BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:37 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:33 PM

I look forward to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:29 PM

No, Ron. Wrong again as usual. I choose to be a guest just because. I owe neither you nor anyone else an explanation. As to telling you to your face--if we ever meet I will be happy to. Now why don't you and your fuckin' gang give it a rest. Your cheap shots at Shambles do none of you any honour.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:20 PM

not the same at all. You choose to be a guest so you can say things that you would not have the courage to say to a persons face.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:41 PM

Troll with a name, troll without a name: same same.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:31 PM

or trolls

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:01 PM

. . .or to have those against Shambles repeat themselves ad fuckin' nauseum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 07:40 PM

"All that is being politely suggested is where and when this is judged to be necessary that it is always indicated and explained to our forum with an editing comment and that all editing comments are limited to only occasions when some form of imposed action has been imposed.

Can some of the witch-hunt explain to our forum what is so devilish about this?"

You did make a polite suggestion, and it was ignored.   Time to move on. If this were a business and you made a suggestion to the boss that he or she did not like, would you keep bringing it up like this? You would have been fired long ago.

Granted this is not a business. But it is also NOT a public forum. It is a privately owned website that the public is allowed to post in. There is no need for anyone to justify anything that they do.   The FACT they have given you explanations (which you ignore) and ALLOW you to continue posting is evidence of just how open and fair they really are. No other reasonable website owner would allow lengthy and fruitless bickering to continue on their site. Consider yourself privalaged.

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 07:16 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the (now BS) thread.

OK, Shambles, this is the third time you've posted this message - and it's more-or-less the same thing you've said hundreds of times. Does your ability to copy and paste make you feel like a real man, or what? Can't you carry on a discussion like a real human being? What IS your problem?
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps my problem is partly that I have only just discovered you have twice 'silently deleted' my post containing subjects for discussion from our forum?

A post that was perfectly on topic as it was responding to the topic of abusive messages introduced into the thread by its originator.

Is now OK for a thread to remain on the music related section as long as it contains only uncritcal praise for the efforts of our 'moderators'? But for it to be swiftly relegated to the BS at the first sign of anything other than uncritcal praise for the efforts of our 'moderators'?

Can you please stop all this macho nonsense and be seen to treat all posters equally as your actions to prevent posters from saying what you do not want to see - is making our forum look foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:50 PM

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:31 PM

I...I....hear....hear....an...an....echo....echo....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:16 PM

Deja vu?

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:07 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Actually, the moderators are here to help primarily with technical problems, not to be babysitters or a police force. Most "offensive language" is ignored, and we expect Mudcatters to ignore minor squabbling.
Stick to the topic, Shambles. If you go off topic and post your usual repetitive propaganda, your message will be moved to the current Shambles garbage thread. As long as you actually discuss with people and address the issues they're talking about, your posts are likely to be left alone.
-Joe Offer-

As your moderators are clearly still under the impression that their purpose is to protect posters from the abusive personal attacks referred to - [which was plainly the topic introduced into this thread by its orignator and to which I was responding on-topic to] – perhaps this latest version of their role should be passed to them? Although the object of this imposed 'moderation' does seem to change......As do your determined attempts to try and prevent this poster from posting my views on the same basis as other posters.

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:06 PM

All over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 06:03 PM

Deja vu?

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:58 PM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Actually, the moderators are here to help primarily with technical problems, not to be babysitters or a police force. Most "offensive language" is ignored, and we expect Mudcatters to ignore minor squabbling.
Stick to the topic, Shambles. If you go off topic and post your usual repetitive propaganda, your message will be moved to the current Shambles garbage thread. As long as you actually discuss with people and address the issues they're talking about, your posts are likely to be left alone.
-Joe Offer-

As your moderators are clearly still under the impression that their purpose is to protect posters from the abusive personal attacks referred to - [which was the topic introduced into this thread by its orignator and to which I was responding on-topic to] – perhaps this latest version of their role should be passed to them? Although the object of this imposed 'moderation' does seem to change......As do your determined attempts to try and prevent this poster from posting my views on the same basis as other posters.

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:51 PM

Just so you know that your seemingly lily-white approach is so fuckin' transparent. Don't insult people and you won't get the insults back.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:49 PM

You are no better than Shambles. YOU do exactly the same thing you say he does. I tend to think most statements from you on this thread have been stupid. Piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:42 PM

And I was pointing out that your rewrite was a stupid statement. The answer is repeated in the hope that it will actually be read and understood this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:35 PM

Same answer. Nothing, it's just that they don't want the bother. They have enough to do as they have explained before.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:34 PM

Request considered. Denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:33 PM

I didn't. I was rewriting a quote by Giok who was addressing Shambles. Get your head out, will you? Into the light. BTW, I am not Shambles. I am someone who thinks the ten of you who don't like what he has to say should stop reading his posts.

Shambles, you begin to look better than the lot of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:31 PM

Don't forget - The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED.

