 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:59 PM I did suggest that an excuse to close this thread and prevent debate on this issue would be found. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team placing in this thread of all these deleted posts - will of course provide that excuse. Please delete spam The above thread indicate the sort of silly games that this are now being encouraged to be played in the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. Perhaps the only posts encouraged there should be those requesting action to be taken on their own posts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 13 Aug 06 - 01:06 PM Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam From: Joe Offer Date: 12-Aug-06 - 01:48 PM It helps if you give us both the name and the number of the thread, and preferable the specific message number. All I find at this address is another boring Shambles thread. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Aug 06 - 02:00 PM Well, whatever. Anyhow, my reason for moving the deleted posts here is to show people what it is that we delete. No, I suppose I can't prove that there are others I haven't revealed. You have to take my word for it. But that's it - all our deleted posts from the days since Shambles started this thread. I won't bother moving any more here - you get the point. It doesn't help to argue with Shambles, because he just says what I have to say is untrue. I've done my best to be honest, but Shambles calls me a liar. So, I guess I have nothing more to say. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 13 Aug 06 - 03:01 PM I won't bother moving any more here - you get the point. Joe Offer I still am not sure what the point was (we do already know what spam is). It was not what I reqested you to do was it? Perhaps you will now do this? And perhaps you will now remove from this thread all the posts you placed here? I can't help but wonder what excitement would have been caused, judgements made and witch-hunts started - had anyone else but the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team attempted such a thing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 13 Aug 06 - 03:12 PM Too afraid to answer Shambles? If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 14 Aug 06 - 01:31 AM The concern is NOT the bathwater being thrown out. The concern is what may be getting thrown-out with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Aug 06 - 01:52 AM Shambles, for years you have been making empty and untruthful allegations about Mudcat editors basing message deletion on favoritism and personal likes and dislikes. I thought it was time to give some solid evidence, so people can see the typical messages we delete - and so they can understand why there should be no need for explanation or notation of these deletions. I present these messages as evidence. Surely, my evidence has as much a place in this thread as unsubstantiated allegations from Shambles. There is no baby being thrown out with the bathwater, although Shambles has done his best to mislead people into suspecting that there may be something devious about our editing practices. These are the messages that would usually be deleted in a typical three-day period at Mudcat. I think I found all of them. Shambles, if you wish to allege that there were other messages deleted during this period, prove it. I think you've slandered the Mudcat volunteers long enough. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 14 Aug 06 - 12:38 PM Too afraid to answer Shambles? If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Raedwulf Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:14 PM "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team" Roger, stop being so goddamned childish. His name is Joe. Every knows it. What stupid point do you think you're making by referring to him third person neutral? You've been talking to him for years. What is this? Some new tactic (*gasp* after all these years, an original twist on the same lame old bad joke...) to de-humanise him & garner some sympathy for yourself? I promise you it's not working. Grow up, man! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:17 PM "What stupid point do you think you're making by referring to him third person neutral?" It's passive-aggressive baiting.... From a small minded little troll who hasn't got the grapes to come out and flame the person he's angry with, so hides behind a facade of being polite.... When he's proved over and over and over that he's anything BUT polite.... He'll now come here and claim to have been infairly attacked.... When, in fact, he's made his bed, and is now being told to lay in it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:41 PM It sure doesn't take long for innocent threads to be deleted here. I started one asking the innocent question of whether Shambles has been evicted from the Mudcat. There was nothing nasty and I even praised him. Within 10 minutes at the most it was gone. Maybe Shambles has a point here. That certainly was overzealous editing. I wonder how long it will take for this to be gone forever. I never thought that I would say it but Shambles...YOU ARE RIGHT. Continue fighting my man.
