BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:42 AM

Shambles, I REPEAT my accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:01 AM

Also been taking a break for a bit, but this was a good one.

Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise?

For over two years, you've said that he's not telling the truth when he gives his reasons for restricting/renaming your posts, so we have "liar" as the primary one. I have to say that if I'd been called a liar by someone every day for two years, I'd be a bit unhappy too.

For the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be seen to repeatedly do this - repeatedly attempt to minimise, justfy and excuse it - is just total hypocrisy

OK, we have "hypocrite" too.

insecure and unsure of the ability of their authority in achieving its stated aims but determined to hang on to this authority

So we have "power-mad" too.

Shambles, you seem to believe that just because you haven't actually used any swear-words, you haven't insulted anyone. Believe me, that isn't so.

You also seem to feel that you've not insulted anyone because you've not said outright "you're a hypocrite" but instead said "this is hypocrisy", or you've not said outright "you're a liar" but instead said "why should I accept that to be the truth?". Frankly that just makes you gutless, playing semantics just so that you can say "I never actually said that".

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:21 AM

Roger - I would think that both Jon and Grab have too much of a life to want to sift through all your postings for the past years to provide the excat quotes. Maybe you should get a life too.

I would agree totally with Jon's premise - it is clear from your posts (and I'm not going to look for specific ones either) that you have the knives out for Joe, in particular, and the rest of the team. I also agree with Grab's last paragraph in his post 10 August 8.01. You constantly insult the intelligence of the members of the Mudcat forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:53 AM

Graham before you scratch around trying to find something to judge my posting conduct as wanting (without providing and evidence and by putting your words in my mouth) - perhaps you may have more creditibilty if you will first pass the same judgement and comment on the many examples of abusive personal judgements and name-calling publicly posted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and evidenced here? And the example set that this is acceptable posting behaviour.

For if you do not - how could you then judge the posting conduct of any ordinary poster as wanting - if they were to just follow this example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

You may accept there is a difference between expressing your views as as honestly as you can in a post and posting only abusive personal judgements and name-calling or responding in kind.

I have always resisted this and have always tried to limit my posts to my views only and not make any personal judgements of the poster. A quick look back through this thread should be enough for you to verify that. I feel there is a difference between stating the reasons why you do not agree with another poster and then going on to use offensive language, calling them names and suggesting that they go away and do rude things with their hat.

For example a post saying: I think this -

Rather than a post saying: I think this and therefore you are a ''''''' [insert the offensive name of your choice].

Most of the abusive personal attacks and judgements made on me by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team and more importantly his open incitement for others to follow suit (that I have evidenced here) - were as a result of him feeling that I was treating him unfairly.

In fact I was simply judging his actions in the same way that that he considered was fair - when he was not only judging the posting actions of others but was also imposing his judgement upon their posts and threads. He felt that I had no right to even judge or question his actions. And of course I had no ability to impose my judgement on his contributions.

My view is that their should be one set of rules for those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on others and one for the rest of us. The rules and expectation of conduct of those who would wish to judge us - should be far higher. And they should remove themselves from this position - even when there is the slightest suspicion that they have may fallen from showing the very highest example of conduct.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:00 AM

at least 7 inconsistancies in the last post by shambles and the proof existing in threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:13 AM

For over two years, you've said that he's not telling the truth when he gives his reasons for restricting/renaming your posts, so we have "liar" as the primary one. I have to say that if I'd been called a liar by someone every day for two years, I'd be a bit unhappy too.

What then is the word to use for someone who states:

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

And then closes not only that one - but every other thread on the subject.........

I am more than a bit unhappy that my posting conduct is now being judged wanting and singled-out for special restrictions by those whose example of posting conduct - I have demonstrated - to be far more questionable than mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:18 AM

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:27 AM

I realy don't want to get involved any more but something has been bugging me all the time here.

Roger, will you please answer a straight question with a straight answer. Why do you insist on calling Joe 'the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team'? Isn't Joe easier? Or even Mr Offer if you want to be formal? Joe always refers to you as Shambles or Roger. What is it with not mentioning his name? Is it an actor type thing? Like MacBeth. Or is there some sort of legal implication that no-one else is aware of?

I am realy interested to know. I'm sure other people are as well!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:44 AM

For some time I have requested that editing comments are not inserted into my posts without my permission. My concern is that often these so-called editing-comments are nothing of the sort. They are (mis) used - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - as a way of placing his personal views on the thread's subject but without refreshing the thread. A facility that is not open to ordinary posters.

