|
28 Apr 06 - 12:19 PM (#1729247) Subject: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba Just making sure "those" Threads are right back up top of the BS section. Being Friday an all, I thought I would help out you Folks that want to read every Shamble's Ramble on those Threads. So without further ado here are some handy Blue Clickys:). Have fun... (can it be even more fun than it already has been I hear some of you say.....of course...*&^#@&! ATTITUDE PROBLEM DO YOU NEED TO BE CENSORED? MUSIC THREADS BY GUESTS TO BE REVIEWED PART 2 No more searching and searching in the top 10 BS Threads for these Gems... for they are but a click away now! Jude...* cheery Friday smile * |
|
28 Apr 06 - 01:38 PM (#1729307) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Suggestion for rules of engagement I may disagree with what you say- Your favourite Shamblism Why all the closed threads? Non posting of judgements week Do we need to curb the troublemakers Proposal for members only posting of BS |
|
28 Apr 06 - 01:40 PM (#1729309) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Question re: moderators |
|
28 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM (#1729310) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Get well soon GIOK |
|
28 Apr 06 - 02:04 PM (#1729337) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba No the last one doesn't count because it's not a Shamble's ramble Thread. It's a good wish Thread for oor Giok:) You know, the other Scotch Stalker of Rocker (Stalk of Rock get it..haha)...and because oor Giok will be laid up for a while I will be pulling double shifts.... ONLY KIDDING ...:>) ~J~ |
|
28 Apr 06 - 03:35 PM (#1729398) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk LOL! It's great having these links. Just great. Why not talk Max into providing a THIRD section of the forum, sandwiched between the Music and the BS, and that third (or should I say, second) section could be devoted to these kinds of threads you have kindly provided links to. |
|
28 Apr 06 - 03:39 PM (#1729400) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Posters eh? What can you do with them? |
|
28 Apr 06 - 03:43 PM (#1729402) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Wolfgang LH, or Joe could crosslink all previous Shamblecentric tread if he has a spare day. Wolfgang |
|
28 Apr 06 - 04:03 PM (#1729421) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk Yes. And then publish it as a series of humorous books. What do you think, Wolfgang? I feel this is an idea with great potential. |
|
28 Apr 06 - 04:37 PM (#1729434) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: jacqui.c Could make lots of money on the Mudcat auction! |
|
28 Apr 06 - 05:03 PM (#1729464) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Amos Well, they say you can't have a fire without fuel, air and heat. And you can't have an auction without an offer, a medium of communication, and buyers. Still, two out of three ain't bad... A |
|
28 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM (#1729470) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba I am willing to illustrate the book...of course I can't draw anything other than stick people and animals but how complicated do the drawings have to be in this case!!...:) ~J~......( notice my very artistic sign off ) |
|
28 Apr 06 - 05:12 PM (#1729473) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: jeffp Why buy the wine when you can get the sour grapes for free? Why, to help the Mudcat, of course. |
|
29 Apr 06 - 12:08 AM (#1729739) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: M.Ted Shambles, or Roger, (to those of us who knew him in the years that he was coming up), has become Mudcat Superstar #1. He has done it through persistance, purely and simply, though it would not have been possible without the active and intense efforts of his admirers. He is not profane, neither is he obscene--he does not revel in any of the more disruptive body functions, and, though some disagree on this point, he is not abusive or offensive. He sticks to his points. Even those who challenge him do not deny that. There are those who point out that his threads scarcely differ from one another--and yet they draw quick and plentiful interest--his threads tower above others, both in number of posts, and in passions vented. He confounds his opponents with their own words--and, even worse, from the point of view of his adversaries, he responds to many of the points that they make. Their frustration is understandable. His insistance on decrying the what he believes to be arbitrary and capricious censorship has prompted demands for the closing of many of his discussion threads. This has helped many Americans to understand the concept of "irony". So congratulations, Roger!-- Well played! And for the rest, thank you for giving him this great honor! |
|
29 Apr 06 - 03:05 AM (#1729777) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST,Cluin You people need a new geezus hobby. |
|
29 Apr 06 - 05:28 AM (#1729797) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Well, I am overwhelmed and honoured. Gosh there are just so many people to thank who without their help, all this just would have not been possible. I just don't know where to start.... Gosh! So I will just stop at M.Ted................*Smiles* |
|
29 Apr 06 - 06:30 AM (#1729815) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Jack the Sailor Shambles, The Clown Prince of the Mudcat! |
|
29 Apr 06 - 06:51 AM (#1729820) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles I have been called worse things on our forum - but why any poster should need to be called any name by another - is not certain. But it is the example now set and eagerly followed. |
|
29 Apr 06 - 07:47 AM (#1729841) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Well said M.Ted! Indeed shambles ability to write without using insulting, derogatory or snide innuendo has made him a rose among many thorns. |
|
29 Apr 06 - 08:52 AM (#1729863) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba LOL |
|
29 Apr 06 - 12:26 PM (#1730000) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: M.Ted Regretably, GUEST, that sort of writing has become a lost art. |
|
29 Apr 06 - 03:03 PM (#1730080) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Exactly, as the inane post above yours demonstrates. It's funny how the people who have the very least to say always think they are the ones worth listening to. |
|
29 Apr 06 - 05:16 PM (#1730160) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba Eh is the "post above" my post? Goodness me... Are you talking about me oh nameless, inane arsehole? It seems that our sense of Humour differs widely. So much so that I thought that a couple of the previous posts to mine were meant to be funny. Now I see they were actually an supposed to be taken seriously. OOPS! I find nothing laughable, however, in passive aggressive behaviour. Hey Roger you have two Fans now. Keep it up...I am working on the illustrations so we can get that Book into print asap and make the Mudcat some money. :) |
|
29 Apr 06 - 05:27 PM (#1730166) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST,heric Alba is funny. (By my standards - lol) |
|
29 Apr 06 - 05:31 PM (#1730170) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Jerry Rasmussen Stop making Alba cross! Jerry |
|
29 Apr 06 - 05:33 PM (#1730171) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: akenaton Ach Jude... I just knew that droll Scottish sense of humour would get you into trouble some day. Dae ye no ken its a sin tae mock the afflictit!! ...Ake |
|
29 Apr 06 - 05:52 PM (#1730184) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: akenaton Bad career move GUEST to insult the nicest lady on Mudcat. Lucky for you you didn't use a name, or you may have found youself more unpopular than Shambles, Martin, Clinton, or even me. Anyway you've united an unlikely trio by your ill judged remarks...Ake |
|
29 Apr 06 - 06:04 PM (#1730189) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Once Famous Mudcat is not a popularity contest for members like Shambles, Clinton, or myself I am sure. Like shambles or clinton, it is about believing what you say and saying what you believe, no matter who you offend or piss off. Speaking for the other two, if I may and myself, there is that certain satisfaction of knowing that there are others not as bold who agree with what is being said. Having balls is not always about being popular. |
|
29 Apr 06 - 08:31 PM (#1730252) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk Having balls is about being male, isn't it? ;-) But, hey, M.Ted...you are right! Roger has, whether by accident or design, become the reigning unofficial king of the forum's attention span. Gad! Extraordinary. Where Spaw once reigned supreme, where Martin Gibson once dominated, where Shatner boldly went...there stands Shambles, the undisputed champion of both bandwidth and good taste, making his points without resorting to vile language, sustaining vicious attacks and ribald humor at his expence but carrying on manfully, faithfully, relentlessly. He has done what even Shatner could not do. Could knighthood be far away? Or even sainthood? |