Here's the introductory message:
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM I hear a strange quietness across the Mudcat land. Can it be that Mr. Shambles has rambled on to bigger and better places? I hope that he finds a cause worthy of his persistence. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:45 PM I applaud Mudcat for taking that post down. I read that post. People complain about Shambles and your post was not "innocent", it was an attempt to stir up crap. Shame on you! I hope that someone will remove more message. I don't mind if this one is removed either! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:50 PM Ron, It really wasn't an attempt to stir up trouble. It is not like Shambles to be gone for two days. I was simply curious as to whether he was blocked from posting. Certainly nothing bad was said in the posting. Fred |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:53 PM Okay, that is your story. You did note a change in the tone of this place and I read it differently then what you are claiming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:02 PM There is a change in the tone of the place much like there was when Martin Gibson left. It was just noted but not commented on. No nastiness or gloating or snide comments. Strictly factual. I did not feel that there was any cause in that for deletion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:11 PM I think Mudcat did the right thing, and they do not need to justify their actions either for that matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:16 PM I am not asking for them to justify their actions. I am simply disagreeing with them and you on the necessity of it being done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:20 PM Noted. I agree with their decision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM This is about to get very confusing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 06 - 06:16 PM Yeah let's play Guess which Guest is the Guest that said "This is about to get very confusing." Let the game begin... Question 1: Guest#1 who is Guest #2 Question 2: Guest#2 who is Guest #3 Question 3: Who was the Guest that once said "I couldn't care less what you think" ~{hint does the year 2001 ring any bells?] There you have it folks, 'CONFUSION' the family Game where any Guest is welcome to play. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jeffp Date: 16 Aug 06 - 06:23 PM WHOGABRA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:32 PM Who gives a big rat's ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jeffp Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:15 PM Well played, Bruce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:18 PM I had to use the internet for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jeffp Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:22 PM It's something I got from my father. A wise man, my father. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:24 PM Well, he's coined a thingy (acronym(sp?). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jeffp Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:39 PM Peace (and anybody else, for that matter) please check out this thread. Jeff |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 17 Aug 06 - 11:58 AM Shambles, for years you have been making empty and untruthful allegations about Mudcat editors basing message deletion on favoritism and personal likes and dislikes. No......... I have povided evidence - mostly in the words used by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, (some of) his known and anonymous volunteers to justifiy their imposed actions. Perhaps our forum will judge who is is that has been making personally motivated allegations and assumptions - as yet more of these are being made by you in this thread to gain more support for your witch-hunt and for the special posting restrictions taht apply only to me....... I thought it was time to give some solid evidence, so people can see the typical messages we delete - and so they can understand why there should be no need for explanation or notation of these deletions. Your decision to litter this thread with spam has served no other purpose than to demonstrate that you will simply choose to as you wish and that the whole fabric of our forum will not crumble if posts such as these, were simply left alone. I present these messages as evidence. Surely, my evidence has as much a place in this thread as unsubstantiated allegations from Shambles. There is no baby being thrown out with the bathwater, although Shambles has done his best to mislead people into suspecting that there may be something devious about our editing practices. Our forum does not need any evidence provided to demonstrate what spam is. And as Jon has already pointed out - there is no evidence provided here to demonstrate your claim to our forum - that nothing is being thrown-out with this bathwater. These are the messages that would usually be deleted in a typical three-day period at Mudcat. I think I found all of them. Shambles, if you wish to allege that there were other messages deleted during this period, prove it. I think you've slandered the Mudcat volunteers long enough. Like any other ordinary poster- I am in no position to express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of all the forms of imposed censorship on our forum. I do know what it is for my posts and that is why the request is being made that all such impostions are recorded with the editing comments that litter my posts and for all posters to be seen to be treated equally. Then all posters will be seen to be protected from any personally motivated and selective imposition (and from posts containing 'empty and untruthful allegations' like this one from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team). And if their services are still required - all known and anonymous 'Mudcat volunteers' will be protected from any allegations that any of their imposed actions were personally biased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM Shambles says: I am in no position to express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of all the forms of imposed censorship on our forum. that has been evident for some time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:11 PM Too afraid to answer Shambles? If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:39 PM You may have missed the following editing comment (in bold) as in was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh this thread. The imposed censorship action referred to occured after the period selected by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to show all of his 'silent deletions' in this thread. You may judge this thread to have been 'bathwater' and have deserved such censorship to be imposed, in your name and in order to avoid 'trouble'. Then again you may not? But without the poster bringing this censorship to the attention of this thread - you would have never been able to make this judgement for yourself - as it has already been made for you. That's right - we generally don't allow threads that are directed at individual Mudcatters, so I deleted that thread as soon as I saw it. That one was sure to become a personal attack by the fourth message. Here's the introductory message: Subject: BS: Has Shambles Been Evicted? From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM I hear a strange quietness across the Mudcat land. Can it be that Mr. Shambles has rambled on to bigger and better places? I hope that he finds a cause worthy of his persistence. Seems to me that a thread like that is sure to cause trouble. -Joe Offer- Strange then that a thread titled Shambles still here and why? was not so judged and only suffered an imposed title change - before finally being subject to imposed closure by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. But then he will do as he likes and justfy it later as being 'Mudcat' policy - even when it may be the very opposite of what he judged to be 'Mudcat policy' last week. The following examples of acceptable posting - from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are not judged (by him) to be 'trouble' or to be personally motivated. Dunno, Roger. As I see it, I sometimes disagree with people, but I'm not combative. It's the combative stuff that causes trouble at Mudcat. and I do believe that needs to be controlled. Joe Offer Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. Joe Offer ----- But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit Joe Offer. ------ Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying. Joe Offer ------ Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted. Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass. -Joe Offer- If such posting behaviour is judged as needing to be controlled (by the one posting it) - perhaps as start could be made by a change to a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing team who would be prepared to set a better example? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:41 PM Too afraid to answer Shambles? If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:06 PM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into a spam post that was itself inserted and which now forms the first post in this thread. Sample of a typical deleted message, moved here for demonstration purposes. I moved all of the messages from August 10-12 into this thread, so people can see just what we've been deleting. -Joe Offer- Perhaps for a little bit of balance - a few examples of the sort of posts that 'we' have not been deleting? And the sort of personal judgements posts which some may consider that are actually being encouraged............ Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why? From: Sorcha - PM Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM ROGER! Shut the FUCK up and GO AWAY! Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: katlaughing - PM Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:15 PM PLEASE CLOSE THIS USELESS THREAD! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM You're still setting a bad example... It still isn't working.... So why continue? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:49 PM I've done my best to be honest, but Shambles calls me a liar. So, I guess I have nothing more to say. -Joe Offer- Well, despite this assurance - you did go on to say more. But perhaps this was only to be expected. In my book - someone judged to be a liar includes one who does see any reason why they should honour their public assurances. The facts have demonstrated that you feel you can ignore any assurance given to our forum in an editing comment here by simply changing your mind. You must accept the consequences of that action and not make the usual attempt to minimise, justify and defend these actions and make this attempt under the usual double standard of behaviour. An attempt which discredits all of the honest efforts made here and makes The Mudcat Cafe look hypocritical. Despite your groundless accusations over my reactions to your conduct, you have been shown to be a man whose word cannot be trusted. And yet you still expect posters to trust your word when you clearly do not trust anyone else's. And you consider it unfair if you are judged when you feel qualified to impose your judgement on others and do not consider this to be at all unfair. You feel that you can constantly give posters cause for complaint but then have some right to insult them if they should do this. You do not seem to have noticed that in fact I have long-ago ceased to officially complain. As it is clear there is little point in such a course. I attempt to try and post my views to inform our forum of the true nature and current level of censorship - to enable this to be discussed. And I will continue to make this attempt - despite the efforts of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to prevent and restrict this. And yes I do expect those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on me to set a better example than the example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and will work towards ensuring that a better example will be shown in future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:57 PM ?????? The Shambles says:"You do not seem to have noticed that in fact I have long-ago ceased to officially complain" When did this occur? seems to be a few complaints in your current post, which makes that statement inaccurate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:07 PM What stupid point do you think you're making by referring to him third person neutral. A simple one that is often overlooked. That the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is only a role that is currently occupied by the fellow poster called Joe Offer. That when for example Joe Offer states in post that he does not like Birthday threads - (or any of the number of things that are not to his personal taste) - that this is only a personal view and just as valid as any other poster's personal view. And no more so. But when in his role as current chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - he give an assurance to our forum in an editing comment - that he does not honour - the excuse provided for this - is not just a personal view but an official one which brings into question his suitability to continue in this role. And perhaps question the need for such a role to continue at all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:19 PM " In my book" Your book doesn't matter squirt on Mudcat...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Ebbie Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:22 PM One difference between you and me, the Sham, is that I don't consider that I need a role model. The fact that you do may account for the aggrievement you feel. I consider myself responsible for myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM 200 wasted posts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:27 PM Do you still claim that you do not wish to tell max how to run his site? Because you do so frequently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:35 PM 200 The devil made me do it.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:36 PM I would shoot that devil if I were you Joe, her can't count. Too many birthday drinks? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM Joe Offer Vs Birth Day Threads The fact that you do may account for the aggrievement you feel. Not sure that I do need a role model but if I did - it would not the example of acceptable posting behaviour currently set for our forum to follow - of do as I say - not as I do. I think that the setting, justifying and defending of such an example may now account for quite a lot of aggrievement on our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:02 PM If only self righteousness and smugness were a terminal condition. At least then we could see an end to Roger's wittering. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:17 PM Non sequitur alert: what does my birthday have to do with Mudcat editing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:18 PM Just because it's irrelevant doesn't mean Roger won't drag it into his whinge. G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:24 PM Actually Giok, if you could die of assholism, Shambotinkles would have croaked long ago. If sheer idiocy caused a rash, he'd be scratching himself silly all over his body instead of just his nuts as he normally does. And if hypocrisy and lies were sugar and pies he'd weigh in at about a ton. Three months ago Max asked you to leave here Shammypammy. Plain English....No bull, very direct. You talk of other's honor Shambotubbly? You have none, nada, zilch, morally bankrupt. Up yours and have a nice day........I just did!!!!!!!) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:27 PM well - Joe - you have publicly stated your dis-like of multitudinous b-day threads. I think that was as "Joe Offer, fellow poster"; though I seem to recall that it was also stated as that other role you fill. But b-day threads continue. Whereas, god forbid, should conditions change and anything you have said as "Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team' no longer be valid - or an exception be made... well - obviously....err I dunno. What does it have to do with mudcat editing? Is this a trick question? Is it the difference between "if you have anything to say you may start new threads" and "if you have anything new to say you may start new threads". Is it about the difference between crossing the road and cross a grape? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Aug 06 - 04:59 PM I think that it means that supposedly, I am not allowed to have likes and dislikes. If I like something or dislike something, then I suppose the logic is that I will act according to my likes and dislikes. I think the worst thing I ever did to a birthday thread is grumble about it. Is that so horrible? Who makes these rules, anyhow? -Joe- |