My request has not been accepted and this practice continues - (some of) our 'moderators' do seem to have plenty of time to insert editing comments and would appear to think this quite fun......

Another request has been made for all case where any form of imposed censorship action is judged to have been required - for this to always be indicated and for some (very brief) explanation of the reasons to be given in an editing comment.

This would ensure that posters would for the first time be able to see and express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of censorship on our forum.

This request has also not been accepted.   

Some of the reasons provided were that this would needlessly bring attention to the offending post or thread. And rather surprisingly, considering my difficulty in preventing editing comment from being inserted in my posts - that it would place an extra burden on our 'moderators'.

I would argue that all it would need to do is bring attention to when censorship was thought necessary and that (some of) our 'moderators' do not currently appear to find placing editing camments currently too much of a burden.

---

I use editing comments to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message. I do my best to refrain from expressing personal opinion in such comments - my opinions go in separate messages. You will note that I use a line, an indent, and a specific font to separate my comments from the message. I also sign my name to such comments.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:54 AM

You are outputting a lot today shambles. But none of it will get away from your persistant abuse of the volunteers.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:08 AM

"Why do you insist on calling Joe 'the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team'? Isn't Joe easier?"

Because Shambles is a passive aggressive little twat that needs to be slapped the hell off this message board... The problem is, he fits in almost perfectly with the people who own/run the place.....

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:18 AM

I am realy interested to know. I'm sure other people are as well!

OK

I see the main problem and cause of much of the conflict on our forum - as one of trying to combine two roles - that of 'moderator' and fellow poster. I am not sure this is now the best approach.....

I use the name of the role for a number of reasons. To try and show when my argument is with the actions of the role itslf - rather than any personal argument with the current individual fellow poster who happens to be in that role.

however, it is well known that the current holder of that role has some very strong views on how they want our forum to look and function. And for this reason, I am not sure that it is possible for posters to always be able to tell which hat is being worn. Perhaps a lot of support is for the individual currently in the role and it is thought disloyal to be seen to disagree with this individual - rather than taking a more objective view?   

Having someone so committed as the current holder in this role, does have advantages - it also has disadvantages. I must confess that I think the disadvantages are beginning to out-number the advantages.

So I propose myself for the role. *smiles*

When I first started posting here there was no Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who so readily imposed his judgement on my posts, threatened me and called me names - just my fellow posters - one of whom was Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:22 AM

You are outputting a lot today shambles. But none of it will get away from your persistant abuse of the volunteers

Jon - put-up or shut-up.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:25 AM

if you will first pass the same judgement and comment on the many examples of abusive personal judgements and name-calling publicly posted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and evidenced here?

If you're as keen on looking back through history as you seem to be, you may find the posts in which I said I thought Joe was out of line in insulting you. However, I also said that I could understand why he did it, in light of months/years of provocation. You yourself have just said that you consider him to be a liar, an opinion which I doubt is recent, since you have been implying for months/years that he's a liar.

You certainly do, now, have evidence of people disliking you personally, Joe for one. Back in 2001 though, before the addition of Joe's "three little words" set you off, did you have any evidence of this? Your assertion is that all moderation actions on your posts have been driven by moderators' personal dislike of you (or at least that this could be the case). This would require that they (and Joe especially) disliked you *before* they did any of it. If you can find evidence of this from 2001 or earlier, I'm all ears. If not, your assertion lacks a basis in available evidence, when the alternative (that you were mass-mailing the forum and posting off-topic in the way which Joe described, in order to promote your viewpoint) has no shortage of evidence.

And they should remove themselves from this position - even when there is the slightest suspicion that they have may fallen from showing the very highest example of conduct.

This is your personal opinion, and that's fine. However you are in no position to force them to do so - Max is the only person who can, and you haven't convinced him (rather the opposite, since he has publicly requested you to shut up or leave). Peer pressure *may* be able to persuade them, but you'd need a significant number of active members who share your opinion in order to swing any influence. If you've not found these people in four years of trying, then I submit that it's never going to happen. In that case, you should be considering the possibility that your viewpoint is in the minority. You should also consider the possibility that in insulting people until they "fall" and react to the insults, you aren't in a strong position.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM

" So I propose myself for the role."

Sweet merciful crap on a cake, no.......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM

Jon - put-up or shut-up.

Interesting Shambles, after only a few hours and a handful of posts you are telling me to shut up.

Quite amzing for someone who complains so bitterly about the occasional angry comment made to him following years of daily abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:34 AM

"When I first started posting here there was no Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who so readily imposed his judgement on my posts, threatened me and called me names - just my fellow posters - one of whom was Joe Offer."