|
29 Apr 06 - 10:01 PM (#1730297) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Once Famous I have no desire to compete with Shambles for any dominance. He makes his points when needed and so do I. Women can also have balls, Little Hawk in the same sense. There are some males who have less balls than these types of women and that is pretty sad. |
|
29 Apr 06 - 10:05 PM (#1730301) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk Oh, yeah, I know. ;-) It's a popular expression. Hillary Clinton, for example, appears to have a lot of "balls", though maybe not quite to match Margaret Thatcher? Condoleeza Rice also. In my experience, I'd say that when it comes right down to it women are probably tougher on the average than men...once their minds are made up about something. Women who fight their way to the top in politics are usually tough as hell. |
|
29 Apr 06 - 11:11 PM (#1730323) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: M.Ted Not to worry, Martin, your reputation is safe. Shambles is Shambles, and you are.....well, whoever you are. Your achievements here are the stuff that legends are made of, and will live forever. Most of them, anyway. And check your numbers--Gargoyle never pulled the numbers that you do--in your unique way, you're very popular! And you are right about women, LH--they are tougher than men-- |
|
29 Apr 06 - 11:25 PM (#1730329) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Janie Actually, women have EGGS! One can say, in admiration, "Wow, you've got eggs!" Or in anger, "Hmmph, Girl. You've sure got a lot of eggs to say that to me!" (or I guess you could say ova rather than eggs;^) Unless of course, the lady in question has a large collection of--say---soccer balls. THEN, you could say, "Wow, you've got balls!" Toughness, courage, even antisocial rudeness--contrary to the belief of some, are not gender-linked traits, whereas 'balls' are definitely gender-linked. M. Ted, wonderful observation, wonderfully put. Janie |
|
30 Apr 06 - 12:15 AM (#1730347) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk I've got balls the size of basketballs. Two of them. Matter of fact...they ARE basketballs. They're outside behind the storage shed, and I think one of them is in need of some air. I haven't played in years now. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:25 AM (#1730402) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Could knighthood be far away? Or even sainthood? You have to be dead to qualify for the latter - but that concept may have some attraction for some. For not all agree on my postive worth to our forum. Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM >snip< Maybe you have noted that we are very careful to leave anti-Mudcat posts alone. We let people say just about anything they like about Mudcat and its administrators, because we truly do believe in free expression. But YOU abuse that privilege by posting half-truths and innuendo, and by posting the same thing over and over again. I like to answer legitimate questions about Mudcat policy and editorial actions, but you have made a mockery of that by raising the same issues over and over again. Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself. You fight in the name of freedom - but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy. Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case. -Joe Offer- Any thoughts on what an anti-Mudcat post may be or who may post such things and why? |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:29 AM (#1730405) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy. Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case. -Joe Offer- They just can't see the irony for the trees. Bless 'em. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 06:37 AM (#1730423) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles This is an example of what I mean when I go on about the current 'system' 'shaping our forum' to the personal tastes of a few. Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix? This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first? Thank you. Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu. The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads. If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section. You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about. -Joe Offer- The stark choice given was that this music related thread could only stay where it was originally posted if its title was changed (without the originators prior knowledge or permission). Or if the imposed change was removed - the music related thread would be relegated to the BS section. And the manner of this imposed 'tinkering' is judged as nothing 'to get upset about'. I suggest that it was nothing to warrant any imposed editing action at all in the first place and could be seen to be personally motivated. But the judgement and opinion expressed goes even futher. To the effect that all our forum's Song Challenges should be relgated. Now how is any poster supposed to see this form of editing action or the attitude and judgements behind it - as objective or in any way protecting us from personal attacks? |
|
30 Apr 06 - 07:15 AM (#1730434) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba Roger...this is my Thread. It was started to help people gain faster links to your many other Threads, on the very same topic, that are in the BS Section at the moment. So please take your >SNIPS< and put them where they belong......I fank u..* innocent smile Can't you see that I am trying to generate interest for 'our' Book, a Book that I believe will be a Best Seller, an #1, an all time earner of much needed Funds for the Mudcat!!! (when completed of course....!) Back on Track please Roger...oh and Folks due soon (ish) in the Auction, The not to be missed... THE SHAMBLES RAMBLES ~~ One Man~ One Mission~~ Volume One Get yours today, you know it makes sense (or not!) Jude:) |
|
30 Apr 06 - 07:42 AM (#1730443) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Talk of >snips< and balls in the same thread are making me a little anxious. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 08:05 AM (#1730455) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba I know I will most likely get labelled as 'banal' or even inane for doing this but Roger.. Your above post made me ROFL.. Jude:) |
|
30 Apr 06 - 08:38 AM (#1730472) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba This is now Forum with a View. I got my Chainsaw out and after my Breakfast I Did a Bit of Gardening..... and just look what I found once the Trees came down!!... iron(y) There now, you can see it quite clearly, because the Trees are.. well Mulch basically:) |
|
30 Apr 06 - 12:47 PM (#1730577) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Once Famous Not banal, anal. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM (#1730646) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk LOL! Omigod... Roger, this place is sort of like a club, isn't it? Well, why object to it being shaped to "to the personal tastes of a few"? That just naturally happens in every club as time goes by. It always happens. That's life. If it's intolerable, then one finds a different club to belong to. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM (#1730681) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles When the 'club' naturally evolves things like Bithday threads, Song Challenges, Copycat threads etc etc - why should these and other things be inhibited as they currently are? If what you say is the case - should not those who find these naturally evolving things not to be to their taste and then choose to try to inhibit these things - rather than ignore them - be the ones who leave? |
|
30 Apr 06 - 03:23 PM (#1730690) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Is it really such a problem to have 10 Shatner threads showing on the index of threads? And perhaps those who find the concept of having to look at these titles so terrifying, boring or whatever should be told that if they do not like what the rest of our forum posts - they do not have to stay and post only to complain about it? |
|
