|
26 Jan 05 - 06:22 PM (#1389584) Subject: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff wdyat12 Well Folks, this must be a first...atleast a first for me on Mudcat. I can't believe you would shut down a thread that challenged free speech (What About Martin.) ... First Amendment...Remember that one? I OBJECT! I WILL NOT LET MEDIA LIE! I will tell all my friends on the internet and elsewhere that Mudcat has given in to the Rupublican Fasciest State! Joe, do you want me to proceed? Peter Woodruff wdyat12 |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:29 PM (#1389592) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Fooles Troupe No it isn't! |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:31 PM (#1389597) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Little Hawk "all my friends" ...and just how many people is that, Peter? :-) Man, I can see the management of Mudcat just cringing at the thought of that. Heh! Look, if they want to close a thread, that's their business. As for Martin, well, I think he's pretty lacklustre as prime ministers go. Jean Chretien was far more entertaining in every way. Martin is as dull as cold oatmeal in comparison. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:34 PM (#1389599) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff wdyat12 Foolestroupe, "No it isn't" What do you mean? Peter |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:38 PM (#1389605) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Bee-dubya-ell I think he means "No, the thread isn't closed." It's called humor. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:44 PM (#1389616) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Bobert Hey, it happens... I've had a couple closed, but it ain't the end of the world... Just start a new one... Yeah, sure Martin can hyjcak a thread if ya let him but if ya just mess with him now and then and consider his posts as, ahhh, comic relief and dont take them personal, your thread can go and go and go... So just takes you a handfull of Acme Skin Thickinin' pills, turn the radio up and keep on truckin' an', fir gosh sakes, know when to get back on topic and know when you've done enuff pokin' back at Martin... Good luck on this one and the next, Peter, and remember the words of Ho: "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day..." Bobert |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:45 PM (#1389618) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST Little Hawk, I just came back from the most outrageous show of true fascist power at the Counter-Inaugural Protest. At home on Mudcat, I must feel that the internet has been taken over by the Fascist Republican Regime. I feel like a Vietnam veteran coming home in 1970! Joe Offer, If you do not address me on these issues I will turn you off! Peter Woodruff wdyat12 |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:47 PM (#1389622) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Fooles Troupe Look! I paid for the full half hour argument! |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:50 PM (#1389626) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff wdyat12 Thank you Little Hawk, I was going to blow up there for a minute or so. I still feel violated for being censcored. Peter |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:56 PM (#1389637) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff wdyat12 Foolestroupe, I truelly meant to give you 13 rounds but the network shut me down. I think that Martin Gibson is here becuase we are here. I think he is a highly paid plant. Peter |
|
26 Jan 05 - 06:58 PM (#1389640) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Georgiansilver He may be a plant but highly paid????? Noooooo |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:00 PM (#1389645) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff wdyat121 I think Mudcat is now controled by Condoleeza Rice ... Oh No!!! Peter |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:02 PM (#1389650) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Bill D well...this is a brown rice sort of place.... |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:10 PM (#1389660) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff wdyat12 I like wild rice damnit! Bill, Don't you think that closing this thread [What About Martin] is a measure that was dictated by the Fascist Bush Regime some way or other? Peter |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:11 PM (#1389663) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Morticia what kind of plant? I like plants. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM (#1389672) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Joe Offer Sorry, Peter. We routinely close or delete all threads that look like they're going to be an attack on an individual. Yours got deleted before it turned into another slugfest. There was no way it was going to turn out to be a constructive discussion. As for any thread about gargoyle or Martin Gibson, we don't even think twice. We delete it. Learn to live with it. -Joe Offer- |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:18 PM (#1389675) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Little Hawk THAT is a hell of an interesting theory, Peter! Never thought of it. Do you really think the Bush administration cares enough to plant someone like Martin here to mess things up? Before Martin there was Claymore (and still is, from time to time). Before Martin there was the Conservative Cavalry! Remember that? The guy's name was "Mag" or something like that. He was a jazz musician. He came here only to fight with the "liberals". Anyway, I can understand you got upset about the thread closure. I had a humorous thread closed once that I thought was totally harmless, and, yeah, it's really irritating when that happens, but it WILL happen. You gotta roll with the punches. It's not that big a deal. