censorship was not the cause of their contribution's non-appearance or get paranoid about this possibility. They could then start looking for other explanations.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 01:08 PM

Sahmbles - I honestly suspect that you "first" thread never existed. I know I never saw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 01:54 PM

Sahmbles - I honestly suspect that you "first" thread never existed. I know I never saw it.

Well I am rather careful these days. I always check to see if what I have posted appears. Then when it later vanishes (without any editing comment of explanation) I then know that any mistake was not mine.

Talking of editing comments - the following was inserted (not once but twice) in the thread in question.

Multiple threads combined, and the first thread was undeleted because I could see no reason for deletion.
-Joe Offer-

Which strongly suggests that the (now restored original thread) was not lost in any upgrade - but was entirely deleted by persons unknown for reasons unknown and for reasons certainly not indicated or explained in any form of editing comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 01:56 PM

so I was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 02:05 PM

Well this is tragic! I mean Winona Ryder is such a huge music star and all.............Shamby Pamby, your b-day threads are just another of your bullshit vendettas but they all have been pretty much related to music somehow and short of LH lovin' Winona...........Anyway, keep in mind that as updates begin to happen, the day will come when many of your posts will go missing......along with you! (:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 02:14 PM

I posted the following in the Winona Ryder thread(s). The thread did not meet our criteria for deletion.

---

Multiple threads combined, and the first thread was undeleted because I could see no reason for deletion.
-Joe Offer-

---

OK, so I'm sure that somebody will want to know what are our criteria for deletion. Here's what was posted in the Help Forum:

Subject: RE: thread name clarification
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18-Oct-06 - 02:01 PM

If a thread looks like it's going to cause all hell to break loose, we close or delete it. If it's just moderately nasty, we usually leave it alone.
Same with messages - we leave the moderately nasty ones alone, much to the chagrin of some.
-Joe Offer-


---


Subject: RE: thread name clarification
From:
Date: 18-Oct-06 - 07:05 PM

The term, cause all hell to break loose means what exactly?

And how is 'moderatly nasty' defined and by whom?



---


Subject: RE: thread name clarification
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19-Oct-06 - 01:48 PM

Well, OK, here's my answer. Max, Jeff, and I decide what's "moderately nasty" and what's worse than that. Max, Jeff, and I decide when it looks like all hell is going to break loose. We base our decisions on our personal judgment. The Clones also use their personal judgment - and their judgment is reviewed by Max, Jeff, and Joe.
Now, I realize that many people live their lives in a very legalistic context, and think that every action should be guided exactly by rules, but that's not how we do things around here. We live by judgment, not by rules.
So, no, I'm not going to get boxed into defining "moderately nasty" and "all hell breaking loose." I don't talk, think, or act in that sort of legalistic philosophical system. When I see a mess, I don't need to go through the legalistic process of defining it as a mess, before I clean it up.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 03:15 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Winona Ryder's birthday thead(s)
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 02:11 PM

Obviously some anonymous one here just does not like Winona?

Is it really too much for posters to always be informed in an editing comment and for them to know when any form of imposed censorship has been judged to be necessary?

That would prevent us from blaming the software, questioning our memory and from my poor old dog from being kicked in frustration.

If you won't introduce this simple procedure for our sakes - then perhaps for the sake of our poor bruised pets.

************************************************************************************************


It is well known there is a direct correlation between abuse of animals and Domestic Violence.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 03:57 PM

There is a direct correlation between complete stupidity and Domestic Violence too...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:04 PM

Not to mention beer and domestic violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:09 PM

I think that's only domestic beer which leads to domestic violence.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:09 PM

So imported beer leads to imported violence?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:11 PM

Not to mention beer & IMPORTED violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:12 PM

Close threads and deleted posts initiate web forum violence.

"And THAT'S the way it is,"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:12 PM

Gee, I dunno' Jeff.........Nobody in my family has any bruises including my dogs.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:17 PM

Yes, but the quality of beer in the United States has improved greatly in recent years. Northern California's Sierra Nevada Pale is truly the Nectar of the Gods.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:18 PM

The rubber hose works pretty well, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:19 PM

No argument there, Joe. A very nice brew indeed. You should try Otter Creek sometime if you can get it out there. It's brewed in Vermont, but the brewmaster used to live here in Maryland.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:29 PM

if the beer is the nectar of the gods, does it then incite religious violence?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:37 PM

Good question Mario. Does God have bruised dogs? Or Billy Graham? Or the Pope?   Did Bishop Sheen? Or Oral Roberts?

Have to check on each for beer brand and bruised dogs.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:40 PM

Is the rubber hose what they used on me in my colonoscopy yesterday?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:44 PM

Well, you don't wanna' be drinkin' beer out of it...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 05:16 PM

No...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 06:02 PM

OK, so I'm sure that somebody will want to know what are our criteria for deletion. Here's what was posted in the Help Forum:

Perhaps it is those anonymous ones who are supposed to be imposing this criteria who should first be informed what it is?


The following editing comment was inserted into the thread that was originally about Winona Ryder's birthday and which we are now informed was should not have been deleted.

Multiple threads combined, and the first thread was undeleted because I could see no reason for deletion.

Please remember that this is a thread about Winona Ryder, not about Mudcat Editing Policy.
That's it. The End. Finis. Schluss.
No further discussion of anything but Winona Ryder will be permitted in this thread.
-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps posters can be similarly warned to - please remember that this IS a thread about closed threads and deleted posts i.e. Mudcat Editing Policy.

But due to our now resident double standard, personal judgements, spam and the discussion of anything other than this thread's subject is seen to be activly encouraged here by our 'moderators'.

Subjects so far include jokes, recipes and we now seem to be encouraged to dicuss beer drinking....I would start a thread with beer drinking as its clearly titled subject to enable that discussion - but I suspect it would be deleted or closed.

The last edit comment inserted in this thread was the following:

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

In the light of the entire thread that was recently 'silently deleted' but was then not judged to meet the required criteria - perhaps this editing comment needs correcting? As in all truth it appears to take very little to warrant deletion. All it takes is some anonymous fellow poster with an itchy finger on their edit button.

As this is by no means the first time this has happened – perhaps our forum can now be assured that steps will be taken to ensure that it is the last time?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 06:55 PM

Deja Vu - Remember this one?

- The title of a clearly titled music thread Do you support the Status Quo?
   has been changed without the originator's permission for some reason to In favour of/ Do you support the Status Quo - and has now been relegated to the BS section by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread.

The following editing comment was inserted into an existing post which did not refresh the thread.

Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: In favour of /Do you support the Status Qu
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 06:02 AM

The first thread was stupid, but I don't think that constitutes a reason for deleting it. I undeleted the messages from the previous deleted thread and combined them with this one.
But I think the "discussion" fits best into the "BS" category, where the original thread was located. I'll admit that's an arbitrary decision, but I had to pick one or the other.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Stick's messages were deleted. They were just weird.
-Joe Offer-

These things were only judged as stupid or weird - lucky they were not judged as obnoxious by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team...........

Can our forum be informed if anything sensible is being done to prevent entire threads from again being anonymously deleted for no reason?

Surely if all of our 'moderators' were required to always provide an editing comment when they judge and imposed this judgement in any form of editing action - this may avoid this happening again? Avoid the need for posters to hunt around trying to establish the fate of their contributions and avoid the need for threads to be restored?

The whole thing makes our forum look like a poor joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 07:43 PM

"Deja Vu - Remember this one? "

yup .... sure do.

We have all been here before
We have
all been here before
We have all been here before
We
have all been here before

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 08:57 PM

...and if you expect gratitude from Shambles for trying to be fair, forget about it...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 09:07 PM

Deja Poo-- I think I've smelled this before, and it still smells bad.

Deja Roo-- This kangaroo has jumped past me before.

Deja Shoe-- This argument is still bootless.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 11:15 PM

"The whole thing makes our forum look like a poor joke."

Shambles, Your constant repition of this stupidity and harping over every little thing that you don't like even though everyone else disagrees with you makes Max's forum look like a poor joke.

And you still haven't apologized to Ron for jumping on him after he apologized to you. That's certainly not the way to make friends and influence people.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 11:30 PM

Joe, how can you expect gratitude from someone who abuses small animals......and possibly worse?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 02:12 AM

Any 'moderator' who really expects gratitude - is perhaps not being very realistic.

For if you don't show posters any public respect - should you really be expecting to be shown any?

Does a system that is shown to constantly and unfairly (by its own criteria) judge and delete poster's invited contributons really deserve to expect its victims to be grateful some such treatment?

What is expected is that what is wrong is corrected so that it does not keep on being done wrong. And that posting to demonstate these instances results in this - rather than being accused of not being grateful and being subjected to personal judgements and special posting restrictions. I am I expected to show gratitude to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for these also?

I am very grateful to Max for providing our forum. When the efforts of our 'modrators' are seen to be setting an example that is fair, open and proportionate - which can start by lifting the special restritions on my posting - I will be the very first to express my gratitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:10 AM

Nobody loves him, everybody hates him.
Think he should go and eat worms!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:51 AM

Shamby Pamby......Please note that NONE of your current postings have been "invited" by Max. His own last postings regarding yourself have been invitations to LEAVE.......not post. You cannot deny his words and there is NO SPIN you can put on them that has any other meaning except "You too, should bid farewell." Down the road, the choice will be out of your hands. Why continue being such a stupid shit now. Quit slamming Max (and that is indeed who you are slamming) and "perhaps"............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 08:31 AM

"What is expected is that what is wrong is corrected so that it does not keep on being done wrong."

Hey Shambles, These are your own words. Your constant complaining and saying the same thing time afer time is wrong and should definitely be corrected. I guess that means that you should be banned from posting this persistent drivel so the moderators do not allow something to continue being done wrong.

It's time for you to stop...or GO!

By the way, did you notice all of the posts's to Ron's questions a few days ago. Not one single member agreed with you on anything. Everyone said it wouldn't matter if the below the line stupidity was limited to members only. You are irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 10:48 AM

support for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's (for the record) solution

A beauty from the long standing chief proponent of the present Mudcat Editing Team's dissolution.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:32 PM

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

Could any state expect to be shown gratitude for judging and executing (on many occasions) the wrong person?

It may be expected that some responsibility is seen to be taken for these errors.

They may be expected to demonstrate what measures are being taken to ensure that the same errors are not repeated.

On our forum, posters are expected to be grateful to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team, when the same assurances (like the one above) given in editing comments by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are seen once again not to be honoured. For it is clear that it takes very little to warrant 'silent deletion' of the wrong contributions - as I have maintained and demonstrated previously.

There is no gratitude to be had - for trying to be 'fair' when the damage has been seen to be done - only blame and responsibilty to be taken for allowing the the damage to once again be done, with this policy of unfair and anonymous 'silent deletion'.

Why cannot every 'moderator' or edit button holder be required to indicate via an editing comment where they judged any form of editing action was necessary and all editing comments be limited to where some form of action has taken place?

I am sure this would ensure that any poster would then know that any non-appearance of their contribution was not due to 'silent deletion'. If they did not see an editing comment to that effect - they would not become paranoid about censorship and could then look for other explanations.

This may also have the effect of limiting these actions and bringing them under the control that is cleary not evident currently.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 01:30 PM

Shambles,

Why do YOU think that no one else is complaining about all of this silly horse poop? When will it sink into you brain that absolutely no one else cares about any of this? Everyone else is pretty much satisfied with the job that the moderators are doing as a whole. Yes there may be a few instances that appear to be unfair but nothing in life works right 100% of the time. In other words, everything that YOU are asking for is a nonissue to almost everyone else. Things don't get changed to please only 1 person when 99.9% of the people ar happy. Why don't you go to another website that will give you greater pleasure if you can find one? Perhaps you'll find that they will toss your butt off of their site if you act as unpolite there as you do here. STOP TELLING EVERYONE WHAT TO DO! IF YOU WON'T FOLLOW MAX'S RULES THEN GO PLAY WITH YOUR OWN FOOTBALL!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 02:08 PM

When will it sink into you brain that absolutely no one else cares about any of this?

It is pretty obvious from posts like the following to this thread -that they do care.

From: autolycus - PM
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 05:23 PM

Joe:-

I'm trying to be helpful at this point.

Can you tell me if anything I've posted has been edited out?

As far as I can tell, nothing has.

If I'm right about that, there may be something for posters to learn.

Again IF I'm right, all that's required is to post sensibly (?!),interestingly (?!), vaguely to the point, without pointless abuse, or libel.

If that is all that it takes to steer clear of being edited out, then this ginormous , for want of a better word, discussion just might evaporate.

Then they are given totally worthless assurances which they and our forum are expected to accept - like the following.

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

For it is clear from these two instances alone - that in all truth the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who is giving this assurance - would not even know if some anonymous fellow poster had 'silently deleted' this or any other poster's contributions.

That is rather the point with these 'silent deletions' - no one except the anonymous one who is imposing their judgement (based on criteria of their own) - is aware.

Except possibly the victim - who first has to estabish if it is a software glitch, their dexterity or their memory that is at fault. Or in cases like these two, where all the posts in an entire thread are 'silently deleted' - the victims.

Which is why it has been requested - and not just by me - that all these impositions are recorded in edit comments....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 02:17 PM

1500

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 02:47 PM

just worked up the statistics for another fourm I go to. The particular forum, judging by the complaints of the members who want MORE moderation, is very lightly moderated.

But over the past two weeks 5% of the posts have been deleted; 20% of the threads have been moved, edited or closed. No explanations given.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 02:57 PM

No Shambles,

It is pretty obvious from the example that you posted that nobody cares. Autolycus was just asking a question. He did not seem overly upset.

"Again IF I'm right, all that's required is to post sensibly (?!),interestingly (?!), vaguely to the point, without pointless abuse, or libel."

I don't know of any web site whatsoever that doesn't edit out posts that don't meet those criteria. The moderators owe it to the posters to make sure that decorum is maintained and that the website doesn't turn into a Wild West Show.

YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING!!! That is the usual case with you. You are great at asking questions but you never seem to answer any.

You are going to have to look a little harder to find a post in this thread that shows anyone thinks the way that you do about the moderators, editing and Max's view of Mudcat (one that you should not be part of much longer).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 04:41 PM

Hey Shambles,

I may not be as good at editing other people's postings as you are but here are some comments that have appeared in this thread this week. Not one single one backs up anything that you have to say.Give it a break. No one agrees with you. You are all alone in your feelings about Mudcat. You are the one who is wrong and you are the one who should go. Stop making things miserable for everyone else. It is you and not the moderators who is making this site not a lot of fun. BEGONE! You are beginning to remind me of King Lear at the end of the play. A totally nonsensical old man who talks and talks but says nothing of value to anyone.

Read what your fellow posters are saying


From: number 6

It has been unanimous amongst us all (and for some time now) that we all feel it should at least be members only posting in the BS. Lets hope we don't have to keep posting these posts in this thread the same time next year.




From: MMario


My stand re: members only posting is both public and in the record. I leave it as an excercise for you to remember what it is - as I have told you before, and quite recently.


From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie

I prefer a Members Only scenario, as it would then be easier to stop spammers, and to exclude those who's interests don't coincide with those of this forum.


From: jacqui.c
Personally, I would welcome a change to members only forum.

Personally, I think they should continue to be involved as much as they wish. I don't think that there is a problem here.

I AGREE WITH YOU RON - I have never had a problem with any of the moderators and, when they have altered my thread titles I have seen the logic in the change.

Personally, I don't feel that there is any problem and Shambles is taking this out of context.

I AGREE WITH YOU RON - Joe does an excellent job, given the work he does on the site as a whole. I, personally, have no beef with what he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 08:07 AM

I don't know of any web site whatsoever that doesn't edit out posts that don't meet those criteria. The moderators owe it to the posters to make sure that decorum is maintained and that the website doesn't turn into a Wild West Show.

YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING!!! That is the usual case with you. You are great at asking questions but you never seem to answer any.

What has been proved and clearly demonstrated - yet again - is that poster's have no protection when their contributions in entire threads, are anonymously and routinely 'silently deleted' when these are seen NOT to meet any of the (ever varying) criteria.

And that it is the example set by our 'moderators' who indulge and encourge what you describe as a 'Wild West Show'.

Do you really want me to post some more examples of our 'moderators' methods of what you describe as maintaining 'decorum'? Or are you just happy to post your opinion despite their being no evidence to support it?

What harm would their be in our 'moderators' at least being seen be required to indicate in an editing comment, where they have judge any form of editing to be necessary and for editing comments to be limited to only where some form of imposition has taken place?

Do not our 'moderators' owe this to the posters also?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 08:46 AM

The only thing that our moderators owe to the posters is to do as good a job as possible in editing out any posts that are not deemed appropriate, for any reason, to the betterment of the majority of the posters. This is the way that it is done on every internet board that I am part of. I'm sure that you belong to other internet communities. You have to know deep down that Mudcat is a lot more lenient then most others. Not one board that I subscribe to lists deletions. Posts, and sometimes complete threads, can be deleted because they are not applicable to the theme of the board (our entire BS section would never appear on most boards), they are insulting, they are spam, or for any of a number of other reasons. Never have I seen a reason given for a deletion. All of your posts in this thread would be deleted because you are attacking the internet board, the moderators and the owner. In most communities you would be banned from posting anything whatsoever. No other place would even give you one thread to bellyache in like Max does. You really have it good here.

I certainly don't need you to post any examples of anything. You've done enough. Moderators have only one person to answer to and that is the site owner. Max hasn't replaced them so he thinks they are doing a good job. This board is set up under Max's rules and not Shambles rules. You have a right to ask for something and a right to suggest changes. Obviously what you have asked for and suggested is not what the owner wants to do. Therefore, as a citizen of this community you should accept the owner's decision and shut the hell up.

If others were interested in your suggestions then others would place threads supporting your changes. The fact that most people are happy here and don't want changes means that Mudcat is running the way that Max envisions it. If you want a website to run as Shambles envisions it then start one. See if you can satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 09:22 AM

It is pretty obvious from the example that you posted that nobody cares. Autolycus was just asking a question. He did not seem overly upset.

"Again IF I'm right, all that's required is to post sensibly (?!),interestingly (?!), vaguely to the point, without pointless abuse, or libel."

In answer to the above, this poster and our forum was given the following assurance by the current chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Which they and our forum may well have taken some comfort from.

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

The fact remains that if, very shortly after reading this assurance - this poster had contributed anything at all to the following thread Winona Ryder's birthday thread(s) - their posts, along with all others would have been 'silently deleted' without the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team even being aware that such action had been imposed.

I have seen nothing since this latest incident that reassures me that any action is being taken to prevent this from happening yet again.

Nor any evidence that our 'moderators' will now take any more notice of any so-called and varying 'critera' laid down by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - than our forum should take of any public assurance given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

Who may well be trying to be fair - but is now plainly not seen to have any control over the actions of his team - who are seen to openly ignore his assurances and critera. And more importantly - there is no indication given to our forum of any responsibility being taken or that anything will change as a result....................

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing teams seems to expect to be shown gratitude by our forum for being seen to not only be unaware of the actions of his anonymous team - let alone in control of their actions.

I suggest that the posters to our forum are the important ones and that their contributions deserve to be seen to be better respected and protected than they currently are.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 10:01 AM

It's not important Shambles. Your constant harping has made your complaints void.   You are like the drooling village idiot who rants and raves about something or other on a street corner.   People pass by without noticing, or they stop and poke you with a stick. Whether you are right or wrong becomes a secondary story.   You do not matter to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 10:13 AM

All of your posts in this thread would be deleted because you are attacking the internet board, the moderators and the owner. In most communities you would be banned from posting anything whatsoever. No other place would even give you one thread to bellyache in like Max does. You really have it good here.

And of course none of your posts would even appear on such sites - if you were not prepared to become a member of them. Unless of course you are a member of this one - who chooses for some reason to post here anonymously?

And in which case you (unlike others guest posters who post here but who are not members) would have nothing to fear from the changed proposed here to exclude them from posting here, made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in his (for the record) statement and whick would explain why you appear to support such a radical change.

Like others here - you continue to defend the principle of 'moderation' whilst ignoring the reality of what is actually happening in practice. Which is the obvious abuse of the principle of 'moderation' you defend.

Rather than ignore it - can you please address and defend (if you will) that - not for the first time - the two entire threads which were 'silently deleted' by some anonyous fellow posters when there were no grounds to and when no one but the 'moderator' concerned was aware of this action? Do you judge this to be an acceptable practical example of the principle of 'moderation'?

Or an abuse of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 10:36 AM

Somebody wipe the dribble off his chin, and mop the flecks of foam off the walls of his padded cell please.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 12:51 PM

Shamby Pamby, on any other bard as our Guest states, this would have been an acceptable practice of moderation because off topic and clearly crappola threads are just zapped....period. You may find that becomes more (and not less) common around here in the future. What you also fail to see for some reason is that you too will be around here less in the future unless you stop these attacks on Max, his site, his team.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:04 PM

It had come to his knowledge, he said, that a foolish and wicked rumour had been circulated at the time of Boxer's removal. Some of the animals had noticed that the van which took Boxer away was marked "Horse Slaughterer," and had actually jumped to the conclusion that Boxer was being sent to the knacker's. It was almost unbelievable, said Squealer, that any animal could be so stupid.

Surely, he cried indignantly, whisking his tail and skipping from side to side, surely they knew their beloved Leader, Comrade Napoleon, better than that? But the explanation was really very simple. The van had previously been the property of the knacker, and had been bought by the veterinary surgeon, who had not yet painted the old name out. That was how the mistake had arisen.

The animals were enormously relieved to hear this. And when Squealer went on to give further graphic details of Boxer's death-bed, the admirable care he had received, and the expensive medicines for which Napoleon had paid without a thought as to the cost, their last doubts disappeared and the sorrow that they felt for their comrade's death was tempered by the thought that at least he had died happy.

Napoleon himself appeared at the meeting on the following Sunday morning and pronounced a short oration in Boxer's honour. It had not been possible, he said, to bring back their lamented comrade's remains for interment on the farm, but he had ordered a large wreath to be made from the laurels in the farmhouse garden and sent down to be placed on Boxer's grave.

And in a few days' time the pigs intended to hold a memorial banquet in Boxer's honour. Napoleon ended his speech with a reminder of Boxer's two favourite maxims, "I will work harder" and "Comrade Napoleon is always right"-maxims, he said, which every animal would do well to adopt as his own.

From George Orwell's Animal Farm

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:08 PM

You have a very warped sense of values if you think that you could possibly compare Mudcat to Animal Farm.   Put your life in perspective!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:13 PM

Moderation n. 1 - The quality of being moderate; restraint; avoidence of extremes; temperance. 2. The act of moderating. 3. Without excess; temperately.

