|
15 Apr 06 - 05:35 AM (#1718577) Subject: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: clairerise I dont like the word censorship and the other thread by using the word is attacking each and other. I dont go on politics section much but i do read lots of it all. and the one thing that struck me was there are common reoccuring individuals. why not just give them written warnings then final banning. but only if they become offensive by extreme hostile language. posts like 'go f*** yourself' should be challanged by moderators. censorship no. moderating troublemakers yes? |
|
15 Apr 06 - 05:50 AM (#1718583) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,jOhn shoot them. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 05:53 AM (#1718585) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Georgiansilver Most of them are very well balanced in real life...they have a chip on both shoulders! Be nice to them, be caring, concerned, considerate...or bring yourself down to their level........ Best wishes, Mike. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 06:32 AM (#1718600) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Does everyone else need to be censored? Don't worry - I hear that most of the biggest moaners and trouble makers will soon be leaving our forum on Max's site - to form their own private members club. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM (#1718603) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Azizi clairerise, on April 14th on the "Do you need to be censored" thread you suggested that if "you all called censorship something else than everyone would like the idea more". As of this date and time, on that thread at least, no one has publicly responded to that comment of yours. In that same comment you wrote that "the words you spin are the words that entangle you". clairerise, if you had a burning need or a raging desire to make the point you are making in your first post of this thread-I'm curious why you didn't make it on that "censorship" thread. In my opinion, starting a new thread on this contentious subject is like adding hot air to a fire. Switching imagery, this thread-imo- has a high potential to add trouble to already troubled waters, which is a very inharmonious thing to do. That makes you-clairerise, in my opinion, at least in this instance if not others, a trouble maker. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave..." I suppose that you know the rest of that well known quote. Azizi, "My name is Bess and I am in this mess". -an African American saying I adapted for this occasion |
|
15 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM (#1718604) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST well ill join any folk forum so would welcome details |
|
15 Apr 06 - 06:56 AM (#1718608) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: clairerise Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Azizi - PM Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM clairerise, clairerise, if you had a burning need or a raging desire to make the point you are making in your first post of this thread-I'm curious why you didn't make it on that "censorship" thread. In my opinion, starting a new thread on this contentious subject is like adding hot air to a fire. Switching imagery, this thread-imo- has a high potential to add trouble to already troubled waters, which is a very inharmonious thing to do. That makes you-clairerise, in my opinion, at least in this instance if not others, a trouble maker. No you missed my point. it wasnt meant to cause trouble. i dont believe in censorship so thought a new thread about curbing just the troublemakers and those using foul language which makes me only come on here when my sons asleep should be curbed. im not saying a purge or anything. just when someone uses hostile talk they should be warned. not banned but only that as a serious last measure. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 07:03 AM (#1718611) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie What will happen is what always happens, a complaint will be made about 'A' for his/her rude and intemperate language, and someone else will say, "Yes I know they are rude and foul mouthed, or a general pain in the arse, but they're very knowledgable about Peruvian Nose Flutes" and based on that alone, all their other faults are forgiven. It's a bit like saying Hitler was such a good house painter he couldn't possibly be that bad a person! Giok. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 07:07 AM (#1718613) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles No you missed my point. it wasnt meant to cause trouble. i dont believe in censorship so thought a new thread about curbing just the troublemakers and those using foul language which makes me only come on here when my sons asleep should be curbed. What's in a word? But censorship does not curb anything. It is reactive and it can only remove something that has probably has already had an effect. The difficulty for our forum is if those posters who you describe above who use 'foul lamguage' were curbed - it would mean 'curbing' many of those posters trusted with edit buttons who set the example of posting such things and that such things are acceptable on our forum........ And that can never be. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 07:07 AM (#1718614) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: clairerise well maybe their fault should not be forgiven. im not talking about banning im talking about warnings and then if they persist over a period of 3-6 months and clock up so many warnings they should be temporaily banned for a period. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 07:08 AM (#1718615) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: clairerise to make you happy ill be banned first. wink wink |
|
15 Apr 06 - 07:28 AM (#1718622) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Do you mean 'curbing' as in the following attempt? http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1613798 NOTE* I have only just noticed by accident - that when you run the cursor over to HIGHLIGHT the censor's words here - you can still see the original comment. Or you can certainly do this if you bring-up the thread in question. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 07:56 AM (#1718635) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba I see your a new member clairerise. Welcome. Jude |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:44 AM (#1718659) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST So what the fuck's wrong with colorful language? Seems some adults' sensibilities here are a bit too Victorian. I'm not advocating tolerating a lot of swearing AT people. But Jaysus, don't start censoring language that is as salty and expressive of "the folk" as one can get! The needless censoring and "outing" of people that gets done around here is all about popularity in the forum. Censoring/outing of people by Joe Offer and The Mudcat Royals is nothing but a blatant abuse of power. Any sensible person knows a decent, reasonable forum administrator wouldn't put up with a Martin Gibson. Joe admits to spending "hundreds of hours" cleaning up after him. Which of course means Joe has a martyr complex, so needs to keep Martin around. Without Martin around, Joe would have to go after and crush other forum users to show how great and powerful he is, and y'all would start to see just how far off base he is. Joe and the clones have always been far too subjective and selective about policing the forum. If they like you, you can get away with any bullshit. If they don't, they harrass you, threaten you, bully you, etc. It's always been amateur hour at Mudcat. Reliability problems, refusal of tech assistance from knowledgeable people, eejits policing the forum and bullying the users. The BS section was the best idea ever implemented, the member-guest log-in the worst. But that's Mudcat. Always sold "as is". |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:30 AM (#1718684) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Is this the post of a 'troublemaker'? Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: catspaw49 - PM Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:15 AM BTW, I would be remiss if I didn't bite here so here we go....... Okay Sham......I know I'm going to regret this.........You seem to have added a new phrase to your volumes of "Sham's Liturgical Bullshit." What the fuck are these "founding principles?" I get this vision of Max in colonial garb and sitting with Franklin and Jefferson................ Spaw |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:35 AM (#1718687) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Big Mick Nope, it is the post of one with uncommon clarity of thought who is able to see through your lies and troll bait. Your post is simply part of your ongoing attempt to make falsehoods true by stating them enough times. Won't work. It is pretty much accepted, even by those who once fooled by you, that you are the problem. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:53 AM (#1718690) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,Terry K With all due respect (*) Big Mick, if we're telling it like it is here, you are if nothing else very constant in the way that you bestow flowery praise when sucking up to your so-called "friends", and similarly vituperative when dismissing those who don't number within your rather small circle. I'm no doubt of no consequence here, but I would have thought that the first essential of a moderator would be to try to be moderate. cheers, Terry (*) i.e. not much |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:04 AM (#1718696) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Greg F. Your post is simply part of your ongoing attempt to make falsehoods true by stating them enough times. Won't work. I dunno- seems to work fine for the BuShites with a significant percentage of the U.S. population. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:16 AM (#1718704) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Thanks for the chuckle there, TerryK. Not only are the Mudcat moderators immoderate, they function like a high school clique. Which speaks volumes of Max's maturity level, because he is the guy who hand picked this lot to "manage" the forum. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:16 AM (#1718705) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,Wesley S Same old, same old. It seems to me this falls in the catagory of a duplicate thread. Of course that won't stop it from going over 100 posts. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:18 AM (#1718708) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Like I said, Mudcat has always been sold "as is" and ye gets what ye pays for, Wesley S. Don't forget it's a holiday weekend, which could mean 200 posts or it could mean 34. That is, if the thread don't get zapped by the "moderators". |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:20 AM (#1718709) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Which speaks volumes of Max's maturity level, because he is the guy who hand picked this lot to "manage" the forum. We all make mistakes and errors in judgement. One does hope that when it becomes clear that a mistake has been made - that we have the courage to admit this and to take the required steps to correct it. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:27 AM (#1718710) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Max, Joe & the clones are about as good as Dubya about admitting and fixing mistakes. And just as with Dubya, we all suffer for their blind arrogance and thin skins. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:30 AM (#1718712) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Oh dear me another parsimomious self righteous remark, disguised as concern for all, but in reality self interested and selfish sabotage of this site and certain of it's moderators. Giok |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:41 AM (#1718716) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST We'd listen to your opinion Giok, but we already know you are with the Sycophant Swarm on this issue. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:45 AM (#1718720) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall YES. Starting right now. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM (#1718724) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Fooles Troupe It'd be like herding cats Kendall! |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM (#1718731) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST ...and what does "African-American" have to do with anything? It just occurred to me that I have personally known 11 'African-Americans' and 7 of them were caucasian. (if that is where we were headed) |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM (#1718732) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Jerry Rasmussen I have no desire to get really involved in another clone thread, but I couldn't resist... just this once... They curb dogs, don't they? Jerry |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:58 AM (#1718736) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST The moderators seem to be doing a good job of sabotaging themselves. But opinions, as they say ... You notice that a lot of members intimate that unnamed GUESTs are the ones who are problematic, but it seems that some of the members cause just as many problems... from verbal abuse of other members and GUESTs, to logging out and posting cookieless - in some instances to have schizophrenic conversations with themselves about controversial subjects. Now that's weird. But since it's "one of their own" who has done that on occasion, it's easily excusable. Visitors are most always encouraged to join: "you can PM, you can do this and that.." Well, if I want to be verbally abused or have a schizophrenic conversation with myself, I've already got those bases covered as GUEST. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 11:08 AM (#1718742) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Good moderation of forums should be invisible. People shouldn't even notice it. It should NEVER be done with red lettered, snide commentary after forum users' posts. Just as one for instance. Or by "outing" people for fucking around with identities on the idiotic member/guest log-in, as one more for instance. If Max, Joe & the clones don't want "troublemakers" fucking around with identities on the log-in THEN CHANGE THE FUCKING LOG-IN!!! END OF PROBLEM!!! The FAQ shouldn't be a bleedin' tome like the one Mudcat currently has, which is in desparate need of good editing. The moderators should have some knowledge of how to do the job. In the past, I've posted links to some really good "how-to" websites. It's clear that friendly advice was ignored. Because constructive change so rarely occurs here, especially on things that are easy to fix, as far as I'm concerned the shit that Max, Joe & the clones get now is self-inflicted, and what they bloody well deserve. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 11:14 AM (#1718745) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,11:08 Hey 10:58! We cross-posted! Now we can sit back and be entertained by the accusations that we're having one of those schiz chats. Yawn. Personally, I will never become a member posting with a consistent identity (I use both Guest and other Guest monikers routinely), just to continue making the point that the log-in and so called "moderation" system is a sham. And because I love to be a thorn in the side of the Mudcat Royals. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 11:16 AM (#1718746) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Azizi For the record, GUEST 15 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM With regard to your question "What does African American have to do with it?", if "it" means this thread topic, then my response is that "African American" is the source for the folk saying "My name is Bess, and I aint in this mess" that I adapted and used as an ending statement for my 15 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM post on this thread. By citing this reference, I was not attempting to bring the subject of race into this thread. I don't deny the fact that I am African American. However, except for that fact that I cited, my race does not factor into this discussion. As to your other comment Guest about having known African Americans who were "caucasian", it bes that way sometime. That said, in my opinion, that is a whole 'nother discussion, and I'm not goin there right here right now. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 11:27 AM (#1718754) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Bobert Yes, Azizi, it is a topic fir another discussuion... And probably a very good one, I might add... On the "censorship" thread I made a comment about folks trying to divert threads because they have no real position on the subject at hand... Or maybe better put, no defendable position... That's purdy much the way I define troublemaker... It isn't the language they use or the ranting ut an inability to stay on topic... Kind like a bandmate who isn't in tune... MO, Bobert |
|
15 Apr 06 - 11:32 AM (#1718760) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Stilly River Sage clairise, The longer you can lurk when you're new to a place the less likely you are to put your foot in the middle of it. Take a reading of the membership by reading multiple posts and threads, and if you're curious about how a topic has been discussed in the past, use the "Lyrics and Knowledge Search" at the top of the page and deselect "DT" (Digital Tradition, where lyrics to songs are stored in a database) and search on "Forum" only. The fewer search words the better usually with that. As you have discovered, "censorship" by any other name is still censorship. You've put your thumb on a hot button here at the 'Cat. Rather the prescribing censorship, take in the waters "above the line" for a while and immerse yourself in the more civil side of Mudcat. It'll do you good. SRS |
|
15 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM (#1718761) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Azizi Of course, Bobert as you know, there are some threads where word plays & going off thread in a creative way is desired and expected. This aint one of them. I stand by my first post to this thread. It's there to read, and a portion of it was quoted here once, so I certainly don't need to repeat it or summarize it. But I will yield to the urge to say "I told you so". |
|
15 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM (#1718762) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Bee-dubya-ell Depends on your definition of troublemaker. Is anyone who isn't 100%satisfied with the status quo and is willing to openly suggest changes a troublemaker? Is someone who speaks out about what he or she perceives as hypocrisy in the way this forum is run a troublemaker? If so, curb 'em! But while you're at it you might as well take that little catfish picture from the opening page and replace it with a swastika. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 12:01 PM (#1718788) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Ebbie LOL Seems like that a number of people are unhappy with the Mudcat- and yet 'most every one of them takes for granted that they are staying right here. I suggest that they are not as unhappy as they sound. As for me and my house, we loves the Cat, warts and all. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 12:11 PM (#1718791) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Ebbie, I started a survey of forum users above the line because I'm curious as to how many folks only come to Mudcat and "take it" as is. I go to a lot of places on the web everyday. But I rarely come in here anymore, except when I have a holiday or a vacation. And even at that, I'd describe my coming here to other folkies as a bad habit I haven't gotten around to breaking completely yet. I keep coming because I still like looking for interesting music news. I rarely find anything here, though. And even rarer do I post in the music section, because there isn't much new there for me after all these years in online folk music forums and newsgroups. But I also have known for years I'm a distinct minority at Mudcat. Not because of my insistence on posting with either full anonymity or pseudonymity (hey, if it was good enough for James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, it's good enough for me), but because I've never come here because I love the company of fellow forum users. Mudcat has always been a time killing endeavor for me, more than anything else. I don't think most people here are really nice. In fact, I think most the regulars here have a host of psychological problems, and I'm really glad I don't know them personally. But sometimes the entertainment value of observing their bizarre behavior is irresistible--like watching the train wreck in slow motion, or slowing down on the freeway to look at the scene of the crash. It's an interesting place in a chasing ambulances and fire trucks sort of way. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 12:18 PM (#1718798) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Well Guest thank you for your breathtakingly banal assessment of the Mudcat and the people who use it. I would suggest you visit an addiction clinic to break yourself of the habit of coming here, which you obviously find distressing. I wish you complete success in breaking the habit, and want you to know that I for one am missing you already. Giok |
