 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM He made his point, he is not adding anything new to his arguements, and the rest of us get frustrated. You get frustrated? At least I am making a point for discussion. You don't even have to read it - why should you be frustrated? Do we get one? We then we get a post just accusing me of being rude. Providing no evidence for this and totally ignoring all of the offensive personal judgements and name-calling that I am subjected to and not protected from as if it was of no consequence. It would be had I indulged in anything like this. Perhaps I am due some little credit for not responding in kind? For one of the main culprits then justifies all this and describes the posters and 'moderators' responsible for setting this example of posting behaviour as gentle, good natured, intelligent and decent posters! If you are frustrated or bored - then leave the subject to some newer posters who may be prepared to discuss the issue - rather than be obsessed with simply judging personalities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 19 Oct 06 - 02:08 PM Shambles, you are not interpreting my comments in the way I meant them. I am not judging personalitites - are you? Yes, we get frustrated, and it is obvious that you get frustrated as well. You are making a point for discussion, which as you say we don't have to read. However, assuming that you meant it when you say you post to have a discussion, our frustration comes when it appears that you ignore or never seem to acknowledge that our points could have some validity. Your steadfast insistence on re-posting and continually arguing your case should probably be admired, but instead in results in frustration because there does not seem to be a discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Big Mick Date: 19 Oct 06 - 03:09 PM You are rude. You may not couch it in filthy language, but you are rude nonetheless. It reminds me of the child that doesn't listen, and talks over everyone in the room. Your rudeness extends to taking quotes out of context, years old, hijacking threads, and refusing to accept Max's right to run the site as he sees fit. Your rudeness includes making petty arguments over whether the volunteers here have the right to modify thread names for clarity sake. I could go on and on. You surely are rude, but as Mario says, you just don't do it in a crude fashion. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 19 Oct 06 - 07:43 PM You forgot to put IMO mick. Many don't find shambles rude. I find him witty and extremely gracious. You don't agree with him. You are as obsessed as his other VERY FEW detractors and regularly have to post to tell us all to stop responding. Jeri summed you and your merry band up best. You admit if it was your call you would ban him.It really grates on you that you do not have the power to do that. You should be able to get a grip on this one and move on and stop opening this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Big Mick Date: 19 Oct 06 - 08:40 PM Fair enough. You are absolutely correct. That is simply my opinion. I would correct you on a few minor points. It doesn't grate me that I can't ban Roger. I have made my opinion known, and I am fine with whatever decision is ultimately made. As to Jeri, she is entitled to her opinion as well. We may be friends, but we don't agree on everything. One of Shambles tactics is to twist the truth to serve his arguments. He does this with out of context quotes, etc. Sometimes he gets so caught up in his crusade he ends up arguing both sides. Just because I am a moderator does not take away my ability to have an opinion. I stay out of most of this back and forth, but occasionally I think it is important to point out misstatements. As to your opinion of me, nothing has changed nor do I expect it to. All I have to do is wait and you will cease to be able to take your sniper shots from the bushes of anonymity. I can do that. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:32 AM It's sadly all about misplaced power with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:24 AM However, assuming that you meant it when you say you post to have a discussion, our frustration comes when it appears that you ignore or never seem to acknowledge that our points could have some validity. Your steadfast insistence on re-posting and continually arguing your case should probably be admired, but instead in results in frustration because there does not seem to be a discussion. There is just about discussion here, despite the recipes, jokes etc and the attempts to make the whole discussion cetre around the worth of one individual poster. However, there may not be total agreement. But should there be? I am not sure that I try to carry on posting my views to be admired - do you? However, in reply to your point, it is necessary to repeat arguments from time to time - both in reply to posts and for the benefit of those posters who may not be as obsessed as others and to which these points will be new. And there are lots of aspect to this discussion, probably too many for one thread. But if we find that threads and posts that others may admire - bore or frustrate us - should we then blame the other posters for our boredom and frustration ? Or should we just accept that there are all tastes and move on to another thread? Or should we been seen to try to shout-down and remove those posters who may bore and frustrate us? Ron - are 'you' not equally frustrated by those posters and 'moderators' who are seen to encourge the idea they have some