BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:58 PM

Nope. You aren't. Some of us just left quietly. Bye again. Back to the cellar.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:57 PM

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:46 PM

Subject: RE: Well, Well, Surprise?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03-Jan-07 - 02:31 AM

Clinton was blocked. He attacked another Mudcatter once too often. He can come back, on probation, if he contacts me by e-mail and asks. So far, he hasn't asked.
And the "Where's Clinton" thread was deleted because we don't allow threads that are critical of individual Mudcatters. Sorry, kids, but we're cracking down on nastiness around here. If you don't like it, try being nice for a change - or at least have the guts to post your name when you feel like being nasty. I gotta credit Clinton for that - at least he didn't hide his identity.
-Joe Offer-

As demonstrated - what 'we don't allow' is a bit selective - whoever 'we' is. And whoever this 'we' does refer to when used in this context - it sadly no longer refers to all of us.

Perhaps this 'them and us' concept explains the siege mentality demonstrated by the use by our 'moderators' - and their few vocal supporters - of all the metaphors of warfare?

When editing action being imposed or not is seen to depend on whether the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly judges the poster to be a nice person it should not perhaps be defended as 'moderation' until it is seen to apply to all posters equally?   

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:17 PM

Max is afraid of Catspaw, who has threatened to kick him in the balls on serveral occasions. I mean, if you take his posting toward you literally, you have to also see this threat to do bodily harm to Max as literal, right?

Wrong.

For you know of course that the harm is done to our forum by the double standard of not only being seen to allow such foul and negatively intended posts by Catspaw to remain- but being seen to openly encourage such posts when at the same time other posters have been banned for posting equally offensive personal abuse.

Catspaw's scatological insults and sexual references are inflicted on our forum with the admitted intention of trying to wind-up upset other posters to the extent that they are driven away (and I have no doubt that he succeeds in doing just this with some posters).

So why are you trying to excuse both this posting and its encouragement by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to our forum? Is it the best example to set - if you are really asking to be seen serious about ending conflict?

Is it not the very flaming and trolling that is so condemned and which you as 'moderators' are supposed to be there to protect posters from?

Shamby-Pamby what is your problem man? Every swingin' dick in the joint has prettty much told you to get bent but you can't take "Fuck You" for an answer! Let me repeat for your benefit.....FUCK YOU!.....and the horse you rode in on. Matter of fact, you need to notice that your horse was killed by the last windmill you failed to topple but a broke-dick fanook like yourself probably beats animals. Matter of fact we DID see that from you before didn't we? Why not drop this sillyass vendetta against Max? You DO relaize that it is Max you're attacking here don't you? Probably not.....what a fuckin' mook............
Catspaw

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

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:04 PM

Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship.
So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely.
-Joe-

Shambles has been asked to leave

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:09 PM

It's pretty close to the edge, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:54 PM

Why is the following post allowed to remain?

"Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy - PM
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM

Sham, why not visit a hair salon owned by a friend of mine it is called " Curl up & dye"!
Skipy"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:50 PM

Like I said...you just don't listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:18 PM

If you want to see the real enemy, look in the mirror.

Kendall - these are words posted on a discussion - we are not at war - there is no enemy.

And no I have broken no rules. If you can can find some rules that I have broken (and which others have not) and which require me alone to stop posting - then please tell us what they are?

You have often posted - and truly seem to believe - that our 'moderators' are there to protect us from delete abusive personal attacks and that you support this.

Could you tell us why Catspaw's posts containing only this, are not deleted but now seen to be openly encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - when other poster who have indulged in this are seen to be banned?

And why I am currently under special posting restrictions and asked to leave - when I have never indulged in such things and never responded in kind to the many I have been encouraged to be subjected to?

What message is being given by so-called rules that are seen to be so selectively imposed? If they are to be respected - should not any rules be seen to apply to every poster equally?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:57 PM

Don't tell him to carry on, he will!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM

Damn, damn, damn - I had resolved not to poke a stick into this wasps' nest, but...

I think it might be fun if Joe and Catspaw swapped personalities for a couple days.
That's too good an aside to let drop. Just picture it... Joe lighting his farts and turning the air blue enough to make the nuns blush, and Spaw being the gentle voice of reason. Heck, you could sell tickets!