As if anyone would ever be allowed to forget this.

But I am not sure that this right is in question.

All that is being politely suggested is where and when this is judged to be necessary that it is always indicated and explained to our forum with an editing comment and that all editing comments are limited to only occasions when some form of imposed action has been imposed.

Can some of the witch-hunt explain to our forum what is so devilish about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:29 PM

"That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum."

That is not true. If I abused my postings and began similar posts to yours in non-related topics, I am sure that I would be reprimanded.

As for that lengthly clip from Joe that you posted - what does that have to do with anything? Again, give us bullet points. IF that post was meant to show that someone admited failure, I think you failed in your attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:24 PM

'The habit of keeping on giving the same answer over and over again hoping to get the result you want, is a form of bullying'

You expect the answer to change? The answer is the answer. If you ask the question you must expect the answer. If you don't like it - tough - perhaps you shouldn't have asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:15 PM

'The habit of keeping on asking the same question over and over again hoping to get the answer you want, is a form of bullying'

And to rephrase that sentence so that it has equal validity, assuming it had validity to begin with:

'The habit of keeping on giving the same answer over and over again hoping to get the result you want, is a form of bullying'


How many of you folks continue to gang up on Shambles and why? Is he touching your nerves? Bothering you? If so, why do you read his posts? Hell, I have seen at least half of you say at one time or another that the best way to avoid it is to AVOID IT. Fu#k's sake, take your own advice. You have begun to look like a collection of horses' arses.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:08 PM

"That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum."

Seems to me you've been expressing your uninformed opinions in other threads of late - including an uninformed judgement about the moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:00 PM

Because it is not a "failure" as you are trying to read into the comment. That is YOUR opinion.

That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum. Others can judge from the actual words and perhaps explain why posters support what they assume to be the status quo - when it is obviously nothing of the sort.

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-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:19 PM

"As I do not post personal attacks on Catspaw or anyone else and do not respond in kind to the many that are encouraged to be made to me and that I am not protected from - any personal attack posted about me - will be unprovoked."

There's more than one way to provoke a response as you well know. BTW, what makes you think these responses are encouraged by anyone other than you? Another uninformed judgement?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM

Joe Offer, as the sham very well knows, implied that peace on the forum has failed as typified by the sham's incessant whining attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:17 PM

Because it is not a "failure" as you are trying to read into the comment. That is YOUR opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM

As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. (Shambles)

It has been ignored for a long time as a favour to you, because the argument is utterly wrong. Look to the other threads where you multipost that nonsense for a refutation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:55 PM

Can someone explain to me why any poster would continue to post to support a system as being effective - when the main architect of this system has publicly admitted its failure?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:46 PM

"As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. "

So then you agree to stop posting these notes Shambles? Perhaps you would agree that you have no way of knowing and that your posts are fruitless?

Don't forget - The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM

there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form.

nor is there any need for it. The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED.

It is not "our" forum" - it is Max's.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:30 PM

Well, tune session or singing session...moderator or leader, I have no doubt that if there were a real problem you WOULD have to find a way to deal with disruptions. Here, there are many thousands who come in at times, and the law of averages says that there is more opportunity for disruption than at a music session where you can look the offender in the eye!



"I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial ..."

I can well imagine how difficult it would be. PAID mods would be unlikely to understand the issues here, and if they did, they would be unlikely to tolerate your brand of incessant complaining.

"...but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable."

for whom? for youm? YOU are harping on some impossible model of complete impartiality.

You, it seems, will never get the point that YOU are not the arbitor of whether moderators are needed and how the job is delegated, and to whom.

The only way to keep things flowing on a site like this is to have some way to police ourselves....Max decided how and who, and he 'seems' to be ok with how they are doing it. The amazing part is how how much he and his appointees tolerate criticism OF his system and its rules.

That 'could' change.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:28 PM

or the other option, leave things the way they are.   The majority of posters seem to have no problem with that.

If this were the case - would this 'I'm alright Jack' attitude really mean that the current 'system' was seen to be impartial and all poster were equally treated?

If this were the case - would it mean that its main architect's admission of the current systems failure can be safely ignored?

As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. Not until every such action is indicated and explained with an editing comment and all editing comments are limited to where this has been judged to be necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:11 PM

"I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable. And if this is not thought possible the down-side and counter-productive results of having referees who also wish to be players cannot just be ignored. Especially after the main architect of the current 'system' has admitted its failure.

Other optiona are to have any 'moderators' at all or to give the choice to our current 'moderators' of just being a referee. "


... or the other option, leave things the way they are.   The majority of posters seem to have no problem with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM

good comeback

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM

oh, piffle, Roger! YOU are a moderator at a singing session, but I assume you also get your turn! It is absurd to expect that we could FIND mods who are willing to just be moderators and not participate in the discussions!

Piffle indeed. I am not a moderator at a singing session.