The Random House College Dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:24 PM

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 07:26 PM

If I were your mother, I would knock all of your heads together! You all need to take a long hard look at yourselves and imagine what this thread looks like to someone viewing the site for the first time. This is probably the one that attracts you to look at - Does it look as if this site is populated by intersting people who want to talk about music???

No.

To Shambles, I would say - please stop, unless you've anything new to say - but if you have, ask to close this and start an dnew one

To everyone else - I would say, please stop this

It is now making the whole forum look ridiculous. It's not big, it's certainly not clever or witty...what is it meant to achieve??? Is it just the Mudcat version of pitch and toss? A way to while away time? Surely there are better things to do with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 08:13 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Washing snotty handkerchifs
From: JennyO - PM
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:17 AM

It always amazes me, the people who come onto threads where the subject can be very clearly seen without opening them, just to read them and criticise us poor little plebs for wasting our lives on them. Obviously they don't mind wasting THEIR lives to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 02:48 AM

Surely there are better things to do with it?

If we are already seen to intentionally limit the things we do with our forum and it is proposed that we intentionally limit these things even further - should we be surprised if this is exactly what we are seen to be doing?

Are you suggesting that we should make some sort of pretence that we are doing something other than intentionally limiting the things we do with our forum?

After all, it was the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who now informs our forum, in a for the record public statement, 'that Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to goof off etc' - but takes no responsibilty for it.

Do you agree with this and his proposed solutions - which are yet further limitations?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 04:24 AM

To Shambles, I would say - please stop, unless you've anything new to say - but if you have, ask to close this and start an dnew one

If another can be started - what would closing this thread or indeed the closing of any thread achieve?

Why cannot all threads remain open, once they fall off the bottom of the index - as they once did?

Why would you think that my asking for this thread to be closed would be agreed to - when so little else of what I ask for is seen to be agreed to?

if you look back - you will see that this thread has already been closed once. As it was re-opened at my request and I now struggle to post my views anywhere but in this thread - even if such a request were to be granted to a thread's originator - it is highly unlikely that I would be making such a request.

And anyway - it has yet to be established if a thread's originator has much sway in such matters. For the usual double standard is seen to apply here also.

Once a thread is started - its originator can make such request - and if it suits them and our 'moderators' wish to close it - they will ingore any wishes of any other contributor to that thread and subject the thread to imposed closure.

If it does not suit them and our 'moderators' do not wish to close it - they will inform our forum that threads are a joint effort and the originator's wishes have no merit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 05:52 AM

"current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who now informs our forum"

That was actually quite a long time ago. He's still around which is evidence that he has changed his mind. I suppose I could accuse you of lying when you use the word "now" but I wouldn't want to judge your worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 06:22 AM

Shambles, you DO realise my quotes don't come free. That one will cost you $5, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 07:48 AM

That was actually quite a long time ago. He's still around which is evidence that he has changed his mind. I suppose I could accuse you of lying when you use the word "now" but I wouldn't want to judge your worth.

You wouldn't? It appears that is only what you do post here to do. That and to accuse me of lying and just about every wrong and to ignore the issue?

But - just for the record. the current chief of the Mudcat Editing Team had not changed his mind on the 17th September. He may well have done now - but as he as yet to inform our forum of any change of mind - perhaps we can safely assume that he has not changed his mind - or his views of our forum expressed in his for the record statement?

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17-Sep-06 - 03:21 AM

Sorry, but I can't sift out all the Guest posts from the others, without messing with a thread more than I feel comfortable doing. I agree that the conspiracy-theory posts add nothing to the thread, and tend to stifle real discussion. guess that's a good reason for blocking Guest posts in the non-music section.
-Joe Offer-

You could always just ask him?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 10:29 AM

With every passing day Shambles is growing more and more incoherent. His postings make very little sense and he cannot justify the points he is trying to make. Anyone who has the time to read through this thread from the first post to the last can easily see that he has a problem and none of the posters are helping him.

In the real world, if Shambles falls off the deep end and does himself or anyone else harm people are going to look at these public postings "for the record" and point to many of you for pushing him over the edge.

Your retorts are not doing anyone good. Shambles does not want to discuss the issue because in his view of the world there are no other options. You can tell him that the sky is blue and he will fight you. It is just his way. Those of you who continue to post are probably suffering the same issues that he has. Most people can judge that his disagreement with his treatment and the way this site operates is really based on minor issues and out-of-context readings of other posts. His grandious comparisons to Animal Farm shows that he is living in a fantasy world and fancies himself to be some sort of messiah.

Walk away from this thread for your own good! The cheap thrills that all of you get by posting and arguing with him will only cause greater harm.

It would be in the best interests of the owners of this site to block all posts and delete this thread before some real harm is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 10:36 AM

Shambles,

do you know these form letters you usually get when you have made a very specific complaint about a product or about an action of the government?

Dear customer, we are glad you have bought...we always try do our best to satisfy the needs of our customers...we are very sorry that you didn't find our product to meet your expectations (so far, not a single sentence had anything to do with your specific complaint)... we do not understand how the ...function did not operate the way it should when it is switched on following exactly the specifications in the manual. Are you sure you have...

You must know those letters that are full of words that are (mostly) completely irrelevant to the very specific complaint or (very few of them) only remotely related to your letter and do never actually respond to the specific point.

I do not know how your feelings are when reading such a letter but I feel that I am not taken serious at all. I tend to think that the other person has not even bothered to actually read or understand my letter and only reacts to some trigger words ("not happy" requires a sentence including the word "sorry" but without any admission of responsibility). Then some preformatted sentences (see above) are compiled to an (at the surface) extremely polite letter which does not address my question or my complaint.

It is a parody of real communication and I sometimes get so angry that I write a really nasty letter (including some not nice words) back just to see (invariably) that they still manage to be extremely polite without giving anything resembling a response one does expect from a human communicator (contrary to a dumb computer).

I hate these letters and I think most people hate them as well. But I wonder why you insist on writing such posts that never (or rarely) respond to specific questions or complaints. Your posts very often mimic such form letters and are a parody of any real communication.

I agree that you have a heavy work load here being forced to add at least one new thread daily, to repeat all editorial remarks in normal posts as a service to the readers, and to refresh all insults ever made to you once a month lest we might forget them. I also acknowledge that the wish to express simple things in a more elaborate language puts extra demands on your time.

But could you please check before posting whether the preformatted text fragments you use (that's what I hope for you; you wouldn't be so stupid to type the eight words you use to replace the three letters J,O,E each time anew, would you?) to compile a post fit the points they claim to respond to?

If you don't spend that extra effort your posts give the impression of computerised responses that never address the points made. They may even look like a refusal of communication.

Do you remember the Dubliners exchange? I did write that one of your statements was factually in error and how you could proceed if you wanted to contribute to the Dubliners discussion. The adult human way of responding would have been at least to acknowledge the error of fact and to post a thank you for the recommendations how to go on with that discussion.

Or take for instance your preformatted word processor fragment that you seem to like so much, namely that some poster only posts to pass judgement about a fellow poster. Could you at least check whether for instance the word "only" is correct in the specific context. Or, though I admit that is much more difficult to discern, whether judgement is passed about a person (as expressed in a word like "asshole" or passed about one idea proposed by the person. I've seen you using that preformatted word processor fragment in situations in which the judgement you refer to was only a small part of the post or there was no judgement at all of you but only judgement of one statement made by you.

In such situations, posting the usual fragment including the word "only" gives the impression that you have not read or understood what you claim to be responding to. One could even get the impression that you are as much interested in a real conversation as the person compiling the form letter I have used as an example of false conversation at the beginning of my post.

I'm sure you do not lie when posting something which is obviously not true, I'm also sure that I can be sure you are not unable to understand what you read or, that's a bit more difficult I admit, to understand what you write. It is surely only some minor slip or omission which makes your post look like being not an honest attempt at real communication. If you'd give your posts in addition to your heavy workload that extra bit of effort of proofreading, they might look a bit less like those form letters that as we know only aim at ending the communication in a superficially polite way without addressing the issues.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 10:40 AM

"That and to accuse me of lying and just about every wrong and to ignore the issue"

What?

You did lie when you presented that quote as representative of Joe's opinions NOW. You can't possibly know them as of NOW. And your next quote had nothing to do with the matter even if 17th September was NOW.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 12:52 PM

"You could always just ask him? "

And you Shambles could always just send a PM to Max and ask him about everything that you are repeating again and again. I'm sure that Max can tell you whether he supports the moderators' actions and what he plans for the future of the Mudcat. Why keep going on and on and on in apublic forum when a simple message to the owner will clear everything up.

Perhaps then you will have nothing to complain about. That would probably be bad for you, however, because then you wouldn't have anything to fill your days with. Please get a life...any type of life...find a hobby...read a good book...go drinking with your friends...anything to stop rambling on and on and on and on and on and on.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 01:27 PM

I just joined a new folk board. Here is the statement from the owner/moderator.

"We're gonna be very loose with the rules and minutia in the early days of this group, adding policy as we proceed and as necessary. We hope that this community can nurture its own culture and rules as we grow (in a collective manner), but as the moderator, I'll reserve the right to step in and nudge things along so as to ensure that the forum remains fun and useful.

For now, postings here MUST contain specific material that is FOLK MUSIC related. Down the road, if the group would like, we can create additional discussion areas for world events, politics, child rearing, religion or anything else ... but, for the time being, I'll be excercising my moderator's priviledges to keep the forum clear of non-FM tangents. We all appreciate your understanding on that front."

Shambles, please note that the moderator can "keep the forum clear of non-FM tangents" and that he will "ensure that the forum remains fun and useful". What chance do you think you would have of posting this crap there? Slim to zilch and slim just left town. By the way, it's members only. I have purposely not given the name of the site because I don't want some of the posters here going there and polluting it with pure and unadulterated crap. And, yes, I have become a member there and would do so here if it became mandatory to post above the line. I see no reason to join Mudcat just to post into this silliness below the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 02:14 PM

Here is the statement from the owner.

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 02:29 PM

That statement by Max was made in the early days of Mudcat when it was much smaller like seven years ago!!! Here is a far more recent statement May 30, 2006) from the owner.

"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."

And then Shamby Pamby, only a few weeks ago Max was asked:"Please do something to control Shambles' constant babbling. It sure would be appreciated by a lot of people." His reply:

"Our priority number 2 is to beef up the back end security of the site so that we can confront such issues. I cannot currently effectively enforce a ban on the savy. It would be too easy for them to find a workaround and get back in, now angry. Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can."

You know all that Shambolina and still you persist. Do you ever write Max? Soon your ass will be gone if don't cease and desist slamming Max as you do. Stop now........Just a good piece of advice.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 03:38 PM

The majority makes the rules. It's impossible to do what every single member asks for because they ask for different things. How can you satisfy those who want membership and those who oppose membership? You have to do what the majority asks for. You are the only one complaining about all of these things. Max is doing what makes the majority satisfied. The Mudcat doesn't exist just for Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 03:48 PM

This has to be the Father of all BS threads...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 04:21 PM

Keep contributing to it McGrath when you have nothing important to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 02:13 AM

Some posters judge everything they say to be imposrtant - they are usually the same ones who post here judge that that what others may wish to say is not important (or is obnoxious or incoherent etc) - and can safely be restricted or prevented.

Is having other views present on our forum - but a small price to be willingly paid for the right to have your views present?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 02:24 AM

Agreed, Roger, I would support your right to express your view on every subject on this forum - once.

Beyond that it is abuse of a right.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 04:49 AM

Agreed, Roger, I would support your right to express your view on every subject on this forum - once.

Beyond that it is abuse of a right.

I think that you may have posted that before?

But unlike me, you are still welcome to express your view on our forum in any thread you wish, as many times as you wish and using as many different names as you wish.

You would also be welcome to post to the effect of what a wondeful job our 'moderators' are doing - in any thread you wish, as many times as you wish and using as many different names as you wish.

Which would lead me to believe that it is what is who said and who may be (trying) saying that is now the real issue on our forum - rather than how many times it is said.

And that this concern that is an entirly bogus one. For even if the charge of repetition was a valid one - is it really the worst thing on our forum and would it really justify all the fuss encouraged to be made against and for posting restrictions to be imposed on one individual poster only for this so-called 'abuse?   

For no one is being forced to read or even open a thread - are they? And all posters can quite easily be encouraged to ignore anything that is not to their taste or which they may have read before.

Do you also consider it an abuse of a right for anonymous 'moderators' to be seen to repeatedly 'silently delete' entire threads and all their posts from our forum - when the (so -called) critera is seen not to be met?

Do you think that some steps should be seen to be taken to address this when it happens and in order to prevent this abuse from happening again?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 05:49 AM

You can express your views on any thread you like Roger, just not the same view in every thread!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:23 AM

You're great at repeating yourself but not too good at answering questions, so again:

That statement by Max was made in the early days of Mudcat when it was much smaller like seven years ago!!! Here is a far more recent statement May 30, 2006) from the owner.



"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."



And then Shamby Pamby, only a few weeks ago Max was asked:"Please do something to control Shambles' constant babbling. It sure would be appreciated by a lot of people." His reply:



"Our priority number 2 is to beef up the back end security of the site so that we can confront such issues. I cannot currently effectively enforce a ban on the savy. It would be too easy for them to find a workaround and get back in, now angry. Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can."



You know all that Shambolina and still you persist. Do you ever write Max? Soon your ass will be gone if don't cease and desist slamming Max as you do. Stop now........Just a good piece of advice.
What about it Sham??????



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:24 AM

You can express your views on any thread you like Roger, just not the same view in every thread!
Giok

No - as this restriction does not apply to you and is only seen to apply to me - it is obvious that it is what is said and who may be (trying) saying that is now the real issue on our forum - rather than how many times it is said.

For you and certain other favoured posters are also free and encouraged to post only abusive personal jugements in any thread and to be seen to do this in an open attempt to try to prevent other posters from posting and drive them off of our forum. Like the following example demonstrtes:

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok

And that despite (or because) of the following:

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated. If they are responding to him, silly though I believe that to be, that will be allowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you also support anonymous 'moderators' being seen to repeatedly 'silently delete' entire threads and all their posts from our forum - when the (so -called) critera is seen not to be met?

If you did - I suspect that you would not only be free to post this view in every thread - you would be encouraged to do so. Do do you agree and support this?

Do you also agree with the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and judge that 'Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to goof off' or have a discussion and do you also agree with the proposed solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:26 AM

"Which would lead me to believe that it is what is who said and who may be (trying) saying that is now the real issue on our forum - rather than how many times it is said. "

Try it and see.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:40 AM

The goal is elimination
Of all duplication
Can't you get this into your brain?
I'll make sure that you will
Finally swallow this pill
As I will say it again and again

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps the following posters can be given an apology - for their posts were seen to be wrongly 'silently deleted' before the above assurance was given to our forum?

John 'Giok' MacKenzie
The Villan
number 6
GUEST,Jon
skipy
Divis Sweeney

And to the following - for their posts were seen to be wrongly 'silently deleted' after the above assurance was given to our forum?

Georgiansilver
number 6
Little Hawk
John 'Giok' MacKenzie
bobad
jacqui.c
Ebbie
MMario
Liz the Squeak -

And me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 09:27 AM

For even if the charge of repetition was a valid one - is it really the worst thing on our forum

YES!


and would it really justify all the fuss encouraged to be made against and for posting restrictions to be imposed on one individual poster only for this so-called 'abuse?

YES!!

Do you also agree with the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and judge that 'Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to goof off' or have a discussion and do you also agree with the proposed solution?

YES, BECAUSE OF YOU SHAMBLES! HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION AND NOT LISTEN TO OUR ANSWER?

NO ONE IS OWED ANY APOLOGY. YOU ARE A CRANK AND EVERYONE WHO IS POSTING TO THIS THREAD IS JUST AS NUTS AS YOU ARE. YOU ALL NEED HELP.

STOP POSTING AND WATCH SHAMBLES SELF-DESTRUCT. HIS DAY IS COMING.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 04:38 AM

Suddenly, early in the spring, an alarming thing was discovered. Snowball was secretly frequenting the farm by night! The animals were so disturbed that they could hardly sleep in their stalls. Every night, it was said, he came creeping in under cover of darkness and performed all kinds of mischief. He stole the corn, he upset the milk-pails, he broke the eggs, he trampled the seedbeds, he gnawed the bark off the fruit trees. Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball. If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal. The cows declared unanimously that Snowball crept into their stalls and milked them in their sleep. The rats, which had been troublesome that winter, were also said to be in league with Snowball.

Napoleon decreed that there should be a full investigation into Snowball's activities. With his dogs in attendance he set out and made a careful tour of inspection of the farm buildings, the other animals following at a respectful distance. At every few steps Napoleon stopped and snuffed the ground for traces of Snowball's footsteps, which, he said, he could detect by the smell. He snuffed in every corner, in the barn, in the cow-shed, in the henhouses, in the vegetable garden, and found traces of Snowball almost everywhere. He would put his snout to the ground, give several deep sniffs, ad exclaim in a terrible voice, "Snowball! He has been here! I can smell him distinctly!" and at the word "Snowball" all the dogs let out blood-curdling growls and showed their side teeth.

From Animal Farm by George Orwell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shambles & birthdays, why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Open Letter to Max
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 01:42 PM

The birthday threads are obviously intended to be obnoxious, but the nice thing about them is that we can add actual music information to them and reverse the obnoxiousness.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 04:57 AM

Leon Trotsky was born this day (7th November) in 1879.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 09:56 AM

You've got balls of brass to have the nerve to compare yourself to Animal Farm. What a stupid analogy. Wake up - you are not that important.

Do you also have nail holes in your palms??

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 10:34 AM

Guest. Take a break. Go have a cup of coffee. Or tea. Play your guitar, fiddle, banjo or whatever. It's just not that important. Take a deep breath and exhale slowly. It's OK. Really.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,the ghost of Vladimir Ulyanov
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 10:58 AM

Happy Birthday Leon.

You were always the smart one Leon. Joe could never understand you. I sometimes think you should have kept your mouth shut, somewhat. Played the game. Who knows, you could have defected to the U.S. and got a cushy tenure at Berkley.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 11:51 AM

Shambles, sometimes a deletion is not as silent as you think.

Far from being owed an apology by Joe or the Clones (the Shambles 6:40 AM), I apologized to Joe. With good reason. I had exploded at 'Guest' (also with good reason, but I went beyond the bounds) and some people complained.

For the record, in my opinion, Joe Offer and the Clones do a good and essential job.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 12:56 PM

From: Blowzabella - PM
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 07:26 PM

If I were your mother, I would knock all of your heads together! You all need to take a long hard look at yourselves and imagine what this thread looks like to someone viewing the site for the first time. This is probably the one that attracts you to look at - Does it look as if this site is populated by intersting people who want to talk about music???


Possibly not - if they were viewing the non-music related section.

But our forum will look as it looks – why the idea that some sort of pretence should be made that is something other than what it plainly is?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following from Animal Farm by George Orwell.
It was vitally necessary to conceal this fact from the outside world. Emboldened by the collapse of the windmill, the human beings were inventing fresh lies about Animal Farm. Once again it was being put about that all the animals were dying of famine and disease, and that they were continually fighting among themselves and had resorted to cannibalism and infanticide. Napoleon was well aware of the bad results that might follow if the real facts of the food situation were known, and he decided to make use of Mr. Whymper to spread a contrary impression.

Hitherto the animals had had little or no contact with Whymper on his weekly visits: now, however, a few selected animals, mostly sheep, were instructed to remark casually in his hearing that rations had been increased. In addition, Napoleon ordered the almost empty bins in the store-shed to be filled nearly to the brim with sand, which was then covered up with what remained of the grain and meal. On some suitable pretext Whymper was led through the store-shed and allowed to catch a glimpse of the bins. He was deceived, and continued to report to the outside world that there was no food shortage on Animal Farm.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 01:04 PM

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt"

- Mark Twain

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 01:06 PM

I've stopped posting to this thread, but I've been observing. I hope others might try it and learn some of the things that I have by simply watching. No one wins, no one is right.   

I think we will be out of Iraq before this thread ends.

Have fun! I'm outta here, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 02:13 PM

You'll be back Ron. You can't escape. That's why everyone else posts. I give you 3 days at the most.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 07:22 PM

Animal Farm (1945) - satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution, particularly directed against Stalin's Russia.

Led by the pigs, the Animals on Mr Jones's farm revolt against their human masters. After their victory they decide to run the farm themselves on egalitarian principles. Inspired by the example of Boxer, the hard-working horse, the cooperation prosper. The pigs become corrupted by power and a new tyranny is established under Napoleon (Stalin). 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

Snowball (Trotsky), an idealist, is driven out.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 07:48 PM

Mental health hotline

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 07:49 PM

The following thread Shambles & birthdays, why?   has now been closed.

With the following editing comment inserted into the following post.

Subject: RE: Shambles & Birthdays, Why?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko - PM
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 04:30 PM

Keep posting them Shambles. They are fun. I always like to be reminded of anniversaries and birthdays. I have a "day in history" feature on my blogsite - www.ronolesko.blogspot.com , and I also have gathered birthday information from many of the artists whose music I play on the radio. I think a commemoration once a year is worth a mention and a rememberance.

I also feel the obit threads are important. As Lee Hays would say, I like to check them to make sure that I am not in them!

This thread should never have been started. In general, we do not allow threads that attack other Mudcatters. UIt might have been appropriate to question the proliferation of birthday threads in a birthday thread, but starting a new thread to directly challenge Shambles has the tone of a personal attack. As a rule, I close or delete all threads directed at our usual trolls. Therefore, I'm closing this one.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:39 AM

Yet another gem - not to be missed - from the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum.

http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3396&messages=22

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 08:01 AM

Yet another gem - not to be missed - from the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum

I agree, for I laughed a lot about you when reading it.
Why do you post anonymously there, Shambles?
Just not to be seen in the open bitching in the "snitcher's corner?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 08:34 AM

Why do you post anonymously there, Shambles?

Why do you ask?

Do you really think that I can post anonymously?

I know who I am.

And being anonymous there or on our forum is not a problem - is it? It does appear to be in this post for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

I am a member of our forum - when I post here - I do not have to keep on putting my name to my posts - this is done automatically. So why cannot this be the case on snitchers corner? After posting there for a while you just tire of putting your name in.

After posting there for a while you can also tire of living................

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 08:34 AM

Hard to miss his garbled syntax and convoluted logic isn't it Wolfgang?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:10 AM

Perhaps the logic of relegating a music thread to the BS because the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges its contents to be 'trash' - can be explained?

