 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:50 AM Why do you continue to fan the flame? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:30 AM Shame on you guest. Everything I am saying here is read by Shambles. Why don't you use your real identity if you wish to attack someone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:23 AM Say that to Shambles and stop being the fortieth in on a gang rape. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:17 AM I see nothing wrong with the thread continuing if positive discussion is taking place. My window is open, the fresh air feels good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:09 AM The result is the same. The thread continues. You got a window. Open it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:05 AM There is a difference between a discussion and venting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:59 AM If you don't wish to encourage the poster, stop responding. People repeat what others have said before then wonder why the thread keeps appearing and continuing. It's a no-brainer. Now it's become the Ron and Shambles Show. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:44 AM "I feel partly responsible for this current for of censorship being imposed on our forum in the first place." Don't worry about it. There is no such thing as "censorship" in a forum like this. It is privately owned, the users are subject to the discretion of managment. You could not walk into a movie theater and then start singing loudly when the feature starts - the management would throw you out. This is not censorship. Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE. Some people refuse to understand that and will continue to hold their breathe and stomp their feet. Sad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:32 AM Should anyone wonder why this matters to me to the extent it does - it is because (as the following public statement from Max explains) I feel partly responsible for this current for of censorship being imposed on our forum in the first place. It certainly was not introduced at my bidding and no matter how well-intioned it may have been - the idea that members would anonymously be imposing censorship on the contributions of their fellow members is one that was guaranteed to only cause division and conflict. It is not too late to change this. User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Max is taking action (76* d) Max is taking action 22 Jul 99 I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view. For one thing, I have marveled at the comradery and love and knowledge and friendship that the Mudcat has been. I have felt safe in meeting new people here and inviting them into my home. But something is changing. To get to the point, I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers and communication with all Mudcat members to identify people who "cross the line". Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white. It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation. I cannot let another fine person leave, and I cannot support a community where people are not comfortable sharing who they are and what the love, and I will not continue publishing the Mudcat if we cannot find a way to control it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 08 Sep 06 - 09:39 AM Don't blame the moderators, they merely came in AFTER the fire started. If what you state were true - whether they get blamed would rather depend on what these 'moderator's' actions were after a fire started. If their actions were not to extinguish them but only to fan the flames and encourage the fire (even unintentionally) - I suggest that the blame for the house burning house down would be all theirs. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in particular is quick to blame anyone and everyone for not being able to impose on our forum the peace he requires. But having admitted this failure does not seem to see that the example set by his double standards have played any part in this or now be prepared to take any personal responsibility for it. Doing exactly as he pleases but speaking for other 'moderators' by claiming this to be 'we'. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team now appears to see the only option open to him is to plough on with the same counter-productive imposition. At least until our forum can excude free contributions from the public and become the members only posting forum that he already treats it as. Seemingly the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team sees 'moderation' on our forum, as some form of game - where he alone makes the rules up for others to adhere to and be judged by (referred by him to as Mudcat Policy) but which he does not think should apply to him. And where to cause totally confusion and even in the same post or editing comment - he will jump from the role of ordinary poster - expressing their views to that of 'Head Honcho' - imposing them. Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree. -Joe Offer- Perhaps the one requiring restriction on our forum - is not me but those who are now activly preventing, restricting and inhibiting reasonable discussion by 'silent deletion' and thread closures? |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 08 Sep 06 - 08:50 AM In this case, it is hard to find any particular sin or crime to justify banning....being terminally tedious is sort of a different matter. Does a poster being judged to be 'teminally tedious' justify any form of selective posting to be imposed? If so perhaps quite a few posters should now be concerned? I suggest that being judged to be tedious, repetitious, or boring - no matter how irritating some may find this - is not justification for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to impose any form of imposed censorship action. Perhaps you would agree that these restrictions should now be lifted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 08 Sep 06 - 08:35 AM hahhahahhahahhahahha I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. I suppose that since this is "his" topic, this will become "his" thread, and I'll have to close the other one. I'll wait and see what he does. Joe Offer I am glad that someone seems to find the concept of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team silently deleting posts and closing threads in order to enable reasonable discussion - to be as funny as I would do - if the implications of accepting such perfect nonsense did not present such a real threat to the long history of free and open discussion on our forum. It is clear to me how the actions taken and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum. It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views are preventing (as claimed) any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum. Can someone explain why my postings (only) should be HAVE to be restricted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for this reason? Perhaps these restrictions can now be removed and all posters be seen to treated equally? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 08 Sep 06 - 08:14 AM Again, this seems to be an example of paranoia. I am not "judging your worth", I am trying to reason with you and tell you what many of us are seeing. YOU are taking any criticism of your action personally. Perhaps you should try and actually read some of the personal judements of my worth, the name-calling that it is thought to be fun to be encouraged and the various and physically impossible suggestion made. Even entire threads are started for such things. Most of which I do not respond to at all and never in kind. Are you suggesting that these are not intentional judgements of my worth? I make no claims for perfection but my posting record is certainly better that many of those who would feel themselves qualified to post only judge me. Do you consider then that all other parties are perfect? I could respond here with a similar public judgement of what I judged your short-commings and speculate on your mental health - but what would be the point? The point remains that all that is important is what is said - not who may be saying it, where, when or how poorly you may judge it to be expressed or its spelling and grammar. It is only important to be able to agree to disagree and it not honourable to try and find noble sounding excuses to restrict or prevent any other named poster from posting what they may wish to. No one is being forced to read or respond to my views or the views of any other poster-are they? And is none of your or my business what we may think of another poster's worth or posting actions and so what is the point, by the example currently set, of encouraging our forum to be littered with such posts? If you really want to make personal comments and suggestions to me or another poster - there are PMs for this purpose where they do not have to be inflicted on our forum. And in the case of non-members, where this is not available - perhaps the best option is possible to just move on? Non posting of judgements week |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Ebbie Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:45 PM "All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion" the Shambles hahhahahhahahhahahha |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:56 PM "But all I am trying to do is post and to enable all posters to be treated equally - I am not preventing anyone else from posting or forcing them to read my posts - am I? " See, that proves the point that many of us have been trying to make. It isn't about "preventing" or "forcing" - it is simply the fact that we are able to read and then we comment on what you said. Don't blame the moderators, they merely came in AFTER the fire started. "As I don't - and I am not now responding with any personal judgements of your worth - perhaps you could at least give me some credit for this?" Again, this seems to be an example of paranoia. I am not "judging your worth", I am trying to reason with you and tell you what many of us are seeing. YOU are taking any criticism of your action personally. I do not recall EVER seeing you admit to saying the wrong thing on Mudcat. You defend every sentence to the death. You join in the conversations and then when you are questioned, you become defensive and won't admit that you might have done the wrong thing. Then, when people get frustrated and lash out at you, you really enter a zone that you seem to be enjoying - martyr. Your civil rights are not violated here. You have built up a reputation, just like Martin Gibson and others did, and then you wonder why no one takes you seriously. I am sure you are a bright guy. I can't explain your behavior, but I can only point out how many of us are seeing it. Your posts have become like a small child acting up at the dinner table. You can't be ignored because you are all over conversation. Maybe spanking is the answer?