BS: Deleted posts & closed threads

18 Jul 06 - 03:41 PM (#1786562)
Subject: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Shambles, please try to remember that this is a thread about the Licensing Act. I can't allow you to hijack threads on other subjects and use them for your campaign against "Mudcat censorship." You'll find your messages, intact, in the thread titled Is closing threads censorship. If you really feel a need to discuss new aspects of the subject of censorship, you may start a new thread - but you may have only one thread active at a time on the subject, and it will be in the "BS" section. If it is littered with copy-pastes from other threads, it will most probably be closed.
I repeat, this particular thread is about the Licensing Act. If anyone posts comments about Mudcat administration here, those messages will be moved to the "closing threads" thread.
-Joe Offer-

The above editing comment was inserted in the following thread as well as posts from me and other posters, being deleted from it (and other threads).

Affected by the Licensing Act 2003

This and recent threads closures - would seem to signify a move to a new stage of imposed judgement and censorship.


http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=92691&messages=245

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=92826&messages=3

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=91184&messages=267

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=92844&messages=71&page=1&desc=yes

As in the middle of all this silliness - I would appear to have been granted permission to start a new thread on this subject by Joe Offer – I think I will. I think it important that posters on our forum are aware of the true extent of the personally motivated censorship on our forum. What you feel about it is a matter for you. But I suspect that it may be as well to express your view now and in this thread – as you may not get the chance to do so again.

---

18 Jul 06 - 03:50 PM (#1786572)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

SSDD

---

18 Jul 06 - 03:59 PM (#1786579)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

Oh sweet merciful fuck will you get a life Shambles...........

---

18 Jul 06 - 04:10 PM (#1786591)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Wesley S

My sympathies Joe. It's going to be a long hot summer.

Shambles - put me in the "I already know and I just don't care" column.

---

18 Jul 06 - 04:11 PM (#1786594)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Georgiansilver

Shambles you have shown that you are a total shambles....what more notoriety do you want? Sure you mean well.....but!!!!!!!

---

18 Jul 06 - 04:11 PM (#1786595)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

"*figure out for yourself who "we" is - you're a smart boy."

as CH stated ... "Oh sweet merciful fuck"

sIx

---

18 Jul 06 - 04:12 PM (#1786597)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: frogprince

How did such a gift for writing beautiful verse, and such a mess of paranoia, ever wind up in the same skin?

---

18 Jul 06 - 04:20 PM (#1786601)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

" I'm here for the entire summer"
Shit Joe, tell me you have better things to do... like maybe chasing your own fats with a pillow case.... or trying to get dogs and cats to breed....

Anything's better than running behind Shambles with a poop-scoop

"a gift for writing beautiful verse"
Never seen any of that....

---

18 Jul 06 - 04:25 PM (#1786607)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

fats? That should read FARTS

Stupid non-edit-able message board

---

18 Jul 06 - 04:29 PM (#1786613)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

Well, Clinton, I'm having a great time with Czech songs and intend to leave Shambles more-or-less alone, as long as he stays in this thread...
It promises to be a good year for wildflowers, and there are trails to hike and lakes to canoe in the Sierra, but I plan to be sleeping in my own bed most every night - now that I'm back from Poland.
-Joe-

---

18 Jul 06 - 04:29 PM (#1786614)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

HeHe ..... let's keep this a vintage web forum.

sIx

---

18 Jul 06 - 04:31 PM (#1786615)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

Joe ... did ya find any good Czech folk music in Poland?

sIx

---

18 Jul 06 - 05:21 PM (#1786653)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

Not this year, sIx, but I was in the Czech Republic last year.

---

18 Jul 06 - 05:45 PM (#1786677)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Wesley S

That's a darn good place to buy a mandolin from what I hear. Lots of good builders in the Czech Republic. But you're still stuck on the guitar aren't you?

---

18 Jul 06 - 05:54 PM (#1786684)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

When anyone deletes a message PLEASE put a note in to say that the message has been deleted and WHY.

I was trying to follow a thread the other day and came across a message that obviously didn't make sense. It wasn't until later that I discovered that a message had been deleted with no comment whatsoever.

Whoever deleted that message completely destroyed the continuity of the thread.

Whilst I appreciate that a certain amount of editing is needed to remove obnoxious messages; if editing is done secretly it only opens up the forum for further dissention.

I can see no reason whatsoever for removing a message without letting Mudcatters know what is going on.

---

I'm sorry, Bert, but that's not going to happen. If we have to report and defend and debate deletions, it would only exacerbate the trouble caused by problem posts. The volunteers are supposed to make deletions only for the most obvious problems, and they are to report all deletions to Jeff or me. Jeff and I consult with each other.
-Joe Offer-

---

18 Jul 06 - 05:58 PM (#1786691)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Wolfgang

Ahh, after all those weeks of restraint (or have I read the wrong threads?) it was too demanding to further keep from telling Max how this site should be run. He must have nearly choked the last couple of weeks. Today's logorhea is a katharsis for a tormented soul.

Wolfgang

---

18 Jul 06 - 06:03 PM (#1786702)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

Right Wolfgang. It's a pity people can't leave things alone.

---

18 Jul 06 - 06:05 PM (#1786706)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Georgiansilver

We know from experience that some people are never happy even when their wildest dreams are fulfilled...they just go on to some other negative aspect in their putrid little lives.

---

18 Jul 06 - 06:24 PM (#1786725)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Dogs chase after cars, although they have no intention of driving them.


Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.
Max Spiegel 11th May 06.

---

18 Jul 06 - 06:34 PM (#1786744)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

"after all those weeks of restraint"

Maybe it's more accurate to say "after all those weeks IN restraints"

---

18 Jul 06 - 06:37 PM (#1786750)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

"after all those weeks of restraint" Then somone goes deleting messages - it's a bummer.

---

18 Jul 06 - 07:06 PM (#1786782)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bee-dubya-ell

Perhaps instead of deleting posts the moderators should simply move them over to the "Will This Thread Ever Get 5000 Posts?" thread.

Doing so would accomplish several objectives:

1) It would move that thread a little closer to its stated goal of 5000 posts.

2) It would appease those who don't like seeing their posts deleted. They'd still be around, just somewhere else.

3) Offensive posts would be disarmed by removing them from the context within which they were made.

4) It would reaffirm my status as a really smart guy since it's my ingenious idea, possibly leading to my giving khandu a run for his money in the contest for "Time Magazine Man of the Year Award".

---

18 Jul 06 - 07:15 PM (#1786790)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

Why keep trash?

---

18 Jul 06 - 10:28 PM (#1786852)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: SharonA

Why go to all the trouble to edit members' repetitively annoying messages, and yet keep on-site the option of posting repetitively annoying messages as an anonymous GUEST???????????????????????

---

18 Jul 06 - 10:34 PM (#1786858)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Sorcha

Would someone please 'sanction' Shambles??????

---

19 Jul 06 - 12:00 AM (#1786893)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

Interesting Fact


"Although May Day is now the first day of the month of May, before 1752, when the calendar was changed, it was 11 days earlier."