Sorry Shambles old chap, I interrupted the bellyache. Carry on...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:22 PM

Roger, I stopped responding to your posts some time ago, but I want to respond to this one. Do you actually believe that you have done nothing, have broken no rules and that you have been asked to leave anyway? Why on earth would Max do that if you are so innocent?
The real problem is obvious to me, you don't know why because you don't WANT to know! You have been told time and time again and you simply don't hear. You keep coming back with the same old tired retread posts. If you want to see the real enemy, look in the mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:28 AM

"Why do you believe that as a result of my complaint that Max did not ask both Joe and Catspaw to leave?"

I believe Max didn't carry out your instructions because:

You've been asked to leave and you refuse. You disrepect Max. I expect he knew you weren't capable of leaving or ending your crusade even if you wanted to, but I expect he felt he needed to give you a chance to do the right thing.

You have a long history of complaining about inconsequential things. Control issues, probably.

Max understands Catspaw. Spaw posts with a certain style of humor which you don't understand, and he doesn't bite a poor pet peeve and and hold on like a rabid bulldog on crack, with blood and foamy saliva dripping all over the path of the poor, severely impaired marauder.

Joe just tries too hard and gets frustrated. I think he's into redemption. Maybe it's a religious thing. I think it might be fun if Joe and Catspaw swapped personalities for a couple days.

Max is afraid of Catspaw, who has threatened to kick him in the balls on serveral occasions. I mean, if you take his posting toward you literally, you have to also see this threat to do bodily harm to Max as literal, right?

And the number one reason? Because it's just stupid.
Max has never asked anyone to leave because... no, I don't think Max has ever asked anyone to leave before you.
Max has never done anything here just because someone asked him to. Max listens, weighs suggestions, ignores attempted pressuring and decides what he thinks is right, and Max does it.

True, action might come a couple years later, but other than real life coming first, I think he knows one decision will affect many other things, like butterfly wings. We all may want him to 'get on with it', but if there's one thing I've learned about Max over the years (which frustrates some to no end), it's that Max will not be manipulated. He will not be pushed. I get frustrated when 'fixes' to 'problems' don't happen fast enough, but I respect him immensly, partly because he can't be pushed to act immediately. Jeez... maybe I ought to write him in for President in the next US election.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:29 AM

My disagreeing with the views of any other poster in a discussion on our forum is not any form of attack on The Mudcat or any individual.

Disagreement with my views or the views of any other is NOT any form of attack.

All forms of attempts to restrict, prevent or inhibit any individual poster from expressing their views with the stated intention of driving them away. And this being indulged in and being seen to be publicly encouraged from a site's moderators - could very possbly be described as something else.

And something that has very little to do with a discussion forum.

If our 'moderators' would only show a different example than the one current shown towards posters - our forum may then follow this example as eagerly as many seem to follow the current one.

If a different example is not tried - how can anyone be sure that it would not work?

One thing is for sure - the current example has plainly not worked.

Even if the hostilty was not seen to be emanating from the example shown by our 'moderators' - it would be better for them not to be seen to so readlly adopt the same tactics and attitude (like being abusive and anonymous) as shown by the 'shadows' they vainly chase and try to bring under their control.

For now - the so-called cure is much more damaging that the so-called problem ever was.

For if all 'attacks' on our forum are now judged to be wrong - they are surely wrong whoever is doing the 'attacking' (or judging)?

Forums are to enable you to freely express your views, for them to be discussed and to enable you to listen to the views of others.

Judgements of the worth of the individual who express these views are for gossip in private or to made in courts by those qualified to do so and hopefully after a fair hearing.

Confusing a forum with a court and with a private gossip shop and using this one place for all these purposes and encouraging everyone to pretend otherwise - was only likely to end in bullying and tears.

Unless some reality is finally recognised and encouraged by example.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:17 AM

Shambles, how can you, in all conscience, try & switch the fact of attacks on the Mudcat, around to the topic of attacks on YOU?

Thats like saying if people stopped 'attacking' (or disagreeing with you, even) that the attacks against the Mudcat would stop.....which patently is nonsense (unless you know something about their source, which I am happy to presume you don't?)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:05 AM

If there is not - what harm can there be in being see to operate openly? This is after all a forum on a website - not the FBI.

You may not think this when our 'moderators' refer to them being under attack and use terms like hijacking..............


