 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 02:36 PM The only way to test 100% apathy would be to leave it open - or to re-open it. If indeed it had fallen off the bottom through lack of interest - there would have been no need for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to so quickly subject it to imposed closure and to attempt to make it sound as if it was undertaken for some noble purpose. Closed threads and deleted posts And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 05:23 AM Closed threads and deleted posts And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time. -Joe Offer- How is this one permitted Shambles Dominated thread to be defined by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 04 Sep 06 - 02:14 AM Are the mods anti-English? The above is yet another thread to add to the list of closed threads. This one was closed without an editing comment but just a conventional post. Perhaps out of a fear that someone else (who had also posted and threatened to close it) might do it first.....? Subject: RE: BS: Are the mods Anti-English From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 04 Sep 06 - 12:40 AM Keith and Divis, as my children say, "chill out!" ...I think that means you're supposed to be civil to each other. -Joe Offer- Yeah, I think this thread has run its course. thread closed.
-Joe Offer-
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 03 Sep 06 - 10:04 AM I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions This all sounds very noble and selfless - but can someone explain why my postings (only) should be HAVE to be restricted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for the reasons stated by him? It is clear to me 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. It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views are preventing any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum. Perhaps this can be explained? And if it cannot - perhaps these restrictions can be removed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 01 Sep 06 - 09:02 PM Are the mods anti-English The lastest encouragement for the current Chief of the Mudcat editing Team's witch-hunt, is the following - which is extracted from a post in the above thread. It doesn't do any good to discuss any of this with Shambles. He knows the names of all the moderators, and yet he continues to complain about their anonymity. In a three-day period a week or two ago, I transferred all the messages we usually delete into his "closed and deleted" thread, so he and the rest of the world could see a normal sample of what gets deleted. This demonstration didn't satisy Shambles, and he continues to assert that the Mudcat moderators are silently deleting something or another. I guess I have to expect that Shambles will continue to assert that horrible but nonspecific things are happening in secret. I can't think of how to devise a system that will provide absolute proof that these horrible nonspecific things are NOT being done by Anonymous Fellow Posters. I tried, but he didn't believe me, so it doesn't do any good to discuss anything with him. I guess it's good to just let him continue to believe in these Horrible Nonspecific Things and in his Anonymous Fellow Posters, because it gives meaning and purpose to his life. 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 For the record - I do not know - nor could I know the 'names of all the moderators'. I do not even know how many there are. And even if it was the case that I did know this - it would not be open knowledge to our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 31 Aug 06 - 12:36 PM Until our forum is made aware of all intances where 'silent deletion' has been judged to be needed to be imposed, in order to protect us - there will always be some question that current measures may be heavy-handed, personally motivated or generally unfair and open to abuse. The simple act of limiting all editing comments to where some form of editing action has actually been imposed and always inserting editing comments where any form of censorship has been imposed - will remove any suspicion of abuse. If such a simple measures toward a more open approach will achieve this and greatly benefit and inform our forum - the question that remain to be answered is why is such a change so strongly resisted and in the manner we see so well demonstrated in this thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 30 Aug 06 - 01:20 PM Not posting on a thread Could it be that penny has finally dropped? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 30 Aug 06 - 02:29 AM Is it just sensible to limit the making of inserted editing comments to only where some form of editing action has actually taken place? Does that in fact define what an inserted editing comment should always and only be? Does it not follow that all cases where any form of imposed deleting action is judged to be required - supposedly for the good of our forum - that that an editing comment is always supplied in the place of the censored material? When a change to this will for the first time enable our forum to see the true nature and current level of censorship and to be able to express an informed opinion on whether this action taken in their name - is required by them. Why is it now judged to be fair - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - to insert editing comments into existing posts, when no form of editing action has taken place (and often against the wishes of the poster) but somehow unfair for all cases of imposed editing action to have an editing comment of explanation? If there is nothing to hide - why does the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team prefer take a course of action that is not open and as result may lead posters to judge that there is something to hide? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Aug 06 - 08:04 AM No matter how offensive you may find someone else's views - surely it is a sign only of your weakness to make or support attempts to prevent or restrict those views from being expressed? In order only to prevent or restrict views that are not offensive but simply views some would simply prefer were not expressed and discussed on our forum - is it at all honourable to be seen to invent justification for this futile attempt to control what other posters choose to post? If a thread's subject is judged to be 'boring' or 'repetitive' or 'duplication' - is this really enough justification for censorship to be imposed? And to the exessive and obsessional extent that we see displayed here? Surely threads that were so judged by our forum would simply die young through lack of interest? All moderately expressed views on our forum can be responded to or ignored - why is it now judged that posters should be denied the opportunity to judge for themselves by the overuse and justification of imposed censorship and for such posting 'crimes'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 06 - 06:58 AM Actually, Giok, he has his need for attention filled when he baits folks into posting. If that were the case - I could be sure that a few posters would always bite, refreshing the thread only to make their personal judgements, instruct others not to and blame their compulsion to do this, all on on me. However, that is not the case and the purpose of a discussion forum remains to enable and encourage discussion. Not, as now appears to be the case on our forum - finding (fun) ways to judge, restrict and prevent it and to make these clumsy attempts at control and interferance sound honourable. Especially - when the most effective option open to all posters - is simply not to open, read or respond to a threads's subject that is not to their taste. A landed and floundering fish could try and shift the blame for their predicament on the irresistible quality and quantitity of the bait. But if they were only able to resist their weakness and ignore any form of bait - there would not be a predicament for them. Nor would there be so many (closed) threads on this subject, all with tens of hundreds of posts. Like the following. Shambles still here and why? Deleted posts & closed threads Minister gone –New One - who cares Title change discussion (moved from another thread) Is closing threads censorship? Music posts by Guests to be reviewed Proposal for members only posting of BS I may disagree with what you say- Your favourite Shamblism Why all the closed threads? Non posting of judgements week Do we need to curb the troublemakers Do you need to be censored Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO I may disagree with what you say- Your favourite Shamblism Why all the closed threads? Non posting of judgements week Do we need to curb the troublemakers Gallery of Mudcat Quotations More Noteworthy Mudcat Quotations Less Noteworthy Mudcat Quotations Closing threads In the UK Cut and pasters creepin' back in Politics only posters on the cat A (true) Jelly fish story Censorship on Mudcat Max what about Shambles requests In the UK Opening threads a debate This subject is as much a worthy subject for discussion as any other and one that obviously has no shortage of contributors. Perhaps those who post only to judge the subject or only to judge the worth of their fellow posters and feel they have some right to name-call and tell them to **** ***, can just ignore this subject and leave the threads free for those who do wish to discuss all aspects of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:58 AM The smug certainty of an anonymous guest is just as predictable as Shambles monotony! G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Big Mick Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:56 AM And now you, faceless one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:47 AM Big Mick said "Actually, Giok, he has his need for attention filled when he baits folks into posting." And Giok, Big Mick, and Spaw are the fools who continue to take the bait and perpetuate this thread. Giok does it frequently and is far worse than Shambles. Let Shambles post to himself over and over in this thread. Please do not help him keep it going. Jeri has it right "Giok, he refreshes it because he knows there's someone out there as compulsive as he is" I would add he knows there are fools on this board that will reply to his "fools bait" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Big Mick Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:55 AM Actually, Giok, he has his need for attention filled when he baits folks into posting. I would like to try an experiment. I would like to see if everyone would just ignore him completely for a month, say til 27 September. I would like to see how often he would fish for responses. Might be fun to watch him get desperate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:51 AM It's a love hate thing Jeri, Roger just loves being hated! G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Jeri Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:37 AM Giok, he refreshes it because he knows there's someone out there as compulsive as he is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:09 AM with a chip on both shoulders that's why! Nah, some would say that is well balanced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Aug 06 - 07:57 AM Shambles you are a total fraud, this thread had disappeared off the end, of the list, just look at the time on the thread before yours 24 hours and 24 minutes. YOU are the one who renews these threads, because YOU are the attention seeker, and YOU are the one on the ego trip. I repeat YOU are a fraud! I also repeat as Acting Head of the Shambles Stalkers Union, that Max suggested you leave. So why are you still here? Because you're an egomaniac with a chip on both shoulders that's why! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 27 Aug 06 - 07:32 AM We all know that YOU can prolong the life of a thread all by yourself.......and you do. Several times this thread has gone dormant for almost 24 hours, especially lately, and you refresh it with bullshit. The advice to posters is if you do not wish to prolong the life of a thread - then do not post to it. It is a simple system. But not one that appears to be much understood. Perhaps because of the example now being set by (some) of those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters - and eagely followed by some posters - that abusive personal attacks and name-calling are now acceptable posting behaviour. Posting to a thread - only to judge the worth of your fellow posters will only refresh the thread. Unless you are one of the few privileged with an edit button and one of the few who choose to abuse this privilege by both having their cake and eating it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 26 Aug 06 - 06:52 AM The point is that our forum may not know how it currently works. When they do, they are in a position to judge whether the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team should be permitted to this and to judge whether it is an abuse or not. OK, it is possible that people may not know, although that is a standard way of going about things. I did make a programming mistake with the original folkinfo code (it was modified Annexe code to work on the faster MySQL database plus a few other changes) that is relevant to what you are asking about. What I did was set the post date in the MySQL database to an "automatic time stamp" type. The effect of this was that an edit on a post updated the post's date/time. This did not affect the order of the posts in a thread (which there is sorted in the order they got added to the database rather than the alternative, date posted) but it did change what the most recent post was, causing a "refreh". What I can say from my experience with this error is that refreshing a thread as a result of an edit (which in many cases can be something as simple as fixing broken HTML - I think you will find it happens at MC more than you might realise BTW) is unhelpful and potentialy confusing. I would not have bothered correcting my mistake had it proved to achieve anything useful, I would instead have been pleased with my "accidental discovery". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Aug 06 - 05:33 AM Dig it Shambolina....We all know that YOU can prolong the life of a thread all by yourself.......and you do. Several times this thread has gone dormant for almost 24 hours, especially lately, and you refresh it with bullshit. Max asked you to leave. Get the fuck out. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 06 - 05:22 AM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. Oh, he knows HOW it works, Jon - he just doesn't think I should be permitted to do that. The point is that our forum may not know how it currently works. When they do, they are in a position to judge whether the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team should be permitted to this and to judge whether it is an abuse or not. There are times I feel a need to correct misinformation Shambles has presented - and I think it's best to put the correction right next to the misinformation. To prevent any abuse - I suggest that an editing comment should only be inserted when some form of imposed censorship action has actually taken place. And if any poster wishes to make any comment in a thread they know that a post will always refresh the thread. Besides, I certainly don't want to prolong the life of a Shamblesthread with my response. The advice to posters is if you do not wish to prolong the life of a thread - then do not post to it. Perhaps it is not expecting too much that this advice applies also to the posts of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? If Shambles wants his threads refreshed, he can jolly well do it himself. I'm not about to help him. If it is an answer to a question or correction of misinformation regarding Mudcat editing, I post it in editorial comments. If it's expression of opinion, I generally post it in a message. -Joe Offer- No comment required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Aug 06 - 09:26 PM If a comment on the threads subject is made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - why should this comment not refresh the thread, exactly like the comments of ordinary posters do? Because the main forum thread list here is ordered by the date of the last post to each thread. There is no process called "refresh" that brings a thread up to the top, a thread just goes there when it contains the most recent post.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 25 Aug 06 - 09:00 PM And each time, shortly after that action we would read a post by you starting You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread and did not refresh the thread.... ? Wolfgang The reason why I have requested that editing comments are not inserted into my posts (and not accepted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) is because it was a way open, to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, to express his personal likes and dislikes under the cover of it being an editing comment - and not to refresh the thread. And in fact it could be further judged that the abuse of this whole process was the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team being also able to make a value judgement on the worth of the thread - by being seen not to refresh it. Perhaps when all imposed censorship actions are recorded - there is a way that a (real) editing comment