BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:43 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 - 09:39 AM

In the correct order here

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 06:50 AM

What was the original problem again?
G.

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: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 05:59 AM

The party host most certainly knows now.

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 - 05:25 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
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: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 04:01 AM

Which one was 'd' again?
G.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:43 PM

Party host - I would hope that you would not think your party is a war. That doesn't sound like a fun theme.

I could care less who you like and who you don't like. If I received an invitation, I am going to have a good time.   I expect that if you invited me, you would want me to enjoy myself.

You make the decisions and you deal with what happens. When you open the doors, the image you create will determine how many people enjoy it. Perhaps you only want a party for a handful of friends. That is your call to make.   You might have an open house that you hpe will attract a wide and diverse group of attendees.   Hopefully your goal is to let your guests have a good time.

Hopefully it will be a party that most people will enjoy and hope to come back for the next one.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 07:25 PM

Ron I don't have an issue with d. If I did I would have took him outside and left him there. I have realised that it is a very small handful of other guests of mine who have an issue with him.

And I am not here to be the bouncer's bouncer. I am here to make superflous quantities of spinach dip and throw a party for my many hundreds of guests who do not spend time in my house sniping.

The snipers can stop or carry on. They won't win because this is a party not a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:32 PM

Did you get the invite for the Halloween party????

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:29 PM

Ron, peeing in the punch bowl, doing the limbo, SPINACH DIP - now that's what I call a party!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:20 PM

"Have a look at his posting history - you may understand then why there is a problem"

I did exactly that, and you know what, there is some merit to what he says.   I would add something else - take a look at the posting history of the people who have complained about him (myself included). If you read it, the focus has been on the annoyance factor of Shambles personality, his lengthy and repitive posts, and his nearly verbose-way of stating his issues.   He has become the person that would cause you to cross the street to avoid having to say hello. You would not ask him how he is feeling because he just might tell you.

Still, his "problem" may not have been handled in the most professional of manner - probably brought on by his own "nuisance factor". Yet, I think most of us are simply dismissing his complaints because it is Shambles.   I will be the first to admit that.

It may be true that only a small portion of Mudcatters have a problem with Shambles, but the reality is that only a small portion of Mudcatters are reading the threads he posts to.

Frankly, I wish the host and the guest would simply take the issue outside and deal with it. Whether it is 1 person or 100 people affected by it, there is something that is disrupting the party that does not need to be dealt with in such a fashion by either side.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:11 PM

I wouldn't worry about it Jacqui, regardless of any of our feelings and beliefs, Ron IMO, is right with:

Get rid of Shambles or treat him without prejudice based on his past actions. The alternative is to go on "as is" and all the sniping, grumbling and whining will continue to where it hurts Mudcat even further."

It seems things are moving one way and that has to be better than indecision and we "vocal few" arguing. I'd say try to move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM

Problems, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder - good to see the "silent majority" having a say for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM

jacqui VERY FEW of you take pains to point out your percieved problem. The vast majority of people on this site do not respond negatively to him. What, when and how shambles chooses to post does not upset the majority of people here.

You have every right to continue berating him. But please realise you belong to a very small club. Can you really not ignore him?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:01 PM

GUEST 03.49

This problem has been going on for many tears with Shambles opening multiple threads to make the same point, going onto non-related threads to spread his own gospel and generally making a nuisance of himself over the forum. Granted he may have a lot to offer but he also causes a lot of aggravation, mostly, it seems, down to the fact that a thread title was given a minor change without his approval.

Have a look at his posting history - you may understand then why there is a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM

It's a shame the host is so busy hosting the party. Hanging up coats, replenishing the ice buckets, dry roasting the nuts etc...

Maybe he leaves some discretion in the hands of the bouncers. And would the bouncers wish to appear to be back tracking by removing the restrictions?

Because after all these restrictions are only in place to suit the VERY FEW who have a problem with d.

Did the host request the restrictions? Were they suggested to him? Does he realise the problem has been blown up out of all proportion by the vocal few?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 03:30 PM

Same here. The guest could have a lot to offer to the party. It is going to take both parties to find a comfortable middle ground.    Respect is a two-way street to quote a cliche.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 03:23 PM

Well Ron, in that case, all I can say is I hope the host and d do manage to work things out.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 03:07 PM

"If that's the case, can shambles please be allowed to post on equal terms with the rest of us and have his restrictions removed. It's only fair if he is a useful part of the party."

I would suggest that the answer to the above question should be between the moderators and Shambles in private. It should be a private matter and really should not involve public discussion.