Its contents may well judged to be 'trash' - but it remains a music thread - even if it is a music thread containing 'trash'. If that is what posters on the music section have posted to it - that IS what they have chosen to post to it and this should be accepted - rather than value judged by our 'moderators'.

Its relgation to the BS will not make the existing 'trash' go away - only ensure that anyone 'googling' on either Kate Rusby's or John McCusker's names will now be more likely to find even more non-music related comments in this thread.

Our forum does not have a music section and a 'trash' section. But the relegation of threads that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges to be 'trash' to the BS section - rather implies that he does judge the BS section to be 'trash'?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:19 AM

When a thread likes this gets almost 1600 posts and you keep repeating yourself more then a person who has eaten an entire pot of baked beans does then it proves that the BS sectio is trash. A section is what we make it. We've all mad this section totally laughable. It definitiely qualifies as trash in my book. And you, Shambles, are the biggest garbage man,

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:02 AM

"After posting there for a while you just tire of putting your name in"

There's a solution for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:09 PM

There's a solution for that.

Thanks Paul - I will put your name in the box instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:36 PM

But suddenly the dogs sitting round Napoleon let out deep, menacing growls, and the pigs fell silent and sat down again. Then the sheep broke out into a tremendous bleating of "Four legs good, two legs bad!" which went on for nearly a quarter of an hour and put an end to any chance of discussion.

Afterwards Squealer was sent round the farm to explain the new arrangement to the others.

"Comrades," he said, "I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility.

No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? Suppose you had decided to follow Snowball, with his moonshine of windmills-Snowball, who, as we now know, was no better than a criminal?"

From Animal Farm by George Orwell.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:50 PM

Did I dream posting to a thread called something like 'Welcome Guests'?

If I did - I dreamed that Wolfgang posted to it also.

For this entire thread and all of its posts now seem to have vanished without trace..............

Is this yet another case of 'silent deletion' by persons unknown and for reasons unknown?

Or is it a software glitch or is this also due to the upgrade?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 01:23 PM

After posting there for a while you just tire of putting your name in. (Shambles)

You're not honest with yourself and with us, Shambles. Your tiredness coincided exactly with your use of the term "snitcher's corner" for the help forum. That's why. Perhaps you could just once be honest about your motives for a certain move. That would be a very welcome change from your usual behaviour.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 01:36 PM

Shambels you are really only adding fuel to the fire.

"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Keep annoying people. Soon none of us will be annoyed by you anymore. Bye bye. Fare thee well. Ta ta,see you around.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 01:37 PM

Shambles - there is no "wrongly deleted". The owner of the site reserves the right to delete, edit, change, move, etc any posting. His appointed proxies may do the same. That's fact.

Max has said he will not discuss such issues except in private communication - ie: off the forum. so if there is something done that you don't like - you have to take it up with him. So far, it appears you refuse to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 02:38 PM

Shambles - there is no "wrongly deleted".

MMario - Perhaps you would accept that doing anything that does not meet the criteria required - is wrong?

And that preventing this abuse - is the point of having criteria.

I suggest you take this one up with whoever it was that informed our forum that the closure (of both threads) did not meet the required criteria for 'silent deletion' and who overuled this decision (as wrong) and who later restored/combined them?

And who expected to be shown gratitude for putting right these instances of two entire threads being wrongly silently deleted by persons unknown. But who has yet to comment on the latest vanishing thread. Perhaps the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is trying to establish who was responsible for this latest one?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 02:40 PM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 03:13 PM

"Thanks Paul - I will put your name in the box instead. "

Forging posts from me, eh? Your righteousness has really slipped now.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:45 PM

You're not honest with yourself and with us, Shambles. Your tiredness coincided exactly with your use of the term "snitcher's corner" for the help forum.

This thread will show that this acusation is not correct and that this 'tiredness' goes way back.

Guest Postings

Sadly that thread also shows that anonymous people wrongly imposing editing action for which the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team needs to reverse - also goes way back.

And still no measures are announced to prevent it happening again.

Any suggestions?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:49 PM

It's not our call Roger, any more than it is yours, it's up to Max and his Gnomes as to what changes are made if any.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 06:37 PM

It's not our call Roger, any more than it is yours, it's up to Max and his Gnomes as to what changes are made if any.
Giok

It is perhaps our call to bring attention to when such instances of abuse occur - without being subject to special posting restrictions for trying to make these attempts?

Without any changes announced to address a constantly repeated problem of controlling the actions of some of our anonymous 'moderators' - perhaps our forum should not be given empty assurances like these?

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

And references to so-called criteria that some of our anonymous 'moderators' are seen to openly ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:07 PM

There were many more creatures on the farm now, though the increase was not so great as had been expected in earlier years. Many animals had been born to whom the Rebellion was only a dim tradition, passed on by word of mouth, and others had been bought who had never heard mention of such a thing before their arrival.

The farm possessed three horses now besides Clover. They were fine upstanding beasts, willing workers and good comrades, but very stupid. None of them proved able to learn the alphabet beyond the letter B. They accepted everything that they were told about the Rebellion and the principles of Animalism, especially from Clover, for whom they had an almost filial respect; but it was doubtful whether they understood very much of it.

From Animal Farm by George Orwell.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:46 PM

"It is perhaps our call to bring attention to when such instances of abuse occur - without being subject to special posting restrictions for trying to make these attempts?"

Then send Max a PM Dumbass. Scared? Sure you are Shamby. Max might even respond and tell you to go fuck yourself! You're really diving deep into the crazy hole anymore. Is this just for our benefit or are you doing this shit with friends around town and acting this wacky in your own home? If so, you can't be too far from some serious talks with some nice people who will give you a padded room.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 02:20 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated. If they are responding to him, silly though I believe that to be, that will be allowed.

What ever this criteria is supposed to be - it does not appear (from the previous post) to be these posts (or their posters) that are eliminated as our forum is assured - as long as such posts are from certain favoured posters and are seen to be attacking certain easy targets. Or even from the 'moderator' himself - who is explaining this criteria to our forum.

But entire threads with all of their posts are eliminated.

Do you remember also posting to this recent one Wolfgang - or did I dream it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 05:00 AM

One man's abuse is another man's sensible editing!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 05:23 AM

Forging posts from me, eh? Your righteousness has really slipped now.

Are you still scratching around to try a find the 'crime' to match what I have already been publicly hounded, judged, convicted and sentenced for?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it really too much to expect those who 'moderate' our forum and those few who noisily post to support them - to accept the reality?

Whether you accept or not, the current Chief of the Editing Team's assessment or the suggested cure for what he finds wanting - expressed in the following - there is little point in pretending that our forum is anything other than it really is.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

But the pretence continues.

Some poster's loyaly support the best efforts of our 'moderators' - when they have no way of knowing what the true nature and current level of imposed censorship and 'silent deletion' really is. And despite the fact that the Chief proponent of these 'best efforts' no longer sees them as effective without further restrictions being imposed and a radical change made to the open posting policy that has always been the case on our forum.

The so-called criteria for this censorship is seen to be ignored at the same time that worthless assurances like the following are given.

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

For it is clear from the evidence in this thread - that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would have no idea if this poster's contribution had been 'silently deleted' along with all the other posts, when an entire thread is wrongly deleted by some anonymous 'moderator' using criteria of their own.

Such assurances are well-intended but simply repeating such assurances when time after time the evidence shows them to be worthless, is as damaging to our forum as being seen to impose special posting restrictions on individuals who post simply to try to point this out, And who continue to do this in the hope that it will finally be addressed.

If our 'moderators' do not wish me to keep posting to point out where entire threads and all their posts have been wrongly 'siletly deleted' - then please address how prevent it from happening..................

Rather than being seen to using their 'best efforts' only to try and prevent me from pointing it out and trying to get our forum to openly discuss it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 05:29 AM

One man's abuse is another man's sensible editing!

To protect posters from this - is why criteria is introduced.

It also protects the one's imposing the editing from accusations that their actions may be personally motivated.

But not if the so-called criteria is seen to be simply and repeatedly ignored - as is clearly and sadly the case here over many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 06:08 AM

Forging posts from me, eh? Your righteousness has really slipped now.

Are you still scratching around to try a find the 'crime' to match what I have already been publicly hounded, judged, convicted and sentenced for?


I obviously didn't need to, did I? It was your response to a remark of mine that you would post as me. I didn't twist your arm to make you suggest it. Take some responsibility for your suggestion won't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 08:52 AM

Shambles- you definetley are a mad person.
anyway= if you was a member of my family, i would lock you in the cupboard, i would say="look shambles, theres a big cake in that cupboard", and when you went to look, i would lock you in, till you promise to stop moaning, (i would make you sign a letter waht i pushed under the door).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 09:23 AM

"Whether you accept or not, the current Chief of the Editing Team's assessment or the suggested cure for what he finds wanting - expressed in the following - there is little point in pretending that our forum is anything other than it really is."

You're right Shamples, Max's forum is what it is. If you don't like what it is then leave, start your own forum or just try to find an ideal place for yourself that meets all of your utopian criteria.

Or, you can send a PM to Max. No one else here seems to support you so go right to the top and plead your case. WE DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!

Also, why don't you just post the entire Animal Farm. That should keep you occupied for a while typing it all into your little computer.

Just stop annoying everyone because as you know:

"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 09:50 AM

PERSECUTION ALERT

ATTENTION SHAMBLES.......Once again you are being targeted as a second (or third or ninetheenth or seven hundred and forty-sixth) class citizen of Mudcat!!! There is a thread running with pictures and even video RIGHT IN THE THREAD!!!

You can't do that! If you did it some terrible moderator would delete your posts 'cause its against the rules. But no one is messing with this thread so I guess its okay for certain ones but not for all.    Quick....You can post this anonymously in your "Snitcher's Corner".......

TIME TO START A NEW CAMPAIGN

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 04:17 PM

I stand corrected, Shambles. You have posted under your name in the help forum after you have used the expression "snitcher's corner".

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 06:15 AM

I stand corrected, Shambles. You have posted under your name in the help forum after you have used the expression "snitcher's corner".

Thank you Wolfgang.

Perhaps rather than just trying to ignore this - you could also confirm that you did also post to the recent thread I have referred to, and that your post there, along with all the others in that entire thread, has vanished without trace or explanation?

Perhaps you could offer some suggestions as to how to prevent entire threads on our forum from continuing to be 'silently deleted' by persons and reasons unknown - when they do not meet the required criteria?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 06:32 AM

Ron Olesko says.

I've stopped posting to this thread, but I've been observing. I hope others might try it and learn some of the things that I have by simply watching. No one wins, no one is right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[PM] WFDU - Ron Olesko BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. (1584* d) RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. 30 Oct 06

If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 06:57 AM

"Perhaps you could offer some suggestions as to how to prevent entire threads on our forum from continuing to be 'silently deleted' by persons and reasons unknown - when they do not meet the required criteria?"

When are you going to wake up to the FACT that you have absolutely NO CONTROL over this? If something is deleted that is then overturned, Max, Jeff, or Joe handle the situation with the elf involved. If they feel the clone isn't doing the job that Max expects, THEY will handle it. You don't have a damn thing to say about it. There are a number of threads and posts that have been deleted over the years that don't match Joe's criteria but Joe and the Clones are still on the job and to the best of my knowledge, NONE have been fired. Even if they have, that's none of your business or mine. It's Max's call. Remember too that Max and company reserve the right to do whatever.

And don't throw out that aged Max line about the rules because it is obviously NOT the situation anymore.

You're completely off the deep end Shamby. Are you really like this in 3D? LMAO.....you're a friggin' nutcase if you are! Actually, those poor souls around you are probably going bats just trying to deal with you.......LOL.....Have a great day and watch for the "White Coats."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 07:45 AM

So posters can now only post about things they have some control over?

Like Iraq, Sudan and Third World Dept etc.

Where has Max ever stated such a thing?

When judgement is imposed on the invited contributions of posters, this is undertaken in their name, in order to protect them and certain assurances are given for the criteria required - perhaps they can be expected to seen to question this - if these assurances are not seen to be honoured and be able to have their say on this - as they would on any other issue?

And to be able to post on this subject as often as any other?

I am sure we will all be concerned about climate change and continue to post these concerns - even when we accept that it something we REALLY have little or no control over?

As it is still generally accepted that our forum will be what its posters make it - perhaps you could offer some suggestions as to how to prevent entire threads on our forum from continuing to be 'silently deleted' by persons and reasons unknown - when they do not meet the required criteria?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 07:55 AM

You repeatedly use the term 'our forum' when in the light of what you post, what you mean is 'MY forum' This whole waste of space thread is all about you, and not about Mudcat at all.
You remind me of Violet Elizabeth Bott, but with one difference. You scream and you scream, and you scream, till you make US sick!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 08:42 AM

I personally don't give a damn Sham.......and neither should you. You keep rehashing this same stuff over and over. Nobody but you much cares! You keep restating that the place is for fun.....Then have some and forget about the other stuff. It's a website. Its very much a community too, but it's a website. There are no guarantees of free speech or personal rights. What Max says is what goes.

Got a problem? Then take it up with Max thru the PM's you constantly have praised. You've already stated the smae things at least 50 times each......Nothing new has been said since Hector was a pup and Hector has been dead now for a long time......as I recall he died from you kicking him. And remember, abuse of animals is directly related to domestic violence.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 08:56 AM

Subject: RE: Lyr Req: The Family Ointment
From: GUEST,8iawv2mu70 - PM
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 08:22 AM

dn88j2eldby2api0 shjlnl7f3wz [URL=http://www.374272.com/499712.html] uyapg9nylp2i [/URL] glc83msxcxrx8efj

This is but one example why I am very much in favour of deleting posts. It looks like many old music threads right now have been refreshed with nonsense posts like the one above (I stopped looking after the first three attempts). It is of course quick and easy to ignore such a post but loading an old thread of some length takes a couple of seconds (up to half a minute on my weekend computer). I hate wasting some minutes of my time this way just to find out that nothing of any interest has refresehd a thread.

JCs finding and silently deleting such posts without comment refreshing the thread act in the best of my personal interest. I'll come back to the music section in a few hours for I am confident that they will have swept away the dirt silently.

Perhaps rather than just trying to ignore this - you could... (Shambles)

What a nonsense assuption to make, Shambles. I'm not trying to ignore this post. I have read it and like much more than 99 % of all posts I read I find it does not need any comment from me. If you think I'm ignoring all posts I'm not commenting you mare very much mistaken.

Perhaps you could offer some suggestions as to how to prevent entire threads on our forum from continuing to be 'silently deleted' by persons and reasons unknown - when they do not meet the required criteria? (Shambles)

Yes.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 09:21 AM

How come I never seem to have had a post deleted...What am I doing wrong?

If you enjoy coping with this, Joe, you must be a masochist. If you don't, you're a saint.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 09:21 AM

Yes.

Well what are these suggestions?

And can you confirm that you are not entering dreams (if you don't enter mine I will not enter yours) and that you did also post to the recent thread, I referred to, that has vanished without trace or explanation?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 09:22 AM

Please stop Shambles from posting. Or edit out any complaint post by him. This has gone on way too long. The man can't admit that he has no say here. He has expressed his point of view. His suggestions have been denied by ownership. Please stop the same repitition from happening time after time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bagpuss
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 09:28 AM

Shambles, Wolfgang agreed that he COULD "offer some suggestions as to how to prevent entire threads on our forum from continuing to be 'silently deleted' by persons and reasons unknown - when they do not meet the required criteria?". He made no indication of whether or not he WOULD do so... Some of us have self restraint and refrain from doing things merely because we CAN do them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 09:45 AM

How come I never seem to have had a post deleted...

How would you know?

This is rather the point of this 'silent deletion'. And ind order to protect posters and 'moderators' alike - rather the point of requesting that all such cases are always recorded in editing comments and all editing comments limited to where such action has taken place. Is that really too much to ask?

But if you do not want to have your contributions deleted - it is fairly easy to be careful to do as you are now being instructed, turn a blind eye and just keep on saying only what our 'moderators' want to hear.

But are you only concerned about your own posts and not concerned at all about finding ways of preventing this from happening again to your fellow posters? Or are you suggesting that it is their own fault in some way?

Many of whom (including the following) have had their posts 'silently deleted' when they did not meet the required criteria - by some anonymous 'moderator' - using criteria of their own? [This list not including casualties in the more recent thread referred to that has vanished without trace or explanation]

Georgiansilver
number 6
Little Hawk
John 'Giok' MacKenzie
bobad
jacqui.c
Ebbie
MMario
Liz the Squeak -

John 'Giok' MacKenzie
The Villan
number 6
GUEST,Jon
skipy
Divis Sweeney
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!"

It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse.

Benjamin felt a nose nuzzling at his shoulder. He looked round. It was Clover. Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever. Without saying anything, she tugged gently at his mane and led him round to the end of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written. For a minute or two they stood gazing at the tatted wall with its white lettering.

"My sight is failing," she said finally. "Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?"

For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
After that it did not seem strange when next day the pigs who were supervising the work of the farm all carried whips in their trotters.

From Animal Farm by George Orwell.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 10:10 AM

Well what are these suggestions? (Shambles)

Well, I knew you wouldn't be contented with my response to your question, you never are. You only ask a new question.

Why should I make suggestions to change a state of affairs I generally approve of though not in each single case?
(1) I approve of deletion of threads that do not meet criteria (if I was in charge I would delete even more).
(2) I approve that this is done in most cases silently and without giving reasons.
(3) I don't mind not to know the identity of the person taking the action.

But what would I do if I would not approve of the present level of deletions? Well, I would mail Max and tell him and ask him either to rein the clones a bit better or to replace them with better clones. I'd even mail a second time if he'd answer he is contented with their actions If I really felt I had a good point. If then I did not get a response at all or a response that I was not contented with I'd shut up.

So the best suggestion to change the way this forum is run (assuming I would dislike the present state of affairs) is to ask the boss for a change, once or even twice, and then to shut up.

The other pettiness you bring up the second time is still below my threshold for responding.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 10:17 AM

But let me also ask you questions, Shambles. You must have seen the present attack on Mudcat with posts of the type I have quoted above.

(1) Do you approve of these posts being deleted?
(2) Would you like to see for each of these posts a comment by a clone why it was deleted?
(3) Should the comments refresh the threads?
(4) Do you mind that the person asctually deleting such a post remains unknown?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 10:23 AM

The other pettiness you bring up the second time is still below my threshold for responding.

Well I think it was at least the third time of asking.

But as I am sure that such a thread did exist and Wolfgang seems for some reason to be unwilling to confirm that he also had a post in it - which has also vanished without trace or explanation - perhaps some other poster (or even a 'moderator') would be kind enough to confirm to our forum that such a thread did exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 10:32 AM

(1) I approve of deletion of threads that do not meet criteria (if I was in charge I would delete even more).

So no more - please. The implications of such an attitude when logically extended to other criteria (like the laws of the land) are mind-boggling.

For what is the point of claiming there is to be criteria or law - if it is to be ignored?

The world has been this way before - with disastrous results - or have you forgotten, already?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 10:42 AM

And if I didn't know, why should I care. That is a rhetorical, question. Please please, Shambles, don't take it as yet another peg to hang a response on.

He's a good songwriter. He's a good singer. He's a good bloke, in fact. But...

Remember with the old-style records when you had one with a slight crack or a scratch, and how the needle would get stuck in a groove and it repeated and repeated... In the days of wind-ups the record just went slower and sower and stopped after a time. But with the electric ones it just went on until someone switched them or the record wore through. Evidently Shambles isn't a wind-up.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 10:45 AM

"Evidently Shambles isn't a wind-up. "

But he is a wind up merchant...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 11:02 AM

(1) Do you approve of these posts being deleted?

This is really a bit a red herring but as you ask. It is automatically generated spam. Most spam is deleted automatically before I see it – I have no problem with that. If it has to be done this way – why should I not approve of it being manually deleted? My concern is with the baby – not the bath-water.

(2) Would you like to see for each of these posts a comment by a clone why it was deleted?

Yes – why not? That is part of their role – if they do not like it – someone else will always be prepared to undertake the role properly.

(3) Should the comments refresh the threads?

Yes – why not – but in these cases the thread has already been refreshed and in itself is doing little harm. Posters can either post something new – or let the tread fall off the bottom.

(4) Do you mind that the person asctually deleting such a post remains unknown?

Yes I do – It is confusing when being seen to be anonymous on our forum is judged by our current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be both a good and a bad thing.

I think that it will set a good example if all 'moderators' are required to be known and stand by their actions – as members are expected to. If you like - I will then always put my name in 'snitchers corner' (should it still continue in its current form).

Now I have answered your questions Wolfgang - perhaps you will now be kind enough to confirm to our forum that you also had a post deleted – in the recent thread that I referred to which has vanished without trace or explanation?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 11:09 AM

And if I didn't know, why should I care.

Only you will know and can answer why you should be seen to care or not and about what.

But the following was not a rhetorical, question. Perhaps you could answer it - or perhaps you already have.......

But are you only concerned about your own posts and not concerned at all about finding ways of preventing this from happening again to your fellow posters? Or are you suggesting that it is their own fault in some way?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 11:22 AM

"(2) Would you like to see for each of these posts a comment by a clone why it was deleted?

Yes – why not? That is part of their role – if they do not like it – someone else will always be prepared to undertake the role properly."

Roger you are mad, and that response proves it, Have you any idea how many messages the JCs have had to delete in that attack?
No, and neither do I, but I saw dozens on the list.

I thought you lived in Weymouth, but I see it's actually 'Cloud Cuckoo Land'

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 11:32 AM

"You keep rehashing this same stuff over and over. Nobody but you much cares"

Ya gotta be kiddin' ... this is one of the most popular threads in the Cat lately, thanks to Shambles and you regular posters .. pro or con Shambles ... it's growing at a healthy pace each day. As they say, people don't like change, if even it is repetitive.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 11:47 AM

"(2) Would you like to see for each of these posts a comment by a clone why it was deleted?

Yes – why not? That is part of their role – if they do not like it – someone else will always be prepared to undertake the role properly."

Why would you think that? Their job spec isn't published here and you've been told repeatedly that they haven't the time for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,An anonymous clone
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 11:54 AM

I need to correct a few misimpressions in a recent prevous post.

(2) Would you like to see for each of these posts a comment by a clone why it was deleted?

Yes – why not? That is part of their role – if they do not like it – someone else will always be prepared to undertake the role properly.

