 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Shambles has been asked to leave
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Max Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:50 AM I received by 796th complaint from Shambles last night. This morning, in very clear words, I have asked him to leave the mudcat. I made a promise that I would deal with him, and I am keeping that promise. Keep in mind, that we do not have the ability currently to force him out or from returning, so I stress that I have asked him to leave. You can take that any way you like, and we'll just have to wait and see what happens now. That is all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:52 AM Max, you have the patience of a saint. Who knew, when you set up this great forum and database, that babysitting would be such a large component. Good luck to you in this. Maggie (SRS) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:58 AM Dear Max.......I should like to request that all "grovellers" should be severely reprimanded.....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:59 AM Thank you for letting us know, Max. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:07 AM Why could the highly selective attempt at a purge not have been kept private, Max? Does being an exhibitionistic hypocrite feel better than being a closeted one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: gnu Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:12 AM Well, I can think of one good reason. If he stays, I will never read or respond to anything he submits again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: katlaughing Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:16 AM Thanks, Max, let's hope he complies. As to making it public: it's a lot easier for Max to do a "blanket" announcement than to answer 796 PMs! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:23 AM From whence cometh any obligation to discuss one member with 796 others, more or less? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Georgiansilver Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:25 AM GUEST 11.07..no more than can be expected of GUEST. The likes of you will get Guests banned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:27 AM It's ironic that some daft Guest asks "Why the announcement" when in another thread people were complaining about someone being thrown out and nobody had been informed. It really is a case of 'You can't please everybody' Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Nigel Parsons Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:34 AM Well done Max, It's a pity you had to take this step, but not unexpected. CHEERS Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Leadfingers Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:38 AM MY take on this is that Max set this site up and keeps it going , out of the goodness of his heart ! There are small contributions to the runing costs from various members and events , but for general users , its TOTALLY free ! If you dont like the way Max runs it ,there is a very simple solution ! GO SOMEWHERE ELSE ! If we were paying an annual fee to use the site , we MIGHT Have grounds for an input into the organisation . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: jeffp Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:41 AM If you read the first post from Max, he says that he received his 796th complaint from Shambles, not about Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: katlaughing Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:45 AM Oh, thanks, jeffp....my mistake. Still, I am glad he made it public. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Rapparee Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:45 AM It's Max's ball, field, and game. He sets the rules, and if you can't abide by them, as liberal as they are then go elsewhere. Really, it's just that simple. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:47 AM Perhaps Max would be kind enough to correct the impression given by him to our forum that I have posted 796 PMs of complaints to him. If in all the many years I have been a member here I had posted 769 PMs in total it would come as a great surprise to me. To my recollection - in that time I have sent about 20 or so to Max containing a few helpful suggestions. Hopefully he will not wish to been seen to being dishonest and he will publicly confirm that the figure of 769 quoted by him was used with poetic licence and was not to be taken as the literal truth? Although it may have been suspected that it would be eagely greeted as being a true figure - by those only too willing to comment. It may well have appeared to have been the 769th complaint that Max had chosen to ignore - but any complaints are sent to Max at his open invitation (which you will find in the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum). Is accepting this invitation now to be grounds for members being asked to leave? And the complaint itself to be ignored - as if there were no grounds for complaint contained in it? The key to this is what the response is (if any is received) to any invited complaints. The response to this latest PM from me is for Max to tell me to go away and for him to start this thread. Which came as a surprise to me as having recieved two brief replies to my PM from Max - I was under this private exchange was still being conducted privately and that my complaint would be at least addressed. Hopefully it still can be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:49 AM Amen! Now, we need a new village |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:52 AM Banning guests would chiefly inconvenience part-time members. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM For those who may be interested - the (as yet still unanswered) formal complaint can be seen in the first post to the following thread. Deleted posts & closed theads (3) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:56 AM Good on you, Max in a million! Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: katlaughing Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:58 AM There's gotta be a way... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: jeffp Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:58 AM Since there is no effective way of banning Shambles as yet, maybe all of his posts can be deleted as soon as discovered. I realize that this would be a lot of work for the moderators, but he might get frustrated and leave. At the very least, his account should be terminated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:00 PM What's in the number? Privacy ethics, when one has any, apply whether an alleged villain complains one time or 796 google times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:03 PM It seems that Shambles is ignoring you Max. Why can't the same filtering system that was used on MG & CH be used on Max? I don't think they were just "asked" not to post since both are not seen anywhere on the Mudcat since they have been banned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:09 PM I'm with gnu. Could we please use enough self-restraint not to respond to any of Shambles's posts, or post to any thread he starts? Hopefully, they will all be eliminated, but in the meantime, I think gnu has the right call on this one. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:14 PM Hopefully all personal attacks will be deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Max Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:15 PM We're going to take this one step at a time. Step one is to use very clear language as to my wishes. Catters and Vols will be alerted when I'm ready to take another step. I expect everyone to be adults here, and not disrespect me, Shambles or the Mudcat. Don't mistake my decision to do this as permission to publicly berate a fellow human being. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:20 PM Shame we can't turn the clock back to more innocent days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:23 PM Isn't public berating of fellow human beings what you, Joe Offer, some Catters, and some Vols have practiced, Max? How public is the Internet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:29 PM What exactly are YOU doing then Guest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:48 PM For those who may be interested - the (as yet still unanswered) formal complaint can be seen in the first post to the following thread. Shambles, No one is interested. You have been asked to leave. Shoo, scat, out with ye! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:49 PM The guest of 12:23 pm did not introduce the verb "to berate." Is it not fair to ask an introducer about his chosen terms as they apply to himself? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:57 PM good on you max, I mean anyone who complains 20 or 200 times must be asked to leave. Sorry Shambles you brought it all on yourself, some else that can't keep you mouth shut, I mean I have only sent Joe two complaints, I'm the grumpy shit I was going to say but I'm just 41 years old, I hardly ever complain to either Joe or Max or even give them advice, because they know what they are doing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:05 PM The guest of 12:48 pm can come out of the closet when he likes. The other members could hardly find him unique in his part-time identification with the membership. There's no known penalty for being a turncoat in Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Alba Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:08 PM Your Forum Max, so it is, when all is said, done and complained about... no-one else's call but yours. 