If someone has been accused of getting drunk and peeing in the punchbowl, the host and the accused need to work it out. Did it actually happen? What was said? In essence the party will keep going on with none the wiser if the host takes the necessary steps to make sure everyone is happy.    I would hate to see anyone accused of something and being banned from the party, especially if they have a lot to contribute.    When it is turned into a group decision, no one will be happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:48 PM

If that's the case, can shambles please be allowed to post on equal terms with the rest of us and have his restrictions removed. It's only fair if he is a useful part of the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:27 PM

Sounds like a plan! As long as you have a plan, and as long as it is one that you will bend with the circumstances and not be afraid to enforce. Then it sounds like most of us will have a good time.

Simply opening up the doors to your house and letting us run amok would not make for a very good evening - except for maybe a few of my friends from Jersey. They could have fun anywhere and anytime.

Oh, don't bother with the spinach dip on my account. I only serve it because others like it.   Cheese in a can is enough to keep me happy. Don't bother with fancy crackers either. Nothing beats a Ritz.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM

I like you Ron. As the party host I did once think that I should ask d to leave the soiree. But then I thought about it and realised that hundreds turn up to my parties and it's always the same few, and I do mean VERY FEW who complain about d.

They are the 'not so silent minority'. But just because they speak loudest does not mean they have the most to say. So logic told me that d is accepted and liked by the majority of my guests. And the grudge that the 'not so silent minority' hold is an all consuming obsession that they should redress themselves.

I am not helping them by removing the object of their obsession. They would wait for the next guest to come into my house who they think differently to and it would start all over again.

So I decided to not only let d stay, but hope he stays, because he is doing a grand job. He is presenting his opinion in a non confrontational way and despite being met with insults and ridicule by the 'not so silent minority', he maintains his decorum and good naturedness.

I choose my bouncers carefully. Some are level headed and objective. They can be relied on to do the housekeeping without rancour. Others are more like pit bulls. They smell blood and go for the jugular. I keep them for comedy value. Because the majority of my guests see them as very humorous and slightly lacking in social skills.

But in the event that my booked cabaret doesn't turn up one night, I live happy in the knowledge that some of my appointed bouncers unwittingly provide the entertainment.

They don't hold that much power outside their head. If they did they would have ousted d a long time ago. I hold the power and the door keys and that is a situation that works. I have not pandered to the 'not so silent minority' and have no intention of doing so. That would be wrong.

It would be sending a message that those who shout loudest get their own way and my parties don't run like that.

One criticism of your scenario is the spinach dip. It isn't something I serve but I will stock up just for you because I like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Shambolic
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:00 PM

"One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation..............."

A self elected and unrepresentative one of their number! Who gave you the stripes? I didn't ask you to speak on my behalf, and not only that but hundreds other Mudcatters also didn't authorise you to speak on their behalf. You are a self appointed trouble maker Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM

So it IS a war against the moderators.

Yep. Try any thread with shambles and you will find that even if he starts off with a seemly well inteligent suggestion that might have some merit, it soon swings round to the moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:56 PM

Glad to see you have not lost that famous sense of humour. Thanks for letting us know Wolfgang - I had not seen that request - when I started Jolly good recipes Not that there is any shortage of threads with recipes....

It is a good idea to try to and avoid looking in Snitchers Corner too often.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:55 PM

by the way... thank you for the kind words Guest, I do appreciate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:30 PM

in what I refer to as 'Snitchers Corner' or the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. ... Posters are encouraged there to post anonymous complaints about and requests for editing action to be imposed on their fellow posters. (Shambles)

Having these lines by Shambles in mind I had a good laugh when I saw that shortly after in that 'Snitchers Corner' an anonymous poster asked for a separate BS thread for cookery enthusiasts Shambles started exactly that thread.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:26 PM

"Yes, but then the host asks one of the guests to leave. What do you do when he hangs on, and starts having a go at those appointed to help run the party? "

It depends on what kind of time I am having at the party. The question is really one that the host should be answering, not me if I am just a guest. If he isn't having a go at me, I would probably sit back and watch the fireworks. If he is annoying me, I would speak up.

The host has to make the call, not the guest, not the bouncers, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 12:33 PM

From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:24 AM

To extend the analogy a little. As it has been complicated further.

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

The host wants one form of party with an open invitation to all to attend.

Some of the bouncers, like each other's company and feel that it would be a far better party if there was not an open invitation for all to attend (and if they were now allowed to screen every guest before permitting entry). [When it was accepted that should this suggestion be implemented that any Mudcat non-members excluded from posting to the BS section would only post on the music section - the suggestion was then made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that he first screened every post before it appeared]

One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation...............

So what should these bouncers now do? Just carry on - when all the other guest now know these bouncer's wishes and as a result - that any attempts by these bouncers to preserve the host's open invitation - will be seen to be half-hearted ones?

Yes, but then the host asks one of the guests to leave. What do you do when he hangs on, and starts having a go at those appointed to help run the party?