30 Apr 06 - 03:44 PM (#1730702) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk You make good points there, Roger, but it does happen in every club. Those who are most in the "in group" at that club begin to set policy and feel they have a right to...and they mightily irritate those who are not in the "in group" when they do so. I've seen this happen in every club or group I've ever witnessed. It's a natural human dynamic, driven by ego and personality. I don't think there is any perfect solution to this. You think you are speaking on behalf of the way this forum should be. The people who disagree with you think exactly the same thing. I agree with you about the Shatner threads, and I agree on the general principle of what you're saying, but it won't make any difference what you and I think about it. We are not in control. No one can say who should or shouldn't leave...(except Max and whoever Max delegates such authority to)...but they WILL say so if they feel like it, and there's nothing that can be done about that...except by Max or whoever Max delegates such authority to. Do you want such authority yourself? Or do you want that no one should have such authority? If so, then whose forum is it? |
|
30 Apr 06 - 03:49 PM (#1730705) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Authority itself doesn't present a problem. But when those bestowed with it are inconsistent and unable to handle it then it becomes a problem. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 03:54 PM (#1730710) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Amos Well, see, the thing is pretty simple. Many folks come here because of the wit, the good communication, the intelligent exchange of viewpoints. The folks here seem to possess some quality that makes them seem like Intelligent Life. Able to discriminate, select importances, appreciate humor -- stuff like that. Ten Shatner threads is just stupidity. So is the whole Copycat thread. It isn't that it shouldn't be allowed. More that it should be allowed in a day-care center for small kids, whose stupidity at least has an excuse. There's nothing terrifying about it. It's just STUPID. And what is irritating is that a good opportunity for a genuine creative exchange has just been wasted in order to indulge stupidity. This is the same reason people don't like negative threads, or posts like Martin's insults. It's a waste of good opportunity and it undermines the community. A |
|
30 Apr 06 - 03:56 PM (#1730713) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST The 'community' includes all those people who enjoy the threads you consider a waste of space. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:16 PM (#1730737) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles There's nothing terrifying about it. It's just STUPID. And what is irritating is that a good opportunity for a genuine creative exchange has just been wasted in order to indulge stupidity. Amos - If you do not like - you can start a forum of your own. Why stay and think you have some right to complain about and inhibit what your fellow posters find to their tastes? Why cannot you just ignore what is not to your taste. It is just about possible to still hold a discussion. But the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team always talks about 'goofing off' - is this not another word for stupidity? If posters are not free to be stupid on the BS section where else would you suggest? For this section operates as a safety valve to enable the music section to function and the two are different animals - if the the same rules are applied on them both - they both suffer. So when some posters complains that there are threads or posts on the BS section that are not to their tastes - why cannot they just be told to concentrate on their own posts? |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:16 PM (#1730738) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk True, GUEST. ;-) It's amusing, isn't it? Amos too feels he is speaking on behalf of the community. Whether he is or not is strictly a matter of subjective judgement by those who are listening to what he's saying. WHO are "the community"?????????? The arguments about that could go on forever, and I expect that they shall. ;-P It is always the case that people who have been at the center of something longer feel that their opinion about it carries more weight. It's called seniority. You can find it in every group, organization, team, peer group, or club that has ever existed. This can make you feel pretty insecure if you're a newcomer, an outsider, or just someone who is not (apparently) high enough up in the pecking order...and there IS a pecking order, be assured of that. It is natural for those at the lower end of such a pecking order to resent it. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:17 PM (#1730741) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Once Famous Insulting you Amos and riling you up can be just pure fun, because you take yourself and your pseudo-intellectualism so seriously. A good waste of bandwith is ten anti-Bush and very anti-American threads, mostly started by you or led by your self-serving one that very few want to open up and waste their time with. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:19 PM (#1730744) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: wysiwyg It's not yet a well-known fact, but Shambles is actually another of Little Hawk's research projects-- those Mudcat Icons he invented to compete with Spaw, like Shatner? So Alba's book project will, in fact, be a work of fiction. Perhaps the sort called a "Cautionary Tale." ~Susan |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:22 PM (#1730748) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Nah Chaucer's already done that one. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:24 PM (#1730749) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk I've noticed that certain people can goof off on the forum and be totally asinine...and they are applauded for it. Why? Because they already have a lot of friends here and are well liked by many. Then someone else who is not in such a favored position in the pecking order can do the same thing...and be castigated for it. This is clearly a matter of people being prejudiced in favor of their pals and against various other people. Again, that is something that happens EVERYWHERE. It's human nature. We can complain about it all we want to, but it ain't gonna change. The fact is, if you want to be treated with respect in any peer group you have to work at it. It takes awhile. You may succeed, you may not. Depends on your style and theirs. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:28 PM (#1730754) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk LOL!!!!!!!!! By God, Susan, there's an idea! So you think I invented Shambles, do you? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I am willing to go to some lengths to compete with Spaw in creating forum icons, and I freely admit that I launched the Shatner schtick for that very purpose...but there are LIMITS to what I am willing to do in that regard. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:29 PM (#1730756) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Do people come here to be respected though? Pretty sad if they do. That's what real life is for. Everyone on here has an opinion that is as valid as the next persons. Those who feel the need to slate others opinions/thoughts etc as 'stupidity' are putting themselves on a pedestal that doesn't exist. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:34 PM (#1730761) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk People don't come here to be respected. They come here to have fun. But everybody wants to be respected, regardless. It's a universal human desire. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:38 PM (#1730763) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles I've seen this happen in every club or group I've ever witnessed. It's a natural human dynamic, driven by ego and personality. I don't think there is any perfect solution to this. You think you are speaking on behalf of the way this forum should be. The people who disagree with you think exactly the same thing. I am only following Max's public statements about his wishes for our forum and I have been posting on that basis. That is the only solution. As far as I am concerned - every other poster's tastes and wishes are worth more or no less than mine. And our forum has always been naturally shaped by what all of its posters choose to post. Should it now be shaped by what only a few posters wish to delete or close - especially when they still complain and wish for more and more restrictions to be imposed on others but ignore these restrictions themselves? As these few now wish to prevent the public from freely contributing to our forum - as has always been its strength - enough is enough. Those posters who do not like Max's concept - are now free to leave and create their own private members club, ban and exclude who they wish and impose whatever rules they wish. Such things have nothing to do with the Mudcat Discussion Forum. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:49 PM (#1730770) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk I follow your point perfectly, Roger. However, the people you are referring to seem to think you should leave and form your own club! It's ironical. Me, I think anyone should leave who wants to, but that goes without saying, because if they want to leave, then they will, won't they? |