FYI.

---

19 Jul 06 - 12:08 AM (#1786901)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

Why keep trash?

Hey we keep YOU ;-)

---

19 Jul 06 - 12:39 AM (#1786915)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: JennyO

Bee-dubya, I think you're onto something there! Why, in no time at all we can build that other rubbish thread up to 5000 posts -

(then we can delete the whole thing mwuhahahaha ha ha ha)

Ya might beat that pesky khandu yet. You has my vote!

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:24 AM (#1787035)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I'm sorry, Bert, but that's not going to happen. If we have to report and defend and debate deletions, it would only exacerbate the trouble caused by problem posts. The volunteers are supposed to make deletions only for the most obvious problems, and they are to report all deletions to Jeff or me. Jeff and I consult with each other.
-Joe Offer-

The whole point of starting this thread is to demonstrate to our forum (or at least those who are interested) what the true level of censorship is. It is pretty obvious that the whole point of those who would defend it – is to keep its true nature a secret.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion=good folk doing bad things?
From: Slag - PM
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 03:09 AM

Well it looks as those my comments never made it passed your censors! Gee, I thot you folks, if anybody, believed in free speech. Maybe speech is only free if everyone agrees with you.

Hi, Slag - I can't find any evidence that any of your posts have been deleted or edited. We usually delete only personal attacks, racism, and spam.
-Joe Offer-

Editing comments like the one inserted into the above post, state that only personal attacks, racism and spam are subject to censorship. So when one's censored post not any of these but is still subject to imposed censorship action - perhaps an editing comment of explanation (whenever it takes place) is the best option?

This will prevent more posts asking where the posts have gone and prevent threads being started asking for explanations. If such imposed actions are now thought to be necessary – perhaps it is only being polite and showing respect, for an explanation to be given.

When unpleasant things need to be done - there is classy way to do it. And there is the now preferred way of imposing it on our forum.


Are all thread originators (except me) now entitled to have their threads closed – if they request this?

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:30 AM (#1787037)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

Are you all aware that the USA has never lost a war in which donkeys were used?

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:58 AM (#1787051)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Georgiansilver

Bring home the soldiers and send in the donkeys I say.          Joking aside Brucie, is that true?

---

19 Jul 06 - 04:05 AM (#1787056)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

I found it on a site that has all kindsa facts. Pieces of trivia that are of absolutely no use to anyone unless they have run out of their three lifelines and they are gonna go for the million. Is it true? I really don't know. But I figured it would give folks a break from the regular stuff. I realize it's thread drift, BUT, it's thread drift in a good cause on a thread that needs some drift.

Here's another one:

"Most people who read the word 'yawning' will yawn!"

I did, but then I have had six hours of sleep in the past two nights and it's just gone 2:00 AM here and I've been up for 20 hours.

---

19 Jul 06 - 05:12 AM (#1787097)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

I have this theory about yawns, I believe there is only one yawn in the world and it is passed from person to person. When it's your turn to have it the person next to you will pass it on.
Giok

---

19 Jul 06 - 06:01 AM (#1787114)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Democracy on forums

If posters knew that any post of theirs judged to be offensive enough to require deletion would have an editing comment to that effect - - they would always know that if they could not find their post - that the mistake would have been theirs.

Without this common courtesy being shown to invited contributions - posters will never sure - without posting again in some form to ask..........

---

19 Jul 06 - 06:09 AM (#1787119)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Jerry Rasmussen

Hey, Peace:

Now I understand the phrase, "Do you get my drift?"


EEEE Hawwwwww!

Jerry

---

19 Jul 06 - 07:13 AM (#1787144)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Now farts, well they are spreading all the time, and they don't seem to be contagious, although in all male company they can become competitive. Unlike yawns however, when the person beside you farts, don't just sit there with your mouth open!
Giok

---

19 Jul 06 - 07:31 AM (#1787149)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bugsy

I really don't care where, or what, shambles posts.

If someone posts to a thread that detracts or diverts from the subject of that thread, I tend to ignore the post and read on.

Just because it's writ, don't mean it's got to be read....

Cheers


Bugsy

---

19 Jul 06 - 08:15 AM (#1787169)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Black and white, but not read all over!
G

---

19 Jul 06 - 10:16 AM (#1787242)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

That's right, Shambles. There is a general feeling among Mudcatters that enough is enough, that there is no need for abusive posts like those of Martin Gibson and Gargoyle, or for your abuses - hijacking threads on other subjects to use in your campaign against Mudcat editorial actions, and copy-pasting the same information over and over again.
Joe Offer

How has this general feeling been expressed?

If it is the general feeling - is there any consensus that these methods to deal with it are proportionate?

How is this hijacking to be defined?

Are there not attempts to hijack this thread?

Will these attempts be dealt with in the same hysterical manner?

---

19 Jul 06 - 10:34 AM (#1787261)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Well Roger I'll put it this way, I don't always agree with Joe Offer, but this time he's hit the nail on the head.
Does that naswer your question?
Giok

---

19 Jul 06 - 10:44 AM (#1787275)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

How has this general feeling been expressed?

The "general feeling" of us really doesn't matter.

The "general feeling" of Max, who owns the site, and of Joe, Jeff and all the volunteers who actually make it run, is what counts. And you'll find that "general feeling" expressed in various posts from Max, Joe, Jeff and others.

If it is the general feeling - is there any consensus that these methods to deal with it are proportionate?

I quote from Joe above: "The volunteers are supposed to make deletions only for the most obvious problems, and they are to report all deletions to Jeff or me. Jeff and I consult with each other." Max has explicitly delegated this authority to Jeff and Joe, and he's made his opinions clear about how Jeff and Joe are dealing with your posts.

How is this hijacking to be defined?

"on other subjects to use in your campaign against Mudcat editorial actions", "copy-pasting the same information over and over again"...

Graham.

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:17 PM (#1787455)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

(Shambles has a compulsive need to ask who "we" is whenever I use the word)
Joe Offer

The important and sad thing to remember is that when you use the word 'we' - it no longer refers to us all.

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:20 PM (#1787459)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

Well, it certainly doens't refer to you Shambles....

Maybe it's because you're an asshole.....

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:22 PM (#1787460)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Don't you just hate it when you agree with CH?
G.

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:28 PM (#1787463)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Georgiansilver

I don't agree with CH..Asshole is too nice a desription!

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:29 PM (#1787464)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

Hurts don't it Giok....

Just lay back, relax and breath regularily.... the pain will pass quickly, and the pleasure will come

:-)

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:42 PM (#1787477)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Oh Clinton if only you were a red headed woman!
G.

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:45 PM (#1787479)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

Giok - he's only off by two letters.

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:47 PM (#1787480)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

i stopped being a member 2 years ago because of censorship. Many of you knew me too. I pop back sometimes as a guest, but i see censorship has got worse.

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:53 PM (#1787485)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

It didn't keep you out did it?
G.