I'm curious- Chief Carper, in your estimation, which happened first? Did Joe one day decide that he needed someone to harass? And you were a convenient target? Or were you perhaps loading the Cat as you are now? I remember the days when you admired Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:35 AM

did I glean from that message above, Roger, that you suggest that you would be an OBJECTIVE moderator?

different, I'm sure!.....objective? Well, scholars differ.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:42 AM

I remember the days when you admired Joe Offer.

So do I. That was in those days when he set a posting example that I was more than happy to follow.

As to what happened - he seemed to think that what was once best achievable by setting a good example was better achieved by threats.

I think he is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:44 AM

Perhaps setting a good example was no longer working.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:45 AM

Well setting a bad one certainly isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:49 AM

So you're judging it to be bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:49 AM

No... it's not... so why are you doing it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:50 AM

And Roger - you don't see your part in any of this? Joe just suddenly turned on you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:06 PM

And Roger - you don't see your part in any of this? Joe just suddenly turned on you?

See my post here10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM

The PEL threads were too much for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made so many wrong assunption, personalised the whole thing and got his knickers so competly twisted that they have never unravelled since.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:11 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:32 PM

See my post here10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM

A prime example of spamming is described here. That alone would get a user suspended or even banned at most sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:51 PM

The PEL threads were too much for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team

The PEL threads were far too much for me too! The PEL topic was of importance to anyone who cares about live music in the UK but your handling of it was obsessive.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:59 PM

Roger...you simply define ABUSE as what THEY do and 'reasonable' as what YOU do. And you have this distorted concept that it's not 'ABUSE' if don't call someone names!

It is abuse of the privilege (not 'right') of posting here to do what you have done for 6-7 years.

As I have noted before, you provoke response from others, then switch the issue to the responses....then to the editing that attempts to contain the complaints about the responses.

This leads to the infinite regress which we find ourselves in. If I were in charge,...........guess......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:00 PM

A prime example of spamming is described here. That alone would get a user suspended or even banned at most sites.

The Mudcat Cafe - despite many efforts to reduce it to the level of most sites is NOT yet like 'most sites' and assuming of course that the one side of the story stated is the truth and you take no account of any other factors and you are a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head.......And if you are - what are you doing here?

There are those 'most sites' where you would be far happier..

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:03 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:05 PM

I see you do not deny the spamming.

Rather you resort to childish name-calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:27 PM

The Mudcat Cafe - despite many efforts to reduce it to the level of most sites is NOT yet like 'most sites'

Too right. As Jeff says, most sites you'd have been banned years ago. The very fact of your continued posting here is a pretty good clue as to how much slack they'll cut people. Which begs the question - if they're *so* power-mad and *so* determined to keep authority, why do they let you stay? This is the major inconsistency in your story. If they were really the way you've painted them, you'd be out on your ear long since.

How many times should a poster be punished over and over for the same old alledged 'crime'?

"Punished"? Hardly. But prevented from doing it until they are willing to stop doing it? Sure. If Joe removed his restrictions on you today, would you go back to posting like that? My opinion is that you probably would. The opinion of Joe, Jeff and Max was that it was harmful to the forum, and they therefore took action to stop it. Since you don't believe it was harmful to the forum, chances are pretty good that you'd go straight out and do it again.

you are a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head

Way to go with non-judgemental! ;-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:31 PM

Oh, Graham..now you will have him explaining that HE never 'called' anyone that,....that it was merely a hypothetical.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:49 PM

So, Roger, I'm puzzled.

I'm puzzled about your linking to my post in the London Bombs thread - was there something wrong with that? Are you saying you agree with my post in that thread?

I'm puzzled about your constant statements about my calling you names - I recall "buffoon," once.

I'm puzzled about your accusations of "abuse" - as far as I can see, all I've done is to express exasperation and disagreement with your constant repetition of the same thing. Is that it - are exasperation and disagreement "abuse"?

I'm puzzled about you accusations that I have "threatened" you. When has that happened? Is it a "threat" if I say that if you post multiples, I'm going to delete or move some of those multiples - or is that just warning you of ther consequences of your action?

I'm puzzled about your charges of censorship. You constantly stress the importance of your topics - freedom of expression at Mudcat and the Public Entertainment Licensing in the UK - and imply that we are attempting to suppress information on these important topics. Nobody here disagrees with your position on these worthy causes. But no matter how worthy the cause, is it fair to flood us with megamultiples of your opinions, so that the opinions of others are lost in the deluge of your own verbiage?