|
30 Apr 06 - 04:54 PM (#1730776) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Again, that is something that happens EVERYWHERE. It's human nature. We can complain about it all we want to, but it ain't gonna change. There are many sides to human nature. It is just as much human nature to be charitable and kind as it is to be the opposite. What you are describing is our forum's current form of mob rule where hypocrites and bullies prosper and where the negative side of human nature is given its head and encouraged. Those who think this to be an acceptable part of human nature can leave and form their own forum. For it has nothing to do with our Discussion Forum that Max started on his website. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:06 PM (#1730789) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk Again I follow your point perfectly. The ironical thing is, however, that "Those who think this to be an acceptable part of human nature" are the very ones who will not leave this forum because they think they are right and you are wrong, so you should leave instead. They think that their opinion on the matter is more valid than yours. You assertion that the forum is now a place of mob rule where... "hypocrites and bullies prosper and where the negative side of human nature is given its head and encouraged" ...is interesting, because, yeah, it is kind of like that. Once that sort of thing begins the only thing that could end it would be very strict moderation, such as is found on numerous forums. I think the "old Mudcat" that you are looking back to fondly is gone forever. You will not see it again. That happens with most things in life after awhile. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:23 PM (#1730800) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles I think the "old Mudcat" that you are looking back to fondly is gone forever. You will not see it again. That happens with most things in life after awhile. The simple values, mutural respect and realities on which our forum is based do not change and will only be totally buried if we stop fighting for them and allow them to be. Just because some of the inmates have (temporarily) taken over the asylum - there is no need to assume what they see as reality has to be accepted as reality by the rest of us. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:26 PM (#1730803) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk We could be talking about any number of things in society the same way. Things change. One day you and I will be gone. Will the forum still be around? Maybe. Maybe not. Everything passes eventually. If you want to fight for those old values, though, you certainly have every right to. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:34 PM (#1730806) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles I don't see there is ever a choice. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:39 PM (#1730809) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST,Mrs Olive Whatnoll There's always a bleedin' choice. I 'ad a choice today whether or not to get out of bed. I did. I 'ad a choice whether or not to tell Howard the Turtle to sod off. I told 'im to! I 'ad a choice whether or not to kill the neighbour's cat which does its business in me garden. I tried, but the bastard got away this time! You 'ave a choice whether to keep yammerin' on day afer day or to shut yer gob. It's that simple, boyo. I made my choices in life, and you can make yours. It's a free world, innit? |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:43 PM (#1730811) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles It's a free world, innit? Not for very long - if you don't choose to fight for it. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:49 PM (#1730817) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk Your point has been made with devastating clarity, Roger. You realize that if I stop responding to you on this thread that you may be reduced to talking to yourself? |
|
30 Apr 06 - 05:53 PM (#1730826) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles No chance. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 06:09 PM (#1730843) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles I said - no chance. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 08:55 PM (#1730945) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: M.Ted Above, someone said something about it being a bad idea to slight Alba, and it made me think of this this: When Alba is upset, she goes for the throat--so you'd better watch out, or you'll end up with An Alba cross around your neck. Sorry. |
|
30 Apr 06 - 09:54 PM (#1730985) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: catspaw49 ...........awferchrissakes Ted................Geeziz Man, that one was just awful and I don't mean sorta'...........It was puns like that one that caused the Great Internet Crash of 2002......You need to issue a blanket apology to everyone reading that thing......... Damn, if I ain't envious........alba cross...........shheeeitfire Bub............... Spaw |
|
30 Apr 06 - 10:56 PM (#1731021) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: jacqui.c ROTFLMAO Ted - that was a GOOD one. |
|
01 May 06 - 04:04 AM (#1731082) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles People don't come here to be respected. They come here to have fun. But everybody wants to be respected, regardless. It's a universal human desire. Perhaps everyone on our furum should be respected, whatever they may post here for? And perhaps what everyone has to say - deserves to be treated with equal respect? |
|
01 May 06 - 06:38 AM (#1731126) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba Ted. Priceless!...* LMAO * Jude:) |
|
01 May 06 - 10:25 AM (#1731229) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk Excellent idea, Roger. I agree with your view on that. It will never happen, though. A lot of people get far too much pleasure and satisfaction from disrespecting others. Note what society's reaction was to Jesus when he suggested that we all love and respect one another. How would our more nasty and aggressive Mudcat members react to someone like that? They'd either make snide remarks at his expense, laugh at him, dismiss him in disgust, or gather in a mob and all yell, "Crucify him!" |
|
01 May 06 - 11:20 AM (#1731268) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST True and as then those who mock are the ones who have to build their self esteem by knocking someone elses. Shambles persistence, has with time, had a very interesting result. He has consistently stuck to his point and delivered it without spite. In return his detractors are getting more frustrated by the day at being unable to bulldoze him into agreeing with them and accepting what he clearly finds unacceptable. In the face of indisputable fact, where he can and does highlight every inconsistency and bias, they are lost for an answer and resort to ridicule. Because the alternative would be to agree with him or ignore him. And both of those alternatives in their eyes represent defeat. |
|
01 May 06 - 12:10 PM (#1731291) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk Yeah, it's intriguing all right. It's difficult for anyone to abandon an argument they have become attached to over a period of time, because to do so does represent defeat to them. I'm fond of considering different viewpoints, examining things from all angles, and I have to say I'm beginning to appreciate Roger's point on all this stuff. I'm not sure I'd be as persistent in making it as he has been, though. There's a point where I just shrug and walk away from something like this, because I figure there's no changing people's minds about it. I would be delighted if the sort of sadistic backbiting and ego games that some people indulge in here would cease...but I know it's not going to, so I just shrug and live with it...and sometimes I slip into it myself in reaction to it. (that can easily happen, it's a way of relieving stress) Like I said earlier, I've seen this sort of thing occur in virtually every group I've ever been around. The only thing that can prevent it from occuring...or stop it soon when it does...is extremely good and focused leadership that is absolutely fair to everybody and doesn't waver in its principles. And I mean extremely good leadership. It's a very rare thing. I've seen it, but not here. |
|
