 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
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: 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: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:41 PM I thought so too Bill |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:56 AM And now you, faceless one. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM As far as I have read on this site, Mr Shambles is quite entitled to start another thread now that his last one has been shut down due to 100% apathy. 100% apathy would have just left it alone. Someone has made a lot of effort to quickly close it to actively prevent anyone posting to it. I wonder why anyone would be so keen to do this to a thread that posters are supposed to be so apathetic to? Perhaps the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would be kind enough to re-open Closed threads and deleted posts and allow our forum to decide for themselves and show how apathetic they may or not be to that thread and this issue. It is quite clear how the selective and personally motivated censorship actions, silent deletions and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum. No matter what your opinion of me may be - it should be clear how undesirable this special treatment of any single poster should be. It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views (and mine alone) are preventing any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum. But that is the charge. Perhaps this can be explained? And if it cannot perhaps these unfair restrictions can be lifted and all posters been seen to be treated equally by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? If the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is not prepared to do this - perhaps our forum might have a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who would be willing to be seen to treat all posters equally?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 06:58 PM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post in the above thread and did not refresh it. As stated above: I figure if he starts a complaint thread or posts five complaint messages to a single thread, that's the thread he's chosen to dominate - and all his other complaint posts get moved to that one thread. The idea is to allow you to express yourself, but to control the duplication and domination. Say what you want - once. As has been said before, the problem is not the content of your posts, but the endless repetition. This restriction on you applies only to your complaints about Mudcat editing - your messages on this subject are confined to one thread at a time. If you post complaints to one thread today, in general you may not post complaints to any other thread today - you have to wait until tomorrow to post complaints to a new thread. -Joe Offer- How exactly is a complaint about Mudcat editing to be defined and by whom? Is a complaint only a view posted that is not in agreement with the view held by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? It would appear that any view that is agreement with that of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is allowed and encouraged to be repeated many times in many threads and often combined with abusive personal attacks, judgements and name-calling. Can all these totally unworkable and unfair restrictions now be lifted and all posters treated equally by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? For it is clear from all this foolishness that any wish to dominate - is his alone. |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 07:17 PM The other Rogered thread has gone for 8 days without anyone replying to him. I hope thats the beginning of a trend instead of a one-off. If only this were the case........Closed threads and deleted posts You can of course find all the usual comments from the usual suspects - those that would have normally littered that thread - in the following thread instead. Not posting on thread Finding ways to prevent discussion on a discussion forum does not somehow seem to be the correct use of any 'moderator's efforts. There once was a time on our forum when the idea was to encourage posting - not inhibit it. Perhaps there will be again. |
|
Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Sep 06 - 07:26 PM A non political BS section please? has been closed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 06 Sep 06 - 05:53 AM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an exsisting post and did not refresh this thread. Reopened per request from Shambles. -Joe Offer- Thank you. Perhaps reasonable discussion can now resume on this thread and it can be explained here exactly how starting threads and posting to them can prevent resonable discussion on our forum - as stated by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? However the following thread has been closed, effectively preventing any reasonable discussion on that thread from continuing. Non political BS section please? Can our forum now assume that the special restrictions imposed on my contributions have no been lifted and that all posters will now receive equal treatment - as I have also requested?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Sep 06 - 02:55 PM Too bad he can't keep his argumentative offerings over here and leave threads like the Irwin obituary thread alone. The man has no common sense when it comes to knowing when to stop talking and just leave well enough alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Jeri Date: 06 Sep 06 - 03:24 PM Took 9 days, but somebody finally replied. This place is too funny sometimes. Too bad it's not supposed to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Sep 06 - 05:43 PM That's a hard question, Jeri. Would it have been better for SRS to respond in the Irwin obituary, encouraging the attempt to turn yet another thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy? I would have moved the offending Shambles message into this thread, where if could be forgotten, but there have been responses there. It's a good example of the reason why restrictions were imposed upon him. While it might be appropriate for Shambles to make a passing comment about a Mudcat