BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 11:46 PM

Danm!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 04:51 AM

Yes, Shambles, you are the one to ask about the subject of deleted threads because it is you who complain about the silent deleting of your threads/postings.

   Since it doesn't happen to me,I'm interested in what one can post about that is liable to deletion. You have the answer.

GUEST talks of anything but the ATTACKS on Shambles and the JIBES at him. Shambles is the only poster I know of,apart from some guests, who often gets attacks and abuse, even in threads where he has posted nothing. That amounts to scapegoating in my book. Which is extraordinary given that , unlike MG who rarely did too much apart from abuse (slight overstatement), Shambles is essentially impersonal. Shambles actually does full-frontally what we all do, which is to work away at any perceived weaknesses in others. In his case,it is any weaknesses in the Mudcat editorial team's activities or thinking. Shambles does it philosophically. A trouble with reasoning is that it is idealistic, and the world isn't ideal, so reasoning's job is endless.


'Giok' , I know what you mean, tho' a glance down the list of postings shows quite a few who don't leave Shambles to it. As a philosophy graduate (which is how I get to be such a 'fool'), I'm often ready for reasoning. However, as a student of psychology, I think it might be more productive to approach this thread from that point of view. Tho' delicately,hopefully. People here certainly find the idea that Shambles is a gift as in the joke I gave, or that scapegoating might be going on, or that people are blaming and avoiding their resposibility and so on, not straightforward to respond to.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 06:29 AM

All shambles posts are attacks, accusations, etc. Shambles is the only poster who has been doing this for 6 years on a daily basis.

Yes, shambles does get jibes etc. but he reaps less than he sows.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 07:19 AM

In his case,it is any weaknesses in the Mudcat editorial team's activities or thinking. Shambles does it philosophically. A trouble with reasoning is that it is idealistic, and the world isn't ideal, so reasoning's job is endless.

Ivor - that is at least partly partly true but it is not me or what I post that is the problem. But it has been pointed out in this thread that if you are not part of the solution - you are part of the problem. But whatever posters may think of me - do you just sit quiet and allow your ideals and principles to be compromised by the activities and thinking of those operating hypocritical double standards and doing it in your name? Or do you speak up - while you still have the chance?

For it is not just a philosophical/idealistic concern in a world that isn't ideal. It is practical matter of reaping what is sowed on our forum. And from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's - for the record statement - what he has sowed and is now grown - it is not the crop he requires it to be. But our 'moderators' do not seem to see any connection between the example they publicly set and this example being followed. And as they show little sign of ever changing the example they set - it is only going to get worse and make them even less content with our forum.

It is in order to prevent our forum from seeing and from discussing these many weaknesses that I have special posting restrictions imposed on my posting. And others (whose post are far more offensive) and you, do not.

But as I have demonstrated - that does not mean that your posts are safe from 'silent deletion'.

But the point is that there are plainly many weaknesses in the Mudcat editorial team's activities and thinking. Not the least of them being the question of does a discussion forum, open for the public's even require any form editing team? Censors possibly - but what is to be edited when all the copy is freely invited by the site's owner?

But surely it is healthier to have posters demonstrating and discussing these weaknesses (in order that our forum does not continue to suffer from them) - than it is to have (often anonymous) members of that team judging the worth and publicly demonstrating the weaknesses of individual named posters?

Is it healthy for them to be seen to abuse their privileged postion by setting the example of double standards? By indulging (and permitting) posting activities - that they would judge and impose editing action on - should other poster follow this example?

Is it only the thinking and activities of named posters that is now open to public judgement (and subject to name-calling) by our 'moderators'? Are they then to be considered to be above judgement by the public whose interests they are supposed to be protecting?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 09:07 PM

Shambles actually does full-frontally what we all do, which is to work away at any perceived weaknesses in others.

This is more what is done in response to me simply trying to demonstrate the true picture of what is happening in practice on our forum. When our our 'moderators' are seen to assure you and compromise our forum in the pretence that it something else.