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:55 PM (#1787487)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

According to what I read on bathroom walls in truckstops and around rest area Glory Holes, you don't like women, Giok

:-P
heh

---

19 Jul 06 - 02:56 PM (#1787490)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

No it just sapped the fun out of it thats all.

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:00 PM (#1787494)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Georgiansilver

Whose fun?

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:06 PM (#1787500)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

"it just sapped the fun out of it"

Then bog off..... Why stay where there's no fun?

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:23 PM (#1787520)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

"Oh Clinton if only you were a red headed woman!
G[iok]"


BELLAMY BROTHERS

Redneck Girl

Redneck girl likes to cruise in daddy's pickup truck,
And a redneck girl plays hard when she's down on her luck,
Living for Friday afternoon,
She's gonna show one ol' boy that weekend moon.

And I pray that someday I will find me a redneck girl
A redneck girl likes to stay out all night long
She makes sweet rock and roll while she listens to the country songs
She's waiting for that moment of surrender
her hands are callused but her heart is tender

And i pray that someday I will find me a redneck girl
Gimme a, gimme a, gimme a redneck girl
Gimme a, gimme a, gimme a redneck girl

Gimme a gimme a gimme a redneck girl
Gimme a gimme a gimme a redneck girl

Redneck girl got her name on the back of her belt
She's got a kiss on her lips for her man and no one else
The Coyote is howling out on the prairie
First comes love, then comes marriage!

And I pray that someday i will find me a redneck girl
Gimme a, gimme a, gimme a redneck girl

Gimme a, gimme a, gimme a redneck girl
You've got to gimme a, gimme a, gimme a redneck girl,
Gimme a gimme a gimme a redneck girl.

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:32 PM (#1787529)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

There's a BIG difference between red-headed and red-necked....

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:33 PM (#1787531)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

3 letters - about 33% difference.

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:40 PM (#1787537)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

my old Social Studies teacher once replied to a LONG discussion about 'freedom of expression' by writing on the board:

"This class is run democratically"
    signed, King Harmon I

---

19 Jul 06 - 03:49 PM (#1787552)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

never mind

---

19 Jul 06 - 04:13 PM (#1787580)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

It's mind over matter Guest, we don't mind and you don't matter!
G.

---

19 Jul 06 - 04:19 PM (#1787582)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

Ah .... the atmosphere of freedom.

One has to admit ..... ya just love all this !!

sIx

---

19 Jul 06 - 04:19 PM (#1787583)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

"It's mind over matter"

Ya... -I- don't mind, cause NONE of this matters

---

19 Jul 06 - 06:11 PM (#1787676)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

There is a general feeling among Mudcatters that enough is enough, that there is no need for abusive posts....

Piffle.

There seem to be plenty of abusive posts in this thread that have not been deleted from it, in order to protect this new 'general feeling among Mudcatters'.

But abusive posts have always been thought to be OK by many Mudcatters, depending on who it is posting the abuse and who it is that is being abused.

And this recent concern, expressed by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team for the general feeling of Mudcatters has never prevented him from setting the example of making abusive personal attacks.

---

19 Jul 06 - 06:43 PM (#1787698)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Georgiansilver

Sorry for not having read many of your postings before Shambles so have never got to know you. Can I say it is not really a pleasure to have rebellious children on the Mudcat..although it does make life a little more interesting. However are there no childrens forums where you can wind people of your own age up?

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:37 AM (#1787935)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

The difference between Shambles and Joe...

Shambles comes out and says what he thinks. OK. Maybe a bit more than some of us would like. BUT, we all know him and know his opinions and know what he means.

Now Joe, well this is difficult 'cos we DON'T know what Joe is doing. SOMETIMES he tell us what he thinks. Other times he sneaks in under cover of his editing priviliges and deletes messages or moves them without telling us. Then when Shambles complains that one of his messages has been deleted, then all the usual suspects jump in with a knee jerk reaction to trash Shambles.

Personally, I prefer someone who is open and above board, even though he may go on a bit at times, to someone who is abusing their editing priviliges by secretly deleting somone else's messages.

---

20 Jul 06 - 02:25 AM (#1787952)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

Shambles comes out and says what he thinks. [...] BUT, we all know him and know his opinions and know what he means.

I don't know what he means half the time.

Now Joe, well this is difficult 'cos we DON'T know what Joe is doing.

When Joe particpates as a poster, I know him to the same extent I know shambles, his opinions and know what he means.

It's nonsensical to include the moderation duty which Joe performs (and Max says can be done anonymously) and shambles can't in your "character analysis".

---

20 Jul 06 - 03:29 AM (#1787978)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

When Joe particpates as a poster, I know him to the same extent I know shambles, his opinions and know what he means.

It's nonsensical to include the moderation duty which Joe performs (and Max says can be done anonymously) and shambles can't in your "character analysis".

Well I also very seldom know what Jon means. I have little ideas what the above means.

But it is not a popularity contest between the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and any ordinary poster. It must be quite clear to most posters by now what the price is of being seen to hold and try to openly express any views different to those held by the current holder of that post.

For people to post and express satisfaction at the current level of censorship when they are not aware of what it is and what it is increasing turning into is bad enough. It makes even less sense for these posters to publicly rubbish any poster who does experience the full extent of this personally motivated censorship as a matter of routine and who is trying to bring this to their attention.

In order for any poster to make a judgement - the first step is to establish what the extent of censorship is. This can't be done if the censorship action is not recorded and posts just vanish.

Are the arguments made in this thread - for not recording ALL censorship action - really very convincing?   

The best way to permanantly curtail any so-called anti-censorship campaign - is to bring and end to censorship. Or if you can't do that, at least to always to be seen to be keeping any that may be necessary, out in the open.

The request to give a name and to always be prepared to stand by one's views and actions - is one that is often made by one poster to another (usually a nameless guest). Perhaps it is not too unreasonable for our forum to expect the same open and accountable approach from those who feel qualified to impose their judgement upon and censor the invited posts of others?

---

20 Jul 06 - 04:26 AM (#1787996)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

It's mind over matter Guest, we don't mind and you don't matter!
G.

I hope when you die, your quick witted remarks will give you some sense of peace when you breathe your last breath.

or will your death be as boring as your wit? Wait for it....c'mon goik i know you still got one more? C'mon, make us happy? Everyone loves you, you character, you lovable character that makes a room important when you walk in.

---

20 Jul 06 - 05:00 AM (#1788021)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

The thing is Roger your campaign is motivated by truculence over your post/s being edited or deleted, it's not pro bono. You come over as a petulant child who can't get his own way, not as a Robin Hood, or a Nelson Mandela.
I applaud all unselfish ideals for the betterment of our lot, but that's not the way it comes over when you whinge about being suppressed.
Then we have your continuous diatribe against Joe Offer, he is not the only clone, he is not the one who does all the deletions. You seem to be trying to patray him as the Maggie Thatcher of Mudcat, responsible for all that happens under his watch.
Start sounding more altruistic and less curmudgeonly, you might find you get more sympathy and support.
Giok

---

20 Jul 06 - 05:19 AM (#1788031)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I'm sorry, Bert, but that's not going to happen. If we have to report and defend and debate deletions, it would only exacerbate the trouble caused by problem posts.... -Joe Offer-

Why would it exacerbate anything by always placing an editing comment to indicate where some form of censorship had taken place and briefly stating the reasons? The censor could also always identfy themselves.