|
15 Apr 06 - 12:20 PM (#1718800) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST If I found it distressing, Giok, I wouldn't come here. The regulars seem to let their blood pressure shoot up over things that get said/happen here, but I certainly don't. And thanks for missing me. I don't miss you too. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 12:33 PM (#1718815) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Ebbie That's where you are mistaken, Guest. You are not anonymous at all. Your name is Legion. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM (#1718822) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Thanks Ebbie. I live for that kind of attention. Need it like I need me Wheaties. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:02 PM (#1718832) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: clairerise john giok has a point. why do people still come on here if disatisfied? but i also think that a lot of poeple who are called troublemakers are poeple who show what theythink are problms on mudcat, but are labelled troublemakers. the truth maybe the reason they dont just up and leave is like everything in life. you have to push for improvement, change. mudcat no exception. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:17 PM (#1718854) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Good point clairerise about pushing for improvement. But I can tell you for me it isn't that, as I gave up on thinking improvement and change would be a regular part of the Mudcat experience back somewhere around late 1999. Some people will fight change tooth and nail, and this site is home to quite a few of that sort of folk. That said, for me the dissatisfaction has never been enough to make me break the habit of coming here, as I do still do, but only now and then. For those of us who have been online for over a decade, we do develop internet habits. Some people compulsively check their email. Some people compulsively do instant messaging. Some people compulsively check in at Mudcat. See what I'm getting at? Just because you are dissatisfied with something doesn't mean it is of completely no use. Take my hometown newspaper, for instance. Or should I say, please. Even though I detest the rag, I still check it several times a week for information I'm seeking. But that is because my online compulsion is information seeking. I'm a surfing junkie. And a gatherer of bookmarks. Also, Mudcat has (I'm guessing, actually) a fairly high number of transients who just pass through here. Transients don't really care about the community. I guess I'm just a long term transient. I come and go, and don't really care about this community. However, there are two online communities I'm a regular at, where I do care about the communities. So I understand why people here care. I'm not contemptuous of it. I just look at Mudcat as one of those really dysfunctional families we all know, and often make fun of. :) |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:20 PM (#1718859) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,Martin Gibson from London Have a few minutes to relax and use a computer here in my son's hotel If you don't like it here, quite. Or as Shambles said way up the thread, some are ready to quit and start their own members only forum. Good. the PC prigs and easily offended whiners need a place to stick their head in the sand. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM (#1718861) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: clairerise but martin some dont want to quit but want to see improvements. like threads getting hijacked by guests and all sorts. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:31 PM (#1718867) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Just some friendly advice from a long term forum transient, but I wouldn't get your hopes up on the improvement thing, clairerise. The folks here like things the way they are, and are the kind of people easily threatened by a change in the status quo, be it politics or the forum management. Many folkies are like that. Once something happens more than a few times, it becomes "tradition" to them. And nothing is more sacred to that sort of folkie than "tradition". Or maybe that should be Tradition. Or "Tradition" (tm) Anyway, there are at least two kinds of folkies, the ones who worship tradition and the status quo, and the ones who try to subvert, upend, and overthrow it. This is really a traditional status quo kinda place, visited often by the latter type folkie, because...well, as I've admitted before, it's kinda like shootin' fish in a barrel. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:35 PM (#1718869) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie I see Mudcat as a tolerant, sometimes too tolerant place, and while I agree with the ethos I do not always agree with the means of retaining it. Yes I rail against Shambles and the other malcontents, but that has as much to do with their methods as anything else, and not totally to do with their aims. I too have my issues with some of the decisions made on here, and if the anonymous Guest who accused me of sycophancy had read all my posts he wouldn't have made the accusation. However this selective memory syndrome is prevalent on the site, and as has been said before, "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?" I believe that the way to change things is to get folks on your side, and take them with you, not to bore them by engaging in endless repetitive wind bagging, and thereby alienating them. This is a lesson Roger has yet to learn, and he might find that when he stops pushing, the wall might just give way from the weight of those pushing from the other side. I would suggest that someone start a thread under their own name, asking for suggestions on how this site could be improved, we can then all see them so there will be no accusations of the 'Management' not taking any notice or ignoring PMs. Now you and I both know that it won't guarantee any changes, but it might just sow a seed or two, it will engender some sensible discussion, and if rigorously edited it will not degenerate into a mud slinging exercise. Try it, just because Presidents and Prime Ministers get elected by minorities and Gerrymandering, it doesn't mean that democracy is dead. Try it Roger, you've tried almost everything else! Giok |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:36 PM (#1718871) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall I know Max. I know Joe Offer, and at least 4 clones. I've never had a problem with any of them, and in fact they strike me as being decent people doing a good job for free. I also know that the clones are not clones just because they want to be. They are selected because they are intelligent,and they are not nut cases. They infrequently make mistakes that upset certain malcontents. Is there something wrong with me? |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:42 PM (#1718877) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: clairerise heres about an idea. only members can post THREADS. thats gets away from guests posting annoying threads designed to cause trouble. in fact only members could post at all. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:45 PM (#1718880) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie DOWN ROGER!!! |
|
15 Apr 06 - 01:46 PM (#1718881) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST I don't know if there is anything wrong with you or not kendall. But there are some things, some generalisations we can make, about human nature and Mudcat. Like, we tend to surround ourselves with people just like ourselves. That most people have a blind spot when it comes to seeing people they like accurately, for who and what they really are. That many people value loyalty above all else when it comes to relationships, and demand it as a prerequisite far too often in their dealings with other people. When it isn't given, or is perceived as having been betrayed, they are exiled to the wilderness forever. That most people don't like being self-critical, or interested in changing/improving themselves. That because so few people are self-critical or even self-reflctive, very few people are self-aware in any meaningful way. Ideology trumps almost anything. And there is such a thing as a Mudcat ideology. JMO. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 02:03 PM (#1718901) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST giok your obsession with shambles is getting bigger by the post. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM (#1718918) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST No, I'm Legion. I don't know who those other guys are, but it's obviously a case of mistaken identity. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 02:46 PM (#1718941) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall Guest 1:46 pm Your point is well taken, but let me add that one doesn't get to be a friend of mine from being an asshole. The clones that I mentioned are, in my opinion, good and decent people, and THAT is the reason I find no fault in them. I don't bother to get to know those who piss me off with childish ranting about petty slights. Like comes first, then loyalty. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM (#1718951) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Stilly River Sage heres about an idea. only members can post THREADS. thats gets away from guests posting annoying threads designed to cause trouble. in fact only members could post at all. Now why didn't anyone else think of that? Someone needs to go do some more reading. . . |
|