I can see little point in any poster joining in the pretence that our emperors (no matter how well-intentioned thay may be) are clothed in the finest silks - when their naked flesh is clearly exposed for all to see.

But I really care very little about working away on or judging any individual poster's personal weaknesses. All this judgement of each other's worth, has become just a distraction to real discussion. And it matters little anyway - as currently, all are invited to contribute to our forum. For anything that is not of interest can be easily ignored.

What does matter - is what ALL posters are trying to say and encouraging as many as possible to feel safe to post their views.

However, it is not possible to simply ignore so-called 'moderators' when they 'silently delete' posts and entire threads. This (and the petty reasons provided to justify most of it) can only serve to inhibit discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 03:10 AM

Guest's post are less than 1005 accurate, and using "etc" is way too vague. As for the first,it is simply false to say that all Shambles does is criticise. (But then, arousing prejudice is one of the standard methods for obscuring argument.)

   Shambles - I do see what you're saying, tho' I didn't say you worked away at the weaknesses of other posters.

   And I apologise for asking you for the subject of deleted posts after you'd already given me a couple of examples.

   Has anyone else had the experience of being deleted?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 03:31 AM

Sorry, it is not all shambles does. He selectively quotes, twists the words of others, ignores reality or any question that puts him on the spot, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 05:56 AM

Has anyone else had the experience of being deleted?

Would anyone else know if and when they had? For the first issue really is 'silent deletion' - and where all posts are deleted along with the thread. Perhaps the more sensible of posters experiencing 'silent deletion' - would as a result have long ago gone elsewhere?

It is a bit like asking if anyone has had the experience of dying from drowning. From the lack of response - would you conclude that no one has?

Before that question can have any meaningful answers - the first step is to enable posters to be aware of the true nature and current level of all kinds of imposed editing actions.

My view is that very little of it needs to be imposed as most posters would agree to any sensible alterations to their posts - if they were asked via PMs first.

As it is all undertaken in our name - my first concern is to try and ensure that it is all openly recorded in editing comments and that all editing comments are limited to where some form of imposed editing action has taken place.

That would appear to be a sensible first step that gives some protection to posters that any required critria is being and protects our 'moderators' from any accusation that they have abused the use of their edit-button.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:28 AM

"Perhaps the more sensible of posters experiencing 'silent deletion' - would as a result have long ago gone elsewhere?"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:38 AM

LOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 01:44 PM

Spam threads

The following (and needless threat) from the above thread - where my two posts were of course perfectly on topic.

And I will leave our forum to judge who is 'raving, ranting and raving' - me or our anonymous 'moderator'……………………………..

Subject: RE: BS: Spam threads
From: GUEST,Fat Clone - PM
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 12:38 PM

Shambles---Once again you show your naivete regarding the www and the workings of a website.

Also, this thread discusses spam and what some have done regarding spam. It is NOT a rendition of your personal problems with the way this site is run by Max Spiegel and his assorted minions including Joe Offer.

If you have a complaint, please PM Max. If you wish to rave and ramble about this site and your personal opinions, take it to the "Closed and Deleted" thread. It will not be appropriate here and will be deleted from this thread. Most sites do not allow any conversation of that kind but you do have the thread available here for your rantings. Be thankful.

If you continue in this vein on this thread it will be deleted. You know in advance of this so it is certainly not a silent deletion, although that is the kind done by at least 9 out of 10 other forums.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 02:47 PM

Hey Shambles,

After over 1,700 posts, most of which are you repeating yourself over and over again, don't you get the idea that all of your bellyaching is accomplishing absolutely NOTHING. Most people here are quite satisfied with the Mudcat. No one is going to change things to please just you when everyone else likes what is being done. If you find this site so miserable then go and post somewhere else. See if the grass is greener. My guess is that you have already tried that and, if you act the way that you do here, you have already been banished to Mudcatland where Max is more patient then others.

Perhaps it's time for you to start your own website and see if it is as easy as you think to run it in a way that it will please everyone.

But it really doesn't matter how you feel or what you plan to do.