It would be the open, honest and classy way to do it - if it had to be done at all. For then all posters would have all the evidence to be able to judge for themselves if the censorship action imposed in their name and in order to protect them was actually serving this purpose.

---

20 Jul 06 - 07:27 AM (#1788090)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

Deleting a post for whatever reason is an editing act and does not require a criminal investigation.
Just as the Moderator of this Forum, in my opinion, should not have explain any of the deletion decisions that are taken.
This place ain't a democracy.
Want democracy, Go and start an un-moderated Forum somewhere out there. It will last a week before it crashes and burns.

Having no class is carrying out a hate campaign against this Site's Administration Team in public instead of using the available private channels to express your feelings.
That way the Moderator and or Owner can deal with an individual's gripe without Members being subjected to having to see said gripe on the Forum again and again and again.

If I recall correctly the owner of the Mudcat expressed his feelings on a Thread directly to the person that started this tedious thread.
In his remarks, the owner was very clear about what he thought this person should do.

---

20 Jul 06 - 07:55 AM (#1788111)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

Why isn't Clinton Hammond's personal attack being deleted? Because of the clones need to have their villians attcked and trampled by the sheep....baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Just one more example of the gathering of power Michel Foucalt warned us about in a complex society.

---

20 Jul 06 - 08:18 AM (#1788122)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jacqui.c

Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.
Max Spiegel 11th May 06.

---

20 Jul 06 - 09:08 AM (#1788158)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

It must be quite clear to most posters by now what the price is of being seen to hold and try to openly express any views different to those held by the current holder of that post.

Shambles, I will agree that it is difficult making any comments critical of Mudcat, Max or the volunteers. That said, you do your best to provoke harsh reponses from others and to "suffer" editorial action. What is quite clear to me is that you willfully provoke in order to become a "victim".

---

20 Jul 06 - 10:44 AM (#1788236)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Georgiansilver

It is a well known psychological fact that children will seek attention, if not receiving it, even if it is negative attention.

---

20 Jul 06 - 12:26 PM (#1788330)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

---

20 Jul 06 - 12:47 PM (#1788345)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

This thread is a perfect example of why Mudcat mostly sucks these days....

Whiney suck-baby, 'think they know it alls' who haven't got clue one....

Like Shambles.... and idiot 'Guest'

Wanna improve Mudcat?

Get rid of them, plain and simple....

---

20 Jul 06 - 12:56 PM (#1788353)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

Alba,

'Go and start an un-moderated Forum somewhere out there. It will last a week before it crashes and burns.'

Mudcat was running unmoderated for a year or more before It was necessary to impose some limits.

'Having no class is carrying out a hate campaign against this Site's Administration Team in public instead of using the available private channels to express your feelings.' - Tried that already Alba.

When a persons message is deleted or moved it becomes a public matter because the thread is public and I have every right to comment as I choose, especially when it affecta my ability to follow the continuity of the thread.

Also there is a great difference between a public comment and editing being carried out in secret.

It surprises me that so much support is given to those who are being sneaky and underhanded and so little support to those who are open and honest.

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:04 PM (#1788360)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jacqui.c

Bert - that is your perception of the matter. You are in a very small minority. Does that tell you anything?

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:34 PM (#1788391)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Azizi

For the record, I agree with Bert on this matter.

Also, minorities have rights too. And minorities are entitled to their opinions.

Furthermore, who is or is not a minority depends on who is doing the accessing. For instance, people of color may be minorities in the USA for a few more years. After that White people will be the minority population.

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:37 PM (#1788396)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

What has your Post here got to do with this Thread Azizi?

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:39 PM (#1788398)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

You only have what RIGHTS you are GIVEN to you here at Mudcat.... and they can be handed out on a person to peron basis.... Then can be taken away without warning or explination....

and if you don't like it, bog off!

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:39 PM (#1788400)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

FK!

THEY can be taken away.....

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:42 PM (#1788405)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

see the little post in the FAQ regarding "The Mudcat reserves the right..."

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:43 PM (#1788406)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

...You only have what RIGHTS you are GIVEN to you here at Mudcat.... and they can be handed out on a person to peron basis.... Then can be taken away without warning or explination....

and if you don't like it, bog off! ...

Aw Clinton YOU of all people know thee joy of having a good gripe now and then.

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:47 PM (#1788413)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

"it becomes a public matter because the thread is public"
Everything posted here is the 'Property' of Mudcat.... The people who run the place can do what they want with it....

again, if you don't like that, don't post.....

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:48 PM (#1788414)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

I don't know Jacqui,

Simply being in a minority may be something to consider but it alone does not mean much here. There are some who for example are more interested in demonstariting they are a "true patriotic Mudcatter" than trying to establish where any truth lies.

That said, my personal opinion of the shambles situation remains unchanged.

---

20 Jul 06 - 01:56 PM (#1788420)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Azizi

Alba, my 20 Jul 06 - 01:34 PM comment is in response to this comment in Bert's 20 Jul 06 - 12:56 PM post:

"When a persons message is deleted or moved it becomes a public matter because the thread is public and I have every right to comment as I choose, especially when it affecta my ability to follow the continuity of the thread"

-snip-

My 20 Jul 06 - 01:34 PM comment is also in response to jacqui.c's
20 Jul 06 - 01:04 PM post "Bert - that is your perception of the matter. You are in a very small minority. Does that tell you anything?"

---

20 Jul 06 - 02:13 PM (#1788430)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

Everything posted here is the 'Property' of Mudcat...

Nonsense. Look at the copy pastes for starters.

---

20 Jul 06 - 02:16 PM (#1788431)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Deleting a post for whatever reason is an editing act and does not require a criminal investigation.

If there is nothing to hide - then why act as if there is and give any cause for anyone to suspect there something to hide? If this recently stepped-up censorship continues and no record is kept - when a poster can't find their post - the automatic assumption will be that it has been censored.

If no record is made of when and where censorship has taken place - no poster has any protection from selective, unfair and personally motivated actions. And no censor has any protection from accusations that their imposed judgement was selective, unfair and personally motivated.

The simple act of ensuring that ALL imposed editing actions are recorded - will solve this...........It may also result in less censorship and more mutual trust, which is a good thing - is it not?

Does anyone (other than our censors and their supporters really see any proportionate need for this stepped-up censorship at this point? I suspect that most of us were under the impression that things had improved - until this increased level of unrecorded censorship was imposed on us.

---

20 Jul 06 - 02:19 PM (#1788433)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

"no poster has any protection from selective, unfair and personally motivated actions"

You're right.. no poster has that.... NONE... ever!

