BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

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.