 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
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.
-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. |