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:22 PM (#1389679) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff wdyat12 Morticia, I love plants too! I grow five varieties of Basil and numerous other herbs. I grow lots of tomatoes and peppers and flowers...I love flowers ... Annuals and Perrenials and Lupins for three years and they still come up but they don't bloom. I think Martin is a very insideous plant like Honeysuckle that chokes native trees to extinction. Peter |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:30 PM (#1389687) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff wdyat12 You are right Joe. We need to be open to hits from the alternative reality. We must be Liberal! Peter |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:34 PM (#1389690) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Bobert Little Hawk, Bite yer tongue. Claymore doesn't hold a candle to... Teribus... Rememeber him? Talk about a Bush plant (bush plant? Hmmmm?) Bobert |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:44 PM (#1389700) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Georgiansilver Martin is just a figment of your imagination...he doesn't really exist....you have an image of him which is not really there. He really does not exist...just someone pretending to be someone he is not! Enjoy him for what he is........Love him as the trouble maker....forgive him his sin.....he just is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Best wishes. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:47 PM (#1389705) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Little Hawk Teribus! The terrible teribus! That was the name I could not think of. Then there's pdq. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 07:47 PM (#1389706) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles I question whether 'we' have routinely deleted anything. Joe Offer may well have decided to. I suspect also that that Joe's routine deletions and judgement can only increase. Joe if YOU don't like what the public place on this discussion forum - after they have been invited by Max to do so - and without any rules being set by him - can YOU please leave the rest of us (who do like the forum) - alone?
-Joe Offer-
|
|
26 Jan 05 - 08:00 PM (#1389723) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff wdyat12 Yea? Peter |
|
26 Jan 05 - 08:09 PM (#1389735) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: akenaton Teribus made strategic retreat,when he discovered that his position had become exposed...Ake |
|
26 Jan 05 - 08:10 PM (#1389737) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Amos Shambola: Don't START dat shit here, maaaannnnnn! A |
|
26 Jan 05 - 08:13 PM (#1389744) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Little Hawk What position was that, Ake? I wondered where teribus had gone. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 08:38 PM (#1389766) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,heric Teribus had an entire thread devoted to talking shit about him, a few months ago. It was just like a school yard gang-up, or Lord of the Flies, to be melodramatic. He departed without even commenting. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 08:46 PM (#1389773) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,FLO(feeling left out) Is there any way I can go to archives and find some of these threads that people are saying were closed or terminated? I've never seen one and don't what they are like. How about this: set up an archive for those threads and charge people to view them - money goes to mudcat. good idea, right??? |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:00 PM (#1389782) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Little Hawk I think you can still find them, you just can't add to them. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:03 PM (#1389785) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Peter K (Fionn) Looks like Joe is on course to fuck up Mudcat as we know it. If the frequent outtages don't do that job for him. I have just waded through the "prayerful inauguration" thread. As I wanted to chip in, I was conscientious enough (for once) to read all the other popsts first. Right at the end I found I'd wasted my time - Joe had imposed his own moral code on all of us and closed the thread. There have been intances where hurtful malice went unchecked on Mudcat. But who was getting hurt in this case? No-one that I could see. Amos seemed to be fighting his corner, Mick had easily won his separate spat with Martin Gibson and Martin Gibson was wearing his victim status on his sleeve and making a prat of himself as usual - never a good reason to close a thread. If Joe's censorious arrogance is here to stay, as he clearly hopes it is, then it would be a simple courtesy when a thread is closed to say so higher up that thread than at the very bottom. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:04 PM (#1389786) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST yeah but surely the [arbitrarily] deleted threads are gone from the database for ever.. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:14 PM (#1389795) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Joe Offer We do our best not to delete* threads if they have any content that's worthwhile. There was a lot of worthwhile discussion in the "prayerful inauguration" thread, but it turned into a pissing match between two people. I closed the thread, but it's available for anybody to see (click). All closed threads are open for reading. If you see a need to continue the discussion of the inauguration, feel free to start a new thread and link to the old one. I'll even be happy to add a "continuation" link to the earlier thread. Is that really so draconian? Heck, I happen to agree with those who condemned Bush for using God as a PR man. I think it's sacrilegious. -Joe Offer- *Deleted threads are not "gone from the database forever" (but we're unlikely to undelete them). If you have a question about one, ask me - privately. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:17 PM (#1389799) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: akenaton Heric...As Teribus used to say "get your facts right". The thread you refer to was started to discuss the true nature of "facts" Teribus of course laid great store by his book of facts, butI always think that most facts are really opinions I dont think his disappearance was a "noble exit" but more the fear that another Mudcatter had stumbled on his true identity...Ake |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:18 PM (#1389801) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Amos Flo: Yeah, good idea!!!:) A |
|
26 Jan 05 - 10:22 PM (#1389851) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Bill D " Joe's censorious arrogance"....now, THAT makes me giggle...You only need to be around Joe for maybe 10 minutes to realize that he is the most unlikely 'censor' you are likely to meet. He got the job because he exercises pretty damn good judgement, and because he 'almost' has the patience of a saint. Just be very glad that *I* don't have the job! no, Peter, I do NOT think that Bush and his weird crew have ANY influence over this place. (You oughta come to the Getaway and meet most of the famous and near-famous from this crowd....and play some music with 'em) |
|
26 Jan 05 - 10:22 PM (#1389853) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Once Famous This thread is Closed? This thread is shit! |
|
27 Jan 05 - 01:51 AM (#1389998) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Fooles Troupe Who Farted? |
|
27 Jan 05 - 02:21 AM (#1390012) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles Joe at least has the courage to use his own name and to stand by his actions - a aspect seemingly valued by many members who think that posts from nameless 'guests' are cowardly. Perhaps the identities and unknown number of our other nameless judges can be subject to the same yardstick? This day celebrates - (if that is the right word) - the needless misery that resulted when people were lead to place their trust in those fine folk who told them that the forcible withdrawing other people's freedoms - was a neccessary and a good idea......Some of the intial supporters of this madness - were themselves later subject to it. But by it was then too late................ The fact that one volunteers to judge others and take action based on this judgement - should automatically exclude them from doing it. |
|
27 Jan 05 - 03:14 AM (#1390030) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles More current action and thoughts on the subject in this thread. http://207.103.108.99/thread.cfm?threadid=77678&messages=17 |
|
27 Jan 05 - 12:07 PM (#1390214) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Big Mick You folks are forgetting something. The thread was closed when it ceased to be about the inauguration and became an insult match. I support the closing of it. Joe is a fine Chief Administrator, and exercises very good judgement. Mick |
|
27 Jan 05 - 12:17 PM (#1390231) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Georgiansilver Seconded |
|
27 Jan 05 - 12:26 PM (#1390245) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Little Hawk Thirded. The thread had become redundant. It was kind of like watching reruns of Jerry Springer. |
|
27 Jan 05 - 12:37 PM (#1390252) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Jim Tailor wow. is somebody taking the mudcat just a little too seriously?! |
|