796 PMs! My Goodness. Thank you for letting us know. Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:12 PM Good on you MAX it's your and Joe's site not his 796 PM's I mean is this perosn lonely or something, I mean get a life for god sake, and leave Max Alone. Tom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Georgiansilver Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:25 PM The people who run this site do it as they see fit and to the extent of their abilities. It is a thankless job generally and for them to be criticised is to me...in my honest opinion....futile! Get a life Shambles and find some other 'Trivial Pursuit'. You have made yourself unwelcome here and obviously cannot take a hint. I have nothing against you personally but many people seem to have...are they all wrong about you? Are you just some poor misunderstood person or someone who knows exactly what he is doing and makes himself oblivious to 'general' opinion?. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:40 PM It's a shame, because Roger's a good enough bloke and a good musician, has written some good songs; and he's used his bloody minded persistance to good effect at times when it's been handy. But it was his own decision really. I rather hope Shambles will vanish, and that some time Roger will come back under a different persona, and with different priorities. Do a Reginald Perrin, so to speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:44 PM Why are so many moral weaklings berating the alleged villain in a thread that Max started? They're showing disrespect several times over, sparing only themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Slag Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:54 PM I don't feel that I've been here long enough to take Shambles to task. That's been done. It's just my observation that hearing the same complaint over and over is tantamount to SPAM. I don't need it and he's not even selling anything! So, Adios SPAMbles! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM I'm a grumpy shit, I get angry quite easily, I hate when people poke fun at me but I mean the Vilain of this thread posted 796 PM's I mean get a life I did, as I said I hate when people criticize me however I get over it why can't you |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bill D Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM I am a member...I shall do as Max asked, and wait & see what happens. I sure wish anonymous guests would do the same. In the meantime, *I* will not respond to any Shambles posted messages, nor to any attempts by anonymous ones to stir the pot. That is all... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Zany Mouse Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:15 PM It's Max's call. He put Mudcat in place, finances it and runs, together with Joe and clones, so it should be Max and Joe et al who has the final say. I try to keep my nose clean and hope to be always welcome here. Rhiannon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bernard Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:15 PM Hammering the point home until you split the wood is hardly likely to achieve anything worthwhile... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:27 PM i agree with bill d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: jacqui.c Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:34 PM So do I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: number 6 Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:39 PM Max made his point,loud and clear .... everything being posted is everything we have heard before ... so far a lot of this is just repetitive rhetoric we have all seen on various threads (and too many) previously. We all pretty well know by now were we all stand on this issue. Lets just leave it at that and get on with it. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Georgiansilver Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:59 PM Guest of 01.44pm.....It may have escaped your notice but Shambles has posted on this thread....I for one reacted to that not to the posting of the thread itself. As for being 'moral weaklings' I suppose as a GUEST you feel you are entitled to make that kind of judgement...In my book, people either earn or don't earn respect by their own manner......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: gnu Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:08 PM I agree with Bill as well. Hehehehehehe!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: KT Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:23 PM from Max Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:15 PM We're going to take this one step at a time. Step one is to use very clear language as to my wishes. Catters and Vols will be alerted when I'm ready to take another step. I expect everyone to be adults here, and not disrespect me, Shambles or the Mudcat. Don't mistake my decision to do this as permission to publicly berate a fellow human being. Let's honor Max's wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: gnu Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:29 PM And Joe's.... repeated 06 Jan 07 - 11:12AM above, amongst others herein.... Don't feed any of them. Over and out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Big Phil Date: 06 Jan 07 - 05:43 PM I do not understand all this malice against any one who sends in numerous posts, be they all ok, or all a load of drivel, or even downright nasty. If you have an issue with a poster, just ignore him/her. Do not reply to their posts, do not reply to any question sent by them JUST IGNORE them completely..... It will annoy them more than trying to BAN them from the forum......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Peace Date: 06 Jan 07 - 05:43 PM Max has asked Shambles to leave. Shambles has refused Max's invitation. So, is this now going to be a fourth thread on which people bash Shambles? (Yes, I am aware he can be a pain in the ass to some of you who can't leave his threads alone. I perceive that to be your problem, not his. When I feel his posts will cause me undue stress of the anal sphincter I simply don't read them. It's got nothing to do with Shambles or Max.) The question Shambles has asked is valid, and the answer to it just isn't: there has been no answer. People who respond that this is Max's site are correct. It is. It is also the work of many songwriters and musicians whose writing has been collected; a tremendous number of songs that history will be glad to have, because many would have been lost without this place. It is the work of excellent researchers like Jim, Malcolm (have you ever read this man's writing about obscure details of a song most people will never hear, and watched as he differentiates between fact, maybe fact, could be fact and speculation?), Q, Masato, George, Abby, and others I cannot recall of the top of my head and for which I apologize. It is the work of people like Amos who spent countless months enriching the 'playable music' part of the site. It is the work of people like Art and Kendall and Kytrad who have shared their memories of people and places and music. It is the work of people like Azizi who have shared her investigations into Black music/culture and thus enriched what at one time seemed like a place that wasn't open to that at all. And the work of Coltman in the Land Down Under who posts histories of people and their songs, patiently explains that YES, it is English and this is what it means, and reminds us all that it's not all about the UK and North America. It is the work of those kids who stumble in and want chords to songs because they haven't yet hit the stage where they can do it by ear, and then twenty posts follow and accomplished musicians of varying degrees argue the merits of this G position over that G position or whether the relative minor chord really interferes with the intended meaning of a word in the song. It's the work of clones who give much of their time to change thread titles so that our typos get fixed and where we meant to say Roddy McCorley doesn't remain as Roody McCooley. It is the work of countless people who write about events in 'their neck of the woods' and thus inform us all that indeed folk music is not dead--although defining that has defeated the best minds on this site. Where else can you locate a place that will talk about the distinguishing taste of certain beer, or why beer is not as good as ale, or people who had a grandfather's grandfather who not only made the stuff but also worked as a rumrunner and actually got hanged for doing things to sheep, and all in the same post? Where else? So, I think two things right now: 1) Shambles should be QUIET and wait to see if the 'shake up' changes things so that maybe he can put to rest the monkey that's been on his back for longer than I know about--and yes, IMO, there has in the past been editing that seemed to favoUr some people to the detriment of others, and YES maybe the 'shake up' will change that in both perception