right to be seen to publicy judge another named poster? And to to be seen to do this on regular basis with a view to preventing discussion and with the aim of bullying them into agreement, into silence or off of our forum completely? I know that I am. But I accept that I have no control over the posting of others. And no matter how frustrating I may get - perhaps you will accept that I do not respond in kind to these. I have found your views and actions to be frustrating but have I questioned your mental health or made any personal judgements of your worth? Many posters here appear to pay only lip-service to the idea that posters are free to express their view. Perhaps you would agree that this remains the whole point - no matter how frustrating you may find it in practice? In the course of this discussion I have accepted many points and agreed with many other posters - I have found that the level of my regular detractors frustration does not appear to relax any as a result of any agreement shown on my part. You may be different. On the contrary, I have found that this frustration actually looks to increase - in the unlikely event that some other poster does make a contribution to the discussion - one that is not limited only to a post making some personal judgement of me. Or heaven forbid - a post that could be viewed as providing any sort of support to any of my views........That really raises the frustration level - if the resulting increase of posted one-line judgements and recipes are any guide. I try to carry on posting - in the face of this (largely engineered) frustrated reaction against it, partly to show that the problems raised and the many suggestions made to solve them will not be examined - if a certain few of our fellow posters are not in favour of them. The same few who now appear to be set on engineering a change to members only posting. Hopefully this will show that as long as a poster does not provide any grounds for Max to ban them - EVERY POSTER MUST ACCEPT THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO PUBLICLY CALL FOR ANY FORM OF CENSORSHIP ACTION TO BE IMPOSED ON THE POSTING OF ANOTHER NAMED POSTER. If (as Max informs us) this site is about happiness - the encouragment of posts only containing judgements of the worth of other named posters - by the example currently being set on our forum - can only result in the very opposite of this happiness. I have found that there is little need for for me to respond to Mick's posts (in kind or at all). These posts demonstrate the basis for MY argument - far more eloquently than I can ever manage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:14 PM We can't seem to let the issue rest, we keep coming back, we keep repeating ourselves. Are we that different from Shambles?? Yes Ron. Some of 'us' are far worse and in fact those who are most obsessional about posting only personal judgements about me and other named posters and who feel they have some right to set this example - have a far worse posting record than me - for which there is little shortage of evidence. Ron - You will not see any evidence placed here to support my detractors claims about what a terrible poster I have been - simply because there IS NONE. If there was - do you really think that the ace pedants among my detractors would not have provided it by now? Perhaps Ron you will now accept that all this is a completely BOGUS attempt to distract attention from the real issues. There is certainly a public enemy that has been 'fingered' - but there is no evidence of any proportionate 'crime' to support such a label? It not that my posts are any more repetive, or boring than anyone else's. The fact is that a very few poster (following the lead of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) do not approve of me expressing my views and have used every tactic they can justify (and many they can't) to try and prevent this. That this attempt has turned into the 'distraction' it is seen to be by our host - is entirely due the abuse of privilege by those who have been seen to lead this attempt. It may not make me very popular with some on our forum but I can do little or nothing about this, except try to continue to post in spite of this attempt to prevent it and to point this out to our forum, in the hope that it will finally be addressed. But before it can be addressed - it first has to be recognised for what it is. For at the heart of this (also commented on by our host) is a simple personal disagreement between two long-term posters. Niether of whom wish to be subjected to any form of judgement - one who has no wish to impose their judgement on other posters and one who does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:24 PM Shambles - what you appear to be saying in your last post is this: I want to tell Max how to run his site and will continue to post until he does it my way. If this is untrue - could you please explain to me how complainng about the procedures max has established and the personel he has chosen to impliment them and demanding they be changed is differnt then what I have stated? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:40 PM mmario why don't you address that one to mick. He wants max to ban guest postings. Is mick also at fault for not allowing max to run his site as he chose? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:44 PM Mick hasn't publicly claimed to not want to tell Max how to run his site. In fact, Mick has publicly stated that he and Max differ in opinion and Max is doing what Max wants. the shambles has been complaining about the way Max runs his site for six years - but also claims to not want to tell max how to run his site. Then demands changes in the way Max runs things. I just want to know how he reconciles the two actions - or whether he is willing to admit that he DOES want to tell Max how to run his site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM I want to tell Max how to run his site and will continue to post until he does it my way. MMario - the above are your words not mine. But so what? If they are my views - they are only my views. As you know my concern is NOT how Max runs his website - my concern is only our forum. I could equally say that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is effectively saying, by his public posting - I will continue to moan on about peace being impossible until Max finally changes our forum to members only. Perhaps you could tell our forum what the difference is. Except that one is supposed to be seen to be using their best efforts to make Max's currenly preferred posting policy work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:50 PM It not that my posts are any more repetive, or boring than anyone else's Yes, it is, Roger. They are, by far. This is not something you care to face up to, nor to change, but it is so, I can assure you. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:00 PM I would respectfully suggest that the difference might be that Joe IS moderator of this forum as appointed by Max - who owns the forum and all content on the forum. And he is doing his job. You cannot seperate the forum from max's website. it is part of Max's website - it is wholly owned by Max and Max reserves the right to edit, delete, move etc any posting or thread etc, etc, etc. Joe is a moderator of the forum and operates by appointment by Max as Max's proxy. BTW - I didn't say those were your words - I said that was what you appeared to be saying. Am I correct or incorrect? Because if You are not saying (in paraphrase) "I want to tell Max how to run his site and will continue to post until he does it my way" a lot of people have totally misunderstood your postings for a long time and clarification is necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:05 PM Yes, it is, Roger. They are, by far. This is not something you care to face up to, nor to change, but it is so, I can assure you. I'm sure you have posted that judgement that before......have I ever posted a similar judgement of you? Amos if I were the most repetitive and boring poster and I were to admit this - would that be grounds to restrict, prevent my posting and get me banned? If it were - perhaps many other will be similally judged and subject to the same treatment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:13 PM Shambles, you asked a number of questions in your posts of 7:24am and 12:14pm. Let me try to respond No No No Yes maybe, but "shout down" is open to interpretation by the reader yes yes no - and how have my views had that effect on you? not sure open to interpreation I do not understand the question as you posed it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Wesley S Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:16 PM "I will continue to moan on about peace being impossible until Max finally changes our forum to members only." Roger - does that mean that the "campaign" stops when the Mudcat becomes a members only forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:26 PM Roger - does that mean that the "campaign" stops when the Mudcat becomes a members only forum? The only campaign on our forum - will have then suceeded in its aim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Wesley S Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:39 PM Roger - it appears to me - in my opinion - that you don't like to answer direct questions. So let me ask you this: If the Mudcat were to become a members only forum - if Max were to institute that change - would you continue to post here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:30 PM How about closing this thread or deleting about 1200 posts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:07 AM You are making a point for discussion, which as you say we don't have to read. However, assuming that you meant it when you say you post to have a discussion, our frustration comes when it appears that you ignore or never seem to acknowledge that our points could have some validity. Your steadfast insistence on re-posting and continually arguing your case should probably be admired, but instead in results in frustration because there does not seem to be a discussion. It would be nice if the discussion could move on to the issue - rather than continue to focus on one named poster - for this IS only the distraction to the issue itself . But the following post demonstrates well some of the reasons for the above perception. Roger - it appears to me - in my opinion - that you don't like to answer direct questions. So let me ask you this: If the Mudcat were to become a members only forum - if Max were to institute that change - would you continue to post here? If I don't provide an answer - in the eyes of some posters - I will confirm the accusation that I don't like to answer direct questions. And if I do answer - in the eyes of some posters - I will be seen be repeating myself. Which is the worst? Rather like MMario's posts - which ignore everything else and wants only repeat the point made many times - that I have stated that I have no interest in running Max's site and that he sees some conflict in this, between my