BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:16 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:24 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:37 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 - 11:30 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 08:38 PM

Uh huh.............ayup...................

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: 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: 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