As one of the anonymous clones who helped clean up from the attack, I need to let you know that there were dozens of garbage-posts that needed to be deleted, It took 10 to 20 seconds to delete each one without adding in a comment. Spending an extra 30 or 45 seconds to add in a comment is an onerous task we volunteers are unwilling to deal with in these situations.

(3) Should the comments refresh the threads?

Yes – why not – but in these cases the thread has already been refreshed and in itself is doing little harm. Posters can either post something new – or let the tread fall off the bottom.

Once the spam posts are deleted, the thread is restored as though the posts had never taken place. A thread with a previous post of 2002 returns to the state of needing to set the filters to bring up a 2002 thread once all the recent spam-posts have been deleted,

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 12:14 PM

At 9:45, Shambles, you listed my name - again - as having a post of mine "silently deleted". This, in spite of my having informed you that it wasn't true, that it never was true.

Now. If you have any integrity, you will take my name OFF THAT LIST. You are lying when you make it sound that I have a complaint.

I need you to acknowledge your error NOW.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 12:23 PM

What Ebbie said goes for me too.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 12:39 PM

I have and I don't mind as I was OTT, so take my name off your list too!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:07 PM

As one of the anonymous clones who helped clean up from the attack, I need to let you know that there were dozens of garbage-posts that needed to be deleted, It took 10 to 20 seconds to delete each one without adding in a comment. Spending an extra 30 or 45 seconds to add in a comment is an onerous task we volunteers are unwilling to deal with in these situations.

Maybe so. If I waste my time answering anonymous complainers who have no life themselves, there may be serious doubt whether I have a life. Remind me not to give you the courtesy of an answer again.
-Joe Offer-

I did say this was a red herring - as the concern is still the baby not the bath-water and to ensure that all other editing actions can always be recorded in editing comments - which is not addressed. But I will answer this (tired-out) 'anonymous complainer' on the point raised.

If there were say as many as 4 dozen of these posts and they all needed to be urgently deleted - that would mean (20+ an extra 45 seconds) 65 seconds max, for each one. That would only be a total of well under an hour's effort to be divided up between whatever number of unknown 'moderators' were involved.

Not really too much time out of one's life to be seen to do a job properly - is it?

And if 'you' current crop of anonymous volunteers are unwilling to do the job properly - the fact is that, I am quite sure there are many new ones who would be. Perhaps you should step down and let them? They may even be prepared to be known and be seen to stand by their actions?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:09 PM

Looking for a job Roger?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:19 PM

Volunteers to get harangued and sneered at and generally harassed by obsessive and self-regarding characters?

I doubt if there are too many. Surprising there are any. I suppose the aim of Mr S to to bully Joe and the other into giving up the struggle. Perhaps to drive Max into pulling the plug on the whole operation. And then he'll be really pleased with himself. "I've won!"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:23 PM

Check your PMs, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,An anonymous clone
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:25 PM

If there were say as many as 4 dozen of these posts and they all needed to be urgently deleted - that would mean (20+ an extra 45 seconds) 65 seconds max, for each one. That would only be a total of well under an hour's effort to be divided up between whatever number of unknown 'moderators' were involved.

Not really too much time out of one's life to be seen to do a job properly - is it?

There were hundreds of spam posts, and it took a large team of volunteers working collaboratively more than an hour to restore the Mudcat. Asking the entire team to instead spend 4 or 5 hours on this otherwise routine task is an unreasonable expectation on the labor of volunteers who have other things to do in their lives besides documenting their every action for the benefit of one single complainer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:28 PM

Hear Hear!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks, clones!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:32 PM

Some people have more to do with their lives, than to indulge in futile pastimes to please you Roger. If by some chance they did so, you would of course find something else to complain about.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:39 PM

There were hundreds of spam posts, and it took a large team of volunteers working collaboratively more than an hour to restore the Mudcat. Asking the entire team to instead spend 4 or 5 hours on this otherwise routine task is an unreasonable expectation on the labor of volunteers who have other things to do in their lives besides documenting their every action for the benefit of one single complainer.

Very possibly - but I did say this issue was a red herring. And the last post from an anonymous clone - did say 'dozens' not 'hundreds'. Which was it? Or will we be told next it was thousands of posts?

For the very imposed few, non-spam related closures and editing actions that are the real concern - the time it would take to always supply an editing comment of explanation - would not add to to the time demands - even of our current crop of anonymous 'moderators'.

It would ensure that any poster would KNOW if their contribution had been subjected to imposed edition action. Is this really too much for posters to expect?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:43 PM

Yes it is. Keep discussing this if you choose, it will not change.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:52 PM

"It would ensure that any poster would KNOW if their contribution had been subjected to imposed edition action. Is this really too much for posters to expect?"

No one other then you cares Shambles. On all other boards the editors can edit what they want when they want and without notifying anyone. Most of us have accepted this as the proper way to do things. Just because you have a bug up your butt about this doesn't mean that anyone should have extra work to do.

If you really care, and since you obviosly have the time, you can keep monitoring threads and start a thread of edited posts letting everyone know who was edited. Yes that does sound stupid. But its no more stupid then asking for the rules that 99.9% of Mudcat approves of to be changed just to satisfy Shambles.

Again, if you don't like it here leave and start your own site. Or just send a PM to Max. But perhaps you've already done that and he has already told you that he doesn't agree.

Anyway:

"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 02:33 PM

Let's just leave him alone. I'm rather sorry curiosity got the better of me and I dipped into this thread, and then made a couple of posts to it. It's easy to slip into the way of doing that, but it's not really a good idea. So "Over and out".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,skinny clone
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 05:08 PM

I deleted at least 50-60 of the spam messages myself, and I saw at least 200 when I started, about 10:15. I noticed that sometimes when I went to one, someone had beaten me to it. I had no idea who else was working on the problem. Nor did I care. It was a project, and it was done.

In some threads, there were 5-7 individual spams. You can be sure I would never consider explaining each one. No- it is not part of the job to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 08:40 PM

"Let's just leave him alone."

Exactly Mcgrath ... leave him alone, leave this thread alone, and then, just maybe this thread will fade away. We all aren't doing Max and the Cat a favour (and I say we, not just Shambles) by continuing in this sensless, ridiculous, repetitive babble.

It really (in all honesty) has to be one of the most boring of threads.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 04:37 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Washing snotty handkerchifs
From: JennyO - PM
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:17 AM

It always amazes me, the people who come onto threads where the subject can be very clearly seen without opening them, just to read them and criticise us poor little plebs for wasting our lives on them. Obviously they don't mind wasting THEIR lives to do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Shambles & Birthdays, Why?
From: kendall - PM
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 01:56 PM

Shambles used to irritate the hell out of me by wasting space just to have something to say. Now, I simply ignor any post that he puts up. Works for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[the cheque is in the post Jenny]

Subject: RE: The Mudcat Is Under Fire
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 05:19 AM

The Battle of the Cowshed

The animals had now reassembled in the wildest excitement, each recounting his own exploits in the battle at the top of his voice. An impromptu celebration of the victory was held immediately. The flag was run up and Beasts of England was sung a number of times, then the sheep who had been killed was given a solemn funeral, a hawthorn bush being planted on her grave. At the graveside Snowball made a little speech, emphasising the need for all animals to be ready to die for Animal Farm if need be.

The animals decided unanimously to create a military decoration, "Animal Hero, First Class," which was conferred there and then on Snowball and Boxer. It consisted of a brass medal (they were really some old horse-brasses which had been found in the harness-room), to be worn on Sundays and holidays. There was also "Animal Hero, Second Class," which was conferred posthumously on the dead sheep.

There was much discussion as to what the battle should be called. In the end, it was named the Battle of the Cowshed, since that was where the ambush had been sprung.

From Animal Farm by Goerge Orwell.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 05:50 AM

THE MUDCAT IS UNDER ATTACK

Where you can find our anonymous heroes recounting to each other all of their brave deeds, in Mudcat's own - Battle of the Cowshed.

Although estimates of the size of the opposition and the scale and ferocity of the encounter do vary. Ranging from the fierce struggle described here.

Subject: RE: THE MUDCAT IS UNDER FIRE
From: GUEST,Fat Clone - PM
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:24 PM

The attack started even earlier. I killed off the first one and then a dozen or so more about 8:40. I had to leave before 9 to make an appointment and had to run before I could be of much more help.
First off, don't try to horn in on my status as the fat clone. LOL.
Second, it's alright. I got this deleting posts thing down to a science because of all the practice I get. Just ask Rog. We cleaned them out in a hurry. You get the next batch. Mudelf, the Huge and Magnificent.

And the efficient, time to spare 'walk in the park' of the following.

Subject: RE: THE MUDCAT IS UNDER FIRE
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 11:11 AM

Major attack starts around 9:00 AM. By 11:00 AM it is stopped and cleaned up. Don't listen to self righteous, know it all assholes. The whole thing was handled very well, with the integrity of Mudcat back in shape. Those that point out that about 2 dozen or so use this place are just idiots. It is visited by many, but I can think of a couple that could leave and wouldn't be missed.

Job done, let's get on with Mudcattin'.

Mick

The Battle of the Cowshed may have been a useful diversion for some. But of course, it does not really explain to our forum why an editing comment cannot always be placed where our anonymous ones have judged that the contributions of a fellow poster need to be subject to some form of imposed action and why editing comments cannot be limited to only this. As this will be seen to protect all concerned - and the time required - will not stretch anyone too much.

Subject: RE: The Mudcat Is Under Fire
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 06:05 AM

"Comrades!" cried Squealer, making little nervous skips, "a most terrible thing has been discovered. Snowball has sold himself to Frederick of Pinchfield Farm, who is even now plotting to attack us and take our farm away from us! Snowball is to act as his guide when the attack begins. But there is worse than that. We had thought that Snowball's rebellion was caused simply by his vanity and ambition. But we were wrong, comrades.

Do you know what the real reason was? Snowball was in league with Jones from the very start! He was Jones's secret agent all the time. It has all been proved by documents which he left behind him and which we have only just discovered. To my mind this explains a great deal, comrades. Did we not see for ourselves how he attempted-fortunately without success-to get us defeated and destroyed at the Battle of the Cowshed?"

The animals were stupefied. This was a wickedness far outdoing Snowball's destruction of the windmill. But it was some minutes before they could fully take it in. They all remembered, or thought they remembered, how they had seen Snowball charging ahead of them at the Battle of the Cowshed, how he had rallied and encouraged them at every turn, and how he had not paused for an instant even when the pellets from Jones's gun had wounded his back. At first it was a little difficult to see how this fitted in with his being on Jones's side. Even Boxer, who seldom asked questions, was puzzled. He lay down, tucked his fore hoofs beneath him, shut his eyes, and with a hard effort managed to formulate his thoughts.
"I do not believe that," he said. "Snowball fought bravely at the Battle of the Cowshed. I saw him myself. Did we not give him 'Animal Hero, first Class,' immediately afterwards?"

"That was our mistake, comrade. For we know now-it is all written down in the secret documents that we have found-that in reality he was trying to lure us to our doom."

"But he was wounded," said Boxer. "We all saw him running with blood."

"That was part of the arrangement!" cried Squealer. "Jones's shot only grazed him. I could show you this in his own writing, if you were able to read it. The plot was for Snowball, at the critical moment, to give the signal for flight and leave the field to the enemy. And he very nearly succeeded-I will even say, comrades, he would have succeeded if it had not been for our heroic Leader, Comrade Napoleon.

Do you not remember how, just at the moment when Jones and his men had got inside the yard, Snowball suddenly turned and fled, and many animals followed him? And do you not remember, too, that it was just at that moment, when panic was spreading and all seemed lost, that Comrade Napoleon sprang forward with a cry of 'Death to Humanity!' and sank his teeth in Jones's leg? Surely you remember that, comrades?" exclaimed Squealer, frisking from side to side.

Now when Squealer described the scene so graphically, it seemed to the animals that they did remember it. At any rate, they remembered that at the critical moment of the battle Snowball had turned to flee. But Boxer was still a little uneasy.

"I do not believe that Snowball was a traitor at the beginning," he said finally. "What he has done since is different. But I believe that at the Battle of the Cowshed he was a good comrade."

"Our Leader, Comrade Napoleon," announced Squealer, speaking very slowly and firmly, "has stated categorically-categorically, comrade-that Snowball was Jones's agent from the very beginning-yes, and from long before the Rebellion was ever thought of."

"Ah, that is different!" said Boxer. "If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right."

From Animal Farm by George Orwell.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 06:31 AM

An anonymous 'moderator' tells our forum that:

You can be sure I would never consider explaining each one. No- it is not part of the job to do so.

Perhaps this is the same anonymous 'moderator' who would never consider it as part of the job to follow the criteria that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team assures our froum to be the case - in the following.

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

What is the point of such assurances if they are seen to be worthless and not to be honoured by our 'moderators'?

And what is the point of having critera - if it is seen to be repeatedly ignored?

And what is the point of being seen to impose special posting restrictions on one individual poster - for bringing this reality to our forum's attention - to enable it to be openly discussed?

And what is the point of encouraging posters to keep trying pretend that our forum (and its moderation') is anything other than we can all plainly see it is?

Is anyone going to confirm seeing or deleting the recent thread and all its posts - referred to earlier - which has now vanished without trace or explanation?

Or is our forum expected to just go along with the pretence that this thread never existed? If so - to what possible purpose?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 06:56 AM

Special conditions have been imposed on other problem posters, so forget the paranoia. It's not that you're special Roger, it's just that you're the only one left; for the moment anyway!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 08:16 AM

But are you only concerned about your own posts and not concerned at all about finding ways of preventing this from happening again to your fellow posters? Or are you suggesting that it is their own fault in some way?

Many of whom (including the following) have had their posts 'silently deleted' when they did not meet the required criteria - by some anonymous 'moderator' - using criteria of their own? [This list not including casualties in the more recent thread referred to that has vanished without trace or explanation]

Georgiansilver
number 6
Little Hawk
John 'Giok' MacKenzie
bobad
jacqui.c
Ebbie
MMario
Liz the Squeak -

John 'Giok' MacKenzie
The Villan
number 6
GUEST,Jon
skipy
Divis Sweeney

'If you look back you will see the link (and the explanations). The thread was wrongly deleted - as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team stated that it did not meet the criteria. So he restored the thread and those posts. So you will now be able to see your post once again.' This from a PM from RToger today in answer to my qyuery as to which of my posts had been deleted.

So the posters above did not individually do anything that did not reach the required criteria - the whole thread was deleted and then restored.

Shambles - do NOT use my name to try to prove a spurious point by suggesting that my post was at fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 08:18 AM

Thanks for your responses to my questions, Shambles.

On the one hand they show how crooked your thinking is (your responses to the questions 2-4 make close to no sense in the context of your argumentation regarding question 1) on the other hand you are invited to hold these opinions.

But if for instance the clones would have let each of these threads stay refreshed by inserting a comment about the action I would have protested. I would have hated to open a dozen music threads from old time just to find that the only new addition to that thread was a note by a clone that a post containing spam has been eliminated.

Your response to question 2 BTW is so silly and absurd that even you should acknowledge that it was over the top. The most I have seen were 6 spam mails to on thread (there may have been more). And you want each single elimination in that thread being commented upon? Like:

last post (from 2002)
spam post eliminated (clone A)
spam post eliminated (clone B)
spam post eliminated (clone A)
spam post eliminated (clone C)
spam post eliminated (clone B)

You really would object to a sentence like "six spam posts eliminated"? Or did you not understand the implication of my formulation of question 2 and did fail to grasp what you were supporting in your response?

You can bang your head, you can send more PMs, you can repeat your question of the last paragraph as often as you want, my communication regarding that matter is closed.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 10:47 AM

This from a PM from RToger today in answer to my qyuery as to which of my posts had been deleted.

So the posters above did not individually do anything that did not reach the required criteria - the whole thread was deleted and then restored.

Shambles - do NOT use my name to try to prove a spurious point by suggesting that my post was at fault.

I did not of course ever suggest anything of the sort. I simply listed all of the posters whose posts were wrongly deleted and my view that all of these posters were owed an apology. Your name was included on the list as your post was wrongly deleted.

This was when a still anonymous 'moderator' considerered that is was not part of their job to follow the required critria and honour the assurance given to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. The facts are simply that this entire thread (including your post) should not have been 'silently deleted' - but it was.

Jackie - I would appreciate it if you would honour our forum's long-standing convention of not making public the contents of private communications.

You threatened to do this and I requested that you did not as this would place you squarely in the wrong - and now you have chosen to do this, for reasons of your own - it has.

Any other poster likely to involved in a exchange of personal messages with you should be aware that you do not honour this convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 10:54 AM

Many of whom (including the following) have had their posts 'silently deleted' when they did not meet the required criteria - by some anonymous 'moderator' - using criteria of their own? [This list not including casualties in the more recent thread referred to that has vanished without trace or explanation]

Georgiansilver
number 6
Little Hawk
John 'Giok' MacKenzie
bobad
jacqui.c
Ebbie
MMario
Liz the Squeak -

John 'Giok' MacKenzie
The Villan
number 6
GUEST,Jon
skipy
Divis Sweeney

When you stop using me to make your points I will grant you some respect. Until then - you reap what you sow.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 11:01 AM

You can bang your head, you can send more PMs, you can repeat your question of the last paragraph as often as you want, my communication regarding that matter is closed.

Wolfgang

You mean rather like the thread in question? No - of course this thread has not been closed - it (and your posts to it) has simply vanished without trace or explanation. I had hoped that as I did answer your question - you would answer mine.

But of course the answer would not be of concern to someone who can seriously post the following nonsense - and mean it!

(1) I approve of deletion of threads that do not meet criteria (if I was in charge I would delete even more).

Perhaps someone else could confirm for us - the existence (and now the non-existence) of that thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 11:36 AM

'If you look back you will see the link (and the explanations). The thread was wrongly deleted - as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team stated that it did not meet the criteria. So he restored the thread and those posts. So you will now be able to see your post once again.' This from a PM from RToger today in answer to my qyuery as to which of my posts had been deleted.

It is interesting why I am being asked this. It would not be possible to ask whoever was responsible - for they are anonymous - but why not ask the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

For the record - this is the Private Message from me in full - which Jackie C copied part of in public.

As there is no need for this - I would appreciate it if you don't threaten me with action that would only suceeded in placing you squarely in the wrong. You asked - and I explained. If you had looked as I suggested - you would not have felt you needed to threaten me - and with what? Could my name be any blacker than it is currently painted?

If you look back you will see the link (and the explanations). The thread was wrongly deleted - as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team stated that it did not meet the criteria. So he restored the thread and those posts. So you will now be able to see your post once again.

If you really want your post deleted again - you will have to make that request to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Or shall I make it publicly for you?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following link is to the thread concerned.

Winona Ryder's birthday thread(s)

And the previous one.

Where - the title of a clearly titled music thread Do you support the Status Quo?
   has been changed without the originator's permission for some reason to In favour of/ Do you support the Status Quo - and has now been relegated to the BS section by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread.

The following editing comment was inserted into an existing post which did not refresh the thread.

Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

This is the true nature and current level of what you are asked to support as 'moderation'.

A still anonymous 'moderator' decides to delete an entire thread. When this action is brought to the attention of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's attention - this imposed action is judged by him to have had no justification. End of story.

But is anything learned from this? Is our forum given any apology? What happens now to prevent such sillyness from happening again?

Nothing. Such things have occured time and time again and nothing happens or changes to prevent it. When such things are pointed out and suggestions made to prevent it - the accusation is taken-up that the same questions are being asked again and the same suggestions are made - posting restrictions are then imposed on a individual poster to try and prevent this.

But still nothing is done to prevent entire threads from continuing to be anonymously and 'silently deleted' when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges them not to meet the criteria required for this. But still posters are assured that their posts are safe from 'silent deletion' - when they are clearly seen not to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 11:48 AM

Roger if you expect to GET respect you should try and GIVE respect. I suggest you start with respect for those who work hard keeping this site 'clean and green'. Who in spite of the fact that you constantly denigrate all their efforts, still tolerate your rubbishing of their hard work, and only bite back occasionally. I give them 10 out of 10 for tolerance, whatever you may think about that.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 03:48 PM

I frankly think that the moderators do not delete nearly enough. All of your whiney, complaining comments, Shambles, should be immediately deleted the way they would be on any other internet board. On any other board you would have been history many moons ago. Couant your lucky stars that Max and Joe haven't cut you off yet.

Anyway:

"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 07:04 PM

I give them 10 out of 10 for tolerance, whatever you may think about that.

I think that - as the example our tolerant 'moderators' set and advise us.

Don't listen to self righteous, know it all assholes.
Mick

And

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

I am sure that you would equally credit parking wardens with tolerance - when they don't follow the criteria and wrongly give you a parking fine. And the police also - should you get a speeding ticket when you are not meeting the criteria for that.

I can and do credit our 'moderators' with gererally being well -intentioned. Although there does seem to be a few individuals who are determined to be seen to compromise the best efforts of their fellow edit button holders.

But what is the point of you pretending that they are anything that they plainly are not. Especially effective - when they are seen to publicly question these efforts and request radical changes to suit their requirements - in 'for the record statements' to our forum?

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 07:12 PM

"and only bite back occasionally."

I knew you wouldn't read it properly, you never do!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 07:51 PM

"and only bite back occasionally."

This is not support provided for a claim of tolerance - it is an excuse provided in an attempt to justfy many examples of intolerance?

Examples which sadly are followed as being acceptable on our forum.

One example of such a lapse from a police officer, a judge or anyone in a responsible position would be enough to lose them their job.

For this is seen to compromise all of their colleagues - who do not set or follow this example and still expect their judgement to be respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 07:57 PM

Subject: RE: THE MUDCAT IS UNDER FIRE
From: Shaneo - PM
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 12:12 PM

Is there a bit of history between[bad blood] some people here ?
Some days when I come here I'm afraid for my life to even post a request for a song or info. on a song for fear of being ridiculed.
When you join a thread here even misspelling is shot down , yet it seems ok for others to use the most appalling language to one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 10:03 PM

One example of such a lapse from a police officer, a judge or anyone in a responsible position would be enough to lose them their job.

Shambles, try repeatedly calling a police officer a liar or carrying out your own agenda in a court of law.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 11:08 PM

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Shambles, If you wish to quote me, please furnish the context of the quote - this admonishment was directed at a person (not at Shambles) who posted under a number of fraudulent names, a person who was trying his/her best to be "a pain in the ass."

Shambles has misused this quote so often that the index is cluttered with copies of it. The original is in this thread (click).

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 11:17 AM

I am not too sure if the context of such an expample setting post from a 'moderator' with its clear attitude towards free expression on our forum really matters or can ever be justified or excused. The damage once done - cannot be undone. Some kind of public apology from the current Chief of the Mudcat Team to our forum may help...........