can be made to refresh the thread? Or perhaps when one is inserted into a post - another post stating that an editing comment has been inserted, can be made, one that will refresh the thread? What is so wrong with being open in this? If a comment on the threads subject is made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - why should this comment not refresh the thread, exactly like the comments of ordinary posters do? If the current attempt to abuse the practice of editing comments and to hide them by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team were to cease - I would have no need to bring our forum's attention to them in my posts. And posters would then be able to judge for themselves if the imposed censorship action undertaken in their name, was appropriate or being abused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:41 PM I thought so too Bill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:31 PM on 2nd thought, Giok, the original fits too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:30 PM no, no, Giok..I know the original *grin*...I was trying to be topical. (why, thank you, Ebbie...you were always a discerning sort!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Ebbie Date: 25 Aug 06 - 02:52 PM Good 'un, Bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Aug 06 - 02:48 PM Oh wad some powr the giftie gie us Tae see oorsels, as ithers see us. G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 25 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM "Oh wad the gift the guestie gie us, To show himself, as well as be us." anyone want to polish that last line, be my....uhh...guest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Aug 06 - 01:54 PM Oh how smug it is to be a guest! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 25 Aug 06 - 01:44 PM You people that continue to respond to Shambles are the real fools and worse than he. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:53 PM Sorry Giok, you can't do that. It is quite simply too much. What I mean is that with his head so far up his ass he has to take his hat off to shit, there is no room for anything else! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:49 PM I know what I'd like to insert, and where, and I'm absolutely sure he'd notice it; them pineapples hurt! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Wolfgang Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:21 PM What is simply being requested now is that if censorship is judged to be required in order to protect us - that an editing comment is always inserted to indicate where and when it is imposed and a very brief reason provided. And each time, shortly after that action we would read a post by you starting You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread and did not refresh the thread.... ? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: manitas_at_work Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:09 PM The computer says No! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 25 Aug 06 - 11:47 AM [PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00 Censorship will not happen. I do admit to deleting something here or there, but the ONLY two ways that will happen is if personal or delicate information is mistakenly posted and either I see it or the SUBJECT or POSTER requests that I remove it. The second way is if I feel like it (This is half a joke, the temptation as "The Man" to remove downright garbage is just too tempting sometimes, and I do reserve the ability for EXTREME situations, ex. Telling one to go ahead and do it in a suicide thread.) Max What is simply being requested now is that if censorship is judged to be required in order to protect us - that an editing comment is always inserted to indicate where and when it is imposed and a very brief reason provided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Aug 06 - 05:12 AM Of course posts are subject to imposed censorship, get used to it Roger. Pro bono publico is the term you will find fits the situation. G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 25 Aug 06 - 05:07 AM Please don't use me as the example for the things you are pursuing. If I get pissed about one of my posts getting the axe, I will inform Joe myself. No offense. It was not me who used your post as an example was it - so perhaps your request would be better addressed to those who did? No offence. Had the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team not 'silently deleted' your post and then 'moved' it to this thread - for reasons of his own - I and our forum would not have known that your post even existed. Had you (or any other poster) been pissed about such an action - you would not have gotten very far. First you would have had to try and prove that it (and not similar but remaining posts) was subject to imposed censorship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 24 Aug 06 - 04:29 AM Well, yes, Shambles, I did refer to you as a buffoon. Joe Offer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM Hmmmm. Name-calling? As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name. -------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM >snip< Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case. -Joe Offer- Not too sure what is so delusional here? Are there not special restrictions imposed on my postings announced and defended by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? Is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team seen to pay little regard to any assurances given to our forum in editing comments? Does the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team still insist on setting the example that posts containing only abusive personal attacks, name-calling and judgements of the worth of fellow posters is now acceptable on our forum? Should I then ignore