 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 19 Jan 07 - 03:57 PM YOU are wrong because YOU are attempting to speak for ME with you interpretations. YOU are trying to shut me out and not respond to my comments. YOU are not allowing the discussion to continue by manipulating what I, and others, are saying. I never judged you to be the only one responsible and I think you realize that, assuming you've read my past notes. It is not a question of YOU, ME or even WE - it is a question for the owners of this site, and I think that has been answered. Congratulations, YOU've won. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Jan 07 - 03:18 PM Yet you continue to complain that we are judging you. I am suggesting that YOU are not posting here to judge anyone other than me as being responsible. And I am now suggesting that YOU can only speak for yourself. If you consider YOU have made all the contribution to the discussion that YOU wish to - then why do YOU carry on posting? When YOU do decide for YOURSELF to finally stop - WE can decide carry on the discussion in this thread without YOU (unless this thread is also closed or deleted). And when or if WE decide for ourselves that WE have contributed all WE can - WE can decide for ourselves to stop too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: gnu Date: 19 Jan 07 - 03:10 PM Well, I VERY seldom open these threads, but, I just had to see what was up. You STILL at that crap? Take off, eh, ya hoser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:51 PM I think we have had a discussion. Our points have been made, your points have been made. We agree with some of your posts and disagree with others. Yet you continue to complain that we are judging you. When our points are dismissed, perhaps you would agree that we have very few options other than to revert to discussing the manner of discussion as opposed to the facts that were already discussed to death? All that is left is the mudslinging - from you and from the rest of us who choose to post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: MMario Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:35 PM 200 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:33 PM I think it is fair to expect discussion - on a forum set up for such a purpose. Perhaps it would be better if all posters just concentrated on discussing the issue. Or if they are to post only to judge the conduct and shortcomings of their fellow posters - that they would at least do this to all parties............ For there remains little I have not been called and little I have not been blamed for. Is there not anyone other than me to be corrected or blamed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 19 Jan 07 - 01:36 PM Well, if you publicly judge the moderators and/or owner of operating the site in a fashion that you disagree with, what can you expect? I realize you are not posting "just to moan", but neither are those of us who take exception to SOME of the things you write. There is a perception that you dismiss those who do not agree with you by writing it off as having your character judged. It is not a personal judgement to disgree with you. Sorry,I should not have bothered to try to enter into a dialogue. I have been trying to learn from my past mistakes and not get back into this but on occasion something is said that I feel needs to be discussed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Jan 07 - 01:18 PM As you pointed out, none of us have to open these threads or comment on what others post. Yet you choose to do that. You can't have it both ways. I do try to respond to what others may post in a discussion and I may not always agree with their views. I do try not to post just to moan about what others choose to post or post only to make personal judgements about them. However, I may not always succeed in every case. And as I have been publicly judged here not to be a nice person - what can you expect? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Gizmo Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:14 PM My apologies Shambles, and every one else who may have issues with it- it was a typo that I wrote mudchat - It should have read mudcat. The majority of what I had written was for the guests who often put their two pennies in and disrespect this sites owner. I was pointing things out from my own perspective as a fairly new member, and not directing it entirely at Shambles. I hope it wasn't read as such. Thank you shambles and guru for pointing out my mistake. I was in a bit of a rant that day, and perhaps if I had read my post a few times more I may have corrected my typo. Shambles as for your question - I will pm you about it. I really don't see the need for the whole world to get involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:00 PM I can't deny that Little Hawk! I'm the first to admit guilt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:52 AM How about this? We're all guilty of everything we have accused each other of! Heh! Could be, couldn't it? If so, admitting it would end this interminable bla-bla once and for all wouldn't it? "Ahhhh.....smell that fresh, clean air! What a beautiful day." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:42 AM "you never appear to be very content yourself and have felt free to constantly moan about what other's choose to post. " Isn't the obverse true Shambles - that you seem to "moan" about what others choose to delete? You also are "moaning" when others have an opinion that differs from yours. You are not different from the people you are complaining about. As you pointed out, none of us have to open these threads or comment on what others post. Yet you choose to do that. You can't have it both ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: kendall Date: 19 Jan 07 - 08:45 AM Roger, I have been accused of being in the "inner circle", yet I have been deleted. How do you account for that? Furthermore, it doesn't matter what I think, or what you think. That's the part you just don't get. You think the worst offender is still here, and I think the worst two offenders are gone. So, whos opinion carries more weight? NEITHER! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Jan 07 - 08:36 AM To the mal contents I say, Anyone can get deleted. It happens to the best of us, and to the worst. Get over it. Not too sure who you would judge the mal contents - for from your posting - you never appear to be very content yourself and have felt free to constantly moan about what other's choose to post. And as posters to our forum are not made aware in editing comments what the true nature and current level of imposed 'silent deletion' (and all the other forms of imposed editing action) is - how could any of us make any kind of informed judgement about who it may happens to (and who it may not)? In order to address this - perhaps you would support the suggestion for all forms of editing action be recorded in editing comments and for editing comments to be limited to where some form of editing action has been judged to be required? I have no idea who you would judge to be the best or the worst and what critria you would judge this by. Perhaps you would care to explain? Perhaps you would accept that the facts show that the worst 'offender' on our forum never gets anything deleted (unless their posts are deleted along with all the posts, when entire threads are deleted)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: kendall Date: 18 Jan 07 - 07:34 AM To the mal contents I say, Anyone can get deleted. It happens to the best of us, and to the worst. Get over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: My guru always said Date: 18 Jan 07 - 06:12 AM Isn't it easy to make a typo (which either the 'mudchat' of Gizmo's was, or perhaps it was just incorrect terminolgy)? Easy too to misread something or not understand the humour or serious issues between different cultures? I think it would have been nicer if Shambles could have given 'the benefit of the doubt' to Gizmo's post before posting his own reaction. Perhaps another improvement could be made on the forum by extra 'proof-reading' and 'previewing' our posts before we send them. Goodness knows I've made enough posting errors myself in this forum, even to the extent of putting an incorrect year in a thread title *grin* Maybe if we also conciously tried to take a little longer to think out and check our posts we would see less antagonism here. I've been glad to see some very well thought-out posts on this thread which have been able to explain people's thoughts quite clearly. (Oh, and there have been some 'from the hip' too) But there are also a lot of posts here that do seem to be very repetetive and I find that I can't read them anymore. I guess there are a lot of other Catters who look in occasionally who feel the same way. In a discussion I feel the need to 'move on' and allow the discussion to evolve without pinning it down to one facet in particular. I'm not brilliant at putting my thoughts into black & white and this post has taken a long time to put together. Just hope there's no typo's... *running away* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Jan 07 - 04:45 AM Many years back I listened to "Let Your Love Flow" by the Bellamy Brothers for three days--about 60 times per day. Roger, I can't stand the fuckin' song anymore. I suggest that by not choosing to listen to the song anymore - you have found the solution to that problem. One that you seem to have inflicted on yourself. And that calling for the Bellamy Brothers the disband, not sing or record any more - might be thought a little disproportionate. Just being able to express our views on this thread is a victory for common sense. It would not showing much common sense - having been subjected to so much for so long just to enable this - not to continue to try and discuss the issue. And no poster is being forced to open this thread - are they? I had thought that the the idea that none of us have any rights over what others choose to post had finally been accepted. As had the reality that posting personal judgements is something - that if it must be done - is better undertaken privately. Rather than the thread being constantly refreshed by such judgements. The most effective judgement that can be made of a post or thread - is to ignore it. As to the suggestion that posts be limited to a certain number of words and the reference to our forum being 'Mudchat' - this is not a chat room but a discussion forum. Where it is what is said that is important - unlike a chat room which it is about who is saying it. If anything - perhaps it is a minimum number of words that is required? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Jan 07 - 01:37 AM Blame it on the boogie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: George Papavgeris Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:19 PM I know it wasn't Peace, but I had a rethink anyway. End-of-the-working-day-devilishness is to blame! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Peace Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:13 PM I likely owe more apologies than anyone who's ever posted to Mudcat. George, you are a gentleman and a brilliant songwriter, and my remark below wasn't aimed at you, buddy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: George Papavgeris Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM Apologies, Peace (and Roger) - mea culpa |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Peace Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:39 AM I find that the civility over the past few weeks has improved. I think that is the result of three things: 1) An astute examination of things and a smart move on the part of management to rein in GUESTS, members and clones 2) An honest attempt on the part of members and many guests to change the course of things 3) The fact that posts which get nasty are deleted, PERIOD To all of the above I say 'bravo', and keep it up. Shambles, I asked you a bit back to give it a rest for a while to see how shit works out. Please do. It seems to be working out. You have made your point and you were seminal in getting stuff to change., IMO. There's and old maxim in sales: Once you've sold the car, stop selling it. If you get barred/banned--whatever the term is--a number of people will leave with you. However, I will feel less inclined to do so in support of you if you keep harping on the past. Many years back I listened to "Let Your Love Flow" by the Bellamy Brothers for three days--about 60 times per day. Roger, I can't stand the fuckin' song anymore. Also, I think that those of you who keep slagging Roger on the thread should give it a rest, too, because I can't stand that fuckin' song anymore, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: George Papavgeris Date: 17 Jan 07 - 10:52 AM Who said that we wish to discuss such an example with you, Roger? And is it true that you mostly respond to others' criticism or queries with questions of your own? Would you happen to be Jesuit-trained? Will you answer my questions? Does anyone care? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:16 AM 1 - Often Shambles misreads posts. Something we all can do, but if you are going to argue against something, facts should be cleared up first. Have you an example of a post you would judge me to have misread - for us to discuss? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Gizmo Date: 16 Jan 07 - 04:52 PM ANy newcomer with any sense would look into all the posts, even to the way back then ones and find out how far this has been going on for. When the said newcomer gets a little bit bored of reading the same things written in 2005,2006 and 2007 - it gets a little bit freaky - de ja vu and all that. After serious reading and re-reading of posts, I came up with my own logical conclusions: 1 - Often Shambles misreads posts. Something we all can do, but if you are going to argue against something, facts should be cleared up first. 2 - No-one is forcing Shambles to stay in mudchat. If he doesn't like his own special restrictions reserved just for him, and he doesn't like how this site is run, we have all read his complaints (hundreds of times) therefore he should put up and shut up, or leave. This is not his site to run, it belongs to Max. I'm relatively new here myself. Not once have one of my threads been deleted, or a post deleted etc etc. This is NOT because I am the inner circle, got friends in high places etc etc. I believe it comes down to the facts that 1 If I did have a complaint I would go straight to MAX or Joe and PM them, or PM the person (if they are not a guest). 2 If I did get deleted, I would accept the terms and reasons that I was deleted for. I may have over stepped the line or made an innappropriate comment etc. I WOULD THEN LEARN FROM MY MISTAKE AND NOT REPEAT MYSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It is not our place to complain about a free service. We should appreciate what we have got, and relish it. BTW if anyone has failed to notice, How many times do you have to ask someone to leave? You start of nice, gentle persuasion. Perhaps get more firm, then patience depletes to exhaustion, where you don't care if others insult this persion, because quite frankly nothing short of a stick of dynamite up the rear is goona make this person leave and stop pestering people. The extent of complaints, and to the levels he is going is verbal harrassment. No-one should be subjected to that. Especially not the host (of a home, festival or forum). Quite frankly it is bad manners. Clearly someone who INSISTS on staying where they are not welcome, and don't feel welcomed, has some problems they need to overcome. Unfortunately they won't see this unless they get out of the situation. I have no venom for Shambles, just