I am also not sure if it really matter who this abuse is directed at. But if you want an example from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that is directed at me - there is no shortage of these - like the following.   

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

The point is that such examples will be followed and how can anyone who posts such things expect to been seen to fairly judge anyone else for the same or similar (mis) conduct - with any credibilty?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 11:35 AM

Roll on members only posting!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 12:12 PM

Shambles, try repeatedly calling a police officer a liar or carrying out your own agenda in a court of law.

In a court of law - you are first charged with some offence and the prosecution has to first prove the accused has actually committed this offence before sentencing and their punishment is imposed on them.

Here the role of police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner are combined and no defence is permitted to be mounted before the sentence is imposed.

And when it has - that does not seem to be enough for some posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 12:14 PM

A kangaroo court is a 'judicial' proceeding that denies proper procedure in the name of expediency; a fraudulent or unjust trial where the decision has essentially been made in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either going through the motions of manipulated procedure or allowing no defense at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 12:29 PM

MEMORANDUM
TO:          Folks who engage in discussion with this person
FROM:       Long term member who has watched this for about 7 years or so
RE:          False premise debate

You see, folks, this is how a veteran troll who neurotically needs attention draws you in. He creates, or seizes on, false and incorrect premises and gets you to debate them. Then he keeps it going until some other opportunity presents itself for him to go down another phoney path, thereby allowing him to get the attention that his neurosis/condition demands. Here is the false premise he is using:

He has seized on the analogy of this being a court of law. A court is an adjudicator of laws. Laws are based on the rights granted by one's government/monarchy/whatever. In theory they are inalienable. This is not a governmental unit. You have no rights here. You are simply allowed to participate in the forum that the owner has set up. You agree to abide by whatever he sets as the parameters for usage. All the references to court are not applicable. And the references to Animal Farm show this persons martyr/Jesus complex in its full glory. He believes in that twisted mind that he is Snowflake. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 01:29 PM

FROM: Long term member who has watched this for about 7 years or so

Just - watched?

Just - a long term member?

If you judge this to be what you call a troll - why can you not be seen take the only effective action against trolls - which is simply to ignore such things.

You have repeatedly shown that you are unable to do this yourself - so what makes you think you have some right to instruct others?

It does seem to be a complete waste of time as no one ever appears to have taken much notice of your instructions in the past.

Perhaps because they see you as setting the example of a hypocritical double standard?

Perhaps if you were been seen to be able to actually practice what you preach and actually do what you have told other posters to do over this period - they may follow your example?

You have publicly indulged in calling me far worse names than this current one - do you want me to post some examples?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 01:40 PM

You will Roger, you will!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 01:40 PM

Wrong shambles. Try it being a witness, solicitor or spectator. You would find youself dealt with.

The point is there are rules and codes of conduct people have to follow and there are apporopriate methods of dealing with those that don't.

The big difference here is that the mods have no choice other than to try to put up with your abuse. While I suppose one could argue they should never snap back, I'm not surprised it happens once in a while and I consider them to have been exceptionaly patient with you overall.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 01:52 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:31 PM

The alteration it needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over.

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.
Mick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So posters - you can see that (according to Mick) it is not me or our 'moderators' who are the problem - but you. I wish I had a pound for every one of Mick's posts to these threads - since he posted that one. I would be very wealthy indeed.

The point is that poster do still have the right to post their views and just being judged irritating, not to your taste or making any other judgement of a poster's worth does meet - even the ever varying criteria to restrict or prevent their posting.

So no 'moderator' should be seen to be taking part, encouraging or even turning a blind eye to such things on our forum.

The only options open to posters (and 'moderators) are to ignore threads and posts that are not to their taste - or for them to post elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day - not monitored
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 07:20 PM

feel free to post what you will here, CH. The title of the other thread has been amended. Mudelf

Does that apply to my posts also?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 09:16 PM

No Shambles it doesn't apply to your posts too because you don't stick to the topic of the thread. All you do is regurgitate the same garbage wherever you post. You are only alloweed to post garbage in this thread but you still can post relevant information in any other thread. The rules for you really aren't too different then the rules for anyone else. If someone is going to complain and trash Max and his representatives then they will be edited out. Because you do it so often you are given one place to bitch and moan without being edited out. On any other thread you can post information that fits in with the theme of the thread. So stop complainging all the time about being isonlated to this one thread.

Of course, none of this really means squat because, as you know:

"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Your days are limited here if you don't change your ways. My guess is that you won't change.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Nov 06 - 02:03 AM

Shambles, If you wish to quote me, please furnish the context of the quote - this admonishment was directed at a person (not at Shambles) who posted under a number of fraudulent names, a person who was trying his/her best to be "a pain in the ass."

If I did as you request - this would give you ammunition to delete it on the size of the copy and paste which you will permit. The intention is not to give the wrong impression of your words - just to provide enough of them and to ensure that I do not exceed the pemitted size of what you judge to be permissible.

As current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team - could you confirm here what Wolfgang is unwilling to confirm to our forum? That there was in fact a recent thread that we both posted to but which has vanished along with all of its posts - without trace or explanation?

Or are you not aware of it?

---

I need more specific information to figure out what you're talking about. If you need information from the thread, contact me by personal message.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Nov 06 - 11:28 AM

The rules for you really aren't too different then the rules for anyone else.

It would quite clearly appear from the following assurance - made in an editing comment - that they are. As another named poster was assured in an editing comment that they were free to post there, what they will...

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day - not monitored
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 07:20 PM

feel free to post what you will here, CH. The title of the other thread has been amended. Mudelf

Does that apply to my posts also?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite obviously not as my post was anonymously moved from that thread to this one........

And also - from its clear title - our forum was wrongly given the assurance that thread was NOT MONITORED. Clearly this assurance was not seen to be honoured either.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Nov 06 - 07:56 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment, which was inserted into an existing thread (where no editing action had taken place) and which did not refresh the thread.

I need more specific information to figure out what you're talking about. If you need information from the thread, contact me by personal message.
-Joe Offer-

It is me who is asking for specific information about a thread that has vanished without trace or explanation.

For I only know that Wolfgang and I both posted to a thread (along with others) that has now vanished without trace or explanation.

You do now appear to be a least be confirming that such a thread does exist - so perhaps you would be kind enough to explain its vanishing to the other contributors to that thread - whose posts have also disappeared with it - and to anyone else on our forum who will be interested in hearing the explanation of its fate?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 05:09 AM

You do now to be at least to be...

without the fill-words is a simple "You do to be to be...". You have a way with words, Shambles, so clear and succinct.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 06:28 PM

LOL.....Ah yes Wolfie......very well done.

To be is to do--Socrates, Greek Philosopher
To do is to be--Jean-Paul Sartre, French Philosopher
Do be do be do--Frank Sinatra, American Singer
You do to be to be--Shambles, English Doofus


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 07:04 PM

What ?!?!?!?!

You 2 guys must miss Shambles today ... you are the only 2 (next to me so far) that have posted to this wacky thread !!


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 07:19 PM

Nah... I just loved Wolfie's post and it reminded me of the old "do-bee" joke.

Truth be told, it don't matter a rat's ass whether we do or don't post. Shamby Pamby will come along and refresh and argue with himself until someone else comes along. And if they don't it won't stop him. Have fun with his ass. Ain't nothin' we say to him or him to us gonna' matter. Down the road he'll be on the train out of here. If you don't post or I don't for the next month, trust me,this thread will still be going. Call him a dick or yank on it....Just have a good time.

Shoot, maybe that's his whole problem......he needs a good fuck or something! Maybe not.....Don't care.....Don't matter!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 07:41 PM

I had a check just now, and I see he's done as many as fifteen consecutive posts before someone jumped in to give him a hand.

And that might not even be his record - I didn't go through more than a few of the 50s, of which this is number 34.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 07:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 02:33 PM

Let's just leave him alone. I'm rather sorry curiosity got the better of me and I dipped into this thread, and then made a couple of posts to it. It's easy to slip into the way of doing that, but it's not really a good idea. So "Over and out".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 08:00 PM

I was court-martial in my absence, and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they could shoot me in my absence.
Thomas Hardy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 08:07 PM

Hmm, that's not a bad idea. Sentenced to death as a penalty for boredom.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 08:18 PM

Now this thread is drifting from the wacky to the macabre !!

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 09:04 PM

And number 6 posting on post #1666 makes it downright spooky.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 11:29 PM

I think the reason that Shambles is making so many mistakes in his postings is because he is beginning to feel like a trapped fox. The walls are closing in on him because he knows that he will soon be gone. Of course, he is too much of a Don Quixote to appologize or admit that he is wrong. Therefore he can't run and he can't hide. He can just keep posting the same things over and over and over. Nothing new whatsover. Of course, he can end all of this with a few PMs but he is too stubborn to even do that.

Anyway:

"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 15 Nov 06 - 04:43 PM

That one about being tried in his absence etc, I've always read as attributed to Brendan Behan.

   I haven't read thru all the Shambles-...on second thoughts, I think this is for a new thread, forget it.


   on third thoughts, this may be the place.

   Has any one made the point that because we all have every human characteristic deep within us, that The Shambles is a gift to us.

   I'll explain by way of a joke which some but not all know.

   It's pouring. little old lady in house. Boatman comes along says the rain will get much worse and she'd better get in.

   "No," thus the lady,"The Lord will provide. Go away." The boat does.

   Rain gets so heavy, lady decamps to first floor. A second boat appears, with same conversation and result.

   Rain so heavy, lady moves to roof. Third boat appears, with same result and departs.

   Rain continues and lady drowns.

   She goes to heaven in a temper, determined to see the Top 'Man' who she is shown in to.

   "I trusted in you," she says.

   The Lord replies, "Well lady, i sent you three boats."




   My point with this story is to underline how easy it is to fail to see a gift when it's (that;s correct) right in front of your face.

   So how is The Shambles a gift.

   Coupla suggestions.
   
   Are you really saying you never change the subject when you don't have an answer? OK, so what's that about for you not-Shambles'?

   You never ignore difficult points?

    Never bog opponents down in irrelevant detail?

   
   The other point is about dealing with all those tendencies. Doesn't look too much like much of what is done is having too much effect. Tho' the heated responses to Shambles' general coolness and not-being-personal-ness(usually,usually) is rather amusing.

   My point is summed up in the thought,"If you keep on doing whAT YOU'VE ALWAYS DONE , you keep on getting what you've always got."

   Still, if it makes you happy................

   And don't forget,


"Always look on the br.....etc." Hopr we won't be regretting all this on our deathbeds - that's what I call a closed thread.




    Ivor



    ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 03:09 AM

Refresh.




      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 09:37 AM

Autolycus you are a fool. Why don't you go and live with Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 10:12 AM

I actually thought autolycus's post fit right into the wacky nature of this thread.

Very good autolycus, very good ... ????? :|

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 11:09 AM

I was referring to the "refresh".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 04:45 PM

Cor,Shambles,your looky, you get argument.

I just get a stooning intellectual rebuke aka abuse. Or silence. How Pinteresque the scenery is.

Is this a standard response to coming at a slightly overdone subject from a new angle?

I've believed from the beginning that this is a forum for debate.




    Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 01:31 PM

Cor,Shambles,your looky, you get argument.

I do? - I get special posting restrictions, recipes and jokes.

I just get a stooning intellectual rebuke aka abuse. Or silence.

The silence is probably a little better than the abuse and name-calling.

I've believed from the beginning that this is a forum for debate.

So did I - perhaps we have both been led up the garden path? But perhaps it is not too late?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 01:32 PM

I just clicked that air fares link. Don't. It's got more fuckin' popups and cookies than Betty Crocker.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 03:18 PM

I've believed from the beginning that this is a forum for debate. (autolycus)

So did I (Shambles)

Then why does it never show in your posts?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 03:48 PM

Wolfgang,

I still take you to be an intelligent person, so I'm gobsmacked that you don't think Shambles and I ever debate.

I've only just (few days ago), put up a series of propositions for debate on this very thread. So far, no-one has begun to debate any of them. I can't do the debating on my own.








          ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 10:50 PM

Yes you can autolycus. I heard that you were a master debater.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 12:36 PM

My point is summed up in the thought,"If you keep on doing whAT YOU'VE ALWAYS DONE , you keep on getting what you've always got."

The result of our 'moderators' doing what they have always done (imposing restrictions, publicly judging their worth, insulting posters calling them names, permitting others to indulge in this and being seen to generally inhibit posting except from the very brave or the very foolish) - is the following for the record statement. Whatever the rest of us think - it is clear from this - that 'they' don't like the result. But all 'they' can think of - is more of the same. I suggest that it is not only up to 'them' but up to all our forum.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer

I am not sure if I can see myself as much of a gift to our forum so I am sure that a good few others would struggle with that concept. But the issue is bigger than any one individual poster or 'moderator'.

For I feel we have limited opportunities in our lives and can ill afford to casually pass any of them up without at least putting up a bit of a struggle.

And I really think that Max has provided us with a gift - in the shape of our forum. Perhaps that statement is something that most of us can at least agree on as a starting point?

A few have never seemed to see the reality of this gift. Seeing the open invitation for the public's contributions only as presenting problems that can only be solved - and at the very slightest of excuses - by imposing limitations and yet further limiting our forum to something they feel they can shape and control. And not to be seen to be doing this openly - but to impose it secretly, inconsistently and anonymously.

This divisive approach is less 'moderation' than it is 'strangulation'. But whatever it is - it appears to have failed to achieve what its chief proponent requires for it.

So for a start - perhaps others can now be allowed to discuss the issue and make some positive suggestions in this thread and elswhere - as to how - in the words of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team "to bring peace to this place"?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 02:25 PM

Still,Shambles,I'm not aware of being censored myself. What am i doing right?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 04:10 PM

Still,Shambles,I'm not aware of being censored myself. What am i doing right?

The key word is aware. 'Silent deletion' means that you are not supposed to be aware.

If you had contributed to the following thread - Winona Ryder's birthday thread(s) , or to the earlier one or to the one that Wolfgang and I posted to which has vanished without trace - your post would have been censored and 'silently deleted - along with all the other posts in the entire thread - no matter how harmless your post may have been.

So it is not even a case of you doing anything right. As even thinking you are doing that - does not make your posts safe from 'silent deletion'.

So even if you do not try to say anything our 'moderators' do not want you to - you are not safe from 'silent deletion' - despite any assurances to the contrary - given to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - like the following:

No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages.
-Joe Offer-

And despite this assurance - it is a clear fact that certain favoured posters are permitted to post ONLY abusive personal attacks - and still be seen to be perfectly safe from any form of editing action.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:15 PM

...it is a clear fact that certain favoured posters are permitted to post ONLY abusive personal attacks...

Are you honestly saying that certain members of this forum are so restricted in what they are allowed to post, that they may only post things which are personal attacks on other posters?? Cos that's what it sounds like???

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 07:19 AM

Cos that's what it sounds like???

I am quite sure you understand exactly what is being said here.

Perhaps you would care to discuss the desirability and unfairness of this on our forum - rather than take all the trouble to post ONLY to take issue with the way it may be said? As you are not being restricted to ONLY this.

Some favoured posters being seen to be permitted by our 'moderators' to contribute posts containing ONLY abusive personal attacks and name-calling - is not the same as them being seen to be restricted to this.

Would you consider it preferably for all posters on our forum to be seen openly to be receiving equal treatment from our 'moderators'?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 08:12 AM

As a matter of fact, I did not understand exactly what was being said. Which was why I posted my question. And posting it wasn't any great trouble, not really.

However, when the written word is our only means of communication - unenhanced by body language, vocal tone, or facial gesture, it becomes very important to write clearly. Your suggestion that, in posting, I was somehow 'taking issue with the way it may be said' somehow tries to paint me as an aggressor, when it was your own badly structured sentence which had caused the confusion, which I sought to disperse. You have now clarified what you were trying to say. It was not clear before.

And thank you for the invitation, but I am not inclined to enter into a lengthy discussion of anything, just at the moment. I am on my lunch break and need to go shopping for groceries.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:23 AM

As a matter of fact, I did not understand exactly what was being said. Which was why I posted my question. And posting it wasn't any great trouble, not really.

Well perhaps providing the following examples - from a favoured poster who has no special restrictions imposed on his posting by our 'moderators' - may help you understand and encourage you to comment on the fairness and desirabilty of this double standard being seen on our forum?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:53 PM

Sorry Giok, you can't do that. It is quite simply too much. What I mean is that with his head so far up his ass he has to take his hat off to shit, there is no room for anything else!

Spaw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 26 Aug 06 - 05:33 AM

Dig it Shambolina....We all know that YOU can prolong the life of a thread all by yourself.......and you do. Several times this thread has gone dormant for almost 24 hours, especially lately, and you refresh it with bullshit.

Max asked you to leave. Get the fuck out.

Spaw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 11:20 PM

Aw Mick, that ain't right. Lemmee help you out here.

Shambolina you say that you need an explanation "provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?"

Okay Rog.....Here's one you can always refer to should someone zap a post.

One of your flakey posts on some thread or another was zapped the other day because it was another of your sillyass and repetitious rants built around misquotes and out of context, copy and paste, bullshit. If it had any redeeming value it was moved to this thread, otherwise it is gone into the ether and only it's smell remains.

That ought to cover all of your problems......except for the fact that you haven't left after Max asked you to go.

Have a nice day Twiddles.

Spaw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 11:28 AM

LMAO.......Well there ya' go! You really are a mental case Shambolina!

Here's one guy who really tries to work it through and see your points and stand up for you with some solid reasoning............So you aggressively go out of your way to piss HIM off?!?!?!?!

I have a bad case of the giggles and it's hard to type..........The irony and your inability to perceive anything.............geeziz LOLOL ................you're really mental........LOLOL

Spaw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:45 AM

There ya' go Ebbie. You have received right from the horse's ass a Shambolina Classic. Syntax and logic both are garbled and beyond recognition. The last "policy" Max had towards postings by the Piss&MoanMeister was a request he leave.

Got a mirror Roger? I mean do you have one your wife will allow you to use without fear of breakage? If so, please look into it and say, "Geeziz, I am really an asshole." Repeat this one hundred times and then perhaps you will be able to read what Max has actually said and see that you are not his defender but his antagonist and your ass is about to get the boot as outlined for you previously.

Do yourself a huge favor Roger and go back to your poems and songs and drop the vendetta. Just a suggestion mind you, but it's a good one.

Spaw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:51 AM

Shamby Pamby......Please note that NONE of your current postings have been "invited" by Max. His own last postings regarding yourself have been invitations to LEAVE.......not post. You cannot deny his words and there is NO SPIN you can put on them that has any other meaning except "You too, should bid farewell." Down the road, the choice will be out of your hands. Why continue being such a stupid shit now. Quit slamming Max (and that is indeed who you are slamming) and "perhaps"............

Spaw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:46 PM

"It is perhaps our call to bring attention to when such instances of abuse occur - without being subject to special posting restrictions for trying to make these attempts?"

Then send Max a PM Dumbass. Scared? Sure you are Shamby. Max might even respond and tell you to go fuck yourself! You're really diving deep into the crazy hole anymore. Is this just for our benefit or are you doing this shit with friends around town and acting this wacky in your own home? If so, you can't be too far from some serious talks with some nice people who will give you a padded room.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 06:44 AM

Still,Shambles,I'm not aware of being censored myself. What am i doing right?

Ivor -
I think have answered that.........

But as I (and others) have been censored despite the assurance you were given about meeting the required criteria - perhaps you could explain what we are doing wrong?

Perhaps you could also try and have better luck in establishing what became of the recent thread that Wolfgang and I both posted to and which vanished without trace? For you may well have posted to it yourself.

I need more specific information to figure out what you're talking about. If you need information from the thread, contact me by personal message.
-Joe Offer-

It would appear (from the above editing comment inserted in this thread where no form of editing action had taken place) that there are too many such instances where entire threads are 'silently deleted' - for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to narrow it down to the one I am referring to.

Or to inform our forum if that thread did meet or did not meet the required criteria for 'silent deletion'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 01:55 AM

Another gem from Snitchers Corner.

Please allow all spam

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:51 AM

Let's have a look at the so-called criteria, what is to be 'allowed' by our 'moderators' and exactly the double standards that posters are being asked to support (and a few willingly, foolishly and noisily do appear to blindly accept). Do you accept this?

Here are three - for a start.

1 All spam is bad. And must be deleted (even to the extent of closing perfectly accepatble music threads bacause of spam).

Except when spam is not bad and intentionally posted (to this thread) by a 'moderator' - then it is then judged bad for any 'kind-hearted but misguided Clone' to delete it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 All anonymous posting is bad. And those unamed guests, will be judged and accused by some of our (anonymouous) 'moderators' and accused by them, of not being bold enough to identify themselves by name'.

Except when anonymous posting is not bad and then - not only can certain favoured ones post anonymously and be on the side of the angels - they can also anonymously and 'silently delete' the posts of other posters - who are bold enough to identify themselves by name.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 All posting of personal abuse and name-calling is bad. And will be 'eliminated'.

Except when it is our 'moderators' who are setting the example of indulging in this and certain favoured posters as long as they are only posting to personally abuse certain individual posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated. If they are responding to him, silly though I believe that to be, that will be allowed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 06:35 AM

Has Snitchers Corner (AKA - The Mudcat Help And Trouble Forum) been purged?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:05 AM

I do keep a memory of what I post, and nothing has
been deleted.So this discussion is puzzling for me.

   What was the subject of threads that have been
deleted?

   Incidentally, I got mild abuse from GUEST, and
that's still there, so not all abuse gets deleted. And
I already knew I was a fool,tho' GUEST wouldn't have
known that.

   I'm interested in Wolfgang's silence, and the silence
of the many who have abused Shambles. Hopefully that
denotes reconsideration, and that we'll find out the
outcome. It's fearfully interesting that groups
universally seem to need a scapegoat.

   I've found that if I don't abuse then I'm untroubled
by editors.


   "The three great strategies for obscuring an issue
are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice and
to excite ridicule." Bergan Evans






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:25 AM

Ivor we're keeping our counsel, as it is a waste of breath and/or cyberspace to try reasoning with Shambles. I suggest you follow suit, and leave him to bumble along in his own little world.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:56 AM

What was the subject of threads that have been
deleted?

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=96061&messages=1

Was one. Status Quo was the subject of the other(if you look back you will see the details in this thread. The thread that has vanished without trace (the same one that Wolfgang does not wish to talk about) - was about Guest posting (and it was not started by me).