this? I suggest that to do so - or to urge others to do so - would be the course that is truly delusional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John O'L Date: 23 Aug 06 - 10:02 PM He can't give it up. Presumably those of us who repeatedly respond or react can. So why don't we. Interesting that I should be sufficiently bored to check this thread just after someone has said exactly what I said so long ago. It will never happen. You all suffer from the same affliction. This thread is like a bar for inebriates only. Well I've had my shot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 23 Aug 06 - 08:10 PM Monothematic delusions When some one is delusional, they will interpret all imput as confirming the delusional belief. Methinks he ain't being stubborn and he really can't help himself. He can't give it up. Presumably those of us who repeatedly respond or react can. So why don't we. It would be a kindness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 23 Aug 06 - 07:49 PM Apparently talcum powder is good for creaking boards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Sorcha Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:20 PM Shut UP and LEAVE Shambles. Nobody cares anymore. Start your OWN site and maintain it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:16 PM For those that may have missed it - or those that wish to put their own words into the mouth of this site's owner - this is what was said. Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Max - PM Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately. Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore. 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. Joe: Do I need to separate you two?>snip< |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:15 PM I like the way Joe does his comments, even when they are directed at me. He writes in that neat rust-coloured red and uses excellent grammar and punctuation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM You may have missed the following comment Roger, it was inserted in a post by Max Spiegel, the guy who owns this site. 'Perhaps it's time you went Shambles' Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 06 - 05:05 PM Is there any chance of anyone attempting to answer the following? Would you judge that editing comments, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts? If censorship must take place - why do you consider that it does not then make sense to place all editing comments where they belong? [This where any form of imposed action has been judged to be required and to enable all poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and level of censorship on our forum.] Why would you consider one to be good idea and the other to be bad one? Because this double standard is what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is expecting (and appears to be receiving) your support in............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 22 Aug 06 - 06:10 AM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread (in very small writing) and did not refresh the thread. For the record: the message above was moved, not deleted and copy-pasted - but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. The message below was not deleted because "Roger" does not like to see posts deleted, and this post was about him. We really don't know what to do with posts when they're about "Roger" - he complains if we leave them, and he complains if we delete them. Attacks on "Roger" are deleted when it appears that they may disturb the peace of the entire forum. Is it actually an "attack" to tell an exceedingly verbose person to shut up?? I dunno. -Joe Offer- As the whole point of the introduction of the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, his known and anonymous volunteer 'moderators' is said to be to protect us from abusive personal attacks - the fact that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not seem to consider that a post addressed to an individual telling them to shut the f*** up and go away, to be an attack - suggests strongly that it is now time for a change? Especially as this post is only following the example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, that such posts are now acceptable posting behaviour on our forum? Few posters have the ability (or desire) to 'move' the posts of others and also cannot insert their personal opinions into the posts of others and attempt to disguise these as an 'editing comment'. As for 'we' not knowing what to do when posts are about any individual poster - the simple answer as in all this - is the same. What is requested is for equal treatment to be seen to be applied to all posters. When all is conducted fairly and openly - all parties are seen to be protected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Bewildered Dingo Date: 21 Aug 06 - 10:52 AM Can some of you that continue to reply to Mr. Shambles explain why you keep doing so? You are giving him just what he is seeking; validation that his repetition is warranted. If he is bad then you just might be worse, because you are perpetuating this nonsense and more at fault than he is. Some of you repeat the very same thing over and over and over...just as he does. You are like a pack of wild dogs that jump a wounded pack member and tear him apart even though he is down and defenseless. Please reassess what you are doing here. You are losing respect of some of your fellow members, if that matters to you. Mr. Shambles, in the words of a song: "sometimes you just can't win" You have lost this argument even from those of us that might agree with some of your gripes. Please call it a day on this subject then try to regain the respect of fellow members by posting the useful type of messages you are capable of in the music section. Dingo not hungry for blood |