If you don't like it, go....

Everything posted here is subject to the approval of the admin/mods.... And they do NOT have to 'explain' their choices to anyone.....

Get it through your stupid thick head

---

20 Jul 06 - 02:55 PM (#1788465)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

Clinton Hammond=baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

---

20 Jul 06 - 03:03 PM (#1788471)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

I suppose you're happy now Roger, once again you've stirred the shit and set people at each others throats, you really are a trouble maker and no mistake.
I know you won't go, and I know Mudcat in spite of what you think about it and those who own/run it, won't chuck you out, so we must put up with you. However you in turn will have to put up with us, as I for one am not leaving no matter how annoying you become.
Giok

---

20 Jul 06 - 03:05 PM (#1788474)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

No Giok, The trouble maker was the one who went in and deleted the messages without telling anyone.

If he hadn't done that then Shambles would have nothing to complain about.

---

20 Jul 06 - 03:10 PM (#1788481)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jeffp

He would still find something.

---

20 Jul 06 - 03:12 PM (#1788482)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

"deleted the messages without telling anyone"
If the admin/mods here decide to delete something they don't HAVE to tell anyone....

---

20 Jul 06 - 03:16 PM (#1788487)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Georgiansilver

Bert...anyone who decides to use this site has a right to express opinions, within reason. Apart from that, none of us has any 'rights' as we do not own or run the site. The people who own or run the site can do so however they want as far as I am concerned and I accept that. Some come here thinking they have powers or influence enough to change things to suit themselves....tough...they can't!. If anyone wants to be belligerent or invasive....start their own site and do it their own way. Just let people here run the site the way they want to.
Best wishes, Mike.

---

20 Jul 06 - 03:24 PM (#1788492)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Bert I am not aware of the deleted thread or its content, but assume it was inflammatory. However the first time I remember Roger complaing about editing was when someone added the letters UK to a thread title denoting that it was about a subject which was UK specific. Nothing wrong with that you might think, but to hear a certain person complain, you'd think the world was coming to an end.
Since that happened the vendetta has certainly been personal on one side, and that wasn't on Joe's side.
Don't get me wrong I hold no brief for Joe, he and I have had a couple of run ins, and I've had posts deleted, but in this instance, I find for the administration.
Giok

---

20 Jul 06 - 03:24 PM (#1788494)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Oh and 100 too

---

20 Jul 06 - 04:07 PM (#1788527)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

Giok, It goes way back before the 'UK' incident. And no it wasn't inflamatory. The trouble is that it was done in secret so none of us have any way of checking up on it.

I know if my postings had been consistently and secretly deleted then I would be mad. I suspect that you would too.

You're right Clinton, they don't HAVE to tell anyone. They can carry on with their underhand behavior as much as they want.

It's a just a blessing that most of us other clones do not behave in the same manner. Mudcat would be a mess if each of us chose to delete or move messages as the whim took us.

---

20 Jul 06 - 04:13 PM (#1788531)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

It's not underhanded... you agreed to it when you became a member of Mudcat....

---

20 Jul 06 - 06:41 PM (#1788650)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jacqui.c

Sorry Azizi - I can't see why you had to bring race into this discussion. I was talking about the membership of the Mudcat site and I still think that Bert is in a very small minority and, on the Mudcat, none of us has 'rights'.

---

20 Jul 06 - 06:51 PM (#1788657)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

jacqui c=baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

---

20 Jul 06 - 06:52 PM (#1788658)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

"...If the admin/mods here decide to delete something they don't HAVE to tell anyone...."

?? I believe Joe said that any deletions should be reported to him...or Jeff. Minor editing is another matter. I have seen Joe replace deletions made by a clone, so I gather HE can see them all. Thus I assume that genuine deletions do remain deletions for a reason, whether anyone else agrees or not.

Further...*IF* explanations were posted, the explanations would simply become a springboard for more acrimonious argument.


(I once was stepfather to two boys in their early teens..they asked if they could go downtown and splash in the fountain in front of the courthouse. I said "No!"....they, of course asked "Why NOT?"....I replied "Because turnips won't grow in the attic!"..(something like that). They said "What kind of dumb reason is that?"

"Well," I said, "You didn't really want a reason, you wanted approval, and nothing I could say would really satisfy you, so a dumb reason about turnips is as good as a long explanation. The ultimate answer is 'because I say so'."

I have watched Shambles for 5-6 YEARS reply to 'official' long explanations with more & more tedious objections...NOTHING will satisfy him except getting his way. And that's how it all appears to me. Joe 'sometimes' answers "Why?", wen it will really clarify something...but all he is required to answer (until Max changes it) is "because I decided".

I am comfortable enough with this...Joe (and Jeff) do a fine job, and I see no benefit in giving 'explanations', except in unusual cases...or encouraging clones to do so.

---

20 Jul 06 - 07:21 PM (#1788689)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Azizi

Jacqui- I didn't 'have' to bring race into this discussion. I 'chose' to do so as a means of making an analogy.

I used that 'for instance' to point out that in the non-cyberspace world and/or in a cyberspace community such as Mudcat, who is or is not a minority depends on who is doing the counting.

Furthermore, who is a member of a minority [in cyberspace or in the real world] also may depend on when the counting is done and the reasons why the counting is being done.

You said you 'think' that Bert is in a very small minority. That may or may not be so.

However, it seems to me that whether Bert is or is not a member of a small minority [on Mudcat] is irrelevant to the point he is making-that a statement should be made in a thread when a post from that thread is deleted or moved.

---

20 Jul 06 - 07:36 PM (#1788695)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

It surprises me that so much support is given to those who are being sneaky and underhanded and so little support to those who are open and honest.

Therein lies the problem. Shambles presents this as a campaign for truth and justice. It's actually initially driven by unhappiness at someone renaming threads and grouping together multiple threads into a single entity, however many months back. On every moderated board I've ever seen, that's been the *expected* task of moderators. If you notice that it happened, you can read and see if anything got lost in the shuffle. If you don't notice - well, if you're not reading the thread then it ain't a big deal, now is it?

Shambles' solution was twofold. Firstly, start multiple threads per week complaining, all making the same comment. Secondly, complain about this in a non-sequitur fashion in many other threads. Eventually Joe and Max responded as expected, by telling him to fuck off and get a life.

Of these, the only ones being "open and honest" are Joe and Max. Shambles is certainly "open" - we all know what he wants - but "honest"? Not on this subject, I'm afraid.

Graham.

---

20 Jul 06 - 07:44 PM (#1788707)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

A message for all the mal contents, if you don't like the rules here, find another sand box to contaminate.

---

20 Jul 06 - 08:08 PM (#1788726)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: katlaughing

BillD and Graham, well said and thanks for the support.

For instance, people of color may be minorities in the USA for a few more years. After that White people will be the minority population.

The skinheads/Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists say the same thing. Funny you should "choose" to use that analogy.

kat

---

21 Jul 06 - 06:17 AM (#1788988)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Bert I am not aware of the deleted thread or its content, but assume it was inflammatory.