But Ivor - am I the one to ask about the amount or subjects of threads that are 'silently deleted'? I am only aware of the few that I accidently discover and can only discuss those. Those who can answer and already have given you what you can now see was a worthless assurance - are the ones who could inform you and our forum - but appear reluctant to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 09:43 AM

It's fearfully interesting that groups
universally seem to need a scapegoat.

It is but shambles has never been a scape goat. People like Martin Gibson and anonymous guests have often been credited for a greater contribution towards general unpleasantness here that I for one believe they have deserved.

In the shamble's threads, shambles is the one using a scape goat. Joe Offer (and to a lesser degree some mods) are the cause of all ills here and he, not others, start the rounds of accusations.

Others may reply, argue against, make fun of, etc. shables posts but it is rare to see him blamed for any Mudcat woes, except his own personal ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 09:51 AM

To clarify:

To shambles, Joe Offer (and to a lesser degree some mods) are the cause of all ills here and shambles, not others, start the rounds of accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 10:21 AM

It is now as clear as NAFFI tea..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 09:02 PM

Mobbing is a form of sociological scapegoating which occurs in the workplace. From At The Mercy Of The Mob A summary of research on workplace mobbing by Kenneth Westhues, Prof. of Sociology University of Waterloo, published in OHS Canada, Canada's Occupational Health & Safety Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 8, December 2002, pp. 30-36.

"Scapegoating is an effective if temporary means of achieving group solidarity, when it cannot be achieved in a more constructive way. It is a turning inward, a diversion of energy away from serving nebulous external purposes toward the deliciously clear, specific goal of ruining a disliked co-worker's life. ...

Mobbing can be understood as the stressor to beat all stressors. It is an impassioned, collective campaign by co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted worker. Initiated most often by a person in a position of power or influence, mobbing is a desperate urge to crush and eliminate the target. The urge travels through the workplace like a virus, infecting one person after another.

The target comes to be viewed as absolutely abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities, outside the circle of acceptance and respectability, deserving only of contempt. As the campaign proceeds, a steadily larger range of hostile ploys and communications comes to be seen as legitimate."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 09:48 PM

Now, the counter says 1697, which means this message should be 1698, but the counter has been screwed up, which makes it well-nigh impossible to tell if 1700 is really coming, and is 1700 a singificant number, anyhow?
I think I'll shoot for 1750, a much nicer number, indeed.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 10:29 PM

I don't see anything wrong with the counter...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 10:29 PM

Which means this ought to be 1700.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 11:46 PM

Danm!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 04:51 AM

Yes, Shambles, you are the one to ask about the subject of deleted threads because it is you who complain about the silent deleting of your threads/postings.

   Since it doesn't happen to me,I'm interested in what one can post about that is liable to deletion. You have the answer.

GUEST talks of anything but the ATTACKS on Shambles and the JIBES at him. Shambles is the only poster I know of,apart from some guests, who often gets attacks and abuse, even in threads where he has posted nothing. That amounts to scapegoating in my book. Which is extraordinary given that , unlike MG who rarely did too much apart from abuse (slight overstatement), Shambles is essentially impersonal. Shambles actually does full-frontally what we all do, which is to work away at any perceived weaknesses in others. In his case,it is any weaknesses in the Mudcat editorial team's activities or thinking. Shambles does it philosophically. A trouble with reasoning is that it is idealistic, and the world isn't ideal, so reasoning's job is endless.


'Giok' , I know what you mean, tho' a glance down the list of postings shows quite a few who don't leave Shambles to it. As a philosophy graduate (which is how I get to be such a 'fool'), I'm often ready for reasoning. However, as a student of psychology, I think it might be more productive to approach this thread from that point of view. Tho' delicately,hopefully. People here certainly find the idea that Shambles is a gift as in the joke I gave, or that scapegoating might be going on, or that people are blaming and avoiding their resposibility and so on, not straightforward to respond to.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 06:29 AM

All shambles posts are attacks, accusations, etc. Shambles is the only poster who has been doing this for 6 years on a daily basis.

Yes, shambles does get jibes etc. but he reaps less than he sows.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 07:19 AM

In his case,it is any weaknesses in the Mudcat editorial team's activities or thinking. Shambles does it philosophically. A trouble with reasoning is that it is idealistic, and the world isn't ideal, so reasoning's job is endless.

Ivor - that is at least partly partly true but it is not me or what I post that is the problem. But it has been pointed out in this thread that if you are not part of the solution - you are part of the problem. But whatever posters may think of me - do you just sit quiet and allow your ideals and principles to be compromised by the activities and thinking of those operating hypocritical double standards and doing it in your name? Or do you speak up - while you still have the chance?

For it is not just a philosophical/idealistic concern in a world that isn't ideal. It is practical matter of reaping what is sowed on our forum. And from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's - for the record statement - what he has sowed and is now grown - it is not the crop he requires it to be. But our 'moderators' do not seem to see any connection between the example they publicly set and this example being followed. And as they show little sign of ever changing the example they set - it is only going to get worse and make them even less content with our forum.

It is in order to prevent our forum from seeing and from discussing these many weaknesses that I have special posting restrictions imposed on my posting. And others (whose post are far more offensive) and you, do not.

But as I have demonstrated - that does not mean that your posts are safe from 'silent deletion'.

But the point is that there are plainly many weaknesses in the Mudcat editorial team's activities and thinking. Not the least of them being the question of does a discussion forum, open for the public's even require any form editing team? Censors possibly - but what is to be edited when all the copy is freely invited by the site's owner?

But surely it is healthier to have posters demonstrating and discussing these weaknesses (in order that our forum does not continue to suffer from them) - than it is to have (often anonymous) members of that team judging the worth and publicly demonstrating the weaknesses of individual named posters?

Is it healthy for them to be seen to abuse their privileged postion by setting the example of double standards? By indulging (and permitting) posting activities - that they would judge and impose editing action on - should other poster follow this example?

Is it only the thinking and activities of named posters that is now open to public judgement (and subject to name-calling) by our 'moderators'? Are they then to be considered to be above judgement by the public whose interests they are supposed to be protecting?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 09:07 PM

Shambles actually does full-frontally what we all do, which is to work away at any perceived weaknesses in others.

This is more what is done in response to me simply trying to demonstrate the true picture of what is happening in practice on our forum. When our our 'moderators' are seen to assure you and compromise our forum in the pretence that it something else.

I can see little point in any poster joining in the pretence that our emperors (no matter how well-intentioned thay may be) are clothed in the finest silks - when their naked flesh is clearly exposed for all to see.

But I really care very little about working away on or judging any individual poster's personal weaknesses. All this judgement of each other's worth, has become just a distraction to real discussion. And it matters little anyway - as currently, all are invited to contribute to our forum. For anything that is not of interest can be easily ignored.

What does matter - is what ALL posters are trying to say and encouraging as many as possible to feel safe to post their views.

However, it is not possible to simply ignore so-called 'moderators' when they 'silently delete' posts and entire threads. This (and the petty reasons provided to justify most of it) can only serve to inhibit discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 03:10 AM

Guest's post are less than 1005 accurate, and using "etc" is way too vague. As for the first,it is simply false to say that all Shambles does is criticise. (But then, arousing prejudice is one of the standard methods for obscuring argument.)

   Shambles - I do see what you're saying, tho' I didn't say you worked away at the weaknesses of other posters.

   And I apologise for asking you for the subject of deleted posts after you'd already given me a couple of examples.

   Has anyone else had the experience of being deleted?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 03:31 AM

Sorry, it is not all shambles does. He selectively quotes, twists the words of others, ignores reality or any question that puts him on the spot, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 05:56 AM

Has anyone else had the experience of being deleted?

Would anyone else know if and when they had? For the first issue really is 'silent deletion' - and where all posts are deleted along with the thread. Perhaps the more sensible of posters experiencing 'silent deletion' - would as a result have long ago gone elsewhere?

It is a bit like asking if anyone has had the experience of dying from drowning. From the lack of response - would you conclude that no one has?

Before that question can have any meaningful answers - the first step is to enable posters to be aware of the true nature and current level of all kinds of imposed editing actions.

My view is that very little of it needs to be imposed as most posters would agree to any sensible alterations to their posts - if they were asked via PMs first.

As it is all undertaken in our name - my first concern is to try and ensure that it is all openly recorded in editing comments and that all editing comments are limited to where some form of imposed editing action has taken place.

That would appear to be a sensible first step that gives some protection to posters that any required critria is being and protects our 'moderators' from any accusation that they have abused the use of their edit-button.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:28 AM

"Perhaps the more sensible of posters experiencing 'silent deletion' - would as a result have long ago gone elsewhere?"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:38 AM

LOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 01:44 PM

Spam threads

The following (and needless threat) from the above thread - where my two posts were of course perfectly on topic.

And I will leave our forum to judge who is 'raving, ranting and raving' - me or our anonymous 'moderator'……………………………..

Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads
From: GUEST,Fat Clone - PM
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 12:38 PM

Shambles---Once again you show your naivete regarding the www and the workings of a website.

Also, this thread discusses spam and what some have done regarding spam. It is NOT a rendition of your personal problems with the way this site is run by Max Spiegel and his assorted minions including Joe Offer.

If you have a complaint, please PM Max. If you wish to rave and ramble about this site and your personal opinions, take it to the "Closed and Deleted" thread. It will not be appropriate here and will be deleted from this thread. Most sites do not allow any conversation of that kind but you do have the thread available here for your rantings. Be thankful.

If you continue in this vein on this thread it will be deleted. You know in advance of this so it is certainly not a silent deletion, although that is the kind done by at least 9 out of 10 other forums.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 02:47 PM

Hey Shambles,

After over 1,700 posts, most of which are you repeating yourself over and over again, don't you get the idea that all of your bellyaching is accomplishing absolutely NOTHING. Most people here are quite satisfied with the Mudcat. No one is going to change things to please just you when everyone else likes what is being done. If you find this site so miserable then go and post somewhere else. See if the grass is greener. My guess is that you have already tried that and, if you act the way that you do here, you have already been banished to Mudcatland where Max is more patient then others.

Perhaps it's time for you to start your own website and see if it is as easy as you think to run it in a way that it will please everyone.

But it really doesn't matter how you feel or what you plan to do.

Because:

"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

So long, farewell, bye bye, cheerio!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 03:17 PM

Name that clone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:40 AM

Ivor,

I only read this thread every couple of days.

My remark was directed only to Shambles and not to you. I had to post your words as well for Shambles' words alone did not make sense. But I am guilty of overlooking the interpretation that includes you.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:49 AM

perfectly on topic.

You only have one topic shambles. Everything has to come to the same point and you were changing that thread into why the methods the mods here use for dealing with spam is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:27 AM

Wolfgang,

Shambles words in this thread neve make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:08 AM

Name that clone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:33 PM

Name that clone.

Melvin.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:43 PM

Name that pain in the arse Guest!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:13 AM

Spam posts

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:13 PM

Wolfgang - thanks for your reply. That's that sorted.

   I asked if others have been deleted. Shambles said how would posters know. Well, since you, shambles, know when you've been cut, then presumably others do, too. So who else knows they've been edited out?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:32 AM

Well, since you, shambles, know when you've been cut, then presumably others do, too.

Well, I don't always know (but I do try and find out). But that is exactly why I am asking for all editing actions to be recorded by editing comments (and for all editing comments to be limited to where some form of editing action has taken place). So if a poster did not see their post and did not see an editing comment in its place - they would know there was another explanation - other than censorship.

So who else knows they've been edited out?

Nor does anyone else always know. The posters I listed who posted to the two threads which were silently deleted know and Wolfgang does - as he posted to the one that has vanished without trace - but he is not telling.

Ivor perhaps you could explain where you are going with this approach?

Are you suggesting that all the unfairness and double standards undertaken by our 'moderators', which I have demonstrated in this thread would be acceptable if it were limited to just one individual (even when it is clear that it is not so limited)?

As many of those who post in support of our 'moderators' (assuming they are not themselves 'moderators') to say 'we' like it - are really just saying that they like this unfairness not because they agree with unfairness but because they are not subjected to it. Is that the point you are making too?

Or do agree that ALL posters should be seen to be treated equally by our 'moderators'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:05 AM

Has anyone else had the experience of being deleted?

I've had posts deleted and seen posts of others deleted. There have been occasions where I have not understood an action and others where I have believed an action plain wrong. Over a posting history of around seven years though, such occasions have been rare. I also believe that when considering such actions, one does have to keep in mind that subjective processes are involved and we all differ to some degree or other in our judgements.

I try to take an overall view and it is my opinion that editing decisions are made fairly, are in line with Max's policies (which, although still on the very tolerant side when comparing different forums I think have tightened very slightly over the years, and yes, unlike shambles, I do believe that it is Max that sets Mudcat policy and that he has control over his volunteers and that ultimately they follow his guidelines) for Mudcat and that there are no conspiracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:54 PM

Kate Rusby and John Mcusker have split has now been closed.

This was a thread post with 300 or so posts - many of them just complaining about how such a worthless post receives so many posts and how they wanted it to die.

One poster contributed 18 times to complain and keep it alive with posts about The Archers.

Rather than just encouraging posters to ignore it which will allow it to fall off the bottom - the thread has now been closed by our 'moderators' to serve no good purpose but in order to keep up the pretence that we do not post idle gossip and judgements like that - when of course that is exactly what our forum is now encouraged to do by the example now set by our 'moderators'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:09 AM

Subject: RE: Kate Rusby and John McCusker have split
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:55 PM

I'll close it now and leave it up for a day or so. After that, I'll delete it. Here's why: it's just not fair for people without names (who post anonymously) to say things about the personal lives of people who DO have names.
But I'll leave it up for a day or so, allowing people to read it if they so desire. This thread is hurtful, and I see no reason to preserve it.
-Joe-

That old double standard again..........Without noticing any irony - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges that - it is just not fair for people without names (who post anonymously) to say things about the personal lives of people who DO have names.

But it does seems to be judged fair (by our 'moderators') - for them to not only post anonymously to say abusive things and publicly speculate about every aspect of individual posters, who DO have names - but to be able to threaten and anonymously impose their judgement on the posting of individual posters who DO have names.

But what does this proposed action really achieve - except make a few posters feel they are more important than others?

Closing such threads and then deleting ALL the posts to them - after the event - does not alter the fact that our forum has contributed such a thread (and worse) or have any effect on preventing such things in the future. By encouraging those few posters who feel they have some right to complain about what other's post, these actions just ensure that such things will continue.

All of these actions are just a sham and a pretence that our forum is something that it plainly is not.

If our 'moderators' do not like the result of posters following the example they set - then a different and more positive example must be set by them - rather than just repeating attempts like these - to re-write the history of 'fairyland'.

Do they really do care about not being hurtful or about things not only being fair but being seen to be fair - or do they just care about being seen to be more important?

There is no need for our 'moderators' to take any action to 'preserve' such threads and no one is asking for this.

All they have to do is nothing. Not to post to judge - but simply to mind their own business and encourage other posters to follow this example.

This will allow posters the freedom to judge whether they wish to post to such threads or not. All these imposed actions do is encourage posters that posting only to judge the worth of threads or named posters - is acceptable for them also.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:26 AM

Well GUEST !!!!!!! Methinks for a person who professes to post under his own name always, the style of the last post is uniquely that of Roger Gall.
Do corrrect me if I'm mistaken
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 11:02 AM

"Imposed actions". What on earth does that mean anyway? Are you implying that Joe is acting under duress? That someone has his arm behind his back? In which case you should stop castigating him and mount a rescue mission forthwith.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 12:36 PM

I've long suspected that the "Guest" is just a sock puppet, refreshing the thread so Shambles doesn't look like a monologuist. We seem to have confirmation.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:13 PM

"Imposed actions". What on earth does that mean anyway?

Imposed action means when a moderator (often an anonymous one) judges the worth of the contributions of a fellow poster's contribution and closes a thread, deletes or in any way alters or adds to poster's words - as a first and only response - without first asking the originators permission to do so.   

Is that clear enough?

Sadly this imposition is undertaken too often when less drastic and less counter-productive methods would be more suitable and proportionate.

And far too often in response to some complaint from one poster about the posting of others. When these complaints are responded to - this only encourages the idea that posters have some right over what others choose to post and some right to post only such judgements about the worth of their fellow posters.

If the quality of posting on our forum was really a concern to our 'moderators' - the more sensible response would be for our 'moderators' to tell such complainers to mind their own business and concentrate on the only posts that anyone has any control over - their own.

They could start with setting this example with their own posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:10 PM

Shambles,

have you posted as GUEST 02 Dec 06 - 08:09 AM?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:29 PM

Wolfgang - if I answer your demand - will you answer the polite question I asked you about the thread we both posted to but has vanished without trace?

Yes - As if it matters - my cookie had expired.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:47 PM

"If the quality of posting on our forum was really a concern to our 'moderators' - the more sensible response would be for our 'moderators' to tell such complainers to mind their own business"

Our moderators should also tell chronic complainers to mind their own business regarding the policies that the owner of this website sets. Max sets the rules here. If you don't like the rules then play some other game somewhere else.

But that doesn't really matter because:


"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,anti Archers league
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 05:26 PM

mods probably closed that thread down cuz they're shit scared of showbiz celebrity litigation lawyers !?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:43 PM

"And far too often in response to some complaint from one poster about the posting of others. When these complaints are responded to - this only encourages the idea that posters have some right over what others choose to post and some right to post only such judgements about the worth of their fellow posters.

"If the quality of posting on our forum was really a concern to our 'moderators' - the more sensible response would be for our 'moderators' to tell such complainers to mind their own business and concentrate on the only posts that anyone has any control over - their own."


That seems to me to be a strange concept - that somebody should not be allowed to do something about something they find, say, offensive. Don't you think people should have the right to complain about something which offends them? If the offending thing has been said, obviously nothing can be done to make it unsaid. But someone in authority can take the sayer 'to task' for saying it. With things posted on a forum, while there is nothing which can be done to tutn back time - make it so that the offending words had never been there, it is (I think) reasonable for the offended person to assume that, having been offended by something, the people in charge of the forum would do what they could to prevent the offending post from remaining on the internet for ever.

It is not for anyone other than the offended person to decide whether somehing is offensive or not. If omeone says they find somethign offensive, they do. They have a right to complain (to somebody) about being offended by somebody and expect appropriate action to be taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 01:47 PM

Don't you understand Blowzabella that Mr. Shambles wants to make all of the rules around here and customize them to fit his needs. Moderators shouldn't moderate, no one should make any complaints because it is none of their business, posters should be asked before there posts are deleted or edited no matter how many times they post the same thing or no matter how tasteless it should be. Of course, Mr. Shambles has the right to complain over and over again about anything and everything even though he tells others to "Mind their own business". It sure appears that a certain person here has double standards.

Perhaps it is time for Shambles to start his own website where he can make his own rules and tell people that if THEY don't like it then it is just too bad...they can go somewhere else. Or, perhaps, it is time to force Shambles to leave here once and for all. His complaints are both repititious and highly annoying. In any other website he would have been edited out a lot more then he is here and then forced to leave for being critical of the work done by a bunch of volunteers who are following the guidlines of the owner's website.

Of course, this could all be solved once and for all if Mr. Shambles would just send a PM to Max. Then he would know what will and won't be done. But then he would have nothing to complain about.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 06:35 PM

It is not for anyone other than the offended person to decide whether somehing is offensive or not. If omeone says they find somethign offensive, they do. They have a right to complain (to somebody) about being offended by somebody and expect appropriate action to be taken.

This is an interesting concept. For we are constantly being told (by our 'moderators' and their few but noisy supporters) that no poster has any rights at all. Or do you think that applies only to me - and that you do have some rights on our forum?

Why are they not posting to correct your interesting concept that posters who have no right to post or no right to expect their words to remain as posted - do have some right to post to complain about what others post and expect some action to be taken as result?

You have certainly highlighted one of the main problems of the sort of complaining about the worth of posters - that is now encouraged on our forum.

If you expect the right to post what you wish and accept that other posters also have this right - should you really expect never to be offended on our forum? Is the risk of you being offended but a small price (and one well worth paying) for your right to have your say?

Would you consider that others should have the right to complain about your posts and expect action to be imposed on your posts as a result? Or would you feel you had the right to complain about that also?

Perhaps all posters should all be allowed and encouraged to concentrate on simply posting our views - to respond to the views of others or to ignore them - and to leave all the personal judgements to a later date and to an even higher authority than the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM

The Kate Rusby and John Mcusker split thread   has now been closed and the orignal one (with all those valuable posts about The Archers) has now been deleted.

So Ivor - any poster who contributed any of the 300 or so posts to that thread - have had their posts deleted.

So it is not just (offensive) posters like me, Jon and Wolfgang whose posts are at risk of imposed editing actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 06:53 PM

The Kate Rusby and John Mcusker thread and all of its posts - have now been deleted also.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 07:20 PM

So what - are any of us worse off for it???

You, we, all of us, put things on here in the full knowledge that all posts are subject to editing or deletion if the site owner, or his deputies, consider that is the course of action most appropriate.

If you disagree with that basic principle TAKE IT UP WITH MAX.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:25 PM

The basic priciple of the management reserving the right - is a perfectly sound one. The use of the word 'reserves' suggests that it is something held in reserve and the use of the word 'management' suggest that it will be a matter for the 'management' to decide.

None of this suggest the use of 'silent deletion' by anonymous fellow posters as a first and only option to deal with really very minor issues.

And our forum is given many assurances. Like about meeting the required criteria for deletion of posts - like the assurance given in this thread to Ivor.

Can these assurances be seen to be worth anything - when entire threads of 300+ posts are seen to be deleted for the very slightest of excuses?

Very few (if any) of the posts deleted in those two threads would have met the stated required criteria for deletion - would they. If any did - then why cannot these posts only be subject to imposed editing action?

Why must entire threads - like this - be deleted. Especially when any possible offence has already been caused?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:41 PM

More wit and wisdom - double standards and hypocrisy from Snitchers Corner.

Posts that should go

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:45 PM

Shambles, if you don't like it here then get lost. The rules are set by Max and not you. It's his site and not ours. So stop bellyaching.

Do you also challenge the rules where you work? If your boss asks you to do something that you feel is wrong to you refuse to do it? Not morally wrong, just against what you feel is what you want to do?

Your ideas are totally uncomprehensible. A web site exists for the betterment of everyone and like everything else has rules and regulations. If you don't agree with the rules and don't want to follow them then you can go somewhere else and do what you want. Or better yet, you should be banned from this site. Where I come from, you are what is called a habitual troublemaker.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:49 PM

Why must entire threads - like this - be deleted. Especially when any possible offence has already been caused?