15 Apr 06 - 02:53 PM (#1718952) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Bee-dubya-ell No, Kendall, there's nothing wrong with you. But you are in the unusual position of being extremely well-respected on this forum. If, just as an experiment, you were to create an alternate membership for yourself using a different computer with a different IP address, and post for a few months (nothing inflamatory - just honest responses to the topics at hand), you'd probably find yourself on the receiving end of some of the unprofessional behavior some of us have been complaining about. It is my humble opinion that anyone who has the power to determine whether or not another member's posts are to be deleted, threads are to be closed, or IP addresses are to be blocked has a duty to behave professionally at all times. Moderators who gratuitously insult other members have no business being moderators, any more than a salesperson who insults customers has any business working in a store. For better or worse, forum moderation is very much a form of working with the public and part of working with the public is the ability to hold one's tongue when necessary. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 02:54 PM (#1718953) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Well, I'm certainly not alone in believing some of your Mudcat friends are assholes, kendall. But then, wouldn't that mean your definition of asshole and mine are different? You have chosen to like people here I wouldn't go near with a ten foot pole. There is no one job description for assholes, last time I checked. And kendall, I'm not saying we should play the fault finding game with people we like. But you should at least recognize we are all human, have foibles, failures, and some really nasty qualities. Everyone has a dark side, and on the internet a person's dark side shows more to strangers than it does to friends and long term acquaintances. So perhaps you aren't the best judge of their character. Just like the rest of us do. Nobody is perfect. But as my pappy used to say, some of us are less perfect than others. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 02:54 PM (#1718954) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Clinton Hammond If you cannot attach your face to your words, your words mean nothing |
|
15 Apr 06 - 03:00 PM (#1718961) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST To you maybe, Clinton. But thankfully, you don't speak for the entire world. But hey--me and the lads here this afternoon are laughing our arses off at this place! My thread "The need to control other people" HAS BEEN CLOSED!!! Ah, the delicious irony of it all! |
|
15 Apr 06 - 03:02 PM (#1718965) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Clinton Hammond "me and the lads here this afternoon are laughing our arses off at this place! My thread "The need to control other people" HAS BEEN CLOSED!!!" That's what passes for entertainment in your sad little world? That's too bad.... I have a lot of pity for someone as pathetic as that..... |
|
15 Apr 06 - 03:04 PM (#1718967) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Why thank you, Clinton. That is a very thoughtful thing for you to say. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 05:57 PM (#1719138) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST And now I've even been censored from a Mudcat member love fest thread! I'm battin' a thousand today. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 06:10 PM (#1719146) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,jts Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:30 AM Is this the post of a 'troublemaker'? Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: catspaw49 - PM Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:15 AM BTW, I would be remiss if I didn't bite here so here we go....... Okay Sham......I know I'm going to regret this.........You seem to have added a new phrase to your volumes of "Sham's Liturgical Bullshit." What the fuck are these "founding principles?" I get this vision of Max in colonial garb and sitting with Franklin and Jefferson................ Certainly not the post of a trouble MAKER, Not a trouble AVOIDER either or even someone who is trouble Averse, or even someone minds prepetuating the trouble. But not a trouble MAKER. A lot of people seem to like to continue trouble they don't MAKE initially, my self included, as I am doing right now. That's a feature of this place. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 06:25 PM (#1719157) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,Willis Aint no such thang as trubblmekkers on eeeeeer. We is alll a luvvin' of one another and is zo kinds to one another that diz place iz da plaze ta bee |
|
15 Apr 06 - 07:48 PM (#1719211) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: McGrath of Harlow Perhaps the appropriate term in place of "censored" would be "censured". |
|
15 Apr 06 - 07:52 PM (#1719213) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles As for me and my house, we loves the Cat, warts and all. I was under the impression that you were in favour of changing our forum to a members only club and will no doubt be leaving this forum - which is open to the public - when Joe Offer starts his new one? |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:32 PM (#1719245) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST What I really can't wrap my head around though, is y'all have been having these circular arguments--the same three bleedin' circular arguments, for at least five years. Hell, the Google ringtone link is more entertaining than you mind bogglingly dull regulars. Thank GOD for us troublemakers. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:35 PM (#1719252) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,JTS What I really can't wrap my head around though, is y'all have been having these circular arguments--the same three bleedin' circular arguments, for at least five years. Another typical comment on a "circular argument" thread. .... Yawn. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:38 PM (#1719257) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Well that's it. I quit. JTS is just too clever for me. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:41 PM (#1719259) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST A turd is too clever for you. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM (#1719262) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: McGrath of Harlow Talking to himself again... |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:49 PM (#1719267) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Ebbie "As for me and my house, we loves the Cat, warts and all." Eb I was under the impression that you were in favour of changing our forum to a members only club and will no doubt be leaving this forum - which is open to the public - when Joe Offer starts his new one? The Shambles I really don't know where your planet is, Roger. Let's just say that whichever one you are not in, I will likely be found. And I think that is sad. As I've told you a number of times, I'd like to see you be the man you sometimes are. I could add that your idea of what will happen to this site when the "new one" starts is somewhat bizarre. What in the world makes you think that this one would still be in existence? |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:54 PM (#1719275) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Ebbie - PM Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM >snip< I'm for q members only ruling in order to get a handle on gratuitous nastiness. If we are all visible and accountable surely that would cut down on incidents of 'road rage'. (I just had an image of someone on the freeway giving an irate finger to someone and discovering that it was someone he knew and truly did not want to offend. Members only postings would minimize that kind of incident.) |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:54 PM (#1719276) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,jts Did somebody call me a turd? lol GUEST, If you've been reading the circular arguments here for five years, you've seen comments like the one you made thousands of times. You've even seen ones like I made about you a few times and even the response you made once or twice. Find something original in these threads that's the challenge. Show me |
|
15 Apr 06 - 08:57 PM (#1719278) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Relax, Jack. The post about the turd was for GUEST. It just happened to be posted by another GUEST. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:00 PM (#1719279) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST God, I am so crushed that you all don't like me. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM (#1719280) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Bobert Well, weel, well... If art immitates life than my hat is off to GUEST!!! Nice work!!! Yeah, here it this long thread about troublemakers and you, sir or mame, have examplfied the consumate "troublemaker"... Did I say that my hat is off to you, fir you are indeed an artist... Well done... Bobert |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM (#1719282) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST I like you. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:05 PM (#1719285) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST But did you look at my Peeps thread? NO. The Folsom Prison Peeps aren't even on your radar, much less the venerable Lord of the Peeps. After all I've done for all of you, and this is the way you treat me and my peeps. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:14 PM (#1719296) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST - mostly all this because harmony announced s/he was leaving. see what happens when harmony leaves? |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:15 PM (#1719299) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Peeps die? |
|
15 Apr 06 - 09:19 PM (#1719302) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Ebbie I don't get the relevance of your last post, Shambles. If you think that was an example of road rage on my part you are mistaken. |
|
15 Apr 06 - 10:46 PM (#1719338) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Heh, I love this place. If you are an asshole then you are a Bushite asshole, not just a plain ordinary anus. If you are an idiot then you must be a bigoted, anti - something idiot who wants to see chaos and havoc wreaked on the people you disagree with. And if you are an American, and you stand up for YOURSELF, than you must be an ugly American. I've never launched a personal attack on anyone here. Never called anyone an idiot, never called them a bigot, never told them their words meant nothing, whether they had a 'face' or not, never asked sarcastically what there 'point' was. Place is very tolerant, if you are tolerable. |
|
16 Apr 06 - 04:04 AM (#1719436) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles I don't get the relevance of your last post, Shambles. My dear Ebbie. It was simply to demonstrate that in one thread you are claiming to like our forum as it is - warts and all and in the other you are supporting the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's formal proposed change for it to become members only and exclude the public. |
|