01 May 06 - 12:43 PM (#1731306) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Yes I'm a shrugger too, but it has been enlightening watching this play out. Every so often when it got really nasty I would wade in and defend shambles, not because I thought he particularly needed it, he is eloquent and able to deliver his view point well, but because I can't abide bullying. I then watched as my posts were being deleted, and believe me they contained nothing insulting or derogatory, then I noticed another wader inner was also having his/her posts deleted, and that is when I shrugged. And lo and behold a " See shambles nobody else agrees with you" post would appear in the thread. I realised that it suited some peoples agenda to present a one sided view of proceedings, and no matter how underhand they needed to be in order to do that, they were prepared to stoop that low to prove their point. But now I feel he has turned a huge corner. His detractors are actually unwittingly proving his point for him. Their insults fly and they feel safe to let them fly. Intriguing indeed. |
|
01 May 06 - 02:35 PM (#1731357) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: akenaton I agree with much Amos says in his post 30 Apr 3:54pm. But at the end of his post he says... "This is the same reason people don't like negative threads, or posts like Martin's insults. It's a waste of good opportunity and it undermines the community." What is a "negative thread" and how can I recognise one?...Ake |
|
01 May 06 - 03:26 PM (#1731390) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST "I then watched as my posts were being deleted, and believe me they contained nothing insulting or derogatory, then I noticed another wader inner was also having his/her posts deleted, and that is when I shrugged." Write and ask Joe to look into it. |
|
01 May 06 - 03:47 PM (#1731404) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles How would our more nasty and aggressive Mudcat members react to someone like that? They'd either make snide remarks at his expense, laugh at him, dismiss him in disgust, or gather in a mob and all yell, "Crucify him!" If you take the time to read through Max's public posts - you will see someone with such hopes for our forum and a similar attitude. |
|
01 May 06 - 03:57 PM (#1731415) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles [PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00 Thank you Shambles. I think some may not catch what your trying to do. The Mudcat's gonna grow. There will be a lot more content, a lot more people, a lot more posts, a lot more media, a lot more songs. We can't stop that now. But does this change anything? Some of us may get nervous that our happy world here may change, but what ever stays the same? The Real World is what it is, as is the Mudcat, and both are changing and growing everyday. Fear not the future, fear not the growth, fear not the change. It all comes down to one simple thing: It will be what we make it... PERIOD ---------------------------------- [PM] Max another one lost (57* d) RE: another one lost 18 Sep 00 >snip< Let us make a philosophical analogy and pretend for a moment that Mudcat = Life. There is no doubt that the events and social construct are similar if not just a subset. (One difference is that LIFE may in fact have a GOD, where Mudcat certainly does not. This simply means that the Mudcat is up to us to create and maintain which is a blessing and a burden, without THE BIG GUY'S HELP.) >snip< In Life and On Mudcat: ...You have control of your environment and your actions. You can choose to get and take and give what you want and refuse the rest. ...You may think that you, just one person, could not change this world when in fact you might. ...All we can really do is show by example. ...Create WHAT IS with our collective desires, passions, beliefs, personalities, etc. Life is what you make it. (and without The Big Guy's help the Mudcat sure is what we make it!) Members come and go, we have to deal with that, but now we're scaring away the new folks. Lets get some love in the air! huh folks? Take that energy that you waste on complaining and spread some joy, kind words, and music threads for GOD'S sake. |
|
01 May 06 - 05:06 PM (#1731458) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk Those are from 2000. A lot has happened since then. I wonder what Max would say now? |
|
01 May 06 - 06:10 PM (#1731507) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles If you voted Democrat in 2000 how likely would be that you would vote Republican in 2006? You realize that if I stop responding to you on this thread that you may be reduced to talking to yourself? I said - no chance and I was right. Perhaps I will be right in other things also? ---------------------------------- What is a "negative thread" and how can I recognise one?...Ake Do you think it one that is judged to comprise of anti-Mudcat posts - however you recognise those? |
|
01 May 06 - 06:11 PM (#1731509) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Little Hawk You were wrong until I came back.... (grin) Now you're right. You will probably be wrong again soon. That's the way it goes in life. |
|
01 May 06 - 07:24 PM (#1731558) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert ...or Joe could crosslink all previous Shamblecentric tread if he has a spare day... Or he could crosslink all threads that have been subject to gratitous deletions. IT IS STILL GOING ON - AND IT'S TIME SOMEONE PUT A STOP TO IT. Yes I know, I was shouting. But when I've talked quietly nothing has happened. Whoever deleted messages from this thead PLEASE RESTORE THEM SO THAT WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING. |
|
01 May 06 - 07:29 PM (#1731560) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST It's not just this thread Bert. I also had posts deleted from the 'rules of engagement' thread. And I noticed someone else did too. As for the suggestion earlier to tell joe about it - wouldn't that be akin to reporting noisy neighbours to someone who plays drums at 3am in a fourth floor flat? |
|
01 May 06 - 07:35 PM (#1731564) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Is it raining where you live?? .... drizzling here in Saint John ... but we did have a great weekend weather wise. Wanted to do some weeding in the garden, but was sidetracked by other things ... you know, those other little things that you allow to divert you from doing the things that really do require your attention. I should have a better attitude towards those things rather than trying to avoid them. sIx |
|
01 May 06 - 07:40 PM (#1731570) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Jeri There haven't been any messages deleted from this thread. |
|
01 May 06 - 07:42 PM (#1731571) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Thanks for checking and I do believe you.There have been so many I don't bother checking now. Could you tell me why the ones that DEFINITELY were deleted from the rules of engagment thread were deleted? |
|
01 May 06 - 07:43 PM (#1731572) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Very good that you have noticed that Jeri ... I certainly wouldn't have. sIx |
|
01 May 06 - 08:29 PM (#1731613) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Jeri, Your statement "There haven't been any messages deleted from this thread." doesn't agree with this one from above ..."It's not just this thread Bert. I also had posts deleted from the 'rules of engagement' thread. And I noticed someone else did too."... Just what is going on? I thought that Joe, Max or Jeff were the only ones who had sufficient access to the database to determine whether a message has been deleted. |
|
01 May 06 - 08:36 PM (#1731617) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 HuH ... I should check out to see what the weather is going to be like tomorrow ... but it doesn't really matter as I work during the week ... now don't get me wrong ... I like my work, I have a healthy attitude towards that ... but my attitude is pretty low when it comes to inclimate weather ... man I hate rain, especially here on the shores of the Fundy, since the winds really blow up and make it even more miserable with the rain ... anyone else feel this way? sIx |
|
01 May 06 - 08:40 PM (#1731622) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows! |
|
01 May 06 - 08:41 PM (#1731625) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 HeHe .... I always liked that line! sIx |
|
01 May 06 - 08:41 PM (#1731626) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: katlaughing I love the rain as long as I don't have to be out in a deluge, sIx! Of course, it's a rare treat here in the semi-arid desert of western Colorado. They aren't joking when they call it "Sunny Colorado." About 78 degrees today, few clouds, mostly sun, about 14% humidity and just enough wind to ring my chimes...windchimes, that is.:-) |
|