Oh, and you aren't being "punished" for anything. We don't do that - we just use very moderate measures to control problems before they get out of hand. If there is no evidence that something is getting out of control, we make no attempt to control it, which is why you'll notice that we don't delete every over-length copy-paste or nasty comment. The problem, in your case, is your compulsion to flood the Forum with the same words, over and over again - there is strong evidence of that compulsion in this very thread. Thus far in this one thread, you have copy-pasted my "This thread is closed" comment four times, and my "this thread is to be kept open" comment a number of times.

But just answer the first question - I can't figure that one out at all.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:41 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest that even the one such name-calling post like this would be enough to disqualify you from being able to impose judgement upon any other poster for the same offence without being lablelled a hypocrite.....Don't you? And there are more examples.

I'm puzzled about your constant statements about my calling you names - I recall "buffoon," once.

What you can and cannot recall seems to be a little selective.

It is just as well that it is all recorded or I suspect that rather than just trying to minimise and excuse it - you wold be tempted to deny it altogether.

I am glad that you can recall this at least. But you still make no apology for it - can you recall me ever calling you a buffoon?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:50 PM

Sorry Roger - Still doesn't make sense. Joe Offer is both a poster and the current chief etc etc. There is no need at all to differentiate between the two. We all know by now that your issue is with both the poster and the policy. Why continue the silly naming convention?

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying stop the campaign. Even if I disagree it is your right to stand up for what you believe. Your campaign on the new licencing act was very passionate and sucessful in bringing it to everyones attention. It stirred me to action anyway. But when you insist on using politcal terms to refer to a person everyone knows people will just see you as a polititian. Like Kim Howells. Remember him?

Carry on your thread by all means but save yourself a lot of typing and just put Joe.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:55 PM

Some might reasonably think a pesron who makes such a big issue over being called a buffon yet considers himself quite free to call someone a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head... is practicing the sort of double standard one would expect from a hypocritical baboon.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 03:09 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM

Warning: disapearing messages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some might reasonably think a pesron who makes such a big issue over being called a buffon yet considers himself quite free to call someone a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head... is practicing the sort of double standard one would expect from a hypocritical baboon.
Jon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm puzzled about your accusations of "abuse" - as far as I can see, all I've done is to express exasperation and disagreement with your constant repetition of the same thing. Is that it - are exasperation and disagreement "abuse"?
Joe Offer

Yes you are perfect correct Jon. I apologise unreservedly to jeffp and our forum, if it looked as I was calling him a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head.

However - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing who has set the example that the posting of such things is acceptable and who attempts to minimise this and provides many excuses and justifications - rather than ever simply provide an apology and not doing it.....

Perhaps Jon - this will prompt him to apologise to me for calling me a bufoon? Perhaps you could ask him to? As you are fully aware - my concern is NOT with the nature of particular name that I am being called - but the big issue is with who is doing the name-calling and setting the example that this is acceptable posting behaviour.


You may have missed the following editing commemt as it was inserted into an exsisting post and did not refresh the thread. This was inserted into my post - despite my request that this does not happen without my permission.

I use editing comments to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message. I do my best to refrain from expressing personal opinion in such comments - my opinions go in separate messages. You will note that I use a line, an indent, and a specific font to separate my comments from the message. I also sign my name to such comments.
-Joe Offer-

If so - any assurance given in an inserted editing comment should perhaps always be honoured?

Perhaps if what appears in a post or any assurance contained in an editing comment is untrue - an apology can be provided.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

It remains a fact that the perfectly clear assurance given above - was not honoured. As that thread was closed - as has every other thread on the subject (exept this one, so far).

liar: A person who has lied or lies repeatedly.

Many poster here could be accused of being liars - however, most of those do not claim any authority. But many (if they did claim some authority) would not simply post but ignore a situation when they were shown to be liars - and then still feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on this or similar indiscretions of their fellow posters and still expect their integrity to be unquestioned.


It is now my turn to be puzzled. Why is it, when the suggestion is made that editing comments be provided to indicate where any form of imposed censorship has been judged to be neccesary - this is thought to provide a burden and not accepted? But when I request that editing comments not be inseted into my posts - this does not appear to present a burden at all?

I use editing comments to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message.

If so - it should logically follow that where a particular message has been deleted - an editing comment to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message? So why is this double standard supported?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 10:41 AM

Moving swiftly on A Musical Interlude

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 11:02 AM

We all know by now that your issue is with both the poster and the policy. Why continue the silly naming convention?

When the assumption is made that 'we all know by now' is made - you then get the accusations - from the usual pedantic but noisy few, who seem to think their purpose in life is to judge and mind everyone else's business.