Because:

"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

So long, farewell, bye bye, cheerio!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 03:17 PM

Name that clone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:40 AM

Ivor,

I only read this thread every couple of days.

My remark was directed only to Shambles and not to you. I had to post your words as well for Shambles' words alone did not make sense. But I am guilty of overlooking the interpretation that includes you.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:49 AM

perfectly on topic.

You only have one topic shambles. Everything has to come to the same point and you were changing that thread into why the methods the mods here use for dealing with spam is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:27 AM

Wolfgang,

Shambles words in this thread neve make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:08 AM

Name that clone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:33 PM

Name that clone.

Melvin.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:43 PM

Name that pain in the arse Guest!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:13 AM

Spam posts

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:13 PM

Wolfgang - thanks for your reply. That's that sorted.

   I asked if others have been deleted. Shambles said how would posters know. Well, since you, shambles, know when you've been cut, then presumably others do, too. So who else knows they've been edited out?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:32 AM

Well, since you, shambles, know when you've been cut, then presumably others do, too.

Well, I don't always know (but I do try and find out). But that is exactly why I am asking for all editing actions to be recorded by editing comments (and for all editing comments to be limited to where some form of editing action has taken place). So if a poster did not see their post and did not see an editing comment in its place - they would know there was another explanation - other than censorship.

So who else knows they've been edited out?

Nor does anyone else always know. The posters I listed who posted to the two threads which were silently deleted know and Wolfgang does - as he posted to the one that has vanished without trace - but he is not telling.

Ivor perhaps you could explain where you are going with this approach?

Are you suggesting that all the unfairness and double standards undertaken by our 'moderators', which I have demonstrated in this thread would be acceptable if it were limited to just one individual (even when it is clear that it is not so limited)?

As many of those who post in support of our 'moderators' (assuming they are not themselves 'moderators') to say 'we' like it - are really just saying that they like this unfairness not because they agree with unfairness but because they are not subjected to it. Is that the point you are making too?

Or do agree that ALL posters should be seen to be treated equally by our 'moderators'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:05 AM

Has anyone else had the experience of being deleted?

I've had posts deleted and seen posts of others deleted. There have been occasions where I have not understood an action and others where I have believed an action plain wrong. Over a posting history of around seven years though, such occasions have been rare. I also believe that when considering such actions, one does have to keep in mind that subjective processes are involved and we all differ to some degree or other in our judgements.

I try to take an overall view and it is my opinion that editing decisions are made fairly, are in line with Max's policies (which, although still on the very tolerant side when comparing different forums I think have tightened very slightly over the years, and yes, unlike shambles, I do believe that it is Max that sets Mudcat policy and that he has control over his volunteers and that ultimately they follow his guidelines) for Mudcat and that there are no conspiracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:54 PM

Kate Rusby and John Mcusker have split has now been closed.

This was a thread post with 300 or so posts - many of them just complaining about how such a worthless post receives so many posts and how they wanted it to die.

One poster contributed 18 times to complain and keep it alive with posts about The Archers.

Rather than just encouraging posters to ignore it which will allow it to fall off the bottom - the thread has now been closed by our 'moderators' to serve no good purpose but in order to keep up the pretence that we do not post idle gossip and judgements like that - when of course that is exactly what our forum is now encouraged to do by the example now set by our 'moderators'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:09 AM

Subject: RE: Kate Rusby and John McCusker have split
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:55 PM

I'll close it now and leave it up for a day or so. After that, I'll delete it. Here's why: it's just not fair for people without names (who post anonymously) to say things about the personal lives of people who DO have names.
But I'll leave it up for a day or so, allowing people to read it if they so desire. This thread is hurtful, and I see no reason to preserve it.
-Joe-

That old double standard again..........Without noticing any irony - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges that - it is just not fair for people without names (who post anonymously) to say things about the personal lives of people who DO have names.

But it does seems to be judged fair (by our 'moderators') - for them to not only post anonymously to say abusive things and publicly speculate about every aspect of individual posters, who DO have names - but to be able to threaten and anonymously impose their judgement on the posting of individual posters who DO have names.