27 Jan 05 - 01:05 PM (#1390278) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles Folk have and do use this forum not only to 'goof-off' but to discuss many serious issues and to comment on injustice and lack of freedom in many parts of the world. Many of us take the freedom we have to do this very seriously indeed and have been very grateful to Max for providing the opportunity to have these exchanges on this forum and with folk from many parts of the world. One can hardly post to critise censorship and limitation of freedom of expression in the world and be subject to needless censorship and limitation of freedom of expression on this forum. Threats to our freedom of expression should be viewed just as seriously on this forum as it should everywhere else. Those that have never lost this freedom can be more than a little careless with what they may find is a truly priceless comodity. Any attempt by anyone to limit this comodity in anyway anywhere (even here) - should be treated as if it is a matter of life or death. As a little fight now may actually prevent it eventually becoming a matter of life or death....Too serious no - it can never be that. Taking threats to our freedom of expression too lightly - is the real danger. |
|
27 Jan 05 - 01:38 PM (#1390319) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Scooby Doo I think quite a few people take mudcat to their heart often too serious. I thought this was a place where you could laugh and joke with your mates and not be taken seriously but i have noticed in recent weeks this is not true. Gaia |
|
27 Jan 05 - 03:31 PM (#1390418) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Liz the Squeak Same here Gaia.. I've noticed that there are a small minority of people who will jump on any voiced opinion and immediately stick that person with an undeserved and hurtful label. They then proceed to beat them to death with it and make some of these threads very uncomfortable reading for everyone, not just the people concerned. There are several threads here that should, in my opinion, been closed days ago. But that's my opinion, and I no-doubt will now be beaten about the head with it by someone who disagrees with me, but will give neither a valid reason nor a real name for further discussion. LTS |
|
27 Jan 05 - 03:38 PM (#1390424) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Big Mick Liz, anyone who beats you up for that sentiment is a fool. The only modifier that I would put to it is that there are those that cross lines and sometimes it just gets tiresome. But all in all, I believe you are correct. Mick |
|
27 Jan 05 - 03:43 PM (#1390430) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Teresa I'm trying to stick to this philosophy of life, especially on the Internet. The good words are inspiring. The bad I just take with a grain of salt, especially from those that don't know me. It's the friends who can hurt the most, and I try to work it out with them. Teresa |
|
27 Jan 05 - 05:05 PM (#1390525) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Once Famous this thread is mucous. |
|
27 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM (#1390654) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Fooles Troupe Who sneezed? |
|
27 Jan 05 - 09:52 PM (#1390816) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: JennyO Probabdy subwud wid a code id the dose hoo fordot dere Kleedex. |
|
27 Jan 05 - 09:54 PM (#1390821) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Once Famous JennyO, how's the turkey business? |
|
27 Jan 05 - 10:01 PM (#1390828) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: JennyO Not so good Martin. There didn't seem to be much of a market for Turkey Turd Beer. Made a right mess of Tavern '99 they did too! So I stuck 'em in the freezer for next year's Christmas Tavern. How's everything with you? Jenny |
|
27 Jan 05 - 10:08 PM (#1390837) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Once Famous Fine, thanks for asking. |
|
28 Jan 05 - 06:29 AM (#1391083) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Shambles There are several threads here that should, in my opinion, been closed days ago. But that's my opinion, and I no-doubt will now be beaten about the head with it by someone who disagrees with me, but will give neither a valid reason nor a real name for further discussion. Speaking as one who is often 'beaten about the head' (usually by Big Mick and Co) for expressing my opinion and one who has no need to beat you around the head for expressing yours - I place my opinion here - in the hope of some sensible further discussion in response. Is there really any need for someone to judge for you (or us) when a thread should be closed (or deleted)? For surely - if you don't choose to open the thread - as far as you are concerned - the thread IS effectively closed? You have then passed your own personal judgement upon the condition of the thread in the most effective way possible. |
|
28 Jan 05 - 08:36 AM (#1391158) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Cluin Meanwhile, back at the ranch... |
|
28 Jan 05 - 08:49 AM (#1391173) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Fooles Troupe Martin Gibson, disquised as a glove.... |
|
28 Jan 05 - 02:53 PM (#1391570) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Once Famous Follestroupe, disguised as a condom. Used. |
|
28 Jan 05 - 03:11 PM (#1391579) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Teresa Shambles: Here's my opinion on editing/closing, etc. I think that whoever has the idea to run a site should run it the way they see fit. I may or may not agree with it. If I had a vision of the way things should be, I'd go and start my own forum. If I disagree, I'd go to a site that expresses my views more plainly. Mudcat is not a democracy. As long as we're extending political metaphors, I suppose you could call it a benign dictatorship. I have no problem with that whatsoever. If the management of the forum was done by a co-op or a paid membership of users, maybe I'd feel different. But that's not the 'cat. Teresa |