It is not more than a little ironic that certain posts containing abusive personal attacks in this thread are pemitted to remain and the asumption made (and not corrected) that the deleted posts referred to were in some way inflammatory and so justifiably subject to censorship? If no trace ever remains of the censorship actions - no one will ever know and that could well be the whole point why it is done and why it is defended. Forget about the personalities involved for one minute and ask yourself if the lack of these safeguards is really a good thing for the future of our forum.

Copy and pasting is simply a tool - not a disease to be stamped out. In reality, it is what these deleted cut and pastes are copies of - that are the reason for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's eagerness to delete them. It is the evidence of the abusive personal attacks that he has posted and the example set by these, that I am trying to bring our forum's attention and which the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is trying to ensure that I do not. A point of some ammusment to me when he refers to my 'abuses'.

It's not underhanded... you agreed to it when you became a member of Mudcat....

Like many other members who joined at the same time or before me - the understanding was certainly not this. Had it been so, many would not have contributed for so long and made our forum the fine place it just about manages to remain. But it was founded on honesty, tolerance and an accomodating open approach - not one of F*** *** if you don't like it.................

It was NOT then written that 'the management reserves the right etc'. But there was no need for this as such a thing was part of an unwritten mutual traust and acceptance. But now that it is written - it does not say that the management now promises to behave like the worst of our minor public servants. Those who insist on imposing inflexable petty-fogging restrictions upon us that can make our lives so unpleasant. Often using these impositions to hide personally motivated actions behind.

Perhaps a little common sense can prevail at this point? What on earth is the point of now introducing (with no obvious reason for it) the practice of just having posts deleted with no sign or explanation?

When this judgement imposed by unknown numbers of anonymous fellow members - can you think of anything more designed to result in a totally divided and paranoid forum? Is that really the object? So that posters concened about these increased censorship moves can then be accused of being paranoid?

There can be no other result but a paranoid response - if censorship actions (if they really must take place at all) are not openly indcated and explained. I suggest that it is time for a move back to mutual trust and equal treatment and away from all that divides contributors.

If there is nothing to hide in these censorship actions - where then is the harm in recording where and why they have taken place?

And if those who currently feel themselve qualified to impose such judgements do not want to be open in their dealings - perhaps such imposition should stop?

As this recent step-up in unrecorded deletions is said to be in response to the wishes of Mudcatters - perhaps the wishes of all Mudcatters can first be sought in poll - to ascertain if this is in fact the wishes of Mudcatters?

---

21 Jul 06 - 07:13 AM (#1789010)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

I've been accused of being in the "Inner circle", I know Joe, and Max, and I like them. Some time back I was involved in a pissing contest here and Joe deleted my last post. He didn't have to explain why, I know why, it was simply out of control. So, if he can delete one of my posts without explanation, why should he hesitate to delete any other obnoxious post? You don't see me pissing and moaning on and on ad nauseum about it.

There are few rules here that are carved in stone, personal attacks, (calling someone an asshole) will get you deleted. You know that when you post, so as the saying goes, "If you know the dog bites..."

---

21 Jul 06 - 07:45 AM (#1789025)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Eventually Joe and Max responded as expected, by telling him to fuck off and get a life.

Graham - Can we have some evidence provided to support these claims and assumptions. The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has set the example of publicly posting many such abusive personal attacks and may well have posted such a thing in those words.

Perhaps you would care to comment and support the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's imposed closure of the long-running thread on the affects of the Licensing Act 2003? The point about the PEL threads going back about 6 years, is even when all concerned did respond and make the effort to limit posts to as few threads as possible - these efforts were not recognised and the judgements and personally motivated editing actions have continued.

That thread, containing much important information and providing a vital record, was recently closed - with no explanation - when another new thread on the subject was started. This because the originator of this new thread did not realise that you did not have to and wait for the entire thread to load.

The concept that that there should only be one thread on one subject is a nice tidy idea that few of us have any problems with. However, does this mean that threads such as these, have to be instantly subject to imposed closure to achieve this end and at all costs? Perhaps such things should be seen more as a general guide and a more relaxed view taken?

Very often it is not the end result of these heavy-handed imposed actions that is of concern but the style (or lack of it) by which this end is arrived at.

---

21 Jul 06 - 09:25 AM (#1789059)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,jOhn

Shambles-you are boring,go away.

---

21 Jul 06 - 09:41 AM (#1789067)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 02:28 PM

I don't agree with CH..Asshole is too nice a desription

power-mad individuals who feel they have the moral right to censor should apply these rules evenly. They wouldn't have deleted Clinton's attack of shambles without being forced. Now they need to delete this reference to it because it, too is a personal attack.

---

21 Jul 06 - 11:03 AM (#1789106)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Donuel

I thought I had something to make this a better place in thoughtfulness, illustrations and cartoons. But alas I too was wrong.

This was the only place I posted by editorial cartoons for the last year and now my website is deleted and my titled threads erased, all the while trolls yell to us to pollute another cat box.

My experience is that this is not a safe place to speak freely.




Thanks for all the fish.

Don Hakman

---

21 Jul 06 - 11:05 AM (#1789108)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

Kendall ma dear,
T'is a waste of valuable time saying anything anymore about this topic on this Thread as far as I can see. If I were you, I'm not, but if I was ;>).... I would go and give that gorgeous woman of yours a huge hug and just let this broken record keep playing (even though the needle has been stuck in the groove for a longtime now) Just turn the volume right down so you can't hear it, it works for me:)

As to the sacred 'Inner Circle' you mentioned, I am surprised to learn that there are Mudcatters that played with such a great Reggae band as Inner Circle. This news only confirms to me that I learn something new on the MC every day!!! *smile*

I do see a little Clique swirling around here and it has been for a long time slowly collecting a few people along the way and losing a few too. This Clique is working very hard on the Mudcat at the moment. There are only about 4 or maybe 5 involved, at a stretch and I am willing to bet that a couple of those involved don;t even know they have been sucked in. The thing is the people in this Clique are not who they present themselves as, personality wise, on the Mudcat at all and they ain't here for the music, the learning experience or the friendship that's a for sure..
All I have to say about the people in this odious little Clique is that their posts and threads give off a vibe that is as transparent as a window and loaded with malicious intent even when they are saying something as simple as 'Thank You'..
I decided a while back I would focus only on those here on the Mudcat that I trusted. "Those" include a good portion of the Members here and some of the Guests that visit and the Admin Team of course . These are the folks that make the Mudcat worth coming into for me. They have shown me time and time again that they intentions here are up front, honest, caring and informative. This I have found works for me.
So you have a GREAT Friday Ken Doll. I intend to enjoy the rain up here in the northern backwoods because the way I see it.. rain means I do not have to haul my lazy butt out and drag that damn hose around the Garden to water the plants and flowers under my care. Mother Nature, bless her heart, has taken care of that task for me today!