But what does this proposed action really achieve - except make a few posters feel they are more important than others?

Closing such threads and then deleting ALL the posts to them - after the event - does not alter the fact that our forum has contributed such a thread (and worse) or have any effect on preventing such things in the future. By encouraging those few posters who feel they have some right to complain about what other's post, these actions just ensure that such things will continue.

All of these actions are just a sham and a pretence that our forum is something that it plainly is not.

If our 'moderators' do not like the result of posters following the example they set - then a different and more positive example must be set by them - rather than just repeating attempts like these - to re-write the history of 'fairyland'.

Do they really do care about not being hurtful or about things not only being fair but being seen to be fair - or do they just care about being seen to be more important?

There is no need for our 'moderators' to take any action to 'preserve' such threads and no one is asking for this.

All they have to do is nothing. Not to post to judge - but simply to mind their own business and encourage other posters to follow this example.

This will allow posters the freedom to judge whether they wish to post to such threads or not. All these imposed actions do is encourage posters that posting only to judge the worth of threads or named posters - is acceptable for them also.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:26 AM

Well GUEST !!!!!!! Methinks for a person who professes to post under his own name always, the style of the last post is uniquely that of Roger Gall.
Do corrrect me if I'm mistaken
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 11:02 AM

"Imposed actions". What on earth does that mean anyway? Are you implying that Joe is acting under duress? That someone has his arm behind his back? In which case you should stop castigating him and mount a rescue mission forthwith.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 12:36 PM

I've long suspected that the "Guest" is just a sock puppet, refreshing the thread so Shambles doesn't look like a monologuist. We seem to have confirmation.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:13 PM

"Imposed actions". What on earth does that mean anyway?

Imposed action means when a moderator (often an anonymous one) judges the worth of the contributions of a fellow poster's contribution and closes a thread, deletes or in any way alters or adds to poster's words - as a first and only response - without first asking the originators permission to do so.   

Is that clear enough?

Sadly this imposition is undertaken too often when less drastic and less counter-productive methods would be more suitable and proportionate.

And far too often in response to some complaint from one poster about the posting of others. When these complaints are responded to - this only encourages the idea that posters have some right over what others choose to post and some right to post only such judgements about the worth of their fellow posters.

If the quality of posting on our forum was really a concern to our 'moderators' - the more sensible response would be for our 'moderators' to tell such complainers to mind their own business and concentrate on the only posts that anyone has any control over - their own.

They could start with setting this example with their own posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:10 PM

Shambles,

have you posted as GUEST 02 Dec 06 - 08:09 AM?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:29 PM

Wolfgang - if I answer your demand - will you answer the polite question I asked you about the thread we both posted to but has vanished without trace?

Yes - As if it matters - my cookie had expired.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:47 PM

"If the quality of posting on our forum was really a concern to our 'moderators' - the more sensible response would be for our 'moderators' to tell such complainers to mind their own business"

Our moderators should also tell chronic complainers to mind their own business regarding the policies that the owner of this website sets. Max sets the rules here. If you don't like the rules then play some other game somewhere else.

But that doesn't really matter because:


"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."

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,anti Archers league
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 05:26 PM

mods probably closed that thread down cuz they're shit scared of showbiz celebrity litigation lawyers !?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:43 PM

"And far too often in response to some complaint from one poster about the posting of others. When these complaints are responded to - this only encourages the idea that posters have some right over what others choose to post and some right to post only such judgements about the worth of their fellow posters.

"If the quality of posting on our forum was really a concern to our 'moderators' - the more sensible response would be for our 'moderators' to tell such complainers to mind their own business and concentrate on the only posts that anyone has any control over - their own."


That seems to me to be a strange concept - that somebody should not be allowed to do something about something they find, say, offensive. Don't you think people should have the right to complain about something which offends them? If the offending thing has been said, obviously nothing can be done to make it unsaid. But someone in authority can take the sayer 'to task' for saying it. With things posted on a forum, while there is nothing which can be done to tutn back time - make it so that the offending words had never been there, it is (I think) reasonable for the offended person to assume that, having been offended by something, the people in charge of the forum would do what they could to prevent the offending post from remaining on the internet for ever.