|
28 Jan 05 - 05:51 PM (#1391725) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Fooles Troupe Thanks Martin - obviously I had more fun (in company!) than you... |
|
28 Jan 05 - 06:08 PM (#1391748) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST Was this glove on the hand of a proctologist? |
|
28 Jan 05 - 08:51 PM (#1391890) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles Here's my opinion on editing/closing, etc. I think that whoever has the idea to run a site should run it the way they see fit. I may or may not agree with it. If I had a vision of the way things should be, I'd go and start my own forum. If I disagree, I'd go to a site that expresses my views more plainly. Teresa it is nice to have some sensibly expressed views to discuss - even if I may not agree with them. I think you may accept that it is not universally welcome - but you have not said if the current imposed deleting/closing is effective or necessary on our forum. Probably the most important point. However, I would probably agree with most of the above but first I would like you to consider it from a slightly different angle.........I and many other long-term contributors certainly did (and still mostly do) support the idea you refer to - Max's original concept - that is why we stay. A noisy minority became a little dissapointed with some aspects (as the forum grew larger) and instead of doing as you sensibly suggest - accepting the forum as it was or going away and finding somewhere to do their way - they stayed and complained to Max about just about everyone and everything. Measures were introduced to address these complaints and conventions became guidelines and guidelines in their turn have now become hard and fast rules for volunteers to impose upon other posters. For here we are now and many of the same people are still are here and still making the same complaints. I am not one of them as I like the forum (warts and all). I think it would be fair to say that although Max may have introduced some of these measures - these current judgements and compulsory editing actions (that many think have always been the case and others think are not required at all) are not part of the original concept. One that has attracted the posters it has and as result has created a fine discussion forum Mudcat is not a democracy. As long as we're extending political metaphors, I suppose you could call it a benign dictatorship. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I see nothing benign about any dictatorship. And I see very little that is benign here about some posters imposing their judgement on the worth of other posters and threatening them with exclusion. If these self- appointed volunteers (and I see Joe Offer is now referred to as Chief Administrator) do not like the contributions that Max has invited - perhaps it is those who should go away and start their own sites - as you suggest? If the management of the forum was done by a co-op or a paid membership of users, maybe I'd feel different. But that's not the 'cat. If it works (and it has for many years despite the complainers) why allow volunteers to fix it? |
|
28 Jan 05 - 09:17 PM (#1391900) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Teresa Shambles, I'm going to make one more comment on this, and then I am done with this thread. When I say the folks who run this site should do as they see fit, that means at all times, not just according to some sort of original vision. I don't know what that was exactly; neither do the folk who have these ideas and volunteer, because things change, and we do what we do as things go along. I'm off this thread now. I am avoiding the quicksand before I get mired! :) Teresa |
|
28 Jan 05 - 09:25 PM (#1391904) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles To be fair - you did make reference to whoever had the idea. I think that whoever has the idea to run a site should run it the way they see fit Max had the idea and should be given full credit for this. |
|
29 Jan 05 - 03:05 AM (#1392070) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Terry K I have to say that I thought part of the idea was that threads below the line was "anything goes" territory. I thought this thread had been started as a bit of fun, bound to become silly, but so what? Surely "the line" was introduced so that people who don't want the silly stuff could easily stay away. I don't know what happened here becasue the thread started late at night for me. I made two light hearted posts, which I thought were in the spirit of the thread, then went to bed. Next day I found the censorship axe had come down. In view of much of the non-funny unadulterated crap in many of the below-the-line threads, I think this may well be overkill. |
|
29 Jan 05 - 04:27 AM (#1392094) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Georgiansilver You can please some of the people..some of the time..but not all of the people...all of the time! Best wishes. |
|