I am reminded of the truck driver when after narrowly missing a pedestrian - who looked back and shouted out of a his window - a belated cry of - LOOK OUT!

The pedestrian still sitting dazed in the road shouted back - WHY - ARE YOU COMING BACK?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 09:21 PM

Shambles, your logic is indeed lacking. If someone calls you a moron one time and you are offended then should they keep calling you a moron? If someone sees an offensive post once, should it constantly be thrown in their face again?

If one person finds a post offensive then it is possible that others will too. It is up to the moderators to judge a post as to what will be offensive to a wide range of people. One must rely on the fact that they can judge whether something is innocent and will only be considered ofensive by a single person or whether it is somethiang that is generally offensive to all.

If I post the N word in a thread should it stay there and offend all that look at it? I think not.

You may not approve of the moderators but in general they do a wonderful job. It is up to them to decide what is appropriate for a site that a wide variety of people use.

Again, if you don't like it then go somewhere else.

Please!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 02:00 AM

"Is that clear enough?"

Actually, no it isn't. You have just described an ordinary action, in no way is it imposed as you have described it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 04:52 AM

All I can see in the thread you linked to in what you snidely call 'Snitchers Corner' is anonymous post by people who I guess are you, CH, Peace, and A N Other, plus named contributions from J.O.
Can't see why you linked to it though, as in common with most of your specious links and postulations, it proves nothing.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 05:32 AM

The only double standards and hypocrisy I see on the Help Forum thread that Shambles linked to are from all the anonymous ones - including Shambles himself. I'd say you've guessed most of them right, Giok. I posted on it twice too, using my name, and got called a "fucking turkey" for my trouble by one of the anonymous ones (I suspect I know who). Still I don't care. Funny isn't it, how they are so brave and can say that stuff from under a cloak of anonymity but they can't come out and put their names to their insults.

I'll repeat what I said on that thread - Shambles, I don't know why you bother to post anonymously. Your style is a dead giveaway. You've only been doing that lately, and not just once, so "my cookie had expired" is so much nonsense. As for the Help Forum, nobody has a cookie on that, and although people occasionally forget to put their names on their posts there, I don't think I've EVER seen your name on posts there that are obviously yours.

I wonder if the anonymous GUEST will be brave enough to come and insult me on this forum now. More and more I'm in favour of making the BS section Members Only, with Secret Santa stuff in the music section.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 06:49 AM

The "N" word...

My God, Lenny Bruce would be rolling his grave if he saw what's going on nowadays.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 08:41 AM

The Kate Rusby/John McC thread was closed and deleted because its fundamental subject matter was deemed BY THE MANAGEMENT to be contrary to the ethos of the site. As one of the contributors whose content has been deleted, I'm good with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 09:25 AM

If everyone goes on saying the phrase "the N word" for long enough and not daring to actually voice or be confronted with the real word itself even when reading, for example, a historically signficant book like "Huckleberry Finn", presently people won't know what was meant by "the N word" any longer or what word WAS the "N" word...and then...someone might say it accidentally!!!!. This is a danger that I should think probably keeps a lot of people awake at night for hours. ;-) I mean, just imagine what could happen!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 11:03 AM

Secret Santa could be done in the help section, and make the whole of Mudcat's main pages members only.
Cut the spam, from ALL spammers!

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 11:37 AM

I'll repeat what I said on that thread - Shambles, I don't know why you bother to post anonymously. Your style is a dead giveaway. You've only been doing that lately, and not just once, so "my cookie had expired" is so much nonsense.

The truth - which you may not like - is that unlike some of our 'moderators' - I don't post anonymously.

I had restored some settings on my PC and needed to re set my cookie. I was not aware of this - until I had posted.

I am sorry if the truth does not support your judgement of me.

But would anonymous posting be judged to be bad then?

Or is it only bad when posters do it and a good thing when our 'moderators' can both post and censor anonymously?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 11:43 AM

Subject: RE: Post that should go.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03-Dec-06 - 09:00 PM

Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship.
So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely.
-Joe-

No comment required.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 11:54 AM

Shambles, as usual, you are picking which points to answer and which ones to ignore. I'll repeat what I said in my last post:

As for the Help Forum, nobody has a cookie on that, and although people occasionally forget to put their names on their posts there, I don't think I've EVER seen your name on posts there that are obviously yours.

Are you now going to tell me that every time you have posted to the Help Forum, you have accidentally forgotten to put your name there? Sorry, but I couldn't believe you are that stupid. Having seen your modus operandi over the years, it's obvious that most of what you do here is carefully calculated. You may annoy a lot of people, but you're not stupid. Are you going to tell me you are?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 12:26 PM

You may annoy a lot of people, but you're not stupid.

Careful - that may be thought to be a compliment. It is certainly a view that is going against the general flow.

Jenny I have a cookie which saves me the bother of typing out my name in full on our forum proper.

After mny years - that is still not the case in Snitchers Corner - where in order to see one's name against your posts - you do have to type it in.

As you judge that my style is so easily recognised - there does not seem much point in my typing my name in every post there - does there?

In fact. some posters may judge it stupid for me to do so.

But you still have not addressed whether anonymous posting is good or bad on our forum ? Or can it be both good and bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 01:15 PM

But you still have not addressed whether anonymous posting is good or bad on our forum ? Or can it be both good and bad?

How convenient for you now to be asking that question. What better way to change the subject to anonymous posting than by doing some of it yourself and then waiting to see who will notice and react.

Sorry mate, but no cigar. My point was never about whether it was good or bad. I figured you had an agenda though, and I was right. Incidentally, you have demonstrated the answer to your question. Anonymous posting in itself is neither good or bad, but it can be used in different ways, depending on the motives of the poster. Unfortunately there are too many people around with less than honourable motives, and that leads to my opinion that posting on the BS section of Mudcat at least should be Members Only.

Now would you like to go back to the original subject of your thread? Cos I've said all I'm going to say on your new pet subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 03:50 PM

I posted on it twice too, using my name, and got called a "fucking turkey" for my trouble by one of the anonymous ones (I suspect I know who). Still I don't care. Funny isn't it, how they are so brave and can say that stuff from under a cloak of anonymity but they can't come out and put their names to their insults.

Sorry mate, but no cigar. My point was never about whether it was good or bad.

From this - it does not sound as you are any more in favour of the anonymous ones than I am - nor does it sound as if you don't care - but apart from posting to speculate on what a terrible person I am (which is a point that has already been well-hammered home) what is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 03:52 PM

What is your point on 95% of what you post Shambolina?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 04:01 PM

My point about asking others if they've noticed
deletions of their posts was to see how they thought/felt
about that. The thin response seems to amount to,'We're
cool with how things are done.'

    I'm all for Roger having his say a la Voltaire. On
the other hand,I rather doubt if the way threads are
worked is condusive to satisfactory conclusions.

    Apart from the usual debating tricks - irrelevance,
changing the subject etc. - ,a big problem is that it
appears impossible to stick to one matter at a time,a
consequence of how these threads are used.

   The bigger problem seems to be (to me) that there
are psychologies involved (everyone has one). And the
unconscious. So all rational debate is thwarted by
other factors, many of which are not within the consciousness
of posters. (I don't exclude myself.)

   So we get people accusing Shambles of doing things
they do themselves without realising it. It's done
unconsciously,you see. So Shambles becomes the dumping
ground for our righteous and our unconscious stuff.

   I would guess everybody has experienced brilliant
points they've made being ignored. Which I personally
find more hurtful than being deleted.

As I've mused before, if you write interesting/amusing,
stuff, and debate vaguely properly,it'll stay in.

At least,that's Uncle Ivor's recipe of the day.

Enjoy, and bliss to everyone. Well, we're alive - a
miracle.


       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 05:35 PM

As I've mused before, if you write interesting/amusing,
stuff, and debate vaguely properly,it'll stay in.

Like Catspaw's posts that stay in - containing only foul and abusive scatological insults you mean?

Is musing the same thing as reasoning? I think not.

Yes you have implied this before - and despite the clear facts that the only deciding factor is WHO is saying it - not what is said - you still ignore these facts - and you go on to imply it again.

I fail to see that ignoring the facts can be thought to be debating properly - even vagely.

Do you accept that had you contributed to the Status Quo, Winona Ryder threads - the one that has vanished without trace and the Kate Rusby split threads - that no matter how 'interesting/amusing' your post may have been - it would have been deleted - even though your post would not have met the required criteria, that you were assured on this thread it would need to, in order to be deleted?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 05:44 PM

Shambles...you said

"And far too often in response to some complaint from one poster about the posting of others. When these complaints are responded to - this only encourages the idea that posters have some right over what others choose to post and some right to post only such judgements about the worth of their fellow posters.

"If the quality of posting on our forum was really a concern to our 'moderators' - the more sensible response would be for our 'moderators' to tell such complainers to mind their own business and concentrate on the only posts that anyone has any control over - their own."

After saying that, how can you possibly comment, at all, on the content of anyone else's posts?

You, yourself have said that people should "...concentrate on the only posts that anyone has any control over - their own."

A lot of us, on the other hand, haven't said that, so we are still free to complain about other people's posts, without compromising ourselves....should we feel the need to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 06:29 PM

After saying that, how can you possibly comment, at all, on the content of anyone else's posts?

Those who post only abuse demonstrate only the worst aspects of their characters - and as far as I am concerned they can carry on doing this - if it gives them pleasure and I will carru on ignoring them.

But our forum is assured by our 'moderators' that such posts will be eliminated..............

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 06:47 PM

"Those who post only abuse demonstrate only the worst aspects of their characters - and as far as I am concerned they can carry on doing this - if it gives them pleasure and I will carru on ignoring them."


Aw geezy peezy widdle Shamby-Pamby.......It sure as hell doesn't seem like you're ignoring them from the number you have copied over and over and over and over...........LMAO!

Do you really not know why mods on most sites are anonymous? Because if YOU (for instance) have a bitch YOU MUST take it up with the big honcho(s) and NOT ON THE THREADS....which will get you banned. The mods are responsible only to admin...PERIOD. Never are they responsible to members. To translate this for you: IF YOU GOT A BITCH, TAKE IT TO MAX. Otherwise, have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.

You really are such a baby about this stuff. Grow up and try to understand how the world works. Try and grow a pair of balls so you can PM Max with your problems. There is still time for you to do that. Down the road you'll be on the outside looking in. Why not act like an adult now and try to get a grip on reality?

Yeah, right...............and pregnant wombats will fly outta' my ass.........But I do appreciate your approval of my work and since you seem to have agreed, I will happily continue since you said you didn't mind. Mucho Gracias mortar forker

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 02:12 AM

My point about asking others if they've noticed
deletions of their posts was to see how they thought/felt
about that. The thin response seems to amount to,'We're
cool with how things are done.'

There are of course many other interpretations?

The more sensible (or irresponsible - which ever way you look at it) would not try to openly discuss the issue of censorship and demonstrtate its reality, in order to ensure that others would not be so treated. Seeing how the pigs (and the baying mob)were now ordering the farm - they probably would have packed up and gone to a more honest forum. Where assurances given are seen to be honoured and the same rules apply equally to all.

The thin response is hadly surprising - given the sort of treatment that is meeted out to any poster who is brave enough to suggest that most posters here probably do deserve better and should not be subjected to bullying, double standards and hypocrisy.

In my view such things must always be challenged - wherever the cost and wherever it may be found. Especially where it is supported and encouraged - suposedly in the name of enabling 'good discussion'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:41 AM

'We're cool with how things are done.'

A very few of group of people subjected to a violent physical attack in the street or bar - may have been masochists who, after the event stated that enjoyed every moment of their pain and humiliation - saying in effect that they were cool with the way things were done.

Does that in any way ease the pain of the non-maschist majority who were also subjected to this violence or make the display of violence acceptable?

I suggest that all the posters to this forum deserve better than the attitude expressed in the following post. But at least it is a little more honest than usual about the real motivations behind these double standards.

Seemingly the pretence that it is motivated by some noble justification on behalf of and in order to protect the interests of our forum, has been abandoned. I am judged to be 'not a nice person'.

All posters can now see from the follwing that the special restrictions on my posting IS personally motivated. That is the punishment for any poster who dares to judge those, who have no hesitation in imposing their judgement (often anonymously) on the rest of us.      

Subject: RE: Post that should go.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03-Dec-06 - 09:00 PM

Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship.
So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 09:26 AM

"The thin response is hadly surprising - given the sort of treatment that is meeted out to any poster who is brave enough to suggest that most posters here probably do deserve better and should not be subjected to bullying, double standards and hypocrisy."

Shambles,

If you are not happy here then feel free to leave. See if the types of postings that you place here will last even 1 day at another site.

It sure would be nice if our moderators would delete your complaints rather then allowing you to rant on and on and on. I belong to many other boards and absolutely none of them would allow a thread such as this.

Count your lucky stars that Max is so lenient with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:04 AM

Shambles makes a good point. It should be very obvious to anyone who reads these threads that this type of behavior is allowed to flourish and in fact encouraged by support of the moderators and by the lack of action from the owner of this site.

If there were any interest in truly respecting the so-called "values" of this website, then this thread would not exist, Shambles would either be banned or have no restrictions, and some of the vile comments would have been deleted as well. If Catspaw and I were sitting at a bar and talked to me with that tone and those insults, I guarantee Spaw would leave in a stretcher - and I am not a violent man. Not to single out Spaw, who is really a puppy dog at heart, but people are saying things - often under the cloak of anonymity - that they would never think of saying to someones face.   People tend to get brave when they post on these sites, and by allowing anonymous posts you encourage this sort of behavior.   

What we are witnessing is the moderators and owners failure to live up to their own expectations. It appears they are letting Shambles be the easy scapegoat in an attempt to mask the problems. Shambles, because of his nature, is an easy target. I don't approve of his tactics, and I think he if full of himself when he attempts to make analogy to violent attacks in the street or likens himself to characters in Animal Farm. This is just a website and these issues are truly trivial.

What it boils down to is that this site is privately owned and they can do as they wish, but be honest about it. Don't lie to us - there is enough of that in the world.

As the saying goes - shit or get off the pot.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:39 AM

You are wrong on one point Ron. The mods are the targets of shambles, not the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Friend of a hated Moderator
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:49 AM

If Shambles cared to be honest, he could tell you why he is still posting on Mudcat.
It may be something to do with the reason he doesn't want the site to become members only.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 11:11 AM

If Catspaw and I were sitting at a bar and talked to me with that tone and those insults, I guarantee Spaw would leave in a stretcher - and I am not a violent man.

Your statement is internally inconsistent. If you threaten Spaw like this, then you are a violent man. I also suspect that if you caused anybody to leave in a stretcher then you would leave in the back of a police car. I know that if you tried anything like that with me, you would have a serious problem or three.

Now, what's that you were saying about people being brave on the internet. Take a good look in the mirror, Ron.

Then take a couple of weeks and read all of Shambles's posts dating back to his PEL crusade a few years ago. You will then gain some perspective on the whole situation. A perspective which you obviously lack.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 11:15 AM

I am not defending Shambles. I agree, his posts show that he has an issue with the moderators.   However, the moderators have also shown an inconsistency.   If they truly believed what they preached, they would not act this out in public. Whatever actions they would impose on Shambles - or any member - should be done in private.

I fully appreciate the work of the moderators, but no one walks on water. When they are wrong, they are wrong. Granted it is their site and they can do as they wish, but that does not mean their actions are above criticism.   They are responsible for Shambles and all the bitter words that have been said on this site. They are responsible for keeping this party going.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 11:20 AM

Jeffp - everything you say is correct. You just miss the point. Of course I would have a problem. I know I would be taken away in handcuffs, or on a stretcher as well. Instigation does not justify violence. My point was that Catspaw (or any of the others) probably would not speak the way they have in person. We would probably still disagree, but I truly believe their would be more civility and understanding. The work of a moderator is to prevent these escalations.   They take on the role of a bartender who would either stop serving or kick us out before glasses start flying.

I fully understand the issues that people have with Shambles, and again I am not defending him. To use another tired phrase - two wrongs do not make a right.

Maybe you should take a look in that mirror as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 11:27 AM

... and for the record, I love MOST of Spaw's comments. I like the honesty that comes out and I would love to sit down and spend a few hours learning from Spaw.   I just would not expect to be called some of the names to my face and anyone who would use such terms would probably be expecting the consequences.

Sorry for using you as an example Spaw. I guess some people did not "get it".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 11:28 AM

Wrong Ron. There is only one person who can put this to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 12:03 PM

Ron "I can't be bothered to read the history of this" Olesko, I believe I respect you about the same amount you show evidence of respecting me. There are some people here who make assumptions about what admin volunteers can and can't, will or won't do, and they're guessing. You, Ron, are among them. You think things should be different, and you have to blame somebody. You don't know what you're talking about, can't be bothered to try to learn. You blame us - you blame ME - because people get pissed off at the pride and persistence of the willfully ignorant who don't think their inability to consier other people for one second and stop picking at this will reflect on them.

People form opinions of you here based on what they read. You've made 168 posts to this thread. Listen, when/if Max makes Mudcat members only, we can block him. Until then, there's no guarantee, and if you don't think he'll keep trying to get back in, you're deluded. He doesn't seem interested in much else. Max asked Shambles to leave and he won't. People are frustrated, so what you see now is street justice. I don't care much for moderation, which is why I don't call myself a 'moderator'. I don't like watching people act like assholes, so I don't read this thread much. The thing is, some other volunteer can volunteer to read this shit and try to make it not look like shit.
The people who keep coming back should be the ones who love, or at least learn to tolerate, being neck deep in shit.

And Ron, I don't post my opinions anonymously. When you say I'm not living up to my expectations, what do you think they are? What are your expectations for yourself? Posting 168 times to a years' old excuse of an argument all based around the monomaniacal 'pivot man' and focused on the apparent goal of continuing forever?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 12:12 PM

Just for the record, I said if we write interestingly
etc. and debate vaguely reasonably,it'll stay in -
something like that. I said nothing about what might happen
to anyone who posts otherwise.

   (I rather mind being misread like that.)

   I agree 'musing' is not the same as 'reasoning',tho'
I was reasoning, I just used the poetic licence of an
alternative word.

   (I'm sorry what I wrote was not read that way.)

   Most posts (and lack of them) are open to 'other   interpretations', one of the hazards which make a genuine
debate soooooo difficult.

   (I slightly mind my generous interpretation being
ignored.)


   I did support you, Shambles, in your right to your
stance. I'm all for a watch on the moderators - I don't
know anyone who is infallible - does anyone?

   (I'm sorry you didn't 'hear' my support.)

   Others quite as much as Shambles engage in missing
the point, irrelevancy, ignoring points (I've experienced
many of my points blithely ignored), turning to abuse, misinterpreting.

   (A persistance of that is no doubt a turn-off for
some 'catters.)

   Some people seem to find understanding the manifest
meaning of others difficult. Some seem bent on not
reading properly.

   (A persistance of .....................).

    Over to the irresistable forces and the immovable objects.

    Enjoy.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 12:34 PM

(I'm sorry you didn't 'hear' my support.)

Ivor - If you are offering support for the concept of all posters being seen to be treated equally and being able to rely on seeing their words as posted - I would appreciate it if one didn't have to struggle quite so hard to hear it in your posts.

You have yet to address the fact that despite the assurance given to you and our forum - had you posted any of your 'interesting/amusing' posts to any of the the deleted threads listed here - they would have been deleted.

Perhaps you could address this as it makes your statement, that just for the record, I said if we write interestingly
etc. and debate vaguely reasonably,it'll stay in look more than a bit unsupported by the facts.....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 12:36 PM

Autothingy. Try getting the point yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 12:46 PM

Auto destruct?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 01:32 PM

Jeri - you can draw whatever conclusions you wish, you can also choose to ignore what I said if you wish - and it looks like you have. I did read the history, but I still do not see that as justification for the actions that were, or rather were not, taken. The evidence is right here on this thread that the moderators and Max are allowing this to continue. You tell us to ignore and move on, yet there are postings from people like you to the contrary. If you want the bickering to end, you can do something about it.

I am also not sure why you are responding as if my comments were directed at you personally. I brought up issues with Mudcat and practice. If you prefer not to discuss those issues, that is your call. Calling me names and questioning my reasons for posting does not address the points I made earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 01:35 PM

This is just a website and these issues are truly trivial.

Some of those who live in countries where they are still under the illusion that they have the right to express their views tend to take this right for granted.

Those who live in coutries where they are under no such illusion and who know how truly precious this right is - will not think restrictions and limitations of this right - even here - to be trivial.

They will know that they have to struggle to keep these freedoms, against the many who will always find good justification to restrict and limit these rights - for purposes of their own.

Our forum is not JUST a website - or an island totally cut off from reality where Mudlogic can thrive - as our few noisy posters appear to think.

The erosion of our right to free expression is insidious and attempts to limit and restrict this right should be challenged where ever it occurs. There should also be zero tolerance for all forms of bullying and abuse of power - even here.

Max has provided us with a great opportunity and it is sad to see how a few are determined to limit and restrict this opportunity to the size of something they feel they can have control over.

Should Max be finally pursuaded to make our forum menbers only, after all this time - there will no need for my posting to be blocked. As a long-term member, I will have no interest in the exclusive memebers only club that a few noisy posters already treat our forum as.

But perhaps Max has not lost sight of his ideals and intentions for our forum - which is why it has not already been changed?

Perhaps he has no intention of changing it?

It would be nice for our forum to be informed (by Max) either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:18 PM

"It would be nice for our forum to be informed (by Max) either way. "

Why don't you just PM him and end this foolishness? It isn't really hard to do. Or perhaps you are scared to hear what he really has to say because then you may not have a soapbox to stand on and harrangue us all to death.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:19 AM

The, for the record statement, that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team had made a request to Max - for BS posting on our forum to become members only and his later suggestion that he personally vet all the posts to the music forum - was made publicly.

As it was this statement on our forum that caused concern and rather escalated things - it would be better for all concerned if the response from Max - to say if this radical and formally requested change is going to be imposed or not - was a public one.

Then - if this change is not going to be imposed - the Chief of the Mudcat Team can decide if he still wishes to continue.....

And if it is - other posters can also decide if they wish to continue supporting our forum.

Only then will posters know which captain is deciding our ship's course.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:50 AM

For the record, I suggested that posting in the non-music section be members-only; and that non-member posts in the music section be screened by volunteers (not specifically Joe Offer) before they are made visible to the public.

This should serve to eliminate the problem of the stream of anonymous combative posts we've had, and it should significantly reduce our Spam problem. It may even serve to reduce the need to monitor or delete posts from our members, since they won't have anonymous trolls to fight with any more.