16 Apr 06 - 10:35 AM (#1719447) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Ebbie When I said 'warts and all', Shambles, I wasn't saying 'as it is'. I was saying that I love this place notwithstanding the snipers and nitpickers within it. I don't consider the issue of editing and tweaking to be one of paramount importance. The issue of members only - meaning identifiable posting - could lead to a pleasanter atmosphere, so if that's what the powers choose to do I support it. Don Quixote has nothing on some people. |
|
16 Apr 06 - 11:02 AM (#1719469) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Some peoples DonQuixote impressions bear a strange resemblance to Rozinante! G..☻ |
|
16 Apr 06 - 11:02 AM (#1719470) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: katlaughing Something you keep blithely skipping over, Roger: proposed change to members only is for the BS scection ONLY which will have nothing to do with keeping the public out. Members ARE part of the public. Plus, the public can join up, for free and quite easily, if they want to bullshit like you or any of the rest of us. The MUSIC section, which I assume is still the most important element of what makes the Mudcat the Mudcat to you is still and always will be open to anyone posting music-related material. Most sites which allow posting, do require some kind of sign-up; most of them do so in order to get a "good" email addy in order to solicit or send updates/ads to; Mudcat doesn't do anything like that with an email addy, so no beef there. kat |
|
16 Apr 06 - 12:07 PM (#1719502) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall I think it's pretty sad that a group of mostly intelligent people like this even NEEDS an administrator. |
|
16 Apr 06 - 12:34 PM (#1719517) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: artbrooks And "Members Only" includes The Shambles since, by virtue of acquiring a screen name, he is a member. All we lose is various (?) unidentified and unidentifiable GUESTS arguing with themselves. |
|
16 Apr 06 - 12:56 PM (#1719531) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Can't win them all Art! G. |
|
16 Apr 06 - 01:04 PM (#1719538) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Peace "All we lose is various (?) unidentified and unidentifiable GUESTS arguing with themselves." At last a voice of reason. |
|
16 Apr 06 - 03:46 PM (#1719641) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Peace "BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?" So blithely included yourself in the 'we', huh? And who says you aren't a troublemaker? |
|
16 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM (#1719666) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: clairerise dunno. |
|
16 Apr 06 - 08:22 PM (#1719781) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Fooles Troupe Kendall, May I politely suggest that I think perhaps you meant to say ' I think it's pretty sad that a group of apparently intelligent people like this even NEEDS an administrator. ' |
|
16 Apr 06 - 10:49 PM (#1719886) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST I think it would be wonderful to have members only posting in the BS section. Then you would all see, once and for all, who the real troublemakers are. One could only hope that the change will be made, so you won't have guests to kick around anymore. Just one another. And I fearlessly predict that is precisely what would happen should such a change ever be made. You will cannibalize one another, and the love fest will be over for good. |
|
16 Apr 06 - 11:05 PM (#1719894) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Peace The love fest is already over for me; however, with regard to your remarks: "That's to find out." |
|
17 Apr 06 - 01:30 AM (#1719967) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles And "Members Only" includes The Shambles since, by virtue of acquiring a screen name, he is a member. All we lose is various (?) unidentified and unidentifiable GUESTS arguing with themselves. Firstly - perhaps those who would support The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's formal proposal to change our forum to members only posting of bullshit - should accept that this does not look as if it is going to happen. So those who wish to post on the basis that he proposes - will have to join him when he starts up his own and leave those who like the public's free contribution our forum to continue as it as always been. Secondly - this all stems from a basic misunderstanding of what our forum is and how it actually functions - and how certain posters try their best to change it into and how others appear to blindly support this. The BS and especially now it has been separated - the BS section - is vital to the whole forum. It is vital that it remains open to the public as it operates as a safety valve. Without it able to operate in this fashion or with Joe Offer's' proposal to limit it to members only being imposed upon us - the music section will once again be the only option for any 'troublemaker' for the posting only of personal judgements of fellow posters and for those who just cannot help themselves from responding in kind. So instead of just losing various (?) unidentified and unidentifiable GUESTS arguing with themselves - you will then gain all these so judged - doing exactly the same thing on the music section. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 04:41 AM (#1720022) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles When I said 'warts and all', Shambles, I wasn't saying 'as it is'. That is I think the usual meaning of that phrase - if you use to mean something else - perhaps you can understand any resulting confusion? I was saying that I love this place notwithstanding the snipers and nitpickers within it. I don't consider the issue of editing and tweaking to be one of paramount importance. The issue of members only - meaning identifiable posting - could lead to a pleasanter atmosphere, so if that's what the powers choose to do I support it. And if the powers that be ( i.e' Max) do not choose to support it - will you and those who wish to be part of a private members only club be forming one of your own? Would you accept that rather than being a 'tweak' this major proposed measure and change to something you claim to love 'notwithstanding the snipers and nitpickers within it' - is yet another attempt to exert yet more control, those posters who are judged to be the 'snipers and nitpickers'? And that in spite of the evidence to the contrary - these 'snipers and nitpickers' are assumed to not to already be members. In my view the 'snipers and nitpickers' are those who have never accepted Max terms to enable the public to contribute to the Mudcat Discussion Forum and who in this latest formal proposal have finally demonstrated this. I really question why anyone who holds or supports such a view ever came to be a contributor to our forum...... |
|
17 Apr 06 - 07:11 AM (#1720072) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,Day Tripper This forum is truly bizarre, and functions like none other I've run across. And as Shambles pointed out, much of what makes it bizarre is the rather large contingency of members who refuse to accept the terms of how the forum is run (the "unnamed guest" thing). For some here, it seems to be one of the main reasons why they stay: to cause trouble regarding unnamed guests. Which is really pretty wierd when you think about it. I mean, when I just read Shambles' post I thought hey--why do all these whiners and bellyachers stay here, if they so loathe the rules that allow people to post anonymously? It obviously bothers them a great deal. So why do they stay? Just bizarre. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 07:16 AM (#1720076) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall That's simple. Because the forum has other attributes that I find valuable. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 07:25 AM (#1720077) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST,Day Tripper Yes, but the people who claim to love the place the most, are the ones polluting it the most, over their obsession with the unnamed guest. Instead of ignoring them and just getting on with it, they bitch, and bitch, and bitch, and bitch. The unnamed guest haters hijack and ruin threads over it. Cause all sorts of trouble by logging out and logging in cookie-less. They cause much more grief and trouble than all the unnamed guests combined. Why on earth do the members think they don't have to abide by the terms of their membership to this forum, which is, obviously, to co-exist with those who choose to be anonymous posters? Get over it already members! It is simply the way this place is set up to work. Don't like it? Then find yourselves a forum where anonymous posting isn't allowed. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:11 AM (#1720130) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall I have no beef with guests, or members who use phony names. I do have trouble with endless carping and personal attacks. I've visited other sites, and none of them compare to this one, so I'll be damned if I will allow some malcontent to run me off. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:12 AM (#1720132) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST More than just one or two malcontents around here, kendall. No other forums I frequent has this level of endless carping and personal attacks, though. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:25 AM (#1720141) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Day Tripper's last post will supply the reason for this level of dissent. You see in spite of complaints to the contrary by many people this is a very lightly policed site, as a consequence of which posts that might immediately be deleted on other sites remain here for our edification. Now while I agree with this policy I sometimes find that it is too light a hand on the reins, and that the vituperation gets out of hand as a result. However an over zealously policed site would be nowhere near as much fun. Giok |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:36 AM (#1720152) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST "All we lose is various (?) unidentified and unidentifiable GUESTS arguing with themselves." At last a voice of reason. -Peace 16 Apr 06 1:04PM ...pretty weird stuff coming from a member who's been known to log out in order to argue against his own posts in the same thread. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:42 AM (#1720154) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Giok, your presumption of heavy policing that other sites lacking the vapid vituperation and endless rancor seen at Mudcat must have is misplaced, I think. At least it is in my experience in online fora. It is more the nature of the people who come here, I think. A certain type of personality and bad behavior that is rather obnoxious is rewarded here, and therein lies the problem. This place is a magnet for malcontented troublemakers, and those who are easily entertained by them. All forums go through bouts of bitchiness. All forums have personality clashes. But not all forums thrive on obnoxious behavior, bad boy one-upmanship of the sort we see here, that sort of thing. In the two other forums I regularly participate in, only the personality conflicts that occassionally flare up are a problem. And even that only occassionally flares up, and the other forum members call the individuals on it so it gets taken to email and out of the forum almost immediately. Other than that, we just chug merrily along, both with our on and off topic banter, and get along really well. So I long ago decided this place is what it is, because that is what the people who love the place and come here regularly want it to be. It is the regular members of any forum that set the tone, control the ambiance, that sort of thing. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:49 AM (#1720157) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST In other words, what I meant to say above is the online forums I am a member of are NOT heavily "policed" or have big, bad aministrators censoring everyone. People just behave like decent, polite adults. It is only in a wild man forum like this that you see Big Bad Admins and a lot of censorship, because the decent, polite adults demand that "something be done" about the louts who won't leave. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:52 AM (#1720159) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Big Mick OK, Day Tripper, to quote you: So I long ago decided this place is what it is, because that is what the people who love the place and come here regularly want it to be. It is the regular members of any forum that set the tone, control the ambiance, that sort of thing. Even though you now use the GUEST moniker, the facts are that you have been coming here for years. So even though you now use that appellation, you have been setting the tone as well, using your own words. Does high horse ring a bell? Mick |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:52 AM (#1720160) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie That is why I say there is too light a hand on the reins sometimes. There are more than a few threads that I can tell will go down the road to recrimination before much time has passed, and I would like to see them nipped in the bud before the miscreants jump aboard. As was said about capital punishment, "Better 2 guilty men go free, than than one innocent man dies" If someone is upset because their thread is wrongly removed [in their opinion] that is not too high a price to pay for a more harmonious Mudcat over all. I think that even Roger would be apalled at the road this site would take if it was totally unmoderated, which is what he seems to want. Giok |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:52 AM (#1720161) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: catspaw49 - PM Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:15 AM >snip Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:55 AM (#1720163) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Oops! A bit too much snipping. What the fuck are these "founding principles?" Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:59 AM (#1720168) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles An example of how one of our anonymous 'JC's protect us from posts containing only abusive personal attacks. They move it......... Subject: RE: Gallery of Mudcat Quotations From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM Date: 24 Nov 05 - 04:21 AM Shambles you are a :- Self obsessed, self interested, self important, supercilious, pompous priggish, paranoid, prat. Deluded, devoid of humour, dreadfully boring and disgustingly repetetive. No need to reply. G. Moved from other non-Shambles-centric thread. --JC |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:02 AM (#1720173) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Giok, I would argue that the moderation here isn't having the desired effect. The result of that seems to be people are still unhappy, despite the more aggressive moderation. I think it is fairly impossible to moderate a forum well that rewards bad behavior and the notoriety associated with being really good at being obnoxious. It just isn't something that is do-able, really. I used to think the problem was the moderators here. I still believe the moderators are a large part of the problem here, but really the problem is the clientele. The moderators just model the behavior for the members, and the members follow along merrily. People like brucie get rewarded by being "moderated" because they become more notorious, which makes them more popular. Same with Martin Gibson. The moderators aren't really all that popular here. But they are notorious, and held in awe because of their power over the membership. Because this is such an "anything goes" forum, people are rarely blocked from posting here for behaving badly. People here are blocked from posting for criticizing the moderators. That is how the moderators keep everyone "in line" because in line to the moderators means no real criticism of them personally. Other than that, as we all know from Martin Gibson and others like him (though much less notorious and obnoxious) being badly behaved here makes them a Mudcat celebrity. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM (#1720175) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles And no collection would be complete without an example from one of my most consistent abusers and edit button holder. Subject: RE: BS: I.R.A. Decissioning From: Big Mick - PM Date: 27 Sep 05 - 03:33 PM I am so tired of these apologist bastards. >snip< Those that equivocate on the issue are idiots. ---------------- As long as hypocritical examples lke these being set tolerated and followed - can our forum really ever be any different? |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:12 AM (#1720179) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST ..being called on your own hypocrisy is not pleasant is it? ..hmmm - No i doubt that either one of us stopping the posting on this site for a month will improve things much. When you insinuate that eliminating GUEST posting is going to improve things around here, look in the mirror before u do so. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:15 AM (#1720181) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Hey Sham....It's as free as you want it to be ain't it? None of your words are left out and neither are mine so where is the problem? I like the joint as it is and I don't see either one of us leaving in the foreseeable future. So enjoy youself......I think you are.......and I know I am!! Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:36 AM (#1720192) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Hey Sham....It's as free as you want it to be ain't it? None of your words are left out and neither are mine so where is the problem? Errr? What? You seem to do your fair share of sniping and nitpickering and worse so why would you not like it? To the best of my knowledge none of the offensivly worded posts containing personal attacks that you indulge in have be deleted. Sadly, despite not indulging in such things, being encouraged to be made the target of many and not responding in kind to any of them over many years - no I can't honestly say that none of my words have been left out. Many of my words them have been deleted or subject to some form of imposed censorship by my fellow posters. Which is what this is all about - or had you not noticed that vital flaw in your argument - in all the fun you are having at everyone else's expense? |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:41 AM (#1720194) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST That's right, Shambles. Nothing will ever change here unless and until the moderators go, and new moderators are trained to do what moderators are supposed to do--which is moderate with a fair and even hand--take over. But that won't ever happen because the site owner is himself a bad boy who worships the bad behavior--the having fun at others' expense by catspaw, the bullying by Big Mick, the sniping and back stabbing by Jeri and katlaughing, the power tripping by Joe Offer. Those are the people who set the bar here. Which is why the bar is so low that the Martin Gibsons and brucies have no trouble clearing it regularly. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM (#1720197) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Am I having fun at your expense Sham? I think not.....or at least that would be all I can figure. I mean if you are not a mental case, and you claim that any suggestion of that is a personal attack, then you MUST be having a good time. Who would be so stupid as to stand in a crowd and yell beat me as you do unless you were just fooling around to get some personal laughs? Surely the only other reason would be masochistic and you say no to mental illness. Maybe you're a martyr but I don't see that as it is a bit mentally unbalanced when you consider the inanity of the subject matter here. It MUST be that you are having a good time and enjoying yourself! Go for it!!! Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 11:41 AM (#1720242) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles It is not a strange concept to assume that if you get fun out of calling someone names, encouraging others to follow this example, speculating publicly on their mental health and every other aspect of matters that are none of your business - that the victim of all this must also be enjoying it as much as you are. Were I to respond in kind - it could be possible to make this assumption of a kind of participatory sport - but as I do not - it remains a puzzling concept. Perhaps all bullies, rapists, child abusers etc make similar assumptions about their victims enjoyment of the treatment they receive? |
|
17 Apr 06 - 11:51 AM (#1720247) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Another bizarre aspect of the place. There is purportedly the rule of "no personal attacks" yet the moderators are notorious for personally attacking people they don't like. My alcoholic father had a saying about his own hypocrisy, which he would scream thunderously at us in all his fury: "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!!!" |
|