It is not for anyone other than the offended person to decide whether somehing is offensive or not. If omeone says they find somethign offensive, they do. They have a right to complain (to somebody) about being offended by somebody and expect appropriate action to be taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 01:47 PM

Don't you understand Blowzabella that Mr. Shambles wants to make all of the rules around here and customize them to fit his needs. Moderators shouldn't moderate, no one should make any complaints because it is none of their business, posters should be asked before there posts are deleted or edited no matter how many times they post the same thing or no matter how tasteless it should be. Of course, Mr. Shambles has the right to complain over and over again about anything and everything even though he tells others to "Mind their own business". It sure appears that a certain person here has double standards.

Perhaps it is time for Shambles to start his own website where he can make his own rules and tell people that if THEY don't like it then it is just too bad...they can go somewhere else. Or, perhaps, it is time to force Shambles to leave here once and for all. His complaints are both repititious and highly annoying. In any other website he would have been edited out a lot more then he is here and then forced to leave for being critical of the work done by a bunch of volunteers who are following the guidlines of the owner's website.

Of course, this could all be solved once and for all if Mr. Shambles would just send a PM to Max. Then he would know what will and won't be done. But then he would have nothing to complain about.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 06:35 PM

It is not for anyone other than the offended person to decide whether somehing is offensive or not. If omeone says they find somethign offensive, they do. They have a right to complain (to somebody) about being offended by somebody and expect appropriate action to be taken.

This is an interesting concept. For we are constantly being told (by our 'moderators' and their few but noisy supporters) that no poster has any rights at all. Or do you think that applies only to me - and that you do have some rights on our forum?

Why are they not posting to correct your interesting concept that posters who have no right to post or no right to expect their words to remain as posted - do have some right to post to complain about what others post and expect some action to be taken as result?

You have certainly highlighted one of the main problems of the sort of complaining about the worth of posters - that is now encouraged on our forum.

If you expect the right to post what you wish and accept that other posters also have this right - should you really expect never to be offended on our forum? Is the risk of you being offended but a small price (and one well worth paying) for your right to have your say?

Would you consider that others should have the right to complain about your posts and expect action to be imposed on your posts as a result? Or would you feel you had the right to complain about that also?

Perhaps all posters should all be allowed and encouraged to concentrate on simply posting our views - to respond to the views of others or to ignore them - and to leave all the personal judgements to a later date and to an even higher authority than the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM

The Kate Rusby and John Mcusker split thread   has now been closed and the orignal one (with all those valuable posts about The Archers) has now been deleted.

So Ivor - any poster who contributed any of the 300 or so posts to that thread - have had their posts deleted.

So it is not just (offensive) posters like me, Jon and Wolfgang whose posts are at risk of imposed editing actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 06:53 PM

The Kate Rusby and John Mcusker thread and all of its posts - have now been deleted also.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 07:20 PM

So what - are any of us worse off for it???

You, we, all of us, put things on here in the full knowledge that all posts are subject to editing or deletion if the site owner, or his deputies, consider that is the course of action most appropriate.

If you disagree with that basic principle TAKE IT UP WITH MAX.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:25 PM

The basic priciple of the management reserving the right - is a perfectly sound one. The use of the word 'reserves' suggests that it is something held in reserve and the use of the word 'management' suggest that it will be a matter for the 'management' to decide.

None of this suggest the use of 'silent deletion' by anonymous fellow posters as a first and only option to deal with really very minor issues.

And our forum is given many assurances. Like about meeting the required criteria for deletion of posts - like the assurance given in this thread to Ivor.

Can these assurances be seen to be worth anything - when entire threads of 300+ posts are seen to be deleted for the very slightest of excuses?

Very few (if any) of the posts deleted in those two threads would have met the stated required criteria for deletion - would they. If any did - then why cannot these posts only be subject to imposed editing action?