Max hasn't expressed an opinion on this proposal, and Max is the one who will make the decision.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:57 AM

For the record - this was the, for the record statement referred to.

And how long ago was this request made?

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:41 AM

"The erosion of our right to free expression is insidious"

Once again, it never was a right, just a priviledge.


"As a long-term member, I will have no interest in the exclusive memebers only club"

Why exclusive? All you'll have to do is register.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:21 AM

He means that he would then be able to be excluded Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:52 PM

Shambles - your readiness to interpret leads you
into doo-doo.


    My support is for you taking the stand of wanting
clarity and fairness and rightness and openness and non-authoritarianism over editorial activity.


    To respond to your other substantive point,if anything
of mine is deleted when part of a thread that is
unacceptable, I can live with that personally. That's
partly because Mudcat isn't the world and the editorial
team are not world legislators (the advantage of our
multifarious non-totalitarian world); and partly because
the rest of the time, what I post gets 'published'. (And
I do believe I'm far from unique in get virtually everything accepted.)


   So saying that if we write interesting / reasonable
/etc. stuff,it'll get in, far from being unsupported by
the facts, is, in fact, almost entirely supported by the
facts.

   Anyone can worked up about the editorial teams errors,
flaws, misjudgments, shadow-side, and I support Shambles
choosing to do so. (One of your more unfortunate tendencies Shambles, and you are NOT alone, is to set up straw men and
then lay into them, in your case by choosing for others what
they meant, then criticising them for those meanings which
you have attributed to posters, and which may or may not have anything to do with said posters. On the other hand,I like your coolness, sticking to matters and not arguing ad hominem,
[ersistance in your cause(s)


The dubious editorial practices of main-stream media is far
more important, and a bit less discussed.


I respond to Roger because you make specific points.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:56 PM

So, Shambles, where's the part where I said that I was going to "personally vet all the posts to the music forum." I don't recall ever having said that.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:14 PM

"Some of those who live in countries where they are still under the illusion that they have the right to express their views tend to take this right for granted.

Those who live in coutries where they are under no such illusion and who know how truly precious this right is - will not think restrictions and limitations of this right - even here - to be trivial.

They will know that they have to struggle to keep these freedoms, against the many who will always find good justification to restrict and limit these rights - for purposes of their own. "

Hey Shambles,

I don't know too many of our members who live in countries that don't allow free speech. You, for one, certainly don't. Lighten up guy. This is just a music web site. If something gets deleted it will have absolutely no effect on your life. Fight for something that is really important instead of this silliness.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:20 PM

Also - this is a private web site. Freedom of Speech does not apply any more then it applies in a private home.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:11 PM

So saying that if we write interesting / reasonable
/etc. stuff,it'll get in, far from being unsupported by
the facts, is, in fact, almost entirely supported by the
facts.

Almost?

In fact it is not at all supported by the facts.

You may not have a problem with your 'interesting/amusing' posts being deleted just because they happen to be in a thread that was entirely deleted (like the Kate Rusby split one) - but that was not what our forum and you were assured by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - was it?

Big Stick's messages were deleted. They were just weird.
-Joe Offer-

Your post may be interesting and amusing but if the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges your post it to be 'weird' - he will delete it.

In fact - despite what you still try to maintain - in spite of the facts - and any assurances the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team may provide to our forum - it has been shown clearly that he will do this to (most) posters contributions - as and when it pleases. And this seems to please him more and more often.

It is also a fact that he is not in favour of ensuring our forum can know the true nature and current level of imposed editing by the simple process I suggest of always providing an editing comment. And limiting these to only where this has occured.

This would for the first time to enable posters to know and express an informed view on something that our forum is expected to support and a few blindly and noisely do (as long as the victims are some other posters and not them).

This means that any poster who cannot find their post - will still have to guess, speculate or ask about its fate. And even if they do ask - as this thread shows - they will not be told......

It is also shown to be a sad fact - that some posters can do as they please - and not only be safe - but posting conduct that would be censored - seen to be encouraged when practiced by certain favoured posters.

So the example set is that:

Abusive posting is judged to be both good and bad - by our 'moderators' - depending on who is doing the abusing and who is being abused.

And anonymous posting is judged to be both good and bad - by our 'moderators' - depending on who anonymously posting or censoring.

And they judge others and impose their judgement on other posters for being 'weird'.

Or for being 'not a nice person'? Was any of this in the required criteria contained in the assurance given to you?

For these - whatever debating style, spelling or grammar they may be delivered in - remain the facts. Perhaps it is these facts that can be discussed and addressed?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM

So, Shambles, where's the part where I said that I was going to "personally vet all the posts to the music forum." I don't recall ever having said that.
-Joe Offer-

---------------------------------------------------------------------
As has been demonstrated before in this thread - what you claim you can or can't recall informing our forum - tends to be a little selective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm open to any and all suggestions, but it seems to me that it's time for members-only posting to BS, with membership paswords sent only to those with valid e-mail addresses, and for full review of Guest posts to the music section before they are released to public view.

I see no value in the continued combat we've had, or in our continuing to protect the anonymity of those who want to cause trouble anonymously.

If you have a better idea, express it. Try to say something new, something true, and something constructive.
Joe Offer

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:52 PM

You really are a fuckin' mental case Shamby-Pamby....If you can corrupt what Joe actually said into what you think he said and believe it, here's a bat's ass to you. But you can't sell that tripe to anyone else.

What an asshole you are!   No one reads things you write and beleives them. Do you act this insanely in real life or is this your outlet for ignorance?

And trust me Dickless.....I WOULD say the same things to your face at this point in time you pathetic wimp.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:59 PM

Whew !

Good to see the same spinning happy, happy posts still going nowhere to somewhere in this thread!.

Or should it be "somewhere to nowhere"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:08 PM

Yeah, I like 'em!!!!! (:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:58 PM

The evidence is right here on this thread that the moderators and Max are allowing this to continue.

Bollocks Ron.

The moderators have gone as far as they can, ie. pretty much limiting this subject to one thread. Unless granted further powers, they can not go further even if they wished to. If you believe otherwise, you are buying into Shambles lies.

Max could but we are told that even his powers are limited to the extent that attempting certain actions such as blocking, barring and presumably deleting on sight carry risks until the site is more secure.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:47 PM

If the mods found a way to keep Martin Gibson from returning then they can find a way to keep Shambles from returning if they really want to. Besides, Shambles style is so uniquely his own that even if he changed his ID it would be able to pick him out and ban him again.

No other website would allow moderator bashing like some of the comments that Shambles is saying about Joe. These shouldn't be permitted to stay on the site.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 02:17 AM

Why exclusive? All you'll have to do is register.

Why not ask the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? For this is what he stated - in his, for the record statement to our forum?

For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays.
Joe Offer

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 02:26 AM

Good to see the same spinning happy, happy posts still going nowhere to somewhere in this thread!.

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:52 PM

You really are a fuckin' mental case Shamby-Pamby....If you can corrupt what Joe actually said into what you think he said and believe it, here's a bat's ass to you. But you can't sell that tripe to anyone else.

What an asshole you are!   No one reads things you write and beleives them. Do you act this insanely in real life or is this your outlet for ignorance?

And trust me Dickless.....I WOULD say the same things to your face at this point in time you pathetic wimp.

Spaw

And thanks for keep demonstrating the point so well for me - to our forum.

Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship.
So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely.
-Joe-

What I have politely asked is that ALL posters are seen to be treated equally.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 04:52 AM

Good to see the same spinning happy, happy posts still going nowhere to somewhere in this thread!.

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:52 PM

You really are a fuckin' mental case Shamby-Pamby....If you can corrupt what Joe actually said into what you think he said and believe it, here's a bat's ass to you. But you can't sell that tripe to anyone else.

What an asshole you are!   No one reads things you write and beleives them. Do you act this insanely in real life or is this your outlet for ignorance?

And trust me Dickless.....I WOULD say the same things to your face at this point in time you pathetic wimp.

Spaw

And thanks for keep demonstrating the point so well for me - to our forum.

Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship.
So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely.
-Joe-

What I have politely asked is that ALL posters are seen to be treated equally.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 05:18 AM

To be fair, Roger, you have asked many things, including that people only do not seek to control what other people post and keep their noses out of the content of other people's posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 05:35 AM

I think it's very considerate of Roger to cut and paste these posts by Spaw and others.
It repeats their criticisms, and thus hopefully, more people will see them and enjoy them.
There's also the added benefit that it saves people having to post it again !
Bet you never thought of yourself as a labour saving device before Roger!

Giok
¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:07 AM

Are you not a bit puzzled? Some of us certainly seem to be a bit confused.

For when it was wrongly assumed that Max had actually stopped me from posting – the following (rather touching) plea to Max, for my re-instatement was made. As Max had not done such a thing - this favoured poster is then not prevented - but is seen to be permitted and encouraged by the Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to continue their insulting posting and name-calling on our forum. Seemingly in a futile attempt to drive me away. Only proving that every thing claimed in this threa, about the example set of unfair, inconsistent and personally motivated action and perferentual treatment by (some of) our 'moderators' is perfectly true.   

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:18 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:55 PM

>snip<
People make far too much a deal of this deletion stuff. Most of we delete is obviously suitable for deletion - leering sexual comments, overt racism, crude and repeated name-calling, outright gibberish, repeated messages, and non-music advertising/Spam. The people who post this stuff know darn well that their stuff will be deleted - they post lots of this stuff.

Most Mudcatters never have a message deleted - and if they do, they're usually contacted and given a private explanation. But for the repeat offenders who post large quantities of objectionable messages, it's just not worth the effort.
>snip<

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:24 AM

Shambles,

How do you expect the moderators to treat you when you constantly post insulting comments about them and criticize the volunteer work that they do? Since they obviously can't ban you for whatever reason like they banned Martin Gibson it is only human nature to fight back by allowing nasty posts about you to remain.

Yes, you do get special treatment. But that is only because you are the only one who criticizes, bellyaches and ridicules the people in charge of this web site.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:31 AM

"Bollocks Ron.

The moderators have gone as far as they can, ie. pretty much limiting this subject to one thread. Unless granted further powers, they can not go further even if they wished to. If you believe otherwise, you are buying into Shambles lies.

Max could but we are told that even his powers are limited to the extent that attempting certain actions such as blocking, barring and presumably deleting on sight carry risks until the site is more secure. "

Then fine - stop posting! If Shambles is limited to this subject on this thread, all the posts and arguements are keeping it alive. It takes two people to argue, or have a discussion. One person doing it by themselves is simply ranting and raving.   For the moderators, anonymous trolls, and people like myself to continuely egg Shambles on simply helps him prove his case and turn Mudcat into a joke.   

Enough is finally enough. Buh-bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:47 AM

I heard that one before Ron. You'll be back.

Date: 07 Nov 06 - 01:06 PM

I've stopped posting to this thread, but I've been observing. I hope others might try it and learn some of the things that I have by simply watching. No one wins, no one is right.   

I think we will be out of Iraq before this thread ends.

Have fun! I'm outta here, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:49 AM

Shambles, you appear to be referencing this from Joe:

full review of Guest posts to the music section before they are released to public view

I believe that refers to an approach discussed in the past where a variety of people volunteered to perform that function. I don't recall it as ever having been idea Joe would be asked to see to personally.


So in the following post, you mischaracterized reality:

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM

So, Shambles, where's the part where I said that I was going to "personally vet all the posts to the music forum." I don't recall ever having said that.
-Joe Offer-

---------------------------------------------------------------------
As has been demonstrated before in this thread - what you claim you can or can't recall informing our forum - tends to be a little selective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------



~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:56 AM

I don't doubt it "guest" - if that is your real name. Just like the rest of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:05 AM

Ron,

Guest is my chosen name here. Same as any other person's Mudcat name. Unlike you, I prefer my real name not to be blasted all across computerland. To me, Guest is as good as Shambles, Catspaw, Blowzabella or any other fake name.

I was just pointing out that you keep saying that you won't be back and then you post again. Unlike other who never make that promise.

It was not a criticism of you because I do respect you from the posts of yours that I've seen. It was more a comment on the power of Shambles to draw everyone back into his web of silliness and constant complaining. Yes, it would be better if no one else posted here, much the way it was a few months ago when Shambles did his daily solo rant. Unfortunately, there are too many weak people, myself included, who feel that there is a need to respond to the rants and ravings of a looney tooney.

I'm certain that you will be among us again soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:46 AM

Guest, if you used a name I could PM you privately. If you used a fake name that would still keep your identity secret and then allow for private conversation that would not waste space here. It would also help to differentiate you from other guests.

I am certain I will be back too. I never said never. I never said I won't be back, I just say that I am out of here.   When you visit with friends at a pub and you leave for the night, you say goodbye. The conversation is ended and there is nothing more to say.   You may be pissed off and vow never to return, but you do. When you return, the tone of the conversation may have changed and you may wish to add something. When there is nothing new to add to the conversation I keep quiet. I have give up on repeating myself. If there is something new to add, then perhaps I will return.

I do agree with you, although it is not so much the "power of Shambles" that draws me back, it is the comments made by others that usually piques my interest. I've been reading this tread, but I had no reason to post the same comments over and over.

So, I'm outta here.... for now.   If this thread simply becomes Shambles talking to himself then there would probably be no reason to return. If the conversation continues to add new facets, maybe I will be back. I certainly can't predict the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:10 PM

I believe that refers to an approach discussed in the past where a variety of people volunteered to perform that function. I don't recall it as ever having been idea Joe would be asked to see to personally.

To the best of my recollection the idea was first suggested by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. This when it was pointed out to him by quite a few posters - that requiring the BS section to be members only - would negate its function as a buffer/filter/safety-valve for the music section.

And would just mean that the music section would be subject to the sort of posting that a few get their knickers twisted about when these appear in the BS section. A rather obvious short-coming of this suggestion but one that seemed to have been overlooked.

Sadly there appears to be no shortage of volunteers willing to impose their judgement on the posts of others and feeling themselves in some way qualified to do so. But I am quite sure that should such a change be introduced - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would be at the head of the queue.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:17 PM

well - your recollection is wrong - since the idea of holding and vetting posts from non members was brought up prior to membership even being instituted on the forum - which predates joe's musing by several years.

Again - it is Max's decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:22 PM

"And would just mean that the music section would be subject to the sort of posting that a few get their knickers twisted about when these appear in the BS section. A rather obvious short-coming of this suggestion but one that seemed to have been overlooked."

Not really Roger, all that needs doing then is, all non music posts in the music section: DELETED, easy peasy lemon squeezy as they say!
No ifs ands or buts, they don't belong there so they go :o)
Nice idea don't you think?

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:00 PM

Posters seem generally much much more
prepared to say what they disagree with,
and so much less inclined to say they agree
when they agree.

   



       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:49 PM

That's because there aren't too many people who agree with our friend Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:07 AM

Here ya go, y'all. FYI . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:28 AM

That's because there aren't too many people who agree with our friend Shambles.

The worst effect of differences of opinion being made a contest between personalities - and of our forum being expected to support one individual or another - are the important aspects that, as a result of supporting one individual and villifying another- that posters find themselves compromised into supporting.

Even seemingly sensible posters, who in other aspects of their lives would challange double standards - hypocrisy - unfairness - secrecy, open displays of bullying - insulting and abusive behaviour - heavy-handed general and petty pendantry - the encouragement minding of everyone elses's business - needless anonymimity and the introduction of any silly restrictions on the right of people to express their views freely etc - are compromised into being seen to be in support of such things being practiced on our forum. And being practiced in their name and on their behalf...........

Seemingly in a desparate attempt to be seen to be seen on the right side (or the winning one with all the weapons) and whatever is said - never to be seen to be in any form of agreement with any view being expressed by another individual being identified (by the winning side) as being the wrong or (losing) side.   

Posters do not have to be seen to be in any form of agreement with me - to express general support for attempts to ensure that all posters can be seen to be given a fair shake and any 'moderators' can be seen to be protected from any accusation of personally motivated abuse of their position. Nor to accept (and comment on) that this is currently not the position on our forum and to post to suggest how it can be.

For that would appear to me to be a win - win situation. I suggest it would be for all posters who claim to support our forum and wish it to thrive and evolve naturally to reflect the views of all of its contributors.

Unless you really want our fine forum to be further limited, restricted and changed into the private members club that a few noisy posters already treat it as.

And if you do wish for this - then why not be honest about this and go and form such a club?

For it does not currently look as if Max is in agreement with the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team's - for the record statement. And about what he sees as the state of our forum and the suggestions contained in this, to further change our forum to better suit his requirements.

If Max is intending to make such a change, in answer to this for the record proposal - he is taking a long time about doing so. And of even of informing our forum if this actually is his intention or not.

Supporters of this, for the record proposal are posting now to inform our forum that this IS a decision for Max to make. Perhaps rather than trying to force his hand publicly and creating the escalation of this division - it would have been better if they had just left Max to make (or not) what they accept is his decision?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:40 AM

Not really Roger, all that needs doing then is, all non music posts in the music section: DELETED, easy peasy lemon squeezy as they say!
No ifs ands or buts, they don't belong there so they go :o)
Nice idea don't you think?

Possibly - if you think that having fellow posters spending their time judging, deleting and inhibiting posting (rather that posting themselves and encouraging others to post) - is ONLY what our forum is now to be all about.

And if you really think it is that easy - when all the evidence shows otherwise.

Max does not seem to see this - which is why non-music posts are encouraged to be posted from anyone who wishes to post them. And why the BS prefix and the later separate BS section was introduced to keep happy those who did not like seeing even the titles of non-music posts.

Any sensible poster would see that as all posters are currently encouraged by our 'moderators' and Snitchers Corner -to complain about what other posters choose to contribute - any further (if well-intentioned) restrictions introduced on BS posting would only create more 'if and buts' and needless judgements for the usual suspects to complain about what was or was not a music post.

Our forum is special (and just about remains so) because such nit-picking pedantry about what was or was not on topic - was not encouraged.

Those who post (only insults) to say that 9 out of 10 sites they visit would not permit this or that - are simply demonstrating what remains special about our forum and why many of us remain loyal to our forum's (and Max's) original intentions and ideals.

If they they really like such places - they are welcome to go to them. They are not welcome (by me at least) to try and make our forum as ordinary as these other sites.

But this is crunch time for any poster who does see our forum as a special place and wishes it to remain so - as there seems to be a push to make it ordinary. Is this push for more limitation and restriction on posters, only from the noisy few posters that I think it is? If it is then perhaps it is time for other posters to be equally noisy (but perhaps more civil and logical and less personal about it)?

If posting is to be encouraged rather than inhibited for the future of our forum - any further restrictions - badly need to be placed on our 'moderators' (for their benefit also) rather that any more limitations being imposed (by our 'moderators') on posters.

For in response to any situation they only seem to evidence 'one-trick'. 'Silent deletion' is not a proportionate response to every situation.

And it is also foolish for our 'moderators' to pretend (or ignore) that there will always be a reaction from any poster who is subjected to such drastic action - especially when it is imposed to support one of the now far too many out of an increasing list of petty posting restrictions.

This reaction may take an active form - but far more than likely it will be one that will not be seen - such as posters being inhibited - giving up and just going elsewhere. Neither of these reactions being really very disirable.

What is being requested is that all imposed editing actions are recorded with editing comments to enable posters to know where their post has been subjected to any form of action. And for all editing comments are limited to where this has occured.

This will then enable all posters for the first time - to be able to make an informed opinion and judge whether these actions - undertaken in their name - are in fact proportionate.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:11 AM

So just out of curiosity Dipwad, is there some reason you post the same damn thing over and over and over and over ad infinitum?

You haven't posted a new argument in months!

So......Have you contacted Max? My guess is no. But he reads this. Have you seen him post anything like agreement with you? Do you remember that the last thing Max asked of you was to LEAVE?

So is this repetition doing you any good? Tell ya' something else Pamby.....I can't think of another site that would have put up with you and these kind of postings directly attacking the site owner and his admin people, let alone doing it many times over.

Why not lay off the vendetta and hang around? Otherwise the day will come when that option will be gone.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:38 AM

Is this the right room for an argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:40 AM

I told you once.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:44 AM

if you think that having fellow posters spending their time judging, deleting and inhibiting posting (rather that posting themselves and encouraging others to post) - is ONLY what our forum is now to be all about.

You realize, don't you, that putting in the word ONLY makes this a whole different statement then if you left it out?

And - as has been pointed out to you many times - having fellow anonymous posters fellow posters spending their time judging, deleting and inhibiting posting (to some extent) is common practice over much of the internet; and in fact necessary to prevent sites becoming cluttered with with spam, trolls, flames, etc.

All of which is moot - since this is a private site and Max or the people he has delegated responsibility to have the right to delete, edit, move, change, etc anything posted here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:33 PM

And - as has been pointed out to you many times - having fellow anonymous posters fellow posters spending their time judging, deleting and inhibiting posting (to some extent) is common practice over much of the internet; and in fact necessary to prevent sites becoming cluttered with with spam, trolls, flames, etc.

And has been pointed out many times to you - when it is our 'moderators' and their favoured few posters who are cluttering up our forum with spam, trolls, fames etc - this double standard means they have no credibilty, when it comes to dealing with the very few others who do post such things.

And more to the point, very obviously all these ever- increasing restrictions have had no effect in preventing our forum from becoming a place where he feels he cannot goof off and have a good discussion. As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges in his, for the record statement.

Sadly it is the many posters on our forum who do not post spam, troll, flame etc - who are most affected and limited by the activities of our 'moderators'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:04 PM

Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship.
So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely.
-Joe-

So if I decide to agree with actions and restrictions being imposed on our forum, that I cannot ever be seen to support - will I too become a 'nice' person (like the example that Catspaw sets)?

Will the special restrictions on my posting then be lifted?

And as long as I am not seen to disagree with the 'way 'we' do things here' - like Catspaw and a few other favoured posters - will I too be permitted and encouraged to post only personal judgements, insults and be allowed to call other posters names?

I strongly suspect that should I (or others) be seen to ever post or respond in kind, anything like those that certain 'moderators' choose to do and which certain favoured posters are seen to be permitted to do - that my posts would not remain on our forum for very long.........

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Cluin
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:21 PM

I gotta admire your stick-to-it-iveness, Shambles. If stubbornness moves mountains, we should all feel the rumble soon.

Now, where ya gonna put it?

---

Gee, I'm so sorry, but I have to close this thread. It's getting hit with a lot of Spam - four in two minutes. If you need to start another discussion on this topic, post a link to this thread.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-