17 Apr 06 - 12:15 PM (#1720268) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles The following thread was subject to imposed closure so you will not be able to contribute to it - but you can still read it. Responses to bullying |
|
17 Apr 06 - 12:27 PM (#1720278) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Sham, I ain't assuuming a thing. I'm just eliminating the other possibilities and I'm left with only one-----You must be having a good time. What other reason can there be? Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 12:31 PM (#1720283) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Stringsinger Free speech is an American birthright. The internet is one of the last areas where free speech is encouraged. I applaud Mudcat for its democracy. I've been, as many others have on Mudcat, the object of vituperation and ridicule but this is the price I'm willing to pay as an American. I keep coming back to Mudcat for information and honesty. We have a right to our opinions and if they step occasionally on our toes, then we can yell "ouch" back. I'm grateful there is this space to do that. Frank Hamilton |
|
17 Apr 06 - 12:34 PM (#1720285) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST have threads on BNP got banned? I posted two yesterday or tried anyway and they were removed. has joe made a forthright decision at last and ousted the troublemakers? i posted them with all the publicity they are getting at mo. and linked to searchlight for the truth exposing of the bnp |
|
17 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM (#1720293) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie BNP threads always end up causing trouble on the Mudcat, and I for one think they should be ignored, even more so when they are introduced by un-named Guests I'm afraid. They don't deserve any publicity in my opinion, and they are only on the news just now as a means of taking peoples attention away from other things this government is up to. Giok |
|
17 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM (#1720296) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:28 PM No, it does seem like recent messages in that thread are bullying Roger, and that probably isn't right. So there you have it - the messages referred to seem like bullying and that probably isn't right........... It remains my view that every poster on this site should feel safe to post what they wish and have their words reamin as posted, without their worth being judged or inhibited in any way by the deliberate actions of ANY of their fellow posters. And that it is not possible to impose this. For the responsiblity for what is posted and responded to still remains with every individual poster who ONLY has any control over what they choose to post and no control over what others may choose to. That is the spirit of tolerance in which I first posted on our forum. It was the example generally set and generally followed. In the absence of any public statement to the contrary by Max - I will try to continue to post on this basis. If any poster does not like or accept this basis - they are of course free to set up their own site with a different basis. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 01:02 PM (#1720314) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Free speech is an American birthright. The internet is one of the last areas where free speech is encouraged. I applaud Mudcat for its democracy. Frank I totally agree with the first two. But it is now and forever being pointed out to us that the Mudcat is not a democracy. This very often by the same posters who judge that they have some right to impose their judgement on the posts of their fellow invited guests - but who judge that other posters do not have any right to post - just a privilige. Do you need to be censored |
|
17 Apr 06 - 01:13 PM (#1720325) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST In defense of Frank, he doesn't usually allow himself to get sucked into the sewer pipe the problem posters live in here. Also, Frank is one of the few high status folk musicians who is still willing to come here and contribute. He is always polite, and I've never seen him criticize the forum moderators for anything, which means he is as safe as any poster can be here. As a high status musician (compared to the rest of us rank amateurs), a polite and mature poster, and a man who doesn't bite the hand that feeds him, his perception that the place is democratic is easy to understand. It is the people who have been censored because we DO bite the hands that feed the forum, who know just how democratic the place isn't and how far the abuse of power here has gone. If you've never had your IP blocked for criticizing Max, Joe Offer or Big Mick (they are the only three who have seriously thin skins among the clones--though catspaw and katlaughing aren't far behind them), or had your posts and threads removed (not just closed or commented upon, but removed without a trace), then of course you think the moderation of Mudcat is democratic, fair, and even handed. It also means you aren't paying atttention to what is really going on around here. Reminds me of the people who say "What are you so worried about civil rights for? If you aren't a terrorist, there is no need to worry." |
|
17 Apr 06 - 01:14 PM (#1720327) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie You are the one who wants to destroy free speech, you want to be able to post what you want, when you want, and you want to deny us the right to reply. A reply to any of your posts that disagrees with you is automatically categorised by you as personal criticism. You want to have your cake and eat it Roger, and the world doesn't work like that! Giok |
|
17 Apr 06 - 01:16 PM (#1720331) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Martin Gibson to visit Euope The following and incredible admission of failure - is from the above thread. This is the saddest moment of my time on the Mudcat. You have turned into a lynch mob. The sorry excuse for a person who calls himself Martin, and those like him, have won. Big Mick |
|
17 Apr 06 - 01:19 PM (#1720336) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Uh Giok, I think your idea of what constitutes 'free speech' is seriously off the mark. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 01:52 PM (#1720357) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Don't be silly Guest read my post correctly, free speech is the right to speak out without fear of retribution or censure, Roger does not want us to have that right when it comes to responding to his posts. Please, if you want to have a dig at someone get your facts right! G. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 02:03 PM (#1720363) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Let's review, shall we? Here is what you said: Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:14 PM You are the one who wants to destroy free speech, you want to be able to post what you want, when you want, and you want to deny us the right to reply. A reply to any of your posts that disagrees with you is automatically categorised by you as personal criticism. You want to have your cake and eat it Roger, and the world doesn't work like that! Giok Nowhere that I have read, has Roger EVER said that someone who disagrees with him shouldn't be allowed to say. So why do you make that claim? Roger has the right to comment on what other people say about him, especially when it is as negative as it is here. Pointing out that people are being negative towards him, or criticizing him, isn't the same thing as saying "You can't say/do that". But delusional people like you always conflate these sorts of things all out of proportion to what was actually said. Which is why I believe you to have such a weak, flabby mind. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 02:13 PM (#1720378) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie If you can bear it Guest perhaps you should firm up you mental muscles and read through Roger's responses to any comment on his posts positive or otherwise. Don't just judge it by this post, as it is now a long way down the line as far as Roger's crusade is concerned. It is him that is denying people the right to comment on his posts unless they play according to his rules. End of discussion! G. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM (#1720386) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST No, it's not the end of the discussion just because you say it is. I have been reading Shambles for as many years as anyone. I happen to think he is right about being targeted by the Mudcat Royals, and that they have turned the forum against him. Your post inferred that Roger routinely states that no one should be allowed to criticize him. I have never seen him make such a statement, but you can correct me if I'm wrong about that by providing a direct link to post by him showing such. Nowhere have I seen Roger advocate censorship. Also, I would like to add that I do not view censorship and moderation as one and the same thing, as some of you flabby minded folks do. I also don't believe that someone expressing an opinion critical of another's is a call for censorship, as many people here (like you Giok) so often claim. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 02:24 PM (#1720388) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Oh come now! It isn't all that bad or even bad at all. In fact it must be welcoming! Roger says so or he wouldn't be here. When he left back in '99 he said: "I intend to look in from time to time and will hopefully, return if or when I feel that welcome is again there for all." .........so things are obviously okay. Actually, I really do think he must like it here or otherwise he would leave again, especially if he felt truly threatened or bullied. Plus he seems to be shoving his opinions/judgements around with the rest of us so I think it must be all in fun for him. What other answer can there be when you complain about the things you yourself are doing as Roger does? Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 02:30 PM (#1720391) Subject: BS: Moderating vs censoring From: GUEST Let's see if this makes it past the clones, who are so censor happy right now they have even taken to arguing about publicly in the threads. Moderating vs censoring. Do YOU know the difference? I know that no two Mudcatters will agree on the definitions, so I propose we go to the trust ole m-w.com: moderate (the verb): 1 : to lessen the intensity or extremeness of [the sun moderated the chill] 2 : to preside over or act as chairman of intransitive senses 1 : to act as a moderator 2 : to become less violent, severe, or intense censor (the transitive verb): Main Entry: 2censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable Discuss.