This is the case here - as it was with the PELs. But with a floating 'readership' everyone does not know - it is the same with TV news programmes. If you watch the morning news from 6 to 9 you will find it irritating to have to watch the same items again and again. But you do accept the reasons for this.

It is the same here. If by informing a new poster, this irritates the regulars - one hope that they will accept the reasons. And as threads on this subject are so readily closed - an attempt to include all the information has to be made.

If the other threads were not closed and we were allowed to have threads on different aspects of the same subject - accusations of duplication would be less of an issue. For it is only repetition to those who have been informed (and who can switch-off). The same thing will be 'news' to those who have not.

[What is folk music?]

Some new posters assume that what they of our forum now - is the way it has always been. Some assume that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is the site's owner. Some still assume that there is no censorship or anonymous censors.

Often it appears that this is the impression that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would quite like new posters to our forum to assume.......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 11:21 AM

OK, Roger - I accept that. Disagree but at least accept your reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I must say that I think you are fighting a lost cause but if that is your wish who am I to stop you.

Good luck.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 11:29 AM

However - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing who has set the example that the posting of such things is acceptable and who attempts to minimise this and provides many excuses and justifications - rather than ever simply provide an apology and not doing it.....

Perhaps Jon - this will prompt him to apologise to me for calling me a bufoon? Perhaps you could ask him to? As you are fully aware - my concern is NOT with the nature of particular name that I am being called - but the big issue is with who is doing the name-calling and setting the example that this is acceptable posting behaviour.

OK, shambles, I have looked into this business of calling people a baboon and at one other eample you quoted at me. I find you have recently supplied:

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Max
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM

GUEST,Jon is right, there are many differing opinions here at the Mudcat. For instance, Jon's opinion is that his site is a "rival" to Mudcat. My opinion is that Jon is flattering himself with such status, and that he's an asshole.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM

Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

From that, it seems clear to me that Joe's calling you a buffon comes sometime after Max calling me an asshole.

As a result, I will consider asking Joe but only if you ask Max to apologise, not to me, but to Joe Offer and all of his volunteers for setting them such a poor example for them to follow. I mean if the boss does that, how can you expect Joe to behave any better?

















(On the other hand we could just accept that people do get angry once in a while, etc. and it's really not worth getting over excited about)

Subject: RE: Review: National Folk Festival, Canberra, 2006
From: GUEST,Cartoon Porn
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 01:34 PM

Hi! Cartoon Porn presents the new Cartoon Porn Free Site. Visit our free cartoon porn site - http://cartoon-porn-blog.blogspot.com , to gain GB's of hot Cartoon Porn for free. [url="http://cartoon-porn-blog.blogspot.com"]Cartoon Porn[/url]. Your [url]http://cartoon-porn-blog.blogspot.com[/url] Site.

Have a great Day! Visit my site - Xanax and Porn

Good Luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 02:04 PM

(On the other hand we could just accept that people do get angry once in a while, etc. and it's really not worth getting over excited about)

Jon- I would agree that there are many things on our forum that are not worth getting excited about.

Sadly others do not appear to share this view now.

They would appear to get exited enough about them - to post only personal judgements of the poster.

Some attempt to justify their anonymous imposition of 'silent deletion', closing of threads and the the recent introduction of special posting restrictions that apply to only one individual poster.

Perhaps the reasons given for all this would indicate are not really things to get excited about and the reaction is not really proportionate?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 02:42 PM

Well shambles, I'm afraid I consider your actions to be the least proportionate but perhaps if you can agree that some things are not really worth getting this excited about, perhaps you can drop things at least for now and give things another chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 03:24 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 06:02 PM

Well shambles, I'm afraid I consider your actions to be the least proportionate but perhaps if you can agree that some things are not really worth getting this excited about, perhaps you can drop things at least for now and give things another chance?

Jon - will how you judge my actions or how I may judge yours be of any real interest to anyone or change anything.

No judgement by one poster of another's worth will change anything. And simply judging any reaction - without judging its cause - is just as futile. But having one's posts censored remains a big deal and something to get excited about. Even if (some of) those currently imposing their judgement seem to have little understanding of this. Tending to only expect to be treated fairly by those they appear to show little fairness to......

Perhaps it is those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on the rest of us who perhaps should be considering whether the sort of things that have been getting them excited enough to impose the rather drastic 'silent deletion' on - are really proportionate.

Should posters be able to expect any assurance given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - especially one given in an editing comment - to be honoured? It is is not honoured - should they expect an explanation why and some form of apology?

Rather than for it to be simply ignored?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 06:13 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?