and reality 2) If that pisses off anyone enough to block me, go ahead |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 05:58 PM Peace... Inspiring stuff. But, as a soulless Darwinist, I'd say that the beauty of the analysis, banter, erudition and whatever that has happened here is happenstance. It is wonderful that it happened, and continues to happen, but it is irrelevant to the 'construct' that is the Mudcat forum. It's lilke the extraordinary beauty of the scales on a butterfly's wing; magical, beyond the making if any one of us, but in the wider sense, irrelevant. At root, it is Max's site; no more, no less. If, on some damp saturday afternoon, with the bairns squawling and an aunt somewhere being aunt-like, he could quite easily pull the plug. Pffft. All this would cease to be. As flies to schoolboys are we... Thus, as far as I'm concerned, I'm prepared to live in an 18th century construct, whereat Max is the Prince Esterhaze and we are the ammanuenses of latter-day Haydns. Yes, it's nice here, and some lovely things have happened, but let's not take it for granted. Maybe it's like my lovely female cat, who got run over a couple of months back. As she cooled and stiffened, and I cried like a blubbery thing, I was intrigued to see her fleas coming "to the surface"; crawling up from her skin, where there was no longer any warm food, to the tips of her fur, in the hope that the could cadge a lift on another passing mammal. As such, we should all be realists, if not opportunists... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bernard Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:00 PM What Peace said! ;o) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bill D Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:25 PM Yes, Peace...that is clear, pretty durn reasonable, and to my mind, nothing in it should offend anyone, whether they agree with the details or not. (I can agree the Shambles has asked a couple of important questions, but they have mostly been answered, and it is hard to separate the asking from the insisting...and has become tedious, like the kid in the back seat demanding to know "are we gonna be there SOON?") Max says stuff is happening...I'll look for more information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:28 PM Wanton. That's it - as flies to wanton schoolboys. And we are. Good that Max is a decent chap; more decent than most give him credit for. And so remarkably. ludicrously, lovably patient. Really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: John O'L Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:30 PM I too have been a sometime supporter of Shambles, but when I saw last night that yet another new thread had been started because yet another old one had been closed I almost posted to it. "Don't you guys ever tire of this?" is what I nearly posted, but then I thought no, responding to it is what keeps it going. Further than that I can only repeat what I've said before, and I for one am tired of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:35 PM I mean if Max had told me to leave i would do it, I wouldn't question him or post a reply I would just go |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:42 PM The Mudcat is resilient and will recover from this episode, but what are we to do about the irreparable damage to English sentence structure? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:47 PM Owning a forum is different from owning the members, but that's not a distinction all care to make. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Ebbie Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:47 PM Peace, that is lovely. Lucid, nuanced, and just plain sensible. Didn't know you had it in ya. (just kidding. As you know.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Geordie-Peorgie Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:50 PM The "English Sentence Structure"!! Duz he mean The Old Bailey (law courts) in London?? Orramma missinsummat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:55 PM Am meringue? Probably knot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:34 PM "...in the wider sense, irrelevant. No, Captain Ginger. "...in the narrower sense". The fact that Max could pull the plug on it all is important and I'm very grateful that he hasn't. I'm sure at times he must have felt a bot like doing that, what with all the hassle. But I suspect that, if the existing Mudcat did cease to exist, there is by now sufficient strength in it, as summed up in Peace's post there, tp give a fighting chance that, in some form or another, it would re-emerge on another site, as well as maybe in other forms. Once you bring something to life it has a life of its own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,shocked Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:33 PM McGrath I have it on good authority that Max has never felt a bot. No way. Nowhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:37 PM I would be grateful if Max would correct the assumption given to our forum that I have sent him 796 PMs...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:48 PM He said 796 complaints, Shambles, and that is a gross understatement. Sometimes you post hundreds in a single month, and this has been going on for years. I think it's quite clear what he means to say is that the number is extremely and aggravatingly large. Why do you insist on twisting what other people say? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Gizmo Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:29 PM I have one word to say Tendonitis! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Cruiser Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:35 PM Max stated: "I received by 796th complaint from Shambles last night". Shambles stated: "Perhaps Max would be kind enough to correct the impression given by him to our forum that I have posted 796 PMs of complaints to him." Max did not state the word PM. Shambles, I bet that if you changed your manner just a little you would still be welcome here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:57 PM I do think that Sham can go on a bit at times, and at times on things that I find hard to see as being of sufficient importance to justify the obsessiveness. But although I have not really done any thorough review of relevant postings, I note with some regret that I am left with a bit of an impression that some moderators may have been tending not to observe the self-restraint and balance that ought to go with their roles. I certainly feel that some posters other than Sham have been allowed excessive liberty to intimidate other posters and/or to post in terms of sexual reference that is tantamount to threat. Mostly I'm in favour of sexual reference but not when used to imply threat. That, I think, is more serious and more damaging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: freda underhill Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:53 PM Peace, that's a great description of what makes Mudcat good, but I've yet to read anyone wax lyrical about the delights of reading about complaints about management/mudcat bureaucracy/and various analyses/interpretations of the motives of the cat gatekeepers. Yes some posters other than Shambles have been abusive and intimidating, and I agree that they're more serious and more damaging. Shambles has been big on procedures, fairness, unfairness, and is either a voice in the wilderness or very aggravating depending on where you sit. I think he was previously given leave to post whatever the heck he wanted, so long as he confined it to particular designated threads, but he's been spreading posts on his themes into other threads again recently. This may have triggered the current development, not sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:58 PM Shambles has been asked by Max to leave. Why can't his posts be edited out now? Either Max asked him or he didn't. If he was asked then he is a nonentity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: freda underhill Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:29 PM Guest, I don't think Shambles is a nonentity and I think (maybe I'm wrong) the decision has been more to do with the amount of time & space shambles has taken up rather than anything else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:18 AM I think some of you are being unfair to Shambles. He hasn't done anything not permitted by Mudcat. He has never, to the best of my knowledge, abused another member or Guest. Unlike some Members and Guests (two of whom have been banned), he has never indulged in vitriolic name-calling, even when some particularly vile insults were directed at him. His posts are well-reasoned and cogent. Just because some of you disagree with them, does not make them less so. Granted, he has been a bit repetitious, but is there a post count, a limit to the number of posts we may make? Some of the moderators and elves emphasize the Mudcat credo of "do not feed the trolls and do not respond to flamers", but when it comes to Shambles' posts, they don't heed their own advice. What kind of example is that for newcomers, and some old hands who refuse to think for themselves, but instead just parrot whatever the mods say about Shambles. As I asked once before, what part of DO NOT RESPOND do you not understand? Shambles has posted some very informative, well-written pieces in the past, and I hope he will continue to do so. I look forward very much to reading them. And if I come across one of his posts with a lot of cut and paste stuff, and repetition of old grievances, I will ignore them. Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:51 AM "His posts are well-reasoned and cogent." ummmmm...cogent? Some of them are famous for tortious, stilted phrasing with his own particular constructs ("are seen to be") substituting for clear, to-the point language.....to the point that parodies have been written. well reasoned? I spent years studying 'reasoning', and there are many, many egregious errors and examples of "informal fallacies" present in many of his claims, assertions and examples. In the last analysis, most of his issues are subjective opinions about how & whether the administration of the forum is 'fair' and/or open & consistent. It's ok to bring it up, I suppose, in certain contexts...but he has spent YEARS of incessant harping on it after being told that, despite his campaign, it will be run as Max chooses. This 'tilting at windmills' has become a major distraction. This is NOT a matter of voting...and even if it were, he is quite outnumbered. I certainly admit that Roger has many useful talents and virtues, but his exercise of them has been quite lost in the proliferation of slippery, shifting complaints. I would guess that technically, it is still not too late to give up the cause and just post about music, fun & life...but I don't think I will hold my breath, as I don't look good in blue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,observ'd Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:19 AM Shambles always seems to me to masochistically goad his attackers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: John O'L Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:24 AM I agree entirely with all that Seamus and Bill have said. They are both right. Reminds me of the teacher who walks into class one morning and sees a dick drawn on the blackboard. She quickly grabs the duster and erases it. She says nothing about it and commences the lesson. The next morning she comes in and sees another dick, twice as big drawn on the board. Again she rubs it out, says nothing and gets on with the lesson. The third morning when she comes in there is a huge dick the enire length of the board, with the caption: "The more you rub it the bigger it grows." The same could be said for Shambles and his obsessive behaviour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:37 AM Seamus asks:
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Podger Date: 07 Jan 07 - 03:31 AM Perhaps if the first complaint had been dealt with fairly then all of this would not have happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Ebbie Date: 07 Jan 07 - 03:38 AM A point that is being missed here is that we were not asked if we agree with Max's request that the Shambles leave, so any differing views anyone may have are irrelevant. This is not a democracy. I would guess that if some (enough?) people PMed Max pleading for Roger's reinstatement it might make a difference. There is no reason to believe that ddressing the question on this forum will. My view is that the owner and administrative arms of this site have been extraordinarily patient. Roger on occasion has a valid point but he spends his energy pounding all and sundry into sand, seemingly making no distinction between validity and absurdity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,Pathologist Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:13 AM Perhaps the autopsy should end here and the body left to rest in peace. (sorry Brucie that was not a pun) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:13 AM I dunno, Podger. I think the original complaint goes back to about 2001, when I asked Shambles to refrain from posting the same message in multiple threads. I thought I made the request quite respectfully. Was that unfair? I suppose he truly and sincerely believes that the Mudcat Editing Team is conspiring to control and pervert the minds of folkies everywhere, but how much time and effort should we be required to expend answering conspiracy theories (especially when we are the alleged conspirators)? I feel sorry for the guy and all, but what can I do to help him? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 07 - 08:04 AM "Perhaps Max would be kind enough to correct the impression given by him to our forum that I have posted 796 PMs of complaints to him." Max did not state the word PM. And I have not stated that he did. However, some posters - have made various assumption from Max's words - varying from that he had received 796 complaints about me or that I had posted 796 PMs of complaints. All I have requested is that Max corects these assumptions. Let's make it clear that this is our forum but on Max's site, he can do as he wishes and this is his call. That has never been in question - but Max will still have to justify, defend and live with this call and the reasons why he feels so pressured at this point - into being seen to do something. Why is it thought that being seen to ask to leave or banning the posts of one of our forum long-term members and its biggest supporter is going to be seen to fix anything? Is this move going to result in less or more division on our forum? Will it spell the end of posters being encouraged to feel that they have some right to publicly judge the worth of and call for this or that poster to be asked to leave or banned? Or will it further encourage all this. Which along with general pedantry and the minding of everyone else's business - is what many posters appear to now think our forum and The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum (or snitchers corner) is set up to do? But I would ask posters to examine the reasons why I am being asked to leave. Seemingly it is because of my many 'complaints'. My complaint is that our forum along with its double standards, now encourages posters to judge and complain about what their fellow posters choose to post. But I am seemingly singled-out for special treatment because unlike most eveyone else - I do not post only to judge the worth of my fellow posters but have tried of many years to address the root of what many posters see as a problem. I wonder what the figure is for all the posts and editing comments that have been complaints about me or encouragment (like this thread) to complain about me? Are those posters also going to be asked to leave for making their many complaints? Rather than be ecouraged to complain about their fellow posters and shown that example - if posters were encouraged to concentrate on their own posting - the only posting that anyone has any real control over - and to ignore anything posted that is not to their taste - this problem could easily be solved. All this IS the problem. Some posters are rewarded for complaining. And some have their posting restricted and are asked to leave. It is seen to depend on who is doing the complaining and who is being complained about. Will my leaving turn the constantly compaining baying lynch mob into nice calm puppies? Any sacrifice presented to the baying mob (once encouraged to show their teeth) will only make them worse and ready to bite the next target. The problem is all the clamour publicly encouraged against not only me but against any named poster who is publicly targeted by our 'moderators' for special treatment. Past such witch-hunts have clearly shown that getting rid of the current scape-goat will not solve the problem but only result in setting up another target. Being seen to publicly make this request to me to leave - rather that be seen to take any steps to address the real problem (i.e. the encouraged baying mob comprised of those who would judge themselves to be the nice people) is seen as a show of strength by an authority being seen to be challenged. No real authority is being challenged by me (and give me the not-nice people to deal with anytime). And publicly being seen to be asking me to leave or banning me - when being seen to be promising the self-rightous mob their pound of flesh - would be a show of weakness. Real authority is not seen to be afaid of adverse comments and not seen to be impressed by brown-nosed insincere compliments. And a real show of strength at this point would be to be seen to lift the special restrictions currently imposed on my posting. But yes it is Max's call. Whatever it is - he will have to live with it. I have made it clear that I have left before and I returned after a while when I relised this was a mistake - if Max does not wish me to post - he will have to ban me. And to think up some grounds of justification for doing so (if only to try and convince himself). For unlike some others posters who have - I have done nothing to earn any censure. This will be the message given to our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Midchuck Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:21 AM It's only a matter of time before this will have to become a moderated forum - i. e., anyone can read, but you have to join to post, and the moderator can "unjoin" a member who is personally abusive, unnecessarily obscene, excessively wordy, etc. Of course, being a folk forum, once that happens, there will be loud cries for the exclusion of anyone who argues with the established knee-jerk liberal, totally politically correct, position on any issue; and once the conservatives and us Rational Anarchists are gotten rid of, there'll no longer be any real debate. Eventually the forum will become so bland that everyone will wander away, and the Mudcat will close down for lack of interest. Or is there a better way? Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM "This is not a democracy." But that doesn't mean the forum should submit to a dictatorship, does it? What this forum needs is to be run democratically and fairly. It has nothing to do with "ownership" in the capitalist sense. There are many good models for running forums democratically. Lots of information is available on the internet for how to do it, and do it well. I've even posted links to some of them in the past. A large part of the problem here is people acquiesing to bullying by Max and his management team, because their fear Max's retribution. Their biggest fear being that Max will pull the plug. Max has been offered money, grant writing assistance, help from forum members on programming, help from forum members on administration and moderation of the forum. People here have tried to be very patient and generous, understanding of the limits of his time and resources to keep the place afloat. So when I open a thread like this one, and see that the site owner has started a flame war thread against a poster that has been critical of the site's management, it isn't Shambles I think poorly of, but the owner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Alba Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM Joe, Harrassement would be a reason for censorship or even a reason for blocking am I correct? Best of Wishes Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:39 AM Why are you so anxious to see posts censored Alba? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:43 AM Qoute="I won't leave, if max wants me to leave he will have to ban me, and think of a good reason for doing so" (The Shambles). Shambles-you really are annoying. If i have a party, or musical get together or wahtever at my house, and you start annoying me, i will ask you to leave, if you dont leave, i will hit you on the head with a stick, waht i keep in the cuboard. Max does not have to give a reason for asking you to leave, he owns the place, he asked you to leave, you should leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: freda underhill Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:45 AM why do you censor your name, Guest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: katlaughing Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:51 AM Midchuck, I don't agree with you when you said Of course, being a folk forum, once that happens, there will be loud cries for the exclusion of anyone who argues with the established knee-jerk liberal, totally politically correct, position on any issue; and once the conservatives and us Rational Anarchists are gotten rid of, there'll no longer be any real debate. We've been through some really heated debates on being PC etc. and I resent your assumption that anyone who is liberal would want to ban you, or anyone else, with a differing viewpoint. I do think we should ban anon. guest like Janet who come here only to attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Alba Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:53 AM I see no anxiety in the wording I used and felt none while typing Guest. I was mearly asking Joe Offer a question. Respectfully Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Zany Mouse Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:54 AM Let's just let this thread drop now. (Yawn) Rhiannon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:54 AM Who's Janet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Alba Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:57 AM Now there is a suggestion worth taking up Rhiannon ..:) Hope you are doing well. Love and Light as always, Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Amos Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:20 AM I don't think that's quite true, Roger. I would say you have earned your censure with extraordinary effort. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Midchuck Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:20 AM We've been through some really heated debates on being PC etc. and I resent your assumption that anyone who is liberal would want to ban you, or anyone else, with a differing viewpoint. Didn't assume that anyone who is liberal would want to ban me. Just assumed that enough would that it might happen. In actuality, no one who is liberal in the classic sense would want to ban anyone, unless the proposed banee had slipped so far into personal abuse or irrelevancy that it was obvious to everyone that they were making any useful discussion impossible. For that matter, no one who is conservative in the classic sense would want to, either. America's two-party system has caused both viewpoints to calcify to the point of being oppressive, and each side realizes about the other but fails to see it in themselves. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:27 AM katlaughing, a forum moderator, said in the Posting with Civility thread: "Then there are the wolves in sheeps' clothing who appear to be wonderful, popular members, but who some know to be vicious and ugly and not to be trusted. One would never know it by their postings." "I do think we should ban anon. guest like Janet who come here only to attack." This is why you are perceived as being unjust and unfair. You abuse the authority of your position by claiming to have secret knowledge about forum posters, whether they are members or anon guests. It is clear to some of us katlaughing, that you and the other clones are operating only in your own vested self-interest (ie to "protect" your favorite posters and preserve the turf surrounding your little in-group clubhouse), and not in the best interests of the forum. The way you conduct yourselves is troubling, to say the least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:31 AM 100! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:34 AM why doesn't shambles just leave and let the rest of us get on with life |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:48 AM Don't mistake my decision to do this as permission to publicly berate a fellow human being. said Max. Now we are up to 100 posts berating shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:51 AM I think we should all leave the shambles alone now, I just feel sorry for him now. Subject: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Max - PM Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:50 AM I received by 796th complaint from Shambles last night. This morning, in very clear words, I have asked him to leave the mudcat. I made a promise that I would deal with him, and I am keeping that promise. Keep in mind, that we do not have the ability currently to force him out or from returning, so I stress that I have asked him to leave. You can take that any way you like, and we'll just have to wait and see what happens now. That is all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:08 PM "I have made it clear that I have left before and I returned after a while when I relised this was a mistake - if Max does not wish me to post - he will have to ban me. And to think up some grounds of justification for doing so (if only to try and convince himself)." Shambles, your arrogance is absolutely disgusting. The owner of this site has asked you to leave. It is his site and he does not have to justify anything. You, however, have to justify why you keep posting after being told to go away. On any other site that on the internet there would be a total block on your posting. I have no idea why Max is not doing that to you similar to the way that he did it to MG and CH. After so many years of challenging and insulting the ownership and management of this wonderful site you have finally been told that you have lost the battle. Now it is time for you to face your defeat and go somewhere else. Perhaps you can start your own site and never edit anything inluding spam. See how long you can do that before you become frustrated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:11 PM You abuse the authority of your position by claiming to have secret knowledge about forum posters, whether they are members or anon guests. I've never had a site volunteer tip me off in the way you are suggesting, Guest. Some people make their motives clear, if one is paying attention. I'm not a clone, but I know enough to know who to steer clear of, strictly from my own experiences and observations. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:23 PM Cool! A lynch mob! Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:29 PM Yup. And Max is the ringleader of it. Not only is it his site, it's his rope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Nigel Parsons Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:39 PM Yes, "GUEST" and as with any lynch mob there's always the trouble makers circling the outside urging people on in one direction or another while carefully maintaining their own anonymity. And if you're the same "GUEST" as 7.Jan 11:48, the comment: Now we are up to 100 posts berating shambles. You should note that not all 100 posts have breated Shambles, some have supported him, some are even from him (although, at times, he can be his own worst enemy) Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: George Papavgeris Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM I am glad for Max's action (asking Roger to leave), yet feel no joy, for the very reasons that McGrath stated in his 06 Jan 07 - 01:40 PM post. Richard Bridge & freda underhill were right too, in their posts around 06 Jan 07 - 09:57 PM. Roger, take a sabbatical and return refreshed and wiser. The rest of us, let's leave Roger be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Mr Red Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:56 PM So - how many GUESTS does it take to make a shambles? of a thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Cluin Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:00 PM Sad that it has come to this. Agree with Peace and Seamus. Those of you who say you will now ignore all posts by Shambles now that Max has declared him a ghost, why didn't you try that tack before? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:03 PM I think that we should ask all people the post under the word 'GUEST' to give either their real names or nicknames, because I'm fed up with these 'people' because they insult or berate you, but don't have guts to own up to it. Tom Hamilton Scotland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:07 PM I have such mixed feelings right now, as I am sure many of us do. Over the past few months I found myself drifting into this controversy. On one hand, it is a personal issue between Shambles and this site - but on the other hand it does involve all of us. While it is easy to say that no one has to read any thread, it becomes difficult when disagreements start poping up in a variety of threads and when civility is thrown out the window. Shambles made some very good points, and I do think that at time the moderators should have used restraint and not argued so much with Shambles in public view. One person shouting on a street corner does not interupt traffic until a mob forms around the individual. I think all of us like to feel that equal treatment makes for a welcoming forum and when the balance appears to shift - even if there are legitimate reasons, the place turns to chaos. Some of the comments that have been made to Shambles (and others) would probably not be said if people we talking face to face. If some of those comments were said, I guarantee you that there would be physicial confrontation. Still, this is Max's site and I highly respect his wishes and the wishes of his chosen moderators. It is nearly impossible to make this site fit everyones wishes. We have to respect his rules because this is NOT a public forum in the terms that some people expect it to be. A private website is not a public soapbox - there are rules and expected behavior. Shambles overstepped his bounds and he refused to see it. He has turned himself into a martyr for a cause that was never there to begin with. While earlier I said the moderators should have used more self-control, I have no arguements with their behavior. In many respects, this website is an ongoing experiment in social behavior. We are human beings and we will make mistakes. We will also take our direction and run in ways that may not make everyone happen. Our biggest crime is that we are human. If I had a vote, which I realize I don't, I would ban ALL guest postings. The idea that it encourages more people to post has no validity. The moderators can trace any posting (as has been proven in the last few weeks) so no one remains anonymous. The ability to post as a guest allows for people to say things under a hood. I freely admit that I have done so on occasion. It is very easy to get angry and use the guest login as a way to say things that would normally not be said. While some may see that as a benefit, I feel that it flys in the face of Max's statements that we will all behave as "adults". What is the definition of adult? Where is it written that adults behave with any sort of civility? Pick up a newspaper! Sure, there are some that will still post remarks that will tick off others. Look at Shambles, Clinton, Martin, etc. Still, I would bet good money that we would see a decline in arguements - especially if moderators were free to delete such comments. Mudcat can be turned back into a pleasureable place to spend time and make friends - at the cost of some "freedom". I don't think that is a problem as the site is not a public soapbox. I could not walk into your home at anytime of the day or night and spout whatever is on my mind without following the rules and wishes of the host. Perhaps when everyone respects that and stop acting like martyrs that the fun will return to Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:11 PM as lest you know who is doing it when they give a name, it's these guest who remain annon I can't bide. broken record time I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:21 PM Ron, your belief that the moderators have the ability to know with certainty who is posting when isn't accurate. They *claim* to have the power technically to do so, but regularly demonstrate they don't. How do I know this? They often claim I am another poster, or that another poster is me. Technically, this forum is primitive. Also, with the advent of new brower capabilities that easily allows people to websurf without leaving tracks/picking up cookies (which is what any sane, rational web user should be doing nowadays), Max doesn't have the ability to block everyone's IP. Doesn't anyone wonder why Max can block some posters, but not others? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Cluin Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:21 PM Be careful lest you become the new Shambles, Tom. This anti anon GUEST thing has been going on a long time. Meanwhile there has been just as much nastiness between logged-in members around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Mooh Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:30 PM Been away from the Mudact (how's that for a cool typo?) for a couple of hours to go to church where I prayed for forgiveness and peace and tolerance and all those cool things. Since I didn't even think of this thread's situation in prayer, I guess my conscience is clear when I say you folks shouldn't post so much when I'm not around to read it, I mean, cut me some slack. Oh yeah, and Shambles, take a hint will ya, most of us are done "suffering gladly". Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:34 PM Nothing has really changed from Max's much quoted last statement to our forum. He suggested that I should leave. The choice was then mine and it still is. As I judge that I have done nothing to warrant this publicly engineered demand for my absence (where others certainly have) - as a member of the public to whom the invitation to post is still open and which I am a firm supporter of - I see no reason for this member of the public not to continue posting as I have done for many years. If Max wishes to ban this one member of the public and really thinks this will fix something and considers this to be a strong positive move on his part - rather than a weak negitive one - he is of course welcome to be seen to ban me from his site. I would hope that as my complaint appears to be the cause of this request/suggestion to be repeated - that the validity or otherwise of this complaint will be examined and discussed - rather than simply ignored. But subsequent actions would suggest that the content of that complaint to be proved. The best solution for all concerned would appear to be a move to members only posting and the end to the open invitation for the public's contributions. Then those noisy few who are already encouraged to treat our forum as their exclusive private club can pull-up the drawbridge behind them and be welcome to judge each other's worth to their heart's content. Those of us who have always supported our forum's open invitation as its great strength - will then be able to decide whether they wish to continue posting on this basis. And those who do decide to continue - will not have to worry about seeing any contributions from this poster. Perhaps Max could finally inform our forum if a change to members only posting is going to happen? As it was the public call for its introduction, as a cure to all ills - made in a 'for the record' statement - was the cause of this latest escalation of this division and taking of sides - that some seem to see as necessary part of contributing to our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:34 PM Nice to see you taking the tenets of your faith to heart, Mooh. Onward Christian soldiers, and all that? You do remember Jesus was the scapegoat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: John MacKenzie Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:38 PM I thought that was part of his job description Guest 01:34? G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:39 PM Ron, How exactly is Shambles a martyr? He constantly insulted the owner and moderators of this site which is not part of acceptable internet etiquette. On any other site he would have either been banned after his third attack or had all of his insulting posts eliminated. It is only on Mudcat that someone like Shambles would be allowed to go on unchecked for such a long time. Hell, he was even given his own thread so he could attack, attack, attack. Max and the clones surely did everything they could to not banish him. In effect, Shambles committed internet suicide by attacking once too many times. 