position towards our forum. As if making this small point (yet again) is the most important aspect of this discussion. My position towards a change to a members only site can be clearly seen in this thread and the many others that Wesley S has contributed to. He appears to want me to repeat it (which will only provide more ammunition for that charge) so he can (again) make the point that if I will not be interested in posting to this changed forum - that will be a good reason alone for its introduction....... So you can see that with the same few posters ignoring the main issue and concentrating on scoring personal points and with them accusing me of not answering direct questions, if I should avoid answering them again - there may not appear to be much progress in this discussion. Yes it is frustrating. However there IS some slow progress - and being able to continue a discussion on this subject at all - is an end in itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:12 AM Amos if I were the most repetitive and boring poster and I were to admit this - would that be grounds to restrict, prevent my posting and get me banned? Amos - it appears to me - in my opinion - that you don't like to answer direct questions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:58 AM " It would be nice if the discussion could move on to the issue " That is very true, but don't forget you made a point about yourself and then asked me a question to which I responded. If you are going to drift the thread, you can't complain when people follow. All of my comments were meant as constructive criticism and not a reflection on your worth. As you have posted, I am not being rude or attacking you. Wouldn't you agree that all of us have faults? I don't want to cloud the discussion any further. If you truly wish to keep this on topic, you would not respond in public to the negative comments about you and defer all comments and responses of the type to private messages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:46 AM Ron - can you tell me why 'moderators' who have publicly stated here they are not in favour of a change to members only posting - would allow the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (who is in favour of this change) - to publicly speak for them? If you can't tell me perhaps they will tell us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM Damn. All this time, I thought I was speaking for myself - at least on my proposal for members-only posting. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:05 PM It is sad that the use by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team of words like 'I' - 'we' - 'our - 'us' - does not any longer refer to all of our forum'. All these words now refer to and are used to speak for the actions of an unspecified few. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. It is pretty clear that the reference to 'our best efforts' and the stated shortcomings of these collective efforts are referring to and speaking on behalf of all of those involved in these efforts. For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change Joe Offer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that? So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one. -Joe Offer- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems. If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something? -Joe Offer- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. Joe Offer ----- But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit Joe Offer. ------ Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying. Joe Offer ------ Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted. Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass. -Joe Offer- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:23 PM Say "Goodnight Gracie." "Goodnight, Gracie." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: number 6 Date: 21 Oct 06 - 06:03 PM "And THAT'S the way it is," ""Good night David. Good night Chet" sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 06:16 PM Goodnight'Grandpa. Goodnight,Grandma. Goodnight,John. Goodnight,Olivia. Goodnight,John-Boy. Goodnight,Jason. Goodnight,Ben. Goodnight,Jim-Bob. Goodnight,Mary-Ellen. Goodnight,Erin. Goodnight,Elizabeth. Goodnight,Curt. Goodnight,John-Curtis. Goodnight,Cindy. Goodnight,Ginny. Goodnight,Baldwin Sisters. Goodnight,Yancy. Goodnight,Ike. Goodnight,Corabeth. Goodnight,Aimee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Oct 06 - 07:10 PM That is where I disagree with you Shambles. I think Joe has every right to speak for himself, and I don't think his actions have set any influence or directed actions to meet his suggestion. True, I don't think I would have voiced an opinion but he did, and so what? Personally, I think you both should take this outside and settle it in the schoolyard so the rest of us can back to our studies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: number 6 Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:03 PM "Good night, and good luck." I think Ed would have that right with this thread. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:05 AM That is where I disagree with you Shambles. I think Joe has every right to speak for himself, and I don't think his actions have set any influence or directed actions to meet his suggestion. True, I don't think I would have voiced an opinion but he did, and so what? As a fellow poster - of course this individual has everyright to speak for himself in as many threads as he wishes to (unlike me) and he does this. But this was not the point being made - was it? It was this individual being seen to be speaking for others. You may not judge this have set any influence or directed actions to meet his suggestions - but I have a different view. But perhaps you will accept the intention to incite is there - whether any posters take any notice of it or not.....? In this role of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - both in editing comments and in posts here and on the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum - and by the use of words like 'we' 'us' 'our' etc, this poster is seen to speak on behalf of others. Which quite understandably, will then be seen by many posters as an official Mudcat line. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's favoured private agenda of a change to members only posting of BS and of him first approving any music related posts - does NOT currently appear to be the official line (although the way it is being pushed publicly by some of our 'moderators', it will come as little surprise if it does come to pass). It is not an agenda that appears to be shared by all of our 'moderators' but it is an agenda pushed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team as the only solution the the problems on our forum that he now appears to see as insurmountable, without such a radical change. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. No - I for one do not agree with that statement - nor the only suggested solution to it - do you? But can any poster who does not agree and who values Max's open invitation for the public's open contribution and wishes for it to continue - really accept that this policy is in safe hands? Given the push for this agenda - can posters really be expected to trust that our current 'moderator's' best efforts are being made to make Max's current posting policy work? Or could they reasonably suspect these best efforts are being made to demonstrate that it cannot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:26 AM I'm trying to stay away from this circular thread, as all it does is rehash all the same old arguments, comes to no conclusions and never will, and most of the people concerned don't take any notice of what the other contributors say. Roger won't change anything about how the Mudcat is run, and may in fact be the single largest factor in any decision to go to a members only posting scenario. Especially as he seems to attract more Guests than any other contributor, and I know for a fact that many of those Guests are Mudcat members. Anyway, having posted when I know I shouldn't bother as it is a waste of cyber space, I will tell you why I came back to this thread. I have discovered a new word which perfectly describes this thread, along with it's main subject and contributor, the word is........... BOREGASMIC ! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 22 Oct 06 - 09:47 AM Sorry Shambles, I have to disagree with you. I do think that Joe might have been better served if he did not make his feelings about you known publicly to eliminate the appearance of "mis-use" of his authority. I don't think he has done anything wrong other than deal with people as human beings. His emotions are just like any of us. I also think that you have the opportunity to post your views in other forums, but you have been instructed not to discuss your views about this particular subject in threads other than this. Is it right or wrong? I am not sure. Is it the result of lengthy disagreements that have boiled over for years? Yes. It really should be a private matter. Giok is right. This has become a circular discussion. I am sure you are going to knock apart the above two paragraphs that I wrote by using quotes gathered over the last 7 years in an attempt to disprove my views. That is your choice. This ceased to be a fruitful discussion a long time ago. My posting and the postings of others probably say more about our own faults then it does yours. The point is, we all have faults. Mudcat is not a forum where lives are at stake, or our freedom of speech. We are human beings and like the music that draws us to this site, we wear our emotions on our sleeves. We do not have to read any thread, we do not have to post. Yet human nature draws us to these subjects. We like to see our words in print. We blow off steam by calling people names, knowing that we will never have to face that person and deal with it honestly. We cower under the cloak of anonymity which allows us to be something we aren't. To make my rambling short - we make mistakes. We deal with it. Live goes on and harping on problems of minor consequence only dulls our senses for the real important issues. I realize that you feel this is an important issue Shambles, but I hope someday you will realize that even though you have a good case, it isn't worth wasting an effort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:04 AM I don't think he has done anything wrong other than deal with people as human beings. His emotions are just like any of us. The issue is not who has or who has not done anything wrong. For I hope that none of us would claim to be perfect? What matters is the effect on our forum of - what has been seen to be done and the way this is seen to be done. Our 'moderators' have largely been able to do as they wish - but they refuse to take any responsiblity for the result - which they go on to describe as. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. Ron - I don't agree with this - do you? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I do think that Joe might have been better served if he did not make his feelings about you known publicly to eliminate the appearance of "mis-use" of his authority. Ron - you slip this in as if this were a minor criticism and if it were of little or no account and just to be accepted - when it is the main cause of all of this, and badly needs to be adressed and corrected. Perhaps you would accept that a start could be made by removing the special restrictions on my posting? All posters must be seen to be receiving equal treatment from any 'moderator'. Otherwise none of them have any protection from any accusation from posters that these 'moderators' have "mis-used" their authority. For not only are these personal views, assumptions and speculations about possible motivations made known - in posts and editing comments - they are also seen to be acted upon. If the personal feelings of our 'moderators' about any named posters were not made public on our forum - other posters would not feel that it was acceptable posting behaviour to follow this example by posting only their personal judgements of named fellow posters. BUT THIS EXAMPLE WAS SET - AND IT CONTINUES. It is no form of solution to anything and will only further and quite needlessly divide our forum, should it be allowed to continue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:38 AM Ron, You keep falling for Shambles' baiting and engaging him in a discussion that you will never win or even score points in. Shambles, Why can't you understand that almost everyone here just doesn't care about your views. No one will ever change anything because you are the one asking them to do it. It's like in the Broadway show 1776, no one would do anything that John Adams wanted because Adams was obnoxious, a bore, a pest and just totally unpleasant to be with. Does that sound familiar? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:43 AM Groundhog Day? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 22 Oct 06 - 12:57 PM Like I said Shambles, there is nothing further to debate. I've already answered all your questions and points. I've already stated which points of yours I agree with and which ones I don't. No sense in repeating myself, yet again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 22 Oct 06 - 01:03 PM FYI |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 23 Oct 06 - 05:53 AM I don't think he has done anything wrong other than deal with people as human beings. His emotions are just like any of us. I certainly appear to have been judged as having done something wrong - as I am under some punishment for this. Have I? Do you think then that I HAVE done something wrong - in trying to engage in discussion? For unlike many who would feel qualified to judge me - I have not encouraged the example of posting only abusive personal attacks and name-calling - no matter how high my emotions may be running or how frustrated I may have become. It is not only possible for posters to do this - it is vital that our 'moderators' are not to be seen to indulge in this. It is just as vital that such posting from them - is not seen to be excused. Especially when the consequences for other posters are to be seen so severe. Ron - you appear to me to be supporting a unfair and unequal double standard of posting behaviour. One that to my mind is responsible for all of the things on our forum that our current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team now finds fault with and has led him to state: And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion Do you agree with that statement or not? For I have asked you twice and if you have answered - I have not seen this answer. My view is that until drastic change happens and a more positive example of posting behaviour is set by our 'moderators' our forum will just reflect the current negative example back. So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one. -Joe Offer- Can you? I suggest the first thing is for 'moderators' not to be seen to be indulging in conflict on our forum with individual named posters. For if you wave a red rag at a bull - you can hardly be surprised at the bull's reaction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Oct 06 - 06:39 AM A load of bullocks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:25 AM "Do you agree with that statement or not? For I have asked you twice and if you have answered - I have not seen this answer." Come on Shambles. Don't be upset that Ron didn't answer you. You're the one who always avoids answering direct questions. Are you now expecting a double standard from someone else? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:40 AM Shambles, I have already answered your questions. Please refer back to my posts that are found among the nearly 1200 posts to this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:18 AM "For if you wave a red rag at a bull - you can hardly be surprised at the bull's reaction." Any rag actually. Bulls are colour blind I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:24 AM It's a metaphor Bruce! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:28 AM I've never cared for metaphors myself. I prefer the giant economy size metaphives instead. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: JennyO Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM I never metaphor I didn't like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM But I am going................. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:35 AM to go for it and get........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM 1200Spaw |