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM You will not look into a mirror or accept personal responsibility and your are NOT ignoring the posts. I feel that if I responded with personal jusgements of all those who feel they have some right to post only personal judgements of my worth and who are encouraged to post only this - and our forum was littered up with such exchanges - you may have a point As I don't - and I am not now responding with any personal judgements of your worth - perhaps you could at least give me some credit for this? Perhaps when (some of) our moderators show the lead in accepting their responsibilty for this current mess (and when you also ask and expect them to) I may follow their example in accepting whatever part I may have. But all I am trying to do is post and to enable all posters to be treated equally - I am not preventing anyone else from posting or forcing them to read my posts - am I? |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:21 PM Duplicate post, Shambles... Well despite the anonymous link implies - I thought I posted but when I looked I could not see the post here. So I tried again Some anonymous person with an edit buttom and too much time on their hands had moved it to Closed threads and deleted posts but gave no indication of this action. I assume the same person then deleted my second attempt. All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion. I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM "The problem is that The fuss and the semi-official witch-hunt against me that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team actively encourages - makes it impossible for me to make any post where some posters feel that it is accepatable to make some personal judgement of my worth or some reference to my views on censorship. Most of the time I ignore this." ...or, perhaps you dug your own grave and your comments have been rendered useless. You will not look into a mirror or accept personal responsibility and your are NOT ignoring the posts. You use it as justification for your paranoia and it is just not the way everyone else sees things. It is only your view, and while you are certainly entitled to one, you should try looking at the world that everyone else on Mudcat is seeing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Sep 06 - 12:52 PM Which passages are more vital and should be given greater attention? The ones in ordinary type...or the ones in bold type...or the ones in italics? And why do we not see some passages in bright colours instead? |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 07 Sep 06 - 12:26 PM The problem is that posting complaints about what other people post (and not just limited to political subjects) is now encouraged and often appears now to be the only game in town. When anyone making such a complaint been told (as they should have been) to mind their own business and to concentrate on their own posting - they would only have ever been one forum. Folk don't need to be encouraged to gossip and pass judgement on each other's worth, for they will do this anyway. Once you have been seen to encourage it - it is difficult to change. But not, I suggest - impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 07 Sep 06 - 06:52 AM shambles-you are a mad person just trying to make trubble, i wish you go away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:52 AM You may have missed the following two editing comments as they were both inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. Well, whatever. I haven't noticed you flooding the Forum with messages at a one-a-minute rate for several months, and I haven't seen you going anonymous to post provocative messages or impersonating Nazis. I call that improvement. If that conduct happens again, the restrictions will be reimposed. If Shambles continues or increases his disruptive conduct, the restrictions on him will be increased. I hope that will be all I have to say on the matter. Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree. -Joe Offer- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe, you remember when Max said "Don't make me separate you two?" Shambles trolls you, you troll him, and then you take a swipe at Martin Gibson, gargoyle and Peace just for the hell of it. THAT's the 'game' I'm talking about. - Jeri, sick of this childish bullshit. Perhaps our 'moderators' could finally stop abusing their privileged positions (and edit buttons) and post their views like ordinary posters in conventional post that refresh the thread? And stop abusing our trust by playing games? And concentrate on enabling discussion rather than restricting it complaining about and imposing their judgment their fellow posters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread From: The Shambles Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:25 AM Is it safe over here? That "closed and deleted" thread is too full of people who take themselves entirely too seriously. I thought I was going to get eaten alive. Pehaps if it were your posts being 'silently delted' and your threads closed and were the victim of one of your own publicly mounted witch-hunts you may take it (and the resulting mess) more seriously than you obviously appear to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:15 AM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. That all happened months ago, Peace, maybe longer. I have no complaint about you and I have no reason to want you to leave. You have made a wonderful contribution to Mudcat in the last several months, and you've done extraordinary work finding song lyrics. -Joe Offer- As for slugs - perhaps those who are not interested in this thread's subject can make their personal judgements along with the others in the thread created for this purpose? Not posting to a thread I've never read this idiotic thread before, but through reference to it I knew it was where the Shambles nonsense was parked (whether he wrote it here or not, I know not). I just made a comment here to see if I could get his sorry ass off of the Irwin obit thread. The guy has the social grace of a banana slug. I don't spend much time reading threads here, only a small fraction of them. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea of who started what--I sometimes bet myself that Little Hawk or William Shatner or Amos or Giok or one of the others started a new one. So I thought that waving this flag at Shambles might make him move off of the obit thread he's trashed with his nonsense. For the record, the thread referred to was a BS one. Had that been an OBIT thread - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's rules - it would have been in the music section. Slowly the message must be coming across that all these noble sounding justifications are just posters being encouraged by the example currently set - to mind everyone elses's business and pass judgement on the worth of other posters? Which is a totally pointless exercise as the current result of all this demonstrates. Had I responded in kind to all of those personal judgements encouaged to be directed at me - the situation would be even worse. Perhaps a little credit can be given to me for this? That the object of our forum is to encouage discussion from as many posters as possible and not finding ways to judge each other's worth and prevent discussion. And not to encourage only like-minded posting but even arguments. Not name-calling but the enabling of moderately expressed differences of opinon are part of what made our forum different. To manage to get a forum where posters can agree to disagree - was no mean feet and about as good as it gets. But it cannot be imposed, only encouraged by example. That all the tools required to read and post what is to your taste and ignore what is not - are already provided. That no one is being forced to read or post anything and if any one does not like this - they are free to go elswhere. Our forum is like any other place that is open to to the public. If you do not like the present company - your only option is to go - not to ask for or expect others to be removed because they may not be to your taste. That the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has his current Public Enemy Number One - but no real crime to justify the resulting witch-hunt. That other posters feel encouraged (and safe) to join in these witch-hunts is hardly surprising but does not refect much credit on anyone. Can the special posting restrictions on my contributions be lifted and can all posters been seen to receive equal treatment by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 07 Sep 06 - 04:17 AM Escargot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:49 AM So, Shambles, what do you know about salting banana slugs? Can you make escargot from slugs? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:33 AM That's a hard question, Jeri. Would it have been better for SRS to respond in the Irwin obituary, encouraging the attempt to turn yet another thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy? Joe Offer For the record the post that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is getting his knickers twisted about was a response to the following and another post in that thread whach just called another poster a F******. That he sees this post as an attempt to turn that thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy - reveals more about his motives than it does about others. Subject: RE: Obit: Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin is dead (Sep06) From: catspaw49 - PM Date: 05 Sep 06 - 10:18 PM I cannot believe this thread is still running. I liked the man and believed he knew what it took to get a message across in this day and age. Stilly, Ron, Don, and many others tend to agree while a number of you don't. For those who don't I have seen some well thought out arguments and I suppose we could continue those discussions and probably agree to disagree....a well tested Mudcat scenario. Spaw Why are these posts in that thread (and many others) not also worrying the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? The problem is that The fuss and the semi-official witch-hunt against me that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team actively encourages - makes it impossible for me to make any post where some posters feel that it is accepatable to make some personal judgement of my worth or some reference to my views on censorship. Most of the time I ignore this. Whereever they may be expressed - these are my honest and moderately views and the role of any 'moderator' is to simply to enable these views - not to be seen to be selectivly passing and imposing their judgement on the worth of the poster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:20 AM Gees! I wanna get out of this squabble! I think I want to talk about banana slugs. Do they respond to salt the same way regular slugs do? We have lots of banana slugs on the California Coast, but I've only seen them when I've been in the company of strong women who would do horrible things to me if I attempted to salt a banana slug... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:21 AM A Banana Slug! Oh, my...those are strong words. Slugs don't get nearly as much press as they rightly deserve, either. How insensitive. Let's hear it for slugs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:17 AM I've never read this idiotic thread before, but through reference to it I knew it was where the Shambles nonsense was parked (whether he wrote it here or not, I know not). I just made a comment here to see if I could get his sorry ass off of the Irwin obit thread. The guy has the social grace of a banana slug. I don't spend much time reading threads here, only a small fraction of them. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea of who started what--I sometimes bet myself that Little Hawk or William Shatner or Amos or Giok or one of the others started a new one. So I thought that waving this flag at Shambles might make him move off of the obit thread he's trashed with his nonsense. Pardon me for stumbling into the booby-traped thread that everyone is apparently lurking around to see if someone trips it. Why doesn't someone just block Shambles and be done with it? You'll feel just as bad now as you would in three months when you actually do it, but the rest of us will get some relief a lot sooner. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Janie Date: 06 Sep 06 - 11:38 PM bobad, Excellent! Absolutely excellent. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: JennyO Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:37 PM By the way - 300 - FWIW |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: bobad Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:25 PM How to Have Better Conversations Thursday August 31st 2006, 12:03 am Filed under: Entertainment, Lifehacks, Knowledge Some time back I noticed two things: * I enjoy good conversations * I want to have more good conversations Nothing revolutionary, but because of those things, I started thinking more about conversation and how to improve it. Here's what I came up with. These are some reasons that people converse: * Conversation brings back memories from your own life. * It validates your experiences and opinions and makes you feel understood and accepted. * It gives you knowledge about a subject you're interested in. For example, what it's like to live in South Africa, how it feels to be a parent etc. * It sparks ideas in you for improving your life, business or hobbies. * It gets you something you want. * It gives you the satisfaction that comes from convincing (or trying to convince) someone to change their opinion on some subject. * The feeling of satisfaction you get from helping someone feel better. * The power you feel for making someone feel bad. This is obviously not a good motive for conversation, but it is a real one nonetheless. * Conversation is a way to sort out your thoughts and feelings. By talking to someone who cares enough to listen, you often get the time and perspective needed to better understand yourself. * It's an escape from stress and monotony. A way to laugh and lighten things up. While most of these are valid reasons to have conversation, they don't directly indicate what makes a good conversation. Ideally at the end of a conversation both people should leave looking forward to the next conversation. Before going on to how to have a good conversation, here are a few things that make conversation unenjoyable. * You didn't feel listened to. The other person either didn't stop talking long enough for you to speak, or when you were talking they were too busy thinking about the next thing they were going to say to hear what you were saying. * You didn't feel understood. Despite the fact that the other person was listening intently, you didn't feel like he or she actually understood what you were saying. * You felt manipulated. The other person tried to get you to do or say something you didn't want to do or say. * Gossip. While tempting, gossip generally does not lead to a good conversation. It destroys trust - how can you be sure the other person isn't gossiping about you? * Intellectual inequality. It's hard (but not impossible) to have a good conversation if one party perceives the other as less (or more) intelligent. While this can still lead to a valuable and interesting exchange, it often does not. * Lack of common views. This can go both ways. If both parties to the conversation respect each other's intelligence, differences in politics, religion, culture etc. can make for very interesting conversation and debates. On the other hand, if there is a lack of respect or extreme differences, conversation can become uncomfortable. Knowing what makes conversation good and bad, we can draw some conclusions about what to do in order to have a good conversation. Here's the good stuff. * Don't be selfish. It sounds harsh, but it's not as obvious or easy as it seems. Conversation is give and take. There are times when you should listen and times to talk. Doing too much of either is not conducive to good conversation. Listen carefully to the other person then state your opinions after you understand theirs. Even if you are giving advice or teaching someone something, the listening/talking ratio should generally be around 50/50. In the end, the time you feel like you're "giving up" to listen leads to better conversation. Everyone wins. * Prepare for good conversation. Read widely. If you know you'll have a chance for a conversation, learn about the interests of the person you'll be talking with. Keep up with the news. Broaden your knowledge. This not only will help you have interesting subjects to bring up, but it will help you understand the context of the conversation without interrupting it to ask for a definition. It's is called cultural literacy. * Don't manipulate, or in other words, be honest and up-front. For the most part, people will immediately recognize when they are being manipulated. You may get away with it, but the chances that the person will look forward to their next conversation with you are slim. * Reciprocate. If someone shares details about their life, it is natural for them to expect for you to do the same thing. It's not good if after a conversation someone feels that they've laid their life bare before you and know nothing about you. The opposite is true as well. * Avoid gossip and complaining. Both of these things are extremely easy to do and both lead to negative, empty feelings afterwards. * Don't be afraid to differ. Conversation is boring if everyone agrees. If you don't agree, say you don't and explain why. * Know and use your sense of humor in moderation. Figure out what's natural for you and go with it. I'll finish by saying that I'm by no means an expert conversationalist so take my advice with a grain of salt, but hopefully you'll find some of these tips useful. If you've got suggestions for having better conversations, by all means, comment! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: artbrooks Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:00 PM Actually, Peace, I don't think I was referring to you, but take it as you choose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:53 PM ``````````````````..............it's catching, it seems. One of the few things Shambles ever did that I totally approved of was, a few years ago, to make a series of posts, some in bright colors, touting **Max's Private Messages** (I tried to find it, but...) It made the point that some communications could best be done that way rather than letting our internal bickerings hang out there in public. When people are typing faster than they think, sometimes they phrase things in a way that lights fuses..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:43 PM Peace, can we have one clarification here? Do you or don't you dekiberateky post anonymously even if only to repsond to or address "Nazi bastards and racist bastards"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM On second thought, fuck this horseshit. You want me outta here, Joe, I am gone. Change your name to Tito and and have fun. I didn't merit your remarks. I do not need someone like you to tell me I have been a good little boy, one who has met Joe Offer's 'standards'. Judging by some of your recent posts, your standards ain't something I care to meet. Thank you for the remark, Jeri. Art, when you are on the receiving end I hope someone tells you to 'settle down'.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:26 PM YES SIR! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: artbrooks Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:20 PM Settle down, peoples |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 06 Sep 06 - 06:58 PM You go ahead and impose the restrictions. Here, maybe this will help: take your pomposity and shove it up where the sun don't shine. You got a problem with Shambles, address Shambles. Leave me the fuck out of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 06 Sep 06 - 06:35 PM " They have been lifted from "Peace" because he has shown marked improvement." Bullshit I have. The marked improvemment is just because the Nazi bastards and racist bastards have been taking some time off. I have made NO effort to 'improve' as you put it. You are welcome to yank my membership anytime you choose. I do not respond well to threats. By anyone, whether implied or explicit.
I haven't noticed you flooding the Forum with messages at a one-a-minute rate for several months, and I haven't seen you going anonymous to post provocative messages or impersonating Nazis. I call that improvement. If that conduct happens again, the restrictions will be reimposed. If Shambles continues or increases his disruptive conduct, the restrictions on him will be increased. I hope that will be all I have to say on the matter. Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree. -Joe Offer- Joe, you remember when Max said "Don't make me separate you two?" Shambles trolls you, you troll him, and then you take a swipe at Martin Gibson, gargoyle and Peace just for the hell of it. THAT's the 'game' I'm talking about. -Jeri, sick of this childish bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Jeri Date: 06 Sep 06 - 06:01 PM Joe, I don't know. For the record, I knew someone was going to post here, and for all I know, SRS never noticed that it had been only Shambles posting. People avoided talking to him here, but not anywhere else, because they like playing the game with him. YOU like playing the game with him, but if you want to spend this much time and attention on him, it's your call. Until Max boots his ass out, you'll constantly be cleaning up for him. ...over and out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Sep 06 - 05:43 PM That's a hard question, Jeri. Would it have been better for SRS to respond in the Irwin obituary, encouraging the attempt to turn yet another thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy? I would have moved the offending Shambles message into this thread, where if could be forgotten, but there have been responses there. It's a good example of the reason why restrictions were imposed upon him. While it might be appropriate for Shambles to make a passing comment about a Mudcat problem in a thread where there's evidence of that problem, there certainly was no sense in posting a copy of an entire message from the "Censorship on Mudcat" thread, as part of a message that had nothing at all to do with the death of Steve Irwin. If this breaking into the Steve Irwin thread were a one-time thing, it wouldn't be a problem - but it has been something that has continued over a number of years. Shambles asks for "equal treatment." That's nice, I suppose, but there hasn't been anybody else in the history of Mudcat who has posed the sort of problem that Shambles creates. As I've said above, there are four people in the history of Mudcat who have been placed on restriction because of problematic conduct - Shambles and two others are still on restriction, and the restrictions on Shambles are lighter than the restrictions have been on the other three. If he continues to attempt to attempt to evade these restrictions, he will receive the same 100 percent review that the others have had, and all of his complaint posts will be moved into a single thread. So, those are the restrictions, plain and simple - if Shambles wishes to complain about Mudcat and its editing policy, he may do so - but only in one thread per day. If he posts complaints in this thread today, he has to wait until tomorrow to post complaints in any other thread. Any offending messages will be moved or deleted. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Jeri Date: 06 Sep 06 - 03:24 PM Took 9 days, but somebody finally replied. This place is too funny sometimes. Too bad it's not supposed to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Sep 06 - 02:55 PM Too bad he can't keep his argumentative offerings over here and leave threads like the Irwin obituary thread alone. The man has no common sense when it comes to knowing when to stop talking and just leave well enough alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 06 Sep 06 - 05:53 AM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an exsisting post and did not refresh this thread. Reopened per request from Shambles. -Joe Offer- Thank you. Perhaps reasonable discussion can now resume on this thread and it can be explained here exactly how starting threads and posting to them can prevent resonable discussion on our forum - as stated by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? However the following thread has been closed, effectively preventing any reasonable discussion on that thread from continuing. Non political BS section please? Can our forum now assume that the special restrictions imposed on my contributions have no been lifted and that all posters will now receive equal treatment - as I have also requested?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 07:26 PM A non political BS section please? has been closed. |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 07:17 PM The other Rogered thread has gone for 8 days without anyone replying to him. I hope thats the beginning of a trend instead of a one-off. If only this were the case........Closed threads and deleted posts You can of course find all the usual comments from the usual suspects - those that would have normally littered that thread - in the following thread instead. Not posting on thread Finding ways to prevent discussion on a discussion forum does not somehow seem to be the correct use of any 'moderator's efforts. There once was a time on our forum when the idea was to encourage posting - not inhibit it. Perhaps there will be again. |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 06:58 PM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post in the above thread and did not refresh it. As stated above: I figure if he starts a complaint thread or posts five complaint messages to a single thread, that's the thread he's chosen to dominate - and all his other complaint posts get moved to that one thread. The idea is to allow you to express yourself, but to control the duplication and domination. Say what you want - once. As has been said before, the problem is not the content of your posts, but the endless repetition. This restriction on you applies only to your complaints about Mudcat editing - your messages on this subject are confined to one thread at a time. If you post complaints to one thread today, in general you may not post complaints to any other thread today - you have to wait until tomorrow to post complaints to a new thread. -Joe Offer- How exactly is a complaint about Mudcat editing to be defined and by whom? Is a complaint only a view posted that is not in agreement with the view held by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? It would appear that any view that is agreement with that of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is allowed and encouraged to be repeated many times in many threads and often combined with abusive personal attacks, judgements and name-calling. Can all these totally unworkable and unfair restrictions now be lifted and all posters treated equally by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? For it is clear from all this foolishness that any wish to dominate - is his alone. |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM As far as I have read on this site, Mr Shambles is quite entitled to start another thread now that his last one has been shut down due to 100% apathy. 100% apathy would have just left it alone. Someone has made a lot of effort to quickly close it to actively prevent anyone posting to it. I wonder why anyone would be so keen to do this to a thread that posters are supposed to be so apathetic to? Perhaps the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would be kind enough to re-open Closed threads and deleted posts and allow our forum to decide for themselves and show how apathetic they may or not be to that thread and this issue. It is quite clear how the selective and personally motivated censorship actions, silent deletions and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum. No matter what your opinion of me may be - it should be clear how undesirable this special treatment of any single poster should be. It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views (and mine alone) are preventing any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum. But that is the charge. Perhaps this can be explained? And if it cannot perhaps these unfair restrictions can be lifted and all posters been seen to be treated equally by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? If the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is not prepared to do this - perhaps our forum might have a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who would be willing to be seen to treat all posters equally?
-Joe Offer- |