Love to you and Jacqui as always ma dears,
Jude

---

21 Jul 06 - 11:28 AM (#1789130)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Grab

Graham - Can we have some evidence provided to support these claims and assumptions?

As quoted earlier on this very thread - Max Spiegel, 11th May 2006:-

Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.

Joe has been far more vocal on the subject. But both amount to "fuck off and get a life".

My personal observation is that thread control *is* done in a relaxed way. If two or three people start threads simultaneously, they're combined - that's fine. If a thread from last year is revived and it's on a similar topic to a newer thread, they coexist without being merged. And if someone repeatedly starts multiple threads on the same subject within hours or days of each other, the response from the admins is pretty much what you'd expect.

Please can you point me at the closed thread? A quick search shows up http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=86679&messages=293 and this thread is open (indeed, you posted to it today). It also includes a placeholder comment by Joe saying that he's moved off-topic criticism of the Mudcat admins into another thread.

Very often it is not the end result of these heavy-handed imposed actions that is of concern but the style (or lack of it) by which this end is arrived at.

This is a bit of a radical shift. So you're saying that you don't mind Joe deleting stuff if he uses "style"? My personal observations are that if explanation is needed why something got moved, that explanation is given. If a post is far enough outside the pale that no explanation is needed, then no explanation happens. As your PM quotes show, if you feel the need to PM Joe to ask, you'll get the response you'd expect - a reply saying you were out of line. Maybe this isn't the "style" you'd like, but is it really grounds for your long-term campaign against the admins (and after this time, that's the only description of it)?

Perhaps a little common sense can prevail at this point? What on earth is the point of now introducing (with no obvious reason for it) the practice of just having posts deleted with no sign or explanation?

On the subject of "common sense", maybe common sense would say that mounting a long-term campaign against the admins, forcing them to take moderating action and thereby deliberately wasting their time, is possibly not the best way to get your point across. To use your own words, what on earth is the point? As far as deleting posts without explanation, I really don't blame them when they know that they're likely to have to shift a few of your messages every day - why should they waste any more of their time on your posts than you've already caused them to? You're reaping exactly what you sowed, which is having got so far up their noses that they don't care if it upsets you any more, because they know you don't give a damn about them.

Graham.

---

21 Jul 06 - 11:30 AM (#1789132)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Today I tried to place a link to this thread in the following one - Mudcat update from Max

There appears to be a technical fault. I see the link in the thread but when I return - the link has vanished!

---

21 Jul 06 - 11:33 AM (#1789136)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Maybe it's part of the wonderful new features in the update Max and Jeff have been working on.
Useful one too if you ask me!
Giok

---

21 Jul 06 - 11:47 AM (#1789147)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

As your PM quotes show, if you feel the need to PM Joe to ask, you'll get the response you'd expect - a reply saying you were out of line.

What PM quotes of mine are you referring to? I have never posted publicly any PM from anyone - nor would I ever do so.

But both amount to "fuck off and get a life".

That may be your view - but that is not what you incorrectly informed our forum were the words used, was it? Perhaps you would be kind enough to apolgise....

The thread you refer and link to is the one that The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team did recently close.

It is also the one that he deleted (without explanation) both posts of mine and of another poster. The explanation that you see there now was an afterthought........

Graham - if you are interested in the true history and background to The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Teams persoanally motivated editing actions - I can PM you with this. If you do not wish this, I would appreciate it if you did not post rather one-sided speculation and assumptions about this - or put words in people's mouths that they did not say.

---

21 Jul 06 - 11:52 AM (#1789149)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

someone should practice what they preach - especially about misqouting, putting words in other peoples mouths and apologizing for doing it.

---

21 Jul 06 - 12:27 PM (#1789172)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Never answer questions you don't like, and never apologise even when you're wrong.
That cover it Roger?
G.

---

21 Jul 06 - 12:58 PM (#1789192)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

" not one of F*** *** if you don't like it"

Well, NOW it's a FUCK OFF if you don't like it one.... as you've been told over and over and over again....

So those are your choices...

I suggest you pick Fucking Off....

You're worse than useless

---

21 Jul 06 - 01:57 PM (#1789232)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,john

shgambles-you are a big trubble maker, i bet you dont even like folk music.

---

21 Jul 06 - 02:05 PM (#1789242)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

Define folk music!

---

21 Jul 06 - 02:07 PM (#1789244)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

To anyone who thinks they have a right to speak their mind here. Yes, you do, but if you are not civilized enough to watch your mouth, and you sink to name calling or racial slurs, you forfeit that right.
You don't have that right on the street and you don't have it here. Grow up.

---

21 Jul 06 - 02:10 PM (#1789246)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: robomatic

I think we're seeing here (in Mudcat) the microcosm of order vs. chaos, plus a bit of the principles I put under the collective name "Gaming the System". The minute a structure is collectively adopted, members begin to manipulate the structure in ways that enhance their goals, or simply 'because they can'. Thus people try to manipulate the indices or see how far they can go in inter-thread abuse. The same happens in society. Society for instance adopts certain words as unacceptable in public discourse, certain entertainers begin to use those very words because they are unacceptable.

The general principles are that a system has to be devised which can't be 'gamed' into non-existence, said system structure of necessity involving a lot of regulation.

Think of bacteria and viruses at war with multi-celled organisms, or the inevitable computer viruses.

So we end up with a social structure that incorporates regulation, or a more efficient model incorporating dictatorship.

Both sides equally insist they are standing on principle. But you can't have one without the other. You can't 'rage against the system' until you've got a system to rage against. And you can't justify regulation unless you've got abuses.

The cops need the cons and we all need the cops.

---

21 Jul 06 - 02:35 PM (#1789262)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

Gee, maybe it would be better if we talked about nipples or something. So, do you women have any thoughts about men's nipples?
Navels?
-Joe Offer-

---

21 Jul 06 - 02:43 PM (#1789276)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

remember "socks with sandals"?...they have a wide variety of interests!

---

21 Jul 06 - 07:49 PM (#1789511)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

Well Joe and Shambles.

We seem to be getting somewhere.

Shambles, yes there are times when technical problems plague our use of Mudcat, let's give the benefit of the doubt here and say that this is the case. One problem that I often have, is that I type an a message and find that the internet has forgotten all about me before I hit submit and the message doesn't get posted.

And Joe, thanks for taking the time and trouble to explain what is happening. I think that it goes a long way to resolving this issue.

The problem that I have is that both of you are good friends of mine and I hate to take sides in this matter.

From knowing both of you for some years now, I know that if either of you were to arrive at the other's door you would be welcomed with open arms. So please, both of you, bear this in mind before you carry on this disagreement on line.

If you want to post something against one another, why don't you PM me first and see if we can't resolve the issue without further disrupting our Mudcat.

Bert

---

21 Jul 06 - 09:08 PM (#1789552)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: ragdall

http://inashambles.proboards47.com/

---

22 Jul 06 - 05:46 AM (#1789732)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I deleted the "Boo" for good measure,since it didn't have anything to do with the thread.
Joe Offer

And the (joke) post about nipples will also be deleted in this thread? And all such posts from every thread?