29 Jan 05 - 05:18 AM (#1392103) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles There does not seem to be of an attempt on the part of our Chief Administrator and his volunteers to please anyone but themselves. There are many people who are puzzled by the fairly recent rise all this imposed censorship action and who often post to question both its efficiency and its need. Some of them are still even brave (or foolish) enough to use their regular Mudcat name to do so, although I suspect that this may not continue much longer. The attempt seems only to be made to please those who complain and judge the worth of other's postings (that no one is forcing them to open and read) and who will NEVER be pleased anyway. Rather than more sensibly simply telling these posters that if they do not like the forum - they can go somwhere else As far as I can see - no attempt is being made to please other posters, who accept the reality of a forum open to the public and like the forum to reflect this form of creation. Perhaps our protectors could confine their imposed judgement of our worth - to only contributions above 'the line'? When asked about below 'the line' - Max once told us not to sweat the rules - as there were none. Does a discussion forum - that consists entirely of contributions invited by its owner Max - really need such a grandly titled functionary and team of volunteers to tell us what they will allow? For what on earth is there really - for all these well-intentioned folk to do? There may be a case for someone to tidy-up certain mistakes in posts - when requested to so by the poster themselves - but what else is there to administrate on a forum that is simply a collection of posts from the public? |
|
29 Jan 05 - 06:49 AM (#1392139) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Georgiansilver 69 |
|
29 Jan 05 - 02:44 PM (#1392471) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Joe Offer Sorry you got caught in a deleted thread, Terry. This place can get pretty nasty without a bit of control, so we do what we can to keep the peace without controlling too rigidly. It's impossible for us to explain or defend our actions, because each situation is different. If everything had been running smoothly and there had been no animosity about Martin Gibson, we might well have left your "martin" thread untouched. That's not the case here and now, so we delete just about every Martin Gibson thread that gets posted. No, this is not to protect Martin or to show "tolerance" for any aggessive act or person - it's just done to keep the peace. We don't allow personal attacks - even if the target appears to deserve to be personally attacked. You can argue against that all you want, and it's not something we can defend. There are too many factors involved. All we can do is use our judgment and do what we think we ought to do. I do have to say that it does hurt, all this cavilling against our editorial actions. Max and Jeff and I and all the volunteers really do believe that Mudcat should be a forum for free and open discussion, and we do our best to keep it that way. However, when the forum is overwhelmed by animosity and aggression, a great number of our participants do not feel free to carry on a discussion. It's really hard to carry on a serious discussion -or even to carry on lighthearted banter - in the middle of a battleground. So, we do our best to keep the battles toned down, with full realization some people won't like some of the things we do, and some people will NEVER like any of the things we do. We hope that most people won't even notice what we do most of the time - we want to gently and quietly nudge things so that most people can feel comfortable here. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Jan 05 - 03:50 PM (#1392536) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Shambles Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules From: Max - PM Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=14726&messages=56&page=1&desc=yes |
|
29 Jan 05 - 04:44 PM (#1392592) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Rustic Rebel I can't outrightly say I agree with censorship, but I will agree that many threads have become trashed around here. That is the unpleasant side effect of people not respecting the discussion. I have had to stop and delete myself a few times because I was ready to jump into the trash and trash some more but I found restraint every time and censored myself. (grinning proudly and damn proud of it too!) Rustic |
|
29 Jan 05 - 06:27 PM (#1392668) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles That's right. I deleted the thread using the general guidelines. When a thread starts out as an attack, there is not much chance of it being civil. Joe is but one of us, and he is the senior admin person. His if generally the last word, but there are several of us that serve this function. There was another thread I asked Joe to review. I felt like it should be closed, but I had participated in it. Hence I felt as though someone else should make the decision. Mudelf What message is it giving and is it really such a great idea for the forum, to have unknown numbers of volunteers who impose judgement on the worth of the contributions of others - but for some reason choose to remain intentionally anonymous? If we have to have all these volunteer censors (and I am more and more convinced that we do not) - would it really be such a bad idea to only have volunteers who were prepared to be known and be accountable? I disagree totally with Joe over censorship on the forum but at least he has the courage to stand by his actions and be known. There are other volunteers who also do not feel they need to be anonymous. |