I am a participant in tune sessions and the 'leader' of a regular weekly pub session - where the object is to involve as many musicians as possible to participate in playing sets of tunes at the same time. It is not without its difficulties but the approach taken is that everyone has as much 'right' to be in that public place as everyone else - no matter whatever their musical abilities may be. It does not make things easy but on many nights than not, the end result often rewards and justifies the attempt.

I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable. And if this is not thought possible the down-side and counter-productive results of having referees who also wish to be players cannot just be ignored. Especially after the main architect of the current 'system' has admitted its failure.

Other optiona are to have any 'moderators' at all or to give the choice to our current 'moderators' of just being a referee.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:56 PM

Did your post make sense, Ron? (Some of them don't.)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:48 PM

Shambles - can you simply bullet point your gripe? That last note just rambled. You would be more effective if you could present your case in a clear and concise manner. I have re-read that last post three times and I am still unclear as to the point you are trying to make in regards to my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM

oh, piffle, Roger! YOU are a moderator at a singing session, but I assume you also get your turn! It is absurd to expect that we could FIND mods who are willing to just be moderators and not participate in the discussions!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:38 PM

Of course when Max's public statement is posted - what it says before is ignored and what it goes on to say - is omitted. Such as:

Joe: Do I need to separate you two?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.


Ron - It must be quite clear from the special restrictions imposed on my posting only by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that our forum is not all playing under the same rules - or being expected to. Until we are all seen to be playing under the same rules and posters can feel safe from having the same treatment imposed on them as they see imposed on me - it is hardly likely that any poster will be prepared to take the risk of posting anything that may result in this.

Our current 'moderation' IS well-intentioned. That is why it so supported and why it is so dangerous. But the bottom line is that it simply does not work. Which is even now admitted by its chief achitect. But not only this - it is counter-productive and only encourages (directly and indirectly) the very conflict it is supposed to be dealing with whilst encouraging posters to mind everyone's business but their own.

Very few people would expect a regular football match - with an open invitation for all to take part - to be thought or seen to be a fair contest, when the referee judged it to be acceptable for them to also play in the game as a participant.

Perhaps in order for this to be seen to be a fair game - they may expect this referee to make a choice to either be a referee or to be a player? Especially when they started sending other players off for what they judged to be unfair play.

Even without the referee wishing to play both roles - most people would be surprised that such a game of football would ever get completed - if this referee kept trying to change the rules, in order turn it into a game of rugby. And tried to exclude some players from the pitch altogether, whilst trying to pursuade the rest of players that this change was a far better idea than the original concept.

It would not be too much of a surprise if this referee was not asked or expected to play whatever game they wanted and by whatever rules - but to do this elsewhere and to leave everyone else to get on with their football match.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM

I don't think anyone is likely to agree with every moderation decision that has been made here, or at ANY other web site. I would also expect that there are a number of people here who at some time or other have had a dispute regarding some moderation decision - given the number of posts made, it would be almost absurd to think such things have never happened.

What is more to the point is whether I believe that the attempt is made to apply what ever moderation there is (at whatever level there is) on a site is done consistanly and fairly. In terms of that overall picture, it is my belief that the moderators here do a good job.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:26 PM

"As a sulking truculent baby."

Ennui is a twit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:15 PM

What Spaw said! I've had posts deleted, and had arguments with the "Management", I don't intend to keep pissing and moaning about it to anyone who will listen, for the foreseeable future either!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM

Oh sure, Ron...I have had conflicts! I was at a Getaway, and there was some VERY good beer in a bag ...and Mick & Max & Jeff and Joe Offer were ALL there, impeding my access to it! (Jeri was there, but she didn't get in my way...*grin*)

Why, I was almost ready to mop up on the lot! Then they noticed I wanted a beer, and they not only made way, they opened the bag!

And late at night, we were singing, and I could barely get a song in edgewise for all those folks singing! Why, it's enough to make a feller invent a new identity on the Mudcat in order to harass 'em!

I'm sure Shambles would have let me sing & have a beer!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:04 PM

I've had some posts modified and deleted and some other changes as well. No problem from me. The Mods all do a pretty good job!

Spaw

PS: "Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell." says the site owner Max!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 12:57 PM

"I suggest that it is time for a change to an open less combative approach - where 'moderators' are not seen to be in open conflict with our forum's contributors and all are seen to be treated equally and not encouraged to subjected to bullying public witch-hunts."

Putting all of Shambles past history aside, I think he makes a point. However, is there any evidence to Shambles claims? Yes, I know there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of postings that Shambles have made - but everything I've read seem to be open to interpretation

I would ask this of the forum -

1. Has anyone felt that they have been involved in any conflict with the forum moderators?

2. Do you feel that YOU (I don't mean Shambles, but you the reader) have not been treated equally?

I would love to see anyone who answers "yes" to those questions to please post here - and not as an anoymous "guest". Let us hear from members of this forum to see if anyone besides Shambles truly has this issue.