pity. I too, like Bill before me wish I don't have to send this, but the big picture just shows rows and rows of dots, different shades of grey. Sorry for the rant people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 16 Jan 07 - 04:24 AM In a recent conversation with a professional actor - they were asked if during their 'resting' periods they even got involved with local drama productions and societys. They explained that the professional world was bad enough but that the political wrangling, sucking-up and bitching involved in these drama societys and clubs was far far worse and was something they were happy to live without. They gave the example of their local situation which had firmly been taken over by a lady who turn out to be a complete control freak and now, without whose approval nothing could happen, no one could play a role and who, being seen to disagree with was total social disaster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 16 Jan 07 - 02:08 AM I've said my piece..now........ I very much doubt it. But it would have been useful if you had at least attempted to answer my questions. What you were saying was just the old and snobbish 'people like us' argument. One long discredited and the cause of much of the needless judgement now encouraged to be posted about one's fellow posters. You are still seen to be excusing or ignoring the blatent rule-breaking of those who are judged to be 'one of us' and its effects, whilst nit-picking and apporpotioning all blame to those are not judged to be 'one of us'. As for assuming motivation - our 'moderators' and doing this and doing this publicly all the time and this is what you are openly supporting - because you make the assumption that they have some grounds (other than them just abusing their position in a personal spat). Interesting but mainly just another example of the double standards a that are being allowed to ruin a fine opportunity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Ebbie Date: 15 Jan 07 - 03:21 PM I won't get a swelled head, Bill, until I rate a wooden halo. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Bill D Date: 15 Jan 07 - 10:18 AM I've said my piece..now I will limit myself to supplying halos for those who, like Ebbie, achieve that degree of perfection in their posting to qualify for sainthood. Silver it is, Ebbie...but a warning...if your your head swells at the honor, you are immediately de facto DISqualified from wearing it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: The Shambles Date: 15 Jan 07 - 05:52 AM ...why do you suppose some members DO like each other and have a basic respect and trust? I know the answer, because ....because I have MET enough of them to KNOW that in spite of differences of opinion and personal idiosyncrasies, they are sane, honest, caring individuals who truly want this place to be as comfortable and welcoming as possible! I will tell those who doubt that I'd BET that you could not spend a few days at some event like the FSGW Getaway and come away still harboring the type of animosity and distrust you seem to now. Those few who have met and do know each other to some extent - may well want this. But perhaps you will accept that it takes more than just good intentions to conduct online discussion with the world. More than just posting judgements, blame and trying to limit a wonderful opportunity and restrict and reduce it to a 'smalltown' concept they feel that can deal with and control? For why do some seem to find it impossible to show a basic respect and trust to posters on our forum who they have not met and are never likely to? For that is the test. I do more that just 'suggest' that I do not trust the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Has he and (some of) his team ever given any reason for any assurance they may give to me or to our forum to be trusted by anyone? Whatever their intentions may be - are our 'moderators, currently showing very any respect and trust to our forum by their words and actions? What respect is being shown by them being seen to openly criticise anonymous posting but at the same time defending their own anonymous posting and 'silent deletion'? Or by being seen to ban certain posters for posting offensive personal abuse and at the same time being seen to encourage certain favoured posters to post the same thing? Our forum is being expected to openly support the most blatent abuse of position bullying and unfair treatment as something other than this. Some of our posters are obviously prepared to. But perhaps it is not sensible to expect something that shows no respect or trust - to be shown any. Or something that feels itself qualified to judge and make public assumptions about every aspect of individual named posters but feels that it should be above all judgement. Or something that ignores, excuses, minimises and attempts to justify every lapse and is seen to take no responsibilty for its results but expects others to show responsibilty It does not work like this......And time has shown that it does not and will not ever work like this on our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Ebbie Date: 15 Jan 07 - 02:11 AM Well, Bill, I'm glad we got that straightened out. I prefer silver. Pewter is cheap and gold is garish. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Cluin Date: 15 Jan 07 - 01:25 AM I just meant he could start protesting about any given thread being labelled a "TROLL" thread by some member of the "Mudcat Editing Team" the way he protests thread title changes now.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Bert Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:49 AM ...But the first one sounds like it'd just give Shambles a new hobby horse... Actually our mate Shambles is not the only troll around. If there was such a heading, then you could ignore those threads if you wished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Cluin Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:45 AM Well, I'd definitely agree with your second suggestion, Bert. But the first one sounds like it'd just give Shambles a new hobby horse. But then again maybe old Rocinante is getting a bit tired and could use a rest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Bert Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:42 AM Another suggestion, let's limit the length of a message to twenty lines, with the exception of songs, poems and stories. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Bert Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:39 AM Peace says ...skipy, you are one first-class guy... And I must agree with him. So is Shambles a nice guy and so is Joe and so is Peace and even Catspaw is great. I'm not so sure about Kendall *BIG GRIN*. Then there's Jeri, and she's pretty too. Now let's get on with the business of coping with this problem. Here's a suggestion. Let's have a TROLL prefix which moderators can add to any suspect thread. Then those of us who aren't interested in trolls could avoid those threads and the Usual Suspects could wallow in them to their hearts' content (kinda like the BS section started, but then that went and grew to be better than the regular section). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Bill D Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:47 PM ohh...right, Ebbie. I am SO *grin* sorry...I realize..*giggle* that YOU have no *guffaw* blind spots or *chortle* weaknesses....kinda like me. *stifled chuckle* ...now about that nomination for sainthood....will you prefer a golden halo, or will the usual pewter be ok? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Peace Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:22 PM I think Bill is a fine guy. Always have, still do and likely always will. That said--and meant: "Some of us know how real are imposed editing and silent deletions." Sometimes it is also what gets left on threads. However, I have to leave. See y'all another time. Late for this old boy. Have a good evening all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Ebbie Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:19 PM Bill D, she says coldly, I'll have you know that I have no blind spots and I certainly do NOT have weaknesses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Bill D Date: 14 Jan 07 - 09:46 PM I am typing this AFTER all the stuff below...I had no idea I was gonna get that carried away....brace yourself....or just ignore it and don't read it....it is what I had to say. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "That post I questioned was allowed to stay because none of the clones who read it care that you get dissed on this forum. It serves a purpose for some of them, I'm sure. " How is it POSSIBLE to read minds and assign motives to something which didn't happen? There can be a disagreement about the value & tastefullness of a particular post....these things are not black & white! But why make the subjective leap that NOT deleting it shows some preferential, cliquish behavior? Why would YOU, Peace, assume that there can even be a reasonable test comparing what is NOT done to skipy to what IS done to Shambles or some anonymous troll? I am assuming that since the history of skipy's posts shows no particular hatefulness or troublemaking, it was assumed by those moderators who actually read it!, that it was not serious and was only borderline in being in bad taste. There are many, many ways to engage in disruptive behavior and to sow dissention in a group....and everyone's notion of what is insulting, combative, rude, unfair, tedious, obscene, silly and generally 'out-of-bounds' can be quite different! A word, by itself, cannot be easily labeled....look at how often 'fuck' is tossed about and NOT taken as a gross insult! Those who have been here for a few years know that Catspaw's language is often 'raw', and I personally have made remarks TO him about it, but in overall context, I don't see him as someone who uses it as a real 'weapon', but mostly as an attention getting device. I wish he'd stick to big fonts & color, but 97% of his 'bad words' are not mean or vindictive...and I'm not sure about the other 3%. Shambles makes this BIG point that he-- nice, clean, gentle guy that he is, doesn't call people names. Wonderful! But he has managed to 'insult' Joe and several others FAR beyond the naughty, colorful but vague language that Catspaw uses. (What IS a "broke-dick mammaluca", anyway?) The regular use of "Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team", in context, conveys far more criticism and contempt than "mamalucca", and along with other choice phrases like "imposed editing" and "silent deletions" suggests that he has no respect for Joe and most of his team. Why is this bitter, continuous, nagging 'better' than a few naughty words uttered only after years of trying reason? I submit that if Shambles were a guest at a party in my house, and persisted in continuous nagging & complaining about how the party was run and suggesting that the whole thing were 'rigged' to allow others freedom while insulting him.....well, I would have invited him to leave WAY before 4-5 years (or hours) had passed! Once more!!!: I have said before that what Shambles does is similar to what children sometimes do that infuriates their parebts or teachers...they whine, they nag, they prod, they complain...all in a 'reasonable' way, "Mommy, he got a BIGGER piece than me...you ALWAYS give him the best one.."...until something snaps and they get a response that perhaps seems extreme for the current example, but is just the result of testing the envelope once too often! Folks...almost everyone who has tossed opinions into this debate has virtues and good qualities and can be a valuble member of this strange community...but, being human, they ALL have weaknesses and blind spots. This being the case, there has to be some way of dealing with the problem areas.....and I will say this clearly-- it cannot be run and moderated based on the type of compalaints Shambles makes...nor on cynical and subjective notions of whether Shambles is treated badly because of some subversive plot by some imaginary 'clique' or by "those who like each other"!!!........why do you suppose some members DO like each other and have a basic respect and trust? I know the answer, because ....because I have MET enough of them to KNOW that in spite of differences of opinion and personal idiosyncrasies, they are sane, honest, caring individuals who truly want this place to be as comfortable and welcoming as possible! I will tell those who doubt that I'd BET that you could not spend a few days at some event like the FSGW Getaway and come away still harboring the type of animosity and distrust you seem to now. Disagree on details? Sure...I don't 'agree' with everything or everyone...but I have seen how hard they try. I wish it were easier to 'show' those who doubt..... Lord! I wish I didn't feel like I have to hit 'send' on this...and I wish I wasn't so damn sure how quickly it will be dismissed as just another bit of blather by "one of the in-group".... well...it is what it is... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:49 PM Shatner? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: skipy Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:05 PM Truly he is crazy! as stated over a year ago , "I would love to meet him" Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:02 PM Jeri sez:
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Peace Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:56 PM skipy, you are one first-class guy. But we gotta do something here, because Little Hawk thinks he's as crazy as we are. (I was just humoUring him a few posts back.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: skipy Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:40 PM So, the first post did go, then the computer crashed, so I sent again & we got both, what the hell to applogise twice is not a problem. Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Peace Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:23 PM OK, you got me there, LH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:10 PM That's not true! My sanity is just as questionable as that of either one of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Peace Date: 14 Jan 07 - 05:14 PM Hey, skipy, hope you're keeping well. Please understand that what I posted abpout your post was not aimed at you. I thought it was a clever post. But as you pointed out, it was OTT, and with ol' Shambles always getting slagged by clones and friends of clones, I figured the post should have been deleted. Hell, you and I are the only certifiable loonies left in this place and there is no way I'd want to piss off my partner in insanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: skipy Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:56 PM Peace you are right, I was bang out of order to say what I did, the result of going on the cat with too much beer in me. Sham, sorry, that was wrong of me, I still think you should let it go and leave for a while. Please accept my sincere apologies. Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3) From: Peace Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:39 PM "Am I the only one who has difficulty in working out the criteria used by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to judge who is a nice person (to be treated nicely) and who is not?" While I disagree with the terminology I agree with the sentiment. That post I questioned was allowed to stay because none of the clones who read it care that you get dissed on this forum. It serves a purpose for some of them, I'm sure. THEY didn't say it. Just left it. Same thing I think. As to the rule Joe laid out: It boils down to 'be nice'. Define nice? Who the fuck knows. Guess it depends on who likes whom. |