700 plus complaints does not make a martyr. On top of all of that, he is till posting even though he has been banned. Not to harsh treatment by any standards. If Mudcat can't stop him from posting then the least that could be done is to edit out his posts when they are noticed. He is certainly not any type of martyr. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:41 PM The metaphor was lost on you, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:49 PM He has turned himself into a martyr for a cause that was never there to begin with. Whatever the cause, people cannot turn themselves into martyrs. They become known as martyrs by the things that others do to to them. And they are usually dead - as a result. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:57 PM He constantly insulted the owner and moderators of this site which is not part of acceptable internet etiquette. No - he does not. If this thread is to be my epitaph - can you at least provide some evidence for your allegations of my terrible posting crimes? I am almost agreeing myself that hanging is far too good for a chap who posts insults at the site's owner and its moderators and sends them 796 PMs of complaints. Stone him! Put him in the comfy chair! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:03 PM " Whatever the cause, people cannot turn themselves into martyrs." Lets not debate semantics. I think you know why I used the word "martyr". You come across as if you are being made an example of and suffering unjustly. All you have done is prove what many of us have said all along - this is NOT a public forum and you are not having your freedoms taken away. Your posts have been abusive. No you do not "judge anothers worth" by using insults, but your barrage of postings have done you in. You were warned, but you continued. Now you are the unwanted guest at a party. Someone with dignity probably would leave, but your stance has shown just what your plans have been all along. A private forum like Mudcat does not tolerate your kind of behavior. Your points, and they were good ones, became lost in your methods. As I've said to you before, you are your own worst enemy. You cannot use Max, the clones, or anyone else as a scapegoat. You asked for Max to make a statment, he did. Now you need to come to terms with the reality. The host has shown how the party is to be conducted. Do the right thing Shambles, stop. Leave with some dignity. While I don't agree with everything that has gone on here, I do applaud Max's attempt to improve and I respect his right to set the rules. Mistakes of the past are unavoidable and we can only learn from them. I hope he can do the right thing going forward. I want to enjoy Mudcat the way I did 7 years ago. ALL of the threads have been victimized by the recent troubles. I hope it can improve. Do we want a "country club"? For a long time I thought that was the last thing we wanted. I think the term brings up images that really are not based in fact. Having Mudcat as a private members only forum would not ruin anything. Besides, if it became a problem, it can always be changed back. Nothing is forever. Even Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:07 PM Scene 23 [trumpets] CROWD: [cheering] PILATE: People of Jewusalem! CROWD: [chuckling] PILATE: Wome is your fwiend. CROWD: [laughing] PILATE: To pwove our fwiendship, it is customawy at this time to welease a wongdoer fwom our pwisons. CROWD: [laughing] GUARD #3: [chuckling] PILATE: Whom would you have me welease? BOB HOSKINS: Welease Woger! CROWD: Yes! Welease Woger! Welease Woger! [laughing] PILATE: Vewy well. I shall welease Woger! CROWD: [cheering] CENTURION: Sir, uh, we don't have a 'Woger', sir. PILATE: What? CENTURION: Uh, we don't have anyone of that name, sir. PILATE: Ah. We have no 'Woger'! CROWD: Ohhhhh! BOB: Well, what about Wodewick, then? CROWD: Yes! Welease Wodewick! Welease Wodewick! PILATE: Centuwion, why do they titter so? CENTURION: Just some, uh, Jewish joke, sir. PILATE: Are they... wagging me? CENTURION: Oh, no, sir! GUARD #3: [chuckling] PILATE: Vewy well. I shall welease... Wodewick! CROWD: [laughing] CENTURION: Sir, we don't have a 'Roderick' either. PILATE: No 'Woger'? No 'Wodewick'? CENTURION: Sorry, sir. PILATE: Who is this 'Wod'-- GUARD #1: [chuckle] PILATE: Who is the 'Wodewick' to whom you wefer? BOB: He's a wobber! CROWD: [laughing] MAN: And a wapist! CROWD: [laughing] WOMAN: And a pickpocket! CROWD: Yeah! Ahh, no! No! Shh! Shh!... PILATE: He sounds a notowious cwiminal. CENTURION: We haven't got him, sir. Mm hm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:07 PM Welease Woger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: kendall Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:08 PM If someone entered my house and complained about how I live, it wouldn't take me a few years to react, and I wouldn't give a rodent's rump if he thought I was not justified either.It's MY house, he would have NO rights there at all, and I would be glad to "help him out". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:14 PM Guest 07 Jan 07 - 01:39 PM, While it may be true that most forums don't tolerate criticism from the hoi polloi, it is also just as true that many forums have clear, concise, simple guidelines to follow. There is also a process to follow for registering complaints, etc. Looked lately at the Mudcat FAQ? And secondly, it isn't enough for forum moderators to get along with the people they like and agree with, as a moderator, it is of paramount importance to find a way of aligning themselves with those they don't appreciate, understand, or agree with on any given thing. To do the job of moderation well requires a very highly developed sense of impartiality, something the personalities who are moderators here largely don't possess. They have many good qualities, mind you, but a highly developed sense of impartiality isn't among them. And Ron, the log-in procedure isn't what determines whether the forum has the feel of a country club or a gated community. The tone is set by the site owner, site administor(s) and moderators. There are plenty of examples of excellent online fora that are member only AND democratic AND dynamic, interesting, provocative, etc. It just isn't an either/or sort of thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Cluin Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:16 PM Roger, Max, as benevolent dictator (and he IS greatly benevolent) has asked that you leave. You appear to have made the choice to not do so. Banning you would seem to be the next step. Maybe that's what you want. May I respectfully suggest to you a middle ground? Take a break from your self-imposed crusade and post only constructively on the music-related threads for a while. See if you can't recall why you came to this forum in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,Pathologist Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:45 PM Cluin that sounds like perfect advice for the normal personage but will this person heed your words? I think not. He heeds no ones words. He is a lore unto himself. He is a haemmorhoid in the butt of mudcat, a real pain in the .... but he has to be so somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Jeri Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:52 PM Ron, you make a very good point, even if it's not quite what you intended. You got into the argument with Shambles rather late, didn't you? Why did you feel like you 1) needed to do that, and 2) wouldn't do any harm by doing it? Now, try to imagine all the other serial opponents Shambles has had over the years considering the 'good of the forum' before they indulged themsleves and tell me if you think that's realistic. I agree that we'd all be better off with some consideration for other people and the self-control necessary to do that. Tell the people who are continually going at it with Roger that they should think about others and stop it. They will say they just can't let untruths stand without challenge. They will say they have a right to argue with him, no matter how obnoxious or dim some of us think they are. I've watched this whole sorry mess unfold, and the truth is that if there were a lifeboat with some of these people in it and I were drowning, I'd have to think for quite a while before agreeing to get into it. Some of you just seem cruel. I also fully realize I've probably annoyed others by not shutting up when they though I should have. The bottom line is there will always be people who will jump at a stupid argument without regard for how it affects others. If the destructive stuff can be stopped - at least temporarily - by removing one or a few instigators instead of current and future selfish joiners-in, it's going to be the few who suffer, not the many. Max has said, "we do not have the ability currently to force him out or from returning, so I stress that I have asked him to leave". If Shambles continues to disrespect Max and ignore the request, he's challenging Max to develop the ability to force him out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 03:15 PM "They will say they just can't let untruths stand without challenge." Yes, they are following the example of forum moderators when they do this. The red messages moderators attach to some posters messages demonstrates the moderators inability to let a poster's statement go unchallenged. Mick has used that very justification to get all of the moderators stalk me here in the forum. He always says "he will not let stand..." when he gives his justification for going after me. His, yours, katlaughing, Joe & Max's paranoia about me is driven by you and Mick, Jeri. You are being a hypocrite here. You are the mods, and you yourselves play the stalking and harrassment game? Now, I've never been intimidated by any of you, and your bullying has never had an effect on me. But it certainly has had an effect on others you have done it. Some of us know you aren't the saints you keep making yourselves out to be. Whether the rest of the forum ever figures it out, I don't care either. I also have no problem with Max developing the ability to force me out, Shambles, Martin Gibson, or anyone else for that matter. Anyone running a web forum that hasn't got that technical nowadays is choosing to make their life miserable. Sure, there are plenty of lunatics online that find their way here and wreak havoc in one way or another. And I include myself in that category. But that doesn't mean you are angels and fautless here, like you keep trying to make yourselves out to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: kendall Date: 07 Jan 07 - 03:47 PM Just for the record, Joe and I are good friends which would put me in the inner circle, if such a circle existed. However, if I say something which he doesn't approve of, he lets me know in no uncertain terms. So much for favoritism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: nutty Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:07 PM If we class ourselves as adult, we all have to take responsibility for our actions and accept any consequences that might arise from them. Clearly Shambles still has a lot of growing up to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:36 PM Possibly pedantic correction: Whatever the cause, people cannot turn themselves into martyrs. That isn't actually true. Sadly, it happens every day in places like Iraq and the Holy Land. Then there were the Hunger Strikers in Northern Itrekand. And many many examples over the ages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:51 PM Apart from having a target publicly pinned on me by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - could someone tell me what rules I am supposed to have broken and for which I should be further punished? For unlike many of my fellow posters who would feel themselves qualified to publicly judge my worth in this thread and see Max's request for me to leave as some reason for rejoicing: I have tried to post my views on our forum - openly using my own name. I have not tried 'fun' ways or any other ways of preventing others from posting their views or ever felt encouraged that my membership gave me any right to do this. I have never posted only to abuse or call another poster names, used foul language, made scatological references or ever responded in kind to the many such post I been seen to be subjected to. A practice and example set which has been seen to be openly indulged in and encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and some of the anonymous members of his team. No one has ever been forced to read my posts and in fact in the many years I have been a member and keen supporter of our forum - I have done nothing but try to post my honest views and encourage others to do this - which I was under the impression was the object of our forum. Perhaps the above would not be the case for some of those who appear to feel themselves qualified to judge me as being guilty of some form of rule-breaking. If it were against the rules to be judged an irritation or a pain in the arse - perhaps many more posters than me should be being asked to leave. When some of these go first - I may follow their example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: John O'L Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:22 PM All this stuff about identities has me seriously freaked out. In every GUEST post I'm seeing idiosyncrasies I recognise, or think I recognise, in specific members. Maybe I'd just better close this thread and go back to the one about the haemorrhaging...so much blood...so many suicide notes...where will it all end? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:35 PM "Ron, you make a very good point, even if it's not quite what you intended. You got into the argument with Shambles rather late, didn't you? Why did you feel like you 1) needed to do that, and 2) wouldn't do any harm by doing it?" Jeri, you are right. Your comments actually do fit in with what I was trying to say. We are all humans. Yes, I got into the "discussion" with Shambles rather late - after I kept seeing references in threads I found to be more important. After a lot of searching and thinking, I realized that Shambles made some very good points. He does appear to have been singled out, and there does appear to have been good reason to do that. Why did I enter in? Because I could. There were no rules stopping me. Seeing moderators and other respected Mudcatters having at it made me feel that my comments were not out of place. It wasn't a private battle. The problems reflected what I saw at the core of what made Mudcat a good website. Did I feel that I would be doing harm? Not at first. I soon realized that I was becoming part of the pack mentality that was ruining this website. There were no groundrules that prevented me from doing so, especially when I saw respected Mudcatters and moderators doing the same. "The bottom line is there will always be people who will jump at a stupid argument without regard for how it affects others. " And there will always be people who sit back and do nothing when there is a problem. I realize that some of my comments were out of line and out of place, but as 3:15pm guest pointed out - none of us are angels and faultless. The point is - how many people recognize that and try to change? How many people recognize that and gather strength in their convicition? Nothing is black and white. This is not a yes or no discussion, no matter how simple some of us try to make it. We are dealing with human nature her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: dianavan Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:39 PM "No one has ever been forced to read my posts..." You're right about that Shambles. In fact, you have been here longer than I but my ignorance of this situation can only be attributed to the fact that I hardly ever read the threads where you are arguing about unfair moderation. Its just boring. Is that it? Shambles has been asked to leave because he's boring? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Cluin Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:41 PM No. It's because he took a poop outside his pen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 07:29 PM There is no point in drawing out this bloodletting anymore. Shambles, you can't claim not to know. You have conducted a public campaign against Mudcat for some years and yet have the nerve to play victim. You have all your complained incessantly about process so Max has let you know (publicly) that time is up. Just as you have lodged interminable whinges and gripes against Mudcat, so others are responding with gripes against you. Which is the martyr? why do you have the right to bitch on but no-one else? Can someone make a decision and put us all out of our misery? fed up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Slag Date: 07 Jan 07 - 07:31 PM Endless, bifurcating, hairsplitting carpation of a circular nature. End it now before it swamps us all! Man the pumps and ready the plank. Batten down the hatches and weather the storm. All passengers and timid souls below deck and all able-bodied seamen, do your duty! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: vectis Date: 07 Jan 07 - 07:32 PM I find this a very sad thread. A few years ago I PMed Shambles for some information and he was helpfulness itself. I'll be sorry to see you go but it is Max's baby and he does have the last word on who goes and who stays. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Jan 07 - 07:41 PM Thanks for proving my point Guest 0550pm. My folk spirit is alive and well. I also do not hide from discussions, nor am I insulting individuals like you. The ability to communicate and discuss is far different from "piling on" and being rude. I have not been uncivil to Shambles or anyone. I have tried to maintain the same decorum that Shambles and Max have shown. I am not hiding now, nor am I using the Guest signin to insult others. If you feel that simply having a discussion is wrong, then why don't you have my message deleted? Again, you proved the point as to why having anonymous guest sign-in is wrong. You are the guilty party. Thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,the doc Date: 07 Jan 07 - 07:42 PM Slowly walk away from your computer and deal with your demons elsewhere. You are obsessed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Jan 07 - 07:43 PM :) |