News From Max on Nov-17-2006

The Mudcat is under attack. We blocked the spammers last week from posting, so now those same people are hammering the site until the web server crashes, over and over again. We're working on a technical way to defend ourselves. Stay patient

Perhaps it would be a better example to set if the impression was not given of our forum as being in constant state of warfare and individual posters were not seen to be singled out for public censure by our 'moderators' in this conflict?

And who are seen to openly encourage from certain favoured posters - the sort of posting of foul personal abuse that our forum is assured by our 'moderators' that they are there (some of them anonymously) to protect all posters from?

Reasonably worded and sensible suggestions do not become 'attacks' or 'hijacking' simply because our 'modertors' may not agree with them.

And they do not become this - and at the same time - an excuse to publicly abuse and bully posters - when they are ignored and may have be repeated to enable our forum to discuss them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:00 AM

Serious question, Roger: why do you believe Max asked you to leave?

Because although I have broken no rules and done nothing but set an example of trying to post my honest views to a forum set up for such a purpose - he felt he had no choice but to been seen to try do something to appease the (small but noisy) constantly complaining mob.

When it was this mob and the reasons why it was seen to be so publicly stirred-up that remains the problem.

Serious question to you:

Why do you believe that as a result of my complaint that Max did not ask both Joe and Catspaw to leave?

For many posters would judge the grounds for my (ignored) complaint as proven.

Wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: number 6
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 11:30 PM

If I was in charge ..... well, I'm not, so this is the way it is.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 09:42 PM

I expect that if someone had told a VIP to 'curl up and dye'--even if very thinly disguised as humoUr--the post would be deleted. Hang in Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM

Sham, why not visit a hair salon owned by a friend of mine it is called " Curl up & dye"!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:27 PM

If I was in charge, I'd delete all BS threads 30 days after inception, no exceptions. It would speed up searches and clean up space on the server and maybe speed up the connection here. Also less threads to be resurrected by the spammers.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:22 PM

Serious question, Roger: why do you believe Max asked you to leave?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM

The way Mudcat is run is the main excuse for trolling here. There doesn't seem to be a positive goal intended, these threads only serve to piss people off and attract more trolls. I've never understood why these serial bitch-about-Mudcat threads are allowed to persist here.

The only problem IS the way our forum has been stolen by a few who have made a complete mess of it.

If it wasn't such a mess - those few that are responsible would not need to fear discussion of this mess and call for threads like this one to be prevented.

That these few do not wish anyone else to discuss it - rather demonstrates the mess they have made - and how embarrassed they become when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team attempts to justify yet more restrictions about what they will allow to be posted and by whom.

This in his vain attenpt to chase and control the shadows that cannot do any real harm and can be safely ignored.

And to which pointless crusade - all that is fine and different about our forum and what has made it special is seen to be sacrificed.

These threads are about the only subject that all posters to our forum have in common. So why wouldn't all posters wish to have their say?

Our 'moderators' being seen to keep on complaining about and closing threads like these is the cause of most of the frustration. It is a subject that should be able to be discussed on our forum like any other.

If our 'moderators' actually addressed more than just the concerns of those noisy few - rather then being seen to judge and try to prevent any contrary views from being expressed and discussed in such threads - our forum would not perhaps be in the mess that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team tell us it is - in his 'for the record' statement.

When all 'moderators' are known and all imposed actions are recorded - posters and 'moderators' will have some protection.   
   
Not being permitted to talk about the mess - will not make the mess go away and being so secretive and precious - will only confirm in some posters eyes - that there is something to hide.

If there is not - what harm can there be in being see to operate openly? This is after all a forum on a website - not the FBI.

You may not think this when our 'moderators' refer to them being under attack and use terms like hijacking..............

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM

It's not like either the 'crackdown' or the debate over administration policies is a new thing. We've been at it for YEARS..partially because Max tried to allow Mudcat to be more 'open' than most forums....inevitably, the accusations about 'cliques' and 'favoritism' and 'editing' arise....some from a couple of picky members, but many from drop-ins who couldn't care less about music above the line. If it IS mostly drop-ins, why should we tolerate them?...and if it is members logging out to bitch, shame on them!

The last couple of days HAVE been a bit quieter & more peacful....and I like it. We can still have debates about interesting subjects, but the tenor of them really needs to be moderated, and debates about how to debate and whether the moderators should really moderate are getting beyond tedious!