01 May 06 - 08:43 PM (#1731629) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Voila as if by magic the thread gets hijacked by a clone when the going gets a bit too near the truth. Priceless. |
|
01 May 06 - 08:43 PM (#1731630) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Actually Sixie, we could do with a drop of rain here in Colorado. It would clear the air a little. It would also be nice for someone to clear the air abot these deletions. |
|
01 May 06 - 08:44 PM (#1731631) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Actually I think I could live in that climate Kat. We've been thinking of maybe New Nexico down the road. To hear windchimes under a blue, dry sky with a breeze sounds so nice .. as opposed to a gale off the ocean here whipping them around. sIx |
|
01 May 06 - 09:10 PM (#1731650) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST,heric rule.notrule: "If a post is an attempt to hijack a thread, it can be deleted." I am beginning to understand these rules. Can implies cannot must also exist, but it doesn't! It is beautiful when you look at it closely. Like the colours of the wind. |
|
01 May 06 - 09:31 PM (#1731673) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Bert's question needs an answer. |
|
01 May 06 - 09:36 PM (#1731679) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: jacqui.c I know Jeri personally and would take her word on the deletion, or not, of posts to this thread. I take with a large pinch of salt claims from 'Guests' that their posts have been deleted. Sounds to me like someone just trying to stir the pot. |
|
01 May 06 - 09:48 PM (#1731695) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Just what is going on? I thought that Joe, Max or Jeff were the only ones who had sufficient access to the database to determine whether a message has been deleted. |
|
01 May 06 - 09:50 PM (#1731697) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST (I already took Jeri's word.) |
|
01 May 06 - 09:53 PM (#1731698) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Janie Bert, I think it likely that nothing is going on. Janie |
|
01 May 06 - 11:17 PM (#1731749) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Something IS going on and it has been going on for far too long. It is time for someone to step up to the plate and put a stop to this nonsense. |
|
01 May 06 - 11:22 PM (#1731751) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: heric Mine of an hour ago was just deleted. Funny place. |
|
01 May 06 - 11:28 PM (#1731757) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Jeeeezuz .... mine was deleted too! Oh well .... "I get all the news I want from the weather report" sIx |
|
01 May 06 - 11:33 PM (#1731759) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: heric Oh, sorry. I see now that the weather diversion (sIx's weather diversion) was deleted in its entirety. (And 6 I saw you say HORSE on that other thread tonight.) |
|
01 May 06 - 11:49 PM (#1731775) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Yeah it was .... I guess it's because I had a negative view on the weather ... I shouldn't have slammed it. I'll reverse my opinion ... I really like the gales and the rain that blow off of the Fundy here ... it really replenishes the soul.. the power of it, the rain stinging my face ... God, I feel like going out for a walk right now. And your right I did say horse ... oh, oh. sIx |
|
02 May 06 - 12:00 AM (#1731783) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Re: ...Bert's question needs an answer... Actually GUEST, now that Six's message has been deleted - Bert's answer needs a question. Now there's FOUR people who have had messages deleted from this thread. Joe, it's time you stepped in. |
|
02 May 06 - 12:03 AM (#1731786) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Or maybe it's just a moderator who needs to moderate their alcohol intake. Now THAT I can forgive. |
|
02 May 06 - 12:14 AM (#1731792) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Looks like were in for some Stormy Weather ... "All I do is pray the lord above will let me walk in the sun once more. Can't go on, ev'ry thing I had is gone Stormy weather" sIx |
|
02 May 06 - 12:20 AM (#1731795) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bee-dubya-ell I've already weighed in on the "Something's rotten in Mudcatville" side of this argument numerous times, however... On the one hand we have Jeri whose moderator perspective, I presume, allows her to tell whether or not posts have been deleted from this thread saying that nothing has been deleted. On the other hand, posters are saying that perfectly innocuous posts have been deleted. Well, I'm practically a computer illiterate compared to a lot of folks around here, but that sounds more like a computer glitch than a rogue moderator to me. Unless that rogue moderator has also found a way to hide his/her tracks from other mods, that is. Let's eliminate the possibility that the root of the problem lies in the Mudcat's problem-children servers and bipolar programming first, then let's start pointing fingers at human beings. Maybe it'd be a good idea for folks to "take snapshots" of their posts, complete with subject line, date and time, and copy them to a word-processing file. That way if a post does get deleted a copy can be sent to the help forum along with a request for an explanation. |
|
02 May 06 - 12:41 AM (#1731807) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Azizi This is a music site, right? Well then: They call it stormy Monday, yes but Tuesday's just as bad. They call it stormy Monday, yes but Tuesday's just as bad. Wednesday's even worse; Thursday's awful sad. The eagle flies on Friday, Saturday I go out to play. The eagle flies on Friday, but Saturday I go out to play. Sunday I go to church where I kneel down and pray. And I say, "Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy on me. Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy on me. Just trying to find my baby, won't you please send her on back to me." The eagle flies on Friday, on Saturday I go out to play. The eagle flies on Friday, on Saturday I go out to play. Sunday I go to church, where I kneel down, Lord and I pray. Then I say, "Lord have mercy, won't you please have mercy on me. Lord, oh Lord have mercy, yeah, won't you please, please have mercy on me. I'm just a-lookin' for my sweet babe, so won't you please send him home, send him on home to me." -snip- Now if we changed some words [like "post" for "baby"] than this song might be an appropriate commentary on the stormy weather we're having up in here. |
|
02 May 06 - 12:47 AM (#1731809) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: heric The deletions were made ~after~ Jeri said there were no earlier deletions, b-d-e. They were made to delete a "highjack" diversion about the weather. They were all close in time. 6 and I recall ours easily. Not a big deal. |
|
02 May 06 - 01:21 AM (#1731819) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert OK heric, so now we're not allowed a little thread drift, to me that IS a big deal. That is NOT why people have been given an edit button. Actually, Bee-dubya-ell there is a computer glitch that does happen sometimes. If when you hit the submit button, the server take too long to post the message then it can get lost. This situation is always immediately apparent because the message never appears at all. We have all lost messages that way. There were earlier deletions on this thread because I had two PMs from different members complaining that their messages had been deleted. This is a different situation because the messages originally appeared. The two PMs came from members who I KNOW have been 'deleted' in the past and those deletions were confirmed. I have no reason to believe that they would both independently complain about messages being deleted from THIS thread. Too much of a coincidence. I think it is time to STOP deletions from taking place without an explanation. I can accept that some editors are too chicken to put their names down, but I don't see anything wrong with saying something along the lines "This message was deleted because ....". Perhaps Jeff could fix it so that if a message is deleted then the header remains and then there could be no denying that a message had been tampered with. Whoever is deleting these messages surreptitiously is doing a great disservice to the Mudcat, and is the DIRECT CAUSE of all these censorship threads that are wasting so much of our time. |
|
02 May 06 - 01:28 AM (#1731821) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: heric Yes, I'm good with all that. I just don't want to press charges. Selectively deleting in a string does mis-shape the course of a disucssion. |
|