Discuss. -Joe Offer- |
|
17 Apr 06 - 02:48 PM (#1720402) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST No wonder Jeri yelled at you publicly for being part of the problem rather than the solution. Discuss. BTW, can you please direct me to which thread is actually a discussion on the difference between censoring and moderating? Answer: No, you can't. Because there isn't one. But you seem VERY threatened by and afraid of these conversations. Delete? Probably. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 02:58 PM (#1720413) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles There are all levels of bully. But when bullying becomes endemic in an institution like a school for example - the main reason people join in the bullying is self-preservation - to prevent themselves from being a victim of it. Some of these become the most enthusiastic of bullies in this attempt, as they see 'sticking the boot in' not only as a way to avoid being bullied but the only way of obtaining status in such an unfair system. They then have a vested interest in preserving the status quo - no matter how unfair it becomes. In this bleak but no means uncommon senario there are really only two options - be bullied or try to become one. The established bully could pretend that the victim is enjoying their role as much the bully does - but perhaps the real test of this is if they were willing to trade places? |
|
17 Apr 06 - 03:06 PM (#1720426) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Joe Offer Hmmm. This thread seems to be a discussion of censorship, although it may not be specifically a discussion of the difference between censorship and moderation. Still, it seems to be an appropriate home for your question, O Nameless Guest. If it does not satisfy you perfectly, learn to live with it. No, I don't feel threatened by such discussions, although they do seem tedious, since it's something that has been discussed over and over again. I've learned to avoid the temptation to be drawn into such discussions if they don't cover new ground. But you can go ahead and discuss it without me. Yes, I do try to channel such discussions into one or two active threads, since multiple threads on the same subject can be overwhelming and confusing. Besides that, certain people post the very same thing to a number of threads, so they're sure their post is noticed. Feel free to discuss the matter in this thread. You won't be deleted, but you may see your thread closed or redirected to an ongoing discussion or moved if there are already threads going on that cover a related subject. -Joe Offer- |
|
17 Apr 06 - 08:42 PM (#1720657) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Who would be so stupid as to stand in a crowd and yell beat me as you do unless you were just fooling around to get some personal laughs? Even if someone were to do this - you would not have to join in and beat them. It would appear that you have some problem in understanding a concept of having a free choice in such matters? The reason I continue to post on our forum is that there are still some people posting here who do not have a problem in understanding this concept and who would choose not to join in and beat someone just because they were labelled as an easy target to have some fun with. I and others are entitled to express our views. I am always prepared to change this view. But you really seem expect it to be changed by concerted efforts at bullying and seem dissapointed when it does not? You really seem to expect that all of the personal judgements posted at my expense would have the required effect. Even after all this time when I really must have been called every name and accused of every conceivable sin and ulterior motive - you still do not appear to understand. All I greet this with is a little sadness in what it reveals about those on our forum who persist in posting it, those who encourage it, those who do little or nothing to bring it to an end. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:00 PM (#1720668) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Yes, I do try to channel such discussions into one or two active threads, since multiple threads on the same subject can be overwhelming and confusing. I think it would seem very obvious to most posters - that the two now divided sections of our forum are now two very different animals? For this reason - perhaps the methods of attempting to impose order used on one section are not really suitable for the other and only serve to threaten them both? |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:11 PM (#1720677) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Well damn Sham......I understand free choice. As a matter of fact I am exercising it right now. I am trying to understand what the motive is from you for all of the same repetitive postings. You complain that others are trying to change your thinking and all the time you are trying to change theirs! I think it's you that doesn't understand. You have stated your case thousands of times I am sure and to what end? I'm not bullying you Roger....I am trying to figure out why you persist in saying the same thing over and over and over and over as if you expect it to change something through the sheer volume of your verbage. I too have a little sadness that you cannot see the forest here for all of the big and tall woody things with leaves and bark. Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:20 PM (#1720684) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Spaw you also persist in saying the same thing over and over again, in response to Shambles. What is the difference? If you don't like his posts or don't see his point then do us all a favour and ignore it. Yes it does seem like bullying. A lot of us here understand exactly what shambles is saying and what his point is. You choose to ridicule him. Not very adult. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:26 PM (#1720687) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall Definition of insanity: Performing the same task over and over the same way hoping for a different outcome |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:30 PM (#1720691) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Oh mercy......I think you're bullying me!!! Shambles can say the same thing over and over but I can't huh? WAAAAAHHHH........I'm being bullied!!! LMAO.......What a great joint!!! Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:35 PM (#1720695) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba You got it in one Spaw... This Thread in particular is a doozy...LMAO too. Whoever started it. It is worth it for the Guest posts alone. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:36 PM (#1720696) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Hey Kendall......That quote has been posted on various "Shamblecentric" threads (I love that line....Who came up with Shamblecentric?) about a dozen times so maybe you're insane to think it means anything to Shambo!!! 'Course Kendall, you're about insane anyway!!!(:<)) But I tell you this....I am never going to tell you to kiss my ass!!! Nosirree Bob!! I want you to SIGN MY ASS! Man that poster of yours is going for a C-Note ferchrissakes! Your signature on my ass would increase my personal value by leaps and bounds!!! Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:39 PM (#1720699) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall I don't get it. $100 for a bit of old news? I'm surrounded by things I don't understand. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM (#1720701) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Yea verily Alba......With the Guest postings interlaced with the Gospel of Shambo this may be our best "SHAMBLECENTRIC" thread yet!!! Do you like "Shamblecentric" too? Was it Jeri? Sounds like one of hers. Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM (#1720702) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba Ain't Life grand Kendall :) Sometimes it is best not to question the good stuff. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:13 PM (#1720725) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Bee-dubya-ell When I went into town last week there was a road paving crew using one of those concrete extruder devices to lay down new curbs in preparation for repaving a road. The paving project had temporarilly blocked access to the street I needed to be on and I didn't know how to get there via an alternate route. So, having no other choice I rolled down my window, signaled a couple of the workers over and said to them, "I hate to bother you, but could you tell me how to get to the other end of that blocked street?" It was a definite case of needing to trouble the curbmakers. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:16 PM (#1720729) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba Groooooan..oh that should be deleted BDL...LOL |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM (#1720740) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Jeri Yeah, Spaw - I came up with 'Shamblecentric'. Once a thread's infected, any useful discussion is out the window in favor of copy-pastes, accusations, claims of persecution, and demands for Joe to behave according to Shambles rules, and the thread becomes about him instead of the former topic. I hardly ever read what he writes, although I sometimes look at the threads because I have a bizarre sense of humor. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:52 PM (#1720751) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Ebbie Does anyone else have the image of a very white rear end traveling very fast by leaps and bounds with Kendall Morse calligraphed on it? |
|
17 Apr 06 - 10:52 PM (#1720752) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba 'Shamblecentric' ...I have said it before but hell it is worth saying again. Damn Jeri you're good. I will now apply this term when scrolling past certain posts:) Jude |
|
17 Apr 06 - 11:01 PM (#1720762) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Yes, and all of your rude, snide, belittling comments (Jeri, who sets an example by being a clone, Alba, beedubyaell, Ebbie, catspaw, kendall, et al) about another poster, no matter how much you hate, dislike, are annoyed by, etc. really creates a real laid back and friendly atmosphere here in Mudcat. I'm so impressed with how very cool all of you are with your ability to mock, insult, and belittle people. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 11:05 PM (#1720766) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 LOL @ Ebbie.......Ya' know Ebbie, now that you bring that up....... Ever since this thread appeared I have wanted to say that I curb my dogs so why not troublemakers? Now we have that mental image of assorted Guests and 'Catters humped up and dropping a load by the curb. Now THAT is just too gross to imagine!!! But I will agree that my flat and saggy old ass with a Kendall Morse on it is pretty gross as well!!! Spaw |
|
17 Apr 06 - 11:14 PM (#1720775) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba Why Thank you Guest. Your very gracious. LOL Do I know you..no. Do I give a shit what you think...eh no again You're a kind of glass half empty person aren't you, it shows. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 11:20 PM (#1720779) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST I have this image of childless barren crones huddled over a cauldron. Hysterical isn't it. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 11:21 PM (#1720783) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST You sure care what your fellow Mudcatters think though don't you? Your desperation to conform and fit in is showing. |
|
17 Apr 06 - 11:27 PM (#1720784) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
17 Apr 06 - 11:31 PM (#1720787) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST The whole world waits breathlessly for your next mature response to the hoi polloi, Alba. We know how you love to look down on us--a really admirable trait. One I'm sure you will brag proudly to your grandchildren about. |
|
18 Apr 06 - 12:01 AM (#1720793) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Stilly River Sage Geez, there is no respite from petty trolls who get their jollies by annoying the regulars at Mudcat. The big Kahuna of them all MG goes on vacation and launches a whole bunch of little clones to take his place. |
|
18 Apr 06 - 12:03 AM (#1720796) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Geez, we are SO impressed with your logic, SRS. I, for one, don't know what we would have done in this thread without your stellar contribution. Why, I'm sure no one here ever had such an original thought as that one of yours! |
|
18 Apr 06 - 12:05 AM (#1720798) Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Hmmm, I wonder how many more of the usual suspect 'tit for tat, must have the last word' Mudcat regulars we can attract to this thread? |