Why must entire threads - like this - be deleted. Especially when any possible offence has already been caused?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:41 PM

More wit and wisdom - double standards and hypocrisy from Snitchers Corner.

Posts that should go

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:45 PM

Shambles, if you don't like it here then get lost. The rules are set by Max and not you. It's his site and not ours. So stop bellyaching.

Do you also challenge the rules where you work? If your boss asks you to do something that you feel is wrong to you refuse to do it? Not morally wrong, just against what you feel is what you want to do?

Your ideas are totally uncomprehensible. A web site exists for the betterment of everyone and like everything else has rules and regulations. If you don't agree with the rules and don't want to follow them then you can go somewhere else and do what you want. Or better yet, you should be banned from this site. Where I come from, you are what is called a habitual troublemaker.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:49 PM

Why must entire threads - like this - be deleted. Especially when any possible offence has already been caused?

I am reminded of the truck driver when after narrowly missing a pedestrian - who looked back and shouted out of a his window - a belated cry of - LOOK OUT!

The pedestrian still sitting dazed in the road shouted back - WHY - ARE YOU COMING BACK?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 09:21 PM

Shambles, your logic is indeed lacking. If someone calls you a moron one time and you are offended then should they keep calling you a moron? If someone sees an offensive post once, should it constantly be thrown in their face again?

If one person finds a post offensive then it is possible that others will too. It is up to the moderators to judge a post as to what will be offensive to a wide range of people. One must rely on the fact that they can judge whether something is innocent and will only be considered ofensive by a single person or whether it is somethiang that is generally offensive to all.

If I post the N word in a thread should it stay there and offend all that look at it? I think not.

You may not approve of the moderators but in general they do a wonderful job. It is up to them to decide what is appropriate for a site that a wide variety of people use.

Again, if you don't like it then go somewhere else.

Please!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 02:00 AM

"Is that clear enough?"

Actually, no it isn't. You have just described an ordinary action, in no way is it imposed as you have described it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 04:52 AM

All I can see in the thread you linked to in what you snidely call 'Snitchers Corner' is anonymous post by people who I guess are you, CH, Peace, and A N Other, plus named contributions from J.O.
Can't see why you linked to it though, as in common with most of your specious links and postulations, it proves nothing.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 05:32 AM

The only double standards and hypocrisy I see on the Help Forum thread that Shambles linked to are from all the anonymous ones - including Shambles himself. I'd say you've guessed most of them right, Giok. I posted on it twice too, using my name, and got called a "fucking turkey" for my trouble by one of the anonymous ones (I suspect I know who). Still I don't care. Funny isn't it, how they are so brave and can say that stuff from under a cloak of anonymity but they can't come out and put their names to their insults.

I'll repeat what I said on that thread - Shambles, I don't know why you bother to post anonymously. Your style is a dead giveaway. You've only been doing that lately, and not just once, so "my cookie had expired" is so much nonsense. As for the Help Forum, nobody has a cookie on that, and although people occasionally forget to put their names on their posts there, I don't think I've EVER seen your name on posts there that are obviously yours.

I wonder if the anonymous GUEST will be brave enough to come and insult me on this forum now. More and more I'm in favour of making the BS section Members Only, with Secret Santa stuff in the music section.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 06:49 AM

The "N" word...

My God, Lenny Bruce would be rolling his grave if he saw what's going on nowadays.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 08:41 AM

The Kate Rusby/John McC thread was closed and deleted because its fundamental subject matter was deemed BY THE MANAGEMENT to be contrary to the ethos of the site. As one of the contributors whose content has been deleted, I'm good with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 09:25 AM

If everyone goes on saying the phrase "the N word" for long enough and not daring to actually voice or be confronted with the real word itself even when reading, for example, a historically signficant book like "Huckleberry Finn", presently people won't know what was meant by "the N word" any longer or what word WAS the "N" word...and then...someone might say it accidentally!!!!. This is a danger that I should think probably keeps a lot of people awake at night for hours. ;-) I mean, just imagine what could happen!