02 May 06 - 03:08 AM (#1731844) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Suggestion for Rules of Engagement I know Jeri personally and would take her word on the deletion, or not, of posts to this thread. I take with a large pinch of salt claims from 'Guests' that their posts have been deleted. Sounds to me like someone just trying to stir the pot. Bert is also a moderator on our forum and has been one longer than the rest he is the one who needs your support as he is trying to OPENLY address the wider issue - not limit his words to a few carefuly worded ones - which do nothing to address the problem at all. There should never be any question of any doubt when any editing action has been judged necessary and imposed. Nor the reasons for it or who was responsible. All this should be clearly stated so all posters can be aware of the level of censorship, before they are expected to support it. |
|
02 May 06 - 03:22 AM (#1731849) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Joe Offer I think I'd have to agree, Bert. I undeleted all the messages that had been deleted from this thread. -Joe- |
|
02 May 06 - 04:21 AM (#1731883) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST The deleted posts have not been reinstated in the 'Rules of Engagement' thread. |
|
02 May 06 - 05:17 AM (#1731897) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles The following 'editing comment' appears in the Rules of Engagement thread Max no longer has the time to review offending posts, so in January, 1998, he chose to delegate authority to Joe and later also to Jeff, who supervise a number of volunteers in this work. Joe and Jeff are responsible for reviewing all volunteer editing actions. Entire threads are deleted or closed on relatively rare occasions, when the entire thread becomes combative and the problem cannot be resolved by the deletion of a few offending posts Joe Offer No complaint that a posters contribution has be subject to any form of editing action cannot be seen to be either bogus or valid - if no record of the imposed judgement is recorded. Surely if a post is judged to warrent such extreme action - there should be no harm in recording in the thread that it in fact took place - the reasons for it and who was responsible. For without this - there is no deterrent value in a censorship action which is only reactive and which currently offers no protection for posters from personally motivated editing actions nor offers any editor protection from any accusation that such actions are pesonally motivated. How can any action be expected to be viewed by our forum as not being personally motivated, when it is imposed anonymously or by two moderators who publicly state that certain posters should be banned and the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who sets the example of posting abusive personal attacks, judging a poster's worth and publicly calls them names? |
|
02 May 06 - 05:29 AM (#1731900) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM Hmmmm. Name-calling? As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name. -------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM >snip< Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case. -Joe Offer- |
|
02 May 06 - 05:40 AM (#1731907) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST 1. No personal attacks. Stay focused on the issues This is what kat posted on the rules of engagement thread. My posts that were deleted between 8.47pm and 12.21am pointed out that she might not be the best person to advocate this as she is unable to adhere to these rules she wants imposed. Her recent shambles bashing spree and calling for him to be banned and her very recent (yesterday) foray into hijacking threads that get too near the truth for her agenda all illustrate her inability to moderate. Mine along with another poster who also spotted the glaring hypocrisy in her starting that thread have been removed. That thread is not representative of what was posted. It has become a version of the truth that suits some people.
joe@mudcat.org |
|
02 May 06 - 08:09 AM (#1731956) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Big Mick OK, let me get this straight. You folks want consistency in how the threads are moderated. So a moderator deletes a couple of posts that were clear attempts to hijack the thread from its discussion of moderators that aren't consistent, and you are mad about that as well. Shambles, and others, you have won. You have pretty much taken the Mudcat from the wonderful haven for folk musicians, famed and unknown, and those that love the music, and turned it into a gathering place for a bunch of malcontents who love to hear themselves talk. Look at the icons thread, but only for the purpose of figuring out who has left. Way to go. And those that feed these creatures, you are no better. You are as responsible for what it has come as they are. And on a personal note, I am too. Really makes me sad. |
|
02 May 06 - 08:39 AM (#1731979) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST To the contrary. My deleted posts were very much highlighting the inconsistency of moderators. And the thread that you are mentioning was 'hijacked' by one of your moderators. |
|
02 May 06 - 08:51 AM (#1731986) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST,The Ghost of Jimmy Hoffa Is it not the case that Personal attacks against Members are not allowed. Guest 02 May 06 - 05:40 AM remarks are out of order and should be deleted if this is still the way it works around here. If Guest 02 May 06 - 05:40 AM is a Member their name should be outed under their remarks. If however this malicious Moron is not a Member, just what business do they have coming into to this Forum and posting their narrow, twisted and nasty view about any Member here or sharing their shit stirring comments on any topic dealing with Mudcat Policy. If this Guest wants a say then this Guest should join up. Until then Guest is nothing more than a Troll. Guests ain't Members...or are they? Question for Bert, Bert, what is wrong with you lately? Why are you suddenly attacking the Moderators here. Are you a Clone? Why are people PMing you about deleted posts. Is this a Union shop now and are you the Union Spokesman? The Mudcat Teamsters. If the People who sent you PMs about their deleted posts are some of the Guests on this Thread, why would they sign back in just to PM you Bert and not Joe Offer? Why you Bert? Is it because you have taken up the plastic sword and are willing to SHOUT LOUDLY in Threads on behalf of the cowards who hijack them and as a result have had their posts deleted. So now if that happens they PM you! Why? Is it because they know that you will keep at it till you have spoiled yet another Thread. Publicly bashing the Moderators here. These people do THAT rather than sending a private PM with their complaints to the People who actually run the Mudcat. You don't think that is kind of pathetic Bert. Do you not think that maybe your being used and most likely getting laughed at for doing this for these people. Looks that way from here. If you are so public about bashing Moderators here then you open the door for a public opinion about your tactics. Perhaps it would be better if the person that started this Thread ask that it be closed now. The Thread has turned into yet another pile of shit thanks to the usual suspects. |
|
02 May 06 - 08:54 AM (#1731990) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Mick .... I'm certainly not a malcontent, far from it, and I do beleive I make myself clear of that in my posts. My posts in this thread were pure nonsense, yes a diversion from the contenet of some of the posts in this thread. Whether they were deleted ot not certainly doesn't bother me, but it was a surprise as to why they were singled out. Some people may not like the subject of my threads and posts, but I certainly don't expect every one to. But overall they are harmless, and are not attacks directed at anyone or anything. As to music. This is a subject dear to me as others in this forum. Again, my taste may not be exactly the same as yours, but then why should it. Overall ... I think you should lighten up a bit ... show some more tolerance. As most of us say around here .. if we don't like a thread, stay away from it ... if you air your opinions, than be prepared for to defend them. sIx |
|
02 May 06 - 08:55 AM (#1731991) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST How very level headed. When the owner of the site bans guests we will go. In the meantime we are here. 6 and kat are members? 6 and kat hijacked the thread. Not palatable is it when the problems lie a lot nearer to home than you would wish. |
|