My vote, it should be obvious, is for continuing tight control over provocative posts...especially from those who feel no obligation to use a name.

Let's have fun, be silly, argue a bit when it is relevant....but let's end the META-argument over how to run the place!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:14 PM

I agree with Jeri for what it's worth.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:09 PM

I suspect Max hopes people would learn, but we've got some persistant arguers and an endless procession of newbies, some of whom are probably attracted by the trollery. We've developed a culture of fighting here, and it's like a feeding frenzy - the blood smell only attracts more.

It would save you, Joe, from having to read so many GUEST posts to see who's trolling and who isn't, if all complaints about the way the forum is run had to be sent directly to Max or Jeff. Editing, spam and other established-policy things are fine the way they are, except for opinions being inserted into posts and unhelpful posts in the Help forum.

I'd be all for zapping threads like this on sight, but any policy change of this magnitude should come from Max. I may disagree, but I have a feeling he might not want to do this, and it's his ball of wax.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:02 PM

An unnamed Guest above writes:
"Invitees who express concerns about a forum are not trolls.

Learning about moderated forums is best achieved by navigating to them and studying them."

Well Guest.....Navigate yourself over to the message boards at this site and see how many threads you an find berating the admin or ownership of the site. Why not sign up and try to bust some chops over there? Let me know how you do.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:49 PM

Invitees who express concerns about a forum are not trolls.

Learning about moderated forums is best achieved by navigating to them and studying them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:42 PM

I'd certainly agree with that, Spaw and Jeri. There's no way to satisfy everybody with our editing, and some people will NEVER be satisfied and will always complain. There's no way to have a fair and open discussion of editing policy, because the trolls will always jump in and make the editors look like big, mean, repressive ogres.

Perhaps it's time to take Mudcat editing policy out of the general forum discussion, and ask people to send ideas or complaints directly to Max, Jeff, or Joe. Every one of these threads is a downer.

Opinions?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:23 PM

I know of no other forum that allows it Jeri. But Max has always been interested in seeing things work out on their own. Problem is that the 'Cat has grown far beyond those proportions where that kind of thing is always possible. These kinds of threads and trolls and the postings of Shambles wouldn't last 10 minutes on most forums. It is to Max's credit he has allowed it at all. I think the day draws near when he may not.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:14 PM

I'd like a policy that said something about complaints being PM'd or e-mailed to Max, and if he doesn't answer or give the answer a person wants, no whining. Post in the Help Forum to report brokent things. No more threads to complain about the way Max wants Mudcat to be.

The way Mudcat is run is the main excuse for trolling here. There doesn't seem to be a positive goal intended, these threads only serve to piss people off and attract more trolls. I've never understood why these serial bitch-about-Mudcat threads are allowed to persist here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:49 PM

Sorry, unnamed Guest. The policy has been stated - very clearly and very often. It's in the FAQ. It's in the Help Forum. It's in several recent threads where anonymous Guests have been posting. Where else should the policy be stated?
Oh, and there's a blank space where you're supposed to put your name in the message posting box. If you post without a name, you're taking a risk of deletion - above or below the line.
If you violate our policies, you may suffer appropriate consequences. The consequences will vary according to the situation. These consequences are NOT punishments - they are measures we take to keep the peace. We do what we need to do to keep things under control, and try to avoid doing more editing than we need to. We have had a serious problem with heavy posting by unnamed Guests this week, so our control measures have naturally been heavier.
Some say that's inconsistency, but I disagree. We do what we need to do to keep the peace. If things are peaceful, we don't do much. They haven't been peaceful lately.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:41 PM

Some of us have seen the quoted passage. Being watched and controlled is not the same as being deleted totally. Since the crackdown began, there have been numerous posts, even thread-starting posts, above the line that were submitted without a user name. A definitive statement on the subject would be helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:29 PM

"From now on, anonymous posting will be watched and controlled. We've had far too many problems with anonymous posters. If you want to post, use a consistent name. We're not requiring registration, although we certainly prefer that. You may certainly use a pseudonym as a user name, but please use that same name every time you post."