problem in a thread where there's evidence of that problem, there certainly was no sense in posting a copy of an entire message from the "Censorship on Mudcat" thread, as part of a message that had nothing at all to do with the death of Steve Irwin. If this breaking into the Steve Irwin thread were a one-time thing, it wouldn't be a problem - but it has been something that has continued over a number of years. Shambles asks for "equal treatment." That's nice, I suppose, but there hasn't been anybody else in the history of Mudcat who has posed the sort of problem that Shambles creates. As I've said above, there are four people in the history of Mudcat who have been placed on restriction because of problematic conduct - Shambles and two others are still on restriction, and the restrictions on Shambles are lighter than the restrictions have been on the other three. If he continues to attempt to attempt to evade these restrictions, he will receive the same 100 percent review that the others have had, and all of his complaint posts will be moved into a single thread. So, those are the restrictions, plain and simple - if Shambles wishes to complain about Mudcat and its editing policy, he may do so - but only in one thread per day. If he posts complaints in this thread today, he has to wait until tomorrow to post complaints in any other thread. Any offending messages will be moved or deleted. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Jeri Date: 06 Sep 06 - 06:01 PM Joe, I don't know. For the record, I knew someone was going to post here, and for all I know, SRS never noticed that it had been only Shambles posting. People avoided talking to him here, but not anywhere else, because they like playing the game with him. YOU like playing the game with him, but if you want to spend this much time and attention on him, it's your call. Until Max boots his ass out, you'll constantly be cleaning up for him. ...over and out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 06 Sep 06 - 06:35 PM " They have been lifted from "Peace" because he has shown marked improvement." Bullshit I have. The marked improvemment is just because the Nazi bastards and racist bastards have been taking some time off. I have made NO effort to 'improve' as you put it. You are welcome to yank my membership anytime you choose. I do not respond well to threats. By anyone, whether implied or explicit.
I haven't noticed you flooding the Forum with messages at a one-a-minute rate for several months, and I haven't seen you going anonymous to post provocative messages or impersonating Nazis. I call that improvement. If that conduct happens again, the restrictions will be reimposed. If Shambles continues or increases his disruptive conduct, the restrictions on him will be increased. I hope that will be all I have to say on the matter. Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree. -Joe Offer- Joe, you remember when Max said "Don't make me separate you two?" Shambles trolls you, you troll him, and then you take a swipe at Martin Gibson, gargoyle and Peace just for the hell of it. THAT's the 'game' I'm talking about. -Jeri, sick of this childish bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 06 Sep 06 - 06:58 PM You go ahead and impose the restrictions. Here, maybe this will help: take your pomposity and shove it up where the sun don't shine. You got a problem with Shambles, address Shambles. Leave me the fuck out of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: artbrooks Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:20 PM Settle down, peoples |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:26 PM YES SIR! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM On second thought, fuck this horseshit. You want me outta here, Joe, I am gone. Change your name to Tito and and have fun. I didn't merit your remarks. I do not need someone like you to tell me I have been a good little boy, one who has met Joe Offer's 'standards'. Judging by some of your recent posts, your standards ain't something I care to meet. Thank you for the remark, Jeri. Art, when you are on the receiving end I hope someone tells you to 'settle down'.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:43 PM Peace, can we have one clarification here? Do you or don't you dekiberateky post anonymously even if only to repsond to or address "Nazi bastards and racist bastards"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 06 Sep 06 - 09:53 PM ``````````````````..............it's catching, it seems. One of the few things Shambles ever did that I totally approved of was, a few years ago, to make a series of posts, some in bright colors, touting **Max's Private Messages** (I tried to find it, but...) It made the point that some communications could best be done that way rather than letting our internal bickerings hang out there in public. When people are typing faster than they think, sometimes they phrase things in a way that lights fuses..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: artbrooks Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:00 PM Actually, Peace, I don't think I was referring to you, but take it as you choose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: bobad Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:25 PM How to Have Better Conversations Thursday August 31st 2006, 12:03 am Filed under: Entertainment, Lifehacks, Knowledge Some time back I noticed two things: * I enjoy good conversations * I want to have more good conversations Nothing revolutionary, but because of those things, I started thinking more about conversation and how to improve it. Here's what I came up with. These are some reasons that people converse: * Conversation brings back memories from your own life. * It validates your experiences and opinions and makes you feel understood and accepted. * It gives you knowledge about a subject you're interested in. For example, what it's like to live in South Africa, how it feels to be a parent etc. * It sparks ideas in you for improving your life, business or hobbies. * It gets you something you want. * It gives you the satisfaction that comes from convincing (or trying to convince) someone to change their opinion on some subject. * The feeling of satisfaction