02 May 06 - 09:15 AM (#1732005) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Big Mick 6, you have always been a level headed decent poster. My point was that these folks always bitch about the double standard. A clone tries to apply the standard more evenly, and they still complain. It is my opinion that the rules are what they are, or aren't, but I agree they should be applied evenly whether we like the person or not. I don't believe they have been, in fact I have done things which I would delete now. My opinion has been changed. While I do not want, nor will I become, overly legalistic about it, none the less I am will apply these rules as I have stated several times in the threads. When I see a thread started that is nothing more than troll bait, or a personal attack, I will delete it. When I see a legitimate thread, and I see an attempt to hijack it (no matter who the hijacker), I will delete the offending posts. I am going to apply these rules without regard to the poster. I will not debate my judgement with any of you. That is a prescription for the destruction of any sort of civil discourse. No moderator should. The owner of the site is the judge. You may appeal to Joe, Jeff, or Max should you choose. Long ago my friend Jeff told me that mod's should always be anonymous to avoid this stuff. I thought he was wrong because I believed in accountability. I have come to understand the wisdom of his philosophy. He was and is correct. But the genie is out of the bottle. When we are dealing with the plethora of agendas and personalities, these judgements just need to be made and folks have to live with them or leave. This is the last time I will explain this, I am just going to act in my appointed role. When you see me post, those posts are simply my opinions as a member. How I perform my duties as a moderator will be judged by the owner of the forum, not public consensus. Mick |
|
02 May 06 - 10:05 AM (#1732045) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST When I see a legitimate thread, and I see an attempt to hijack it (no matter who the hijacker), I will delete the offending posts. I am going to apply these rules without regard to the poster. It's mighty hard to see what you define as a 'hijack' post. number 6 and kat's little concourse about the weather half way through this thread obviously aren't your definition of a 'hijack' then. Because they are not deleted. Glad we got that sorted. Actually those posts were deleted for precisely that reason. The judgement was made by the powers that be that they should be put back in. Not much I can do about that. |
|
02 May 06 - 10:24 AM (#1732062) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles I will not debate my judgement with any of you. That is a prescription for the destruction of any sort of civil discourse. No moderator should. The owner of the site is the judge. You may appeal to Joe, Jeff, or Max should you choose. I don't believe I am reading this dangerous piffle! Mick - If you feel yourself qualified to look down in judgement on the worth of Max's other invited guests as you have for many years and refer to them now as 'you' - make no mistake - YOU WILL BE JUDGED. If you do not impose your judgement - there is never any need to debate it. If you do choose to impose it and feel qualified to impose that right - with that right come certain responsibilities. The first and most basic of these is to record for our forum's benifit when these judgements have been imposed. So at least there is no argument about whether the judgement was imposed or not. If you can't accept this reality and can't stand the heat and feel you have some right to throw pots and pans at the customers - you should not be in the kitchen - you should get out now or be thrown out. Our forum has been needlessly divided for far too long. |
|
02 May 06 - 10:30 AM (#1732072) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Quite intentional attempts to 'hi-jack the following were ignored by our moderators (except for those who joined in with these attempts). Do we need to curb the troublemakers |
|
02 May 06 - 10:33 AM (#1732074) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Proposal for members only posting of BS Music posts by Guests to be reviewed |
|
02 May 06 - 11:01 AM (#1732100) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Those are from 2000. A lot has happened since then. I wonder what Max would say now? The following is from a little later. There is talk of 'members only' but as it has not been actioned in the last 4 years - unless Max tells us otherwise - we could perhaps assume that he is still as 'uncomfortable' with that now (and in 'censorship and rules') in 2006 as he was in 2002.... So perhaps those few who wish this change and to impose futher judgements and restrictions on our forum can find somewhere else where they can do all this and be finally happy and leave the rest of us in peace? [PM] Max BS: What annoys me about mudcat (118* d) RE: BS: What annoys me about mudcat 12 Jan 02 We've been toiling with the issue of topic here for a while. We are a folk/blues/traditional/historical/folklore Web site, but to try to control it manually is an endless if not impossible task. I keep hearing the members-only recommendation, but am not comfortable with that. The fact that long-time core members, who seem to have the most to offer us, are visiting less often bothers me even more. Can't help to take things for granted, but as far as specific-topic Forums, I'd say we're among the best. And even more importantly, we maintain a significant desire to continue to improve. The new version of Mudcat is in operation to a select few volunteers for testing and development. It's pretty damn cool if you ask me. Anyhow, it includes some advanced filtering technology that should make the 1%ers more satisfied with the content without the other 99 even noticing. I'd be surprised if it takes more than 2 months to finish at this point, though one of our important helpers is going on a honeymoon for a stint. Without getting on a rant here, just trust that we are very aware of these issues, and we choose to deal with them in technological ways rather than with rules or censorship. You all have your own reasons for being here, and we all have our reasons for creating this Web site and this database. Mine is to collect data that may not otherwise be collected and to facilitate a community of people who have similar interests. (Emphasis on the Period at the end of that sentence) |
|
02 May 06 - 11:21 AM (#1732109) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles So we are told that the posts in this thread that were judged as needing to be deleted (to protected us from something or other, by persons unknown) have now been judged differently and undeleted by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Despite at one point being authoritive told by another moderator and accepted by some posters that no imposed editing action had taken place. Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Jeri - PM Date: 01 May 06 - 07:40 PM There haven't been any messages deleted from this thread. How does our forum know what these messages were? Could this (now and always) be indicated in this posts by a small editing comment to this effect? Despite this display of complete incompetence and final demonstation (if any were needed) that this is NO SYSTEM - as no one in has the slightest clue what any other is doing or why - does our forum receive an apolgy or any assurance that this sort of shambles will no be repeated? No - just yet more public complaints from some moderators who are upset because they feel they are subjected to the sort judgement they are only too willing to dish out to their fellow posters. But we do get criticisim of the only moderator who comes out of with any credit. Bert is at least trying to openly address this current mess and heal the wounds. It would be positive if these attempts were supported. |
|
02 May 06 - 11:39 AM (#1732132) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Ghost of Jimmy Hoffa ... you can go back to thug heaven, Nirvana or wherever your from .... don't try muscling into the Mudcat Central ... we don't need no Teamsters union here ... we'll straighten our differences out amongst ourselves. And don't slam the door when ya leave. sIx |
|
02 May 06 - 01:40 PM (#1732223) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba Ah well looks like MY Thread has gone . Roger, sorry. F*** the Book ,write it yourself. You can have the illustrations I have already done but as for helping with the promotion..... You're on your own Buddy. I'm done, Im out of this one. Oh and by the way the posts about the Weather that got deleted, they were A RELIEF! Why would someone delete those posts and leave the REAL hijackers comments! There lies a mystery we shall never know the answer to. So Mudelfs, my Darlings. I started the Thread for laughs, which we had for a while, till the shite sneeked in or should that read 'plopped in'..... so now I am asking. Please can someone close MY Thread now...Thank you Bunches Jude
[per request of originator of thread]] |
|
02 May 06 - 02:17 PM (#1732249) Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST They are not deleted. |