Dep't of Mudcat Security

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 03:00 AM

Thread #19340   Message #1931671
Posted By: Joe Offer
09-Jan-07 - 03:36 PM
Thread Name: Mudcat FAQ - Newcomer's Guide
Subject: Anonymous Posting

From now on, anonymous posting will be watched and controlled. We've had far too many problems with anonymous posters. If you want to post, use a consistent name. We're not requiring registration, although we certainly prefer that. You may certainly use a pseudonym as a user name, but please use that same name every time you post.

-Joe Offer-

Are our anonymous 'moderators' (who have caused more than their share of problems) also going to always have to use their own posting name?

Is this 'crackdown' also to see the end of posts ('silent deletions' and all other forms of imposed editing actions) from them using additional names like 'Anonymous Clone', Mudelf, Fat Clone etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:32 PM

"It is now clear that our 'moderators' intentions were never to end conflict - just to be seen to win it.

At any cost."

Sounds like American foreign policy. (grin) Or...truth be told...any warlike power's foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:52 PM

Me too.

*Smiles*

As long as all posters on our forum are all seen to be of a like mind (or at least appear to) - and are all seen to support each other and post together to abuse those who are not - that all that would seem to matter now.

A forum that is dull, cowering, exclusive and inhibited is good?

It is now clear that our 'moderators' intentions were never to end conflict - just to be seen to win it.

At any cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Alba
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:11 PM

Dull...eh....as in it has been pleasant rather than hostile and nasty!

If this is the case then all I have to say is......

The duller the better!! :)

.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:41 PM

dull? Why, Bert...I suppose you'd consider getting out of Bagdhad 'dull'. I thought it seemed rather happily nice & quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:01 PM

That's because Chongo has work and Shane is in the slammer. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bert
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 06:04 PM

And it's going to get worse GUEST,back, now that anonymous postings are being deleted.

I don't know how many we have lost so far, but Mudcat sure seems to have been dull the last few days.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,back
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:05 PM

Deletions within a thread, when done without an editor's note, now often leave responding statements without a full context, and as a result some responding statements can seem rather incoherent. Those who often browse here might know about the silent deletion practice, but new visitors and those opening a web search result might not.

---

Noted. We've aways considered this when we edit or delete, and we post explanations when we think they will be useful - it depends on a number of factors.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: nutty
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:15 PM

There's an awful feeling of 'deja vu' about this thread.

Serves me right for opening it, I guess

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:53 PM

What prize awaits he who proves to be most stubborn in the standoff?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:36 AM

When people see a person continually banging their head bloody against a brick wall, it's just human nature to implore them to stop.

Hmmm?

Catspaw and co have been banging their heads against a brick wall for many years - in an obvously vain attempt to control what others choose to post.

Are they seen to be implored to stop (to any great extent) - or are their pointless actions seen to be encouraged?

And the justification provided for these online bullying and 'fun' attempts is supposed to be to prevent our forum from being bored by discussions on the same subject.

In the process our forum is littered with foul language, needless personal judgements about a poster's worth, name-calling and abuse.

Perhaps it is simply better to just encourage the reality that posters and 'moderators' only have any control over their own posting and if the posts of others are not to their taste - to simply ignore them?

It is human nature to do many things - and is used as an excuse by many to do what they want but are otherwise inhibited from doing.

A good example is rape by (some) soldiers in wartime. You can excuse this as being human nature - as it sadly is.

But they are many selfless acts of bravery and kindness undertaken by (some) soldiers in the same situations.

I like to take some comfort in the fact that this is also human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 11:42 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: number 6
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:37 PM

How about a simile?

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:28 PM

Why would we need a metaphor for a metaphor?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,Mark Lane
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:16 PM

Do you remember anything else that happened at that party, WesleyS? Mustn't rush to judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:36 PM

I agree. But the tone of the attacks against Shambles has changed because people have to post under their names or use a consistent 'guest name' and personal attacks are being deleted--or so it said somewhere on this site. So, maybe that will help things along. I would expect the same admonishments given to the folks here have also been internalized by the clones. So, maybe a brighter day is ahead. Time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:36 PM

Y'know "oft banned" - I threw a party many years ago and one of the guests insisted on talking about his ideas about the Kennedy assassination. He was sure that Oswald didn't act alone. He even followed people from room to room when folks tried to get away from him. We asked him to change the subject. He wouldn't. So I asked him to leave.