you get from helping someone feel better. * The power you feel for making someone feel bad. This is obviously not a good motive for conversation, but it is a real one nonetheless. * Conversation is a way to sort out your thoughts and feelings. By talking to someone who cares enough to listen, you often get the time and perspective needed to better understand yourself. * It's an escape from stress and monotony. A way to laugh and lighten things up. While most of these are valid reasons to have conversation, they don't directly indicate what makes a good conversation. Ideally at the end of a conversation both people should leave looking forward to the next conversation. Before going on to how to have a good conversation, here are a few things that make conversation unenjoyable. * You didn't feel listened to. The other person either didn't stop talking long enough for you to speak, or when you were talking they were too busy thinking about the next thing they were going to say to hear what you were saying. * You didn't feel understood. Despite the fact that the other person was listening intently, you didn't feel like he or she actually understood what you were saying. * You felt manipulated. The other person tried to get you to do or say something you didn't want to do or say. * Gossip. While tempting, gossip generally does not lead to a good conversation. It destroys trust - how can you be sure the other person isn't gossiping about you? * Intellectual inequality. It's hard (but not impossible) to have a good conversation if one party perceives the other as less (or more) intelligent. While this can still lead to a valuable and interesting exchange, it often does not. * Lack of common views. This can go both ways. If both parties to the conversation respect each other's intelligence, differences in politics, religion, culture etc. can make for very interesting conversation and debates. On the other hand, if there is a lack of respect or extreme differences, conversation can become uncomfortable. Knowing what makes conversation good and bad, we can draw some conclusions about what to do in order to have a good conversation. Here's the good stuff. * Don't be selfish. It sounds harsh, but it's not as obvious or easy as it seems. Conversation is give and take. There are times when you should listen and times to talk. Doing too much of either is not conducive to good conversation. Listen carefully to the other person then state your opinions after you understand theirs. Even if you are giving advice or teaching someone something, the listening/talking ratio should generally be around 50/50. In the end, the time you feel like you're "giving up" to listen leads to better conversation. Everyone wins. * Prepare for good conversation. Read widely. If you know you'll have a chance for a conversation, learn about the interests of the person you'll be talking with. Keep up with the news. Broaden your knowledge. This not only will help you have interesting subjects to bring up, but it will help you understand the context of the conversation without interrupting it to ask for a definition. It's is called cultural literacy. * Don't manipulate, or in other words, be honest and up-front. For the most part, people will immediately recognize when they are being manipulated. You may get away with it, but the chances that the person will look forward to their next conversation with you are slim. * Reciprocate. If someone shares details about their life, it is natural for them to expect for you to do the same thing. It's not good if after a conversation someone feels that they've laid their life bare before you and know nothing about you. The opposite is true as well. * Avoid gossip and complaining. Both of these things are extremely easy to do and both lead to negative, empty feelings afterwards. * Don't be afraid to differ. Conversation is boring if everyone agrees. If you don't agree, say you don't and explain why. * Know and use your sense of humor in moderation. Figure out what's natural for you and go with it. I'll finish by saying that I'm by no means an expert conversationalist so take my advice with a grain of salt, but hopefully you'll find some of these tips useful. If you've got suggestions for having better conversations, by all means, comment! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: JennyO Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:37 PM By the way - 300 - FWIW |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Janie Date: 06 Sep 06 - 11:38 PM bobad, Excellent! Absolutely excellent. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:17 AM I've never read this idiotic thread before, but through reference to it I knew it was where the Shambles nonsense was parked (whether he wrote it here or not, I know not). I just made a comment here to see if I could get his sorry ass off of the Irwin obit thread. The guy has the social grace of a banana slug. I don't spend much time reading threads here, only a small fraction of them. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea of who started what--I sometimes bet myself that Little Hawk or William Shatner or Amos or Giok or one of the others started a new one. So I thought that waving this flag at Shambles might make him move off of the obit thread he's trashed with his nonsense. Pardon me for stumbling into the booby-traped thread that everyone is apparently lurking around to see if someone trips it. Why doesn't someone just block Shambles and be done with it? You'll feel just as bad now as you would in three months when you actually do it, but the rest of us will get some relief a lot sooner. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:21 AM A Banana Slug! Oh, my...those are strong words. Slugs don't get nearly as much press as they rightly deserve, either. How insensitive. Let's hear it for slugs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:20 AM Gees! I wanna get out of this squabble! I think I want to talk about banana slugs. Do they respond to salt the same way regular slugs do? We have lots of banana slugs on the California Coast, but I've only seen them when I've been in the company of strong women who would do horrible things to me if I attempted to salt a banana slug... -Joe Offer- |