|
29 Jan 05 - 11:56 PM (#1392927) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Joe Offer Ah, but the volunteers ARE accountable, and they are known - to Max, and Jeff, and Joe. They just aren't directly accountable to the entire Forum. That would get too confusing, and it would make it too easy for people to play one volunteer against another and to box our volunteers into contradictions. That's why we have only three people who have decision authority, and two of those three answer to Max and defer to him on certain matters. All editing decisions by other volunteers are done in consultation with one of the three of us. It's a very common system of organization. It means that if you have a question, you know whom to contact - Max for ultimately important decisions, and Jeff and Joe for day-to-day things. -Joe Offer- |
|
30 Jan 05 - 05:23 AM (#1393010) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Shambles Much posting over many years has taken place on the subject of anonymous posts. Whatever one's own view may be - it is not really possible to ignore the fact that anonymous posting it is thought by many - not generally to be a very acceptable practice. This would suggest that now flying in the face of all of this and insisting on the need for anonymous posting on the part of an unknown number of volunteers who think it a good idea to intentionally conceal their identity and feel qualified to impose their judgement upon others from this very priviliged position - will generally not thought to be a good thing for ensuring harmony and civility. This after all is supposed to be the stated object of all this imposed censorship. If the purpose of these anonymous volunteers is simply to look-out for and bring possible problems to the attention of those who names we do know - surely this function can be better undertaken by all contributors? Why take the risk with the forum and insist on justifying all these anonymous volunteer judges? I would suggest that one way to obtain harmony and civilty would be for everyone to feel that they were all contributing on an equal basis. Probably the best way to ensure that harmony and civilty will never be achieved is to insist on the justice of having many different levels of contributors. If yet further division is the intention - I suggest that this is the way to go. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 05:37 AM (#1393016) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: John MacKenzie Never use one word when 22 will do. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 05:46 AM (#1393018) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Liz the Squeak A friend who has peeked at this site asked me if 'Mudcat' was short for 'mud slinging and catty remarks'. All these people who complain about censorship should maybe step into the shoes of one of the people being sniped at... especially those for whom the attack is unprovoked, as has happened here. I bet anything that if a thread was started by an anonymous guest saying that ***** had a tiny knob and brain to match, then ***** would be all in favour of deletion. Bin there, done that, took the medication for 2 years. LTS |
|
30 Jan 05 - 06:32 AM (#1393039) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: John MacKenzie I didn't know you knew ***** Liz! |
|
30 Jan 05 - 08:21 AM (#1393120) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Liz the Squeak Oh yes Giok.... only too well!!! But I don't go posting it in public on the 'Cat... unlike the anonymous guest who commented upon my knicker size some time back. LTS |
|
30 Jan 05 - 08:51 AM (#1393141) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: John MacKenzie He shouldn't have been wearing your knickers! Giok |
|
30 Jan 05 - 03:32 PM (#1393503) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles All these people who complain about censorship should maybe step into the shoes of one of the people being sniped at... especially those for whom the attack is unprovoked, as has happened here. I bet anything that if a thread was started by an anonymous guest saying that ***** had a tiny knob and brain to match, then ***** would be all in favour of deletion. Liz There are two parts to this. The judgement of the attack is something we may all agree with. The solution to the problem is only where we may differ. Because one may not see imposed censorship (after the event) as the solution - (but as creating another problem) - does not mean that one supports the attack or does not understand or is attempting to belittle the hurt caused. |
|
30 Jan 05 - 03:43 PM (#1393516) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: John MacKenzie Shambles don't go on please, if I'd have known I could have got nagged like this for free, I could have saved the cost of a wedding. Giok |
|
31 Jan 05 - 10:48 AM (#1394304) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,Ull King Joe Offer, Just tell us my lad, Did you kill Sir John?