I really feel that posters should be aware of the real nature and level of personally motivated and selective censorship that we have reached on our forum. And how this personal difference is being made worse by the use of editing powers in order to win this dispute and impose this view by force.

Despite this attempt and possibly because of it, I will continue to do what I can to bring the reality of current censorship on our forum is to poster's attention and to suggest fairer, more stylish less draconian alternatives, than those that would not be out of place in the FBI - but are totally unproportionate on a friendly disccussion forum. As can be seen - Some help towards this would be much appreciated by me.

Placing (only) a link in a thread - only indicates to a poster that a thread on that subject exists. Posters who only use the music section may be unware that the opportunity for a discussion and a debate on that subject is available. The choice to click on it, or ignore is their's. Even though should they do so - many may be rather put off by the abusive personal attacks and foul language that are permitted (or encouraged) to litter these discussions.

It matters little what state Max is prepared to permit our forum to fall into to enable these increased abuses of power. That is a matter for him. But it is important that no pretence is publicly maintained of it (and this step-up) being undertaken in any noble cause. The step-up in censorship announced here by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is NOT coming from Max. It is justified as being what Mudcatters want. Is it? It is plainly what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wants.

Presumably then, if Mudcatters do not want it - They will not have to have it imposed upon them. Perhaps encouraging censorship measures introduced to settle personal power struggles - is not the correct way to approach increased restrictions?

The essense of this is a personal difference of views between two individuals who were once posting as equals (and friends). Then one day about 5 years ago, one of these posters received a PM from the other, threatening them with all mannner of imposed restrictions - if the other did not do what the other one demanded.

Threats as the first and only element, are not really likely to achieve much with some people and these threats and restrictions have now steadily increased to the level of the special treatment that has now been spelt out here in this editing comment. By this (once) fellow poster to another. From the level of special censorship treatment, personal abuse and witch hunts that I have been encouraged to be subject to - some newer posters may assume that my so-called 'abuses' must have been the very worst of all posters....Are they? Is trying to express and evidence your view - when others are determined to use everything in the book, to prevent this - in fact abuses at all?

If you want to post something against one another, why don't you PM me first and see if we can't resolve the issue without further disrupting our Mudcat.

Bert - My postings will show that I do try NOT to post anything personal about Joe Offer or anyone else, not to respond in kind to those addressed to me and to try to keep focused on the issue. I am prepared to do as you request - but after the last editing comment - can you really see the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team using you or anyone as a mediator in this spat?

But how about you as Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - or anyone else? Or perhaps no fellow poster tying to combine two impossible roles. Perhaps the role of the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team should be more one of a mediator than one of chief poster, prosecutor, judge and hangman.

Perhaps Bert if Joe Offer and myself (and all posters) were once again posting our views on an equal basis, and one was not able to simply delete any posting and close every thread started by them, with no indication or explanation, there may be some hope of working out our differences.

For personal differences of views between 'moderators' and posters should not be allowed to involve the forum and be confused with censorship issues. If they must exsist, perhaps so-called 'moderators' should just moderate and not be able to express any views?

---

22 Jul 06 - 06:19 AM (#1789748)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

(10) Do not disrespect moderators. Be respectful in both the forums and any private communications with moderators. Moderators are volunteers that donate many, many hours of their own time to help in the forums. Violations of this rule will not be tolerated

Rule 10 from the list of rules for the site that Ragdall linked to.

Giok

---

22 Jul 06 - 06:32 AM (#1789753)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

" We seem to be getting somewhere."
LOL! Only problem is that one of the "we" is intent on going backwards today! Which means the "we" will be going nowhere.

---

22 Jul 06 - 06:38 AM (#1789760)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

This restriction applies only to you, and only to the subject of Mudcat editing policy.
Joe Offer

Can we be clear here? Is the restriction you refer to - when my posts are deleted and threads closed - that there will be no idication that censorship has taken place or explanation given?

Are you saying that it is now the case that when any other poster has their posts deleted or threads closed - there always will be an indication that censorship has taken place and an explanation given?

Or are you still maintaining that - whenever ANY form of imposed censorship takes place against ANY poster - there will never be ANY indication that this action has taken place and that no explanation will be given?

If so - you will accept that a poster trying to post a link that is deleted without ANY indication being given that censorship has taken place - may quite reasonably be expected to make 7 or even more attempts to make their post stick? And should they take issue with this - will their concerns then be dismissed as being paranoid?

As this is not the FBI - perhaps this step-up in censorship can be thought through at this point and reversed so that if ANY censorship action is imposed - indication that this has taken place and some form of explanation is ALWAYS given?

---

22 Jul 06 - 06:52 AM (#1789765)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Is there a cure for compulsive obsessive behavior?

---

22 Jul 06 - 06:55 AM (#1789767)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jacqui.c

Only if the person who has it is prepared to accept that they have a problem.

---

22 Jul 06 - 07:10 AM (#1789773)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Is there a cure for compulsive obsessive behavior?

How long have you had it Kendall?

---

22 Jul 06 - 07:23 AM (#1789775)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

See here Roger
G.

---

22 Jul 06 - 12:20 PM (#1789893)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Slag

Hi Joe! Finally made it to this thread. I guess that post of mine wandered off into cyber-land somewhere. No "Biggy".   Hey, you know it's really so cool that some folks set up an open forum where people can share ideas and interests FOR FREE! So much is available here. There are a lot of caring folk to help and guide and provide info and the like. Both the music-specific and the BS pages are very broad: some so broad that I don't even want to peak into them but that's MY taste. So---Shambles! What's your beef?? Set up your own site with no rules, no restrictions, a site where everyone can carp and spam and do cyber-graffiti all day long FOR FREE while you foot the bill. Hey You can call it MUDCARP !!! (that's a freebie, no copyright, OK?). Joe and Co. Thanks! I appreciate the site. Slag

---

22 Jul 06 - 01:09 PM (#1789934)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Mudcarp !! Now that's a good one.

---

22 Jul 06 - 01:22 PM (#1789947)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Hi Joe! Finally made it to this thread. I guess that post of mine wandered off into cyber-land somewhere. No "Biggy".

Interesting change of view here. I remember your first reaction was that it was indeed a big deal and to assume your post had been deleted and to make accusations of your free speech was being curtailed.

The point being that - if whenever censorship action had been taken - there was some indication and explanation given for it - had you not been able to find your post - you would have known the cock-up was yours and not gone off on one...............

No matter what apolgetic noises you make now - I suspect that after that post - your number is marked and that you will be the next one on the list for special treatment.

---

22 Jul 06 - 01:28 PM (#1789954)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=1786151

Posts and misunderstandings like this one - can easily be avoided if all censorship actions are indicated.

---

22 Jul 06 - 01:34 PM (#1789959)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Hi, Slag - I can't find any evidence that any of your posts have been deleted or edited. We usually delete only personal attacks, racism, and spam.
-Joe Offer-

If the