-Joe Offer- |
|
01 Feb 05 - 05:23 AM (#1395391) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: GUEST,The Shambles I refresh this thread partly to make the point that the last contribution made to this thread (i.e. the volunteer's reply in brown writing) did not refresh this thread. Perhaps this was intentional? A conventional posted reply could have answered the question but would have refreshed this thread. I leave it to you to judge why this volunteer may have perferred not to refreash this thread - but still wish to make the reply. However, as the thread was not refreshed by this answer - the poster who asked the question may not be even aware that their question has been answered. They may be aware now and able to read the answer to their question. A case perhaps of having one's cake and eating it. This method (of having the last word) is not one that is open to all of us and perhaps its future use could be limited and more honestly used?
-Joe Offer- |
|
01 Feb 05 - 06:25 AM (#1395425) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Shambles This is a public discussion forum - the (first) reply was to a question of general interest (and no censorship action was taken or indicated). Why then are these contributions not being made on the same conditions that everyone else must accept? Contributing two answers whilst being able to choose not to refresh the thread a second time is not an action open to most of us. Nor one that will ensure the answer will be seen. And is one that will give the firm impression that for some reason the thread is judged not to be one to refresh. But we all have to make a choice. The only hope for the forum that I see, is that everyone here is encouraged (by example) to finally accept that making any response - (even when posting to tell others not to respond) - will bring the thread back to the top. And that if (for whatever reasons) that is not the wish - you don't post a response. the thread will then die a natural death. Perhaps this can be considered by them and this example can be set now by our volunteers? |
|
01 Feb 05 - 08:40 AM (#1395522) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: John MacKenzie Joe Offer edited, or added to an existing thread, this does not count as a further post. Comprenez my little conspiracy theorist? Giok |
|
03 Feb 05 - 06:28 AM (#1397655) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Shambles One of the main reasons given for it not being a good idea to give-in to temptatation and respond to an obvious provocation in a thread - in order to have the final 'witty' reply - is that by doing so - the thread is refreshed and pops back to the top again. God only knows how many times some folk post in this fashion - and as a result - refresh the offending thread - often only to point out to other posters - that their doing so will only result in the thread being refreshed and encourage other posters - not to do it! If the thread is not refreshed - it effectively dies and there is no need for any volunteer to close it - as judgement has been passed upon the thread in the best possible way. Perhaps our volunteers can always set and follow this example to other posters? The choice or judgement to post the final 'witty' or otherwise comment - but without refeshing the offending thread (by making the pretence that this were an editorial comment) - is not one that is open to us all. It also serves to avoid refreshing threads that are contentious, even though contentious people might like to force me to refresh them. -Joe Offer- The question is why would a volunteer not wish to refresh this thread? Or why could it sinply not be ignored - if they didn't wish to refresh it? For I am not sure at all what is considered as 'contentious' in this thread - and judged as not fit to be refreshed by a reply posted to a question the conventional way. The poster asking the question had no way of knowing that their question had been answered - because of the method chosen. As this thread would have fallen off the bottom and died. No 'contentious people' are forcing or can force anyone to refresh this thread or force them to do to do anything else. But if the thread was judged as not worth being refreshed - why post to answer the question at all? And in a fashion not open to eveyone else and one that that means the poster of the question is not going to be aware their question has received a reply? |
|
14 May 05 - 05:27 AM (#1484805) Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: The Shambles But if I reply to a question or comment within the message where the question was asked, there's no question to whom I am responding, is there? I find that efficient and clear, and see no reason to do otherwise. Joe Offer But the rest of us ordinary posters don't have this choice and get around this problem very easily - by placing the quote of the post they are responding to - at the top of a new post. It would be nice for the rest of us to have the same choices. Also to be able to clearly tell the difference between which opinions are 'official Mudcat Policy' and which are only the personal opinions of our volunteers. By the way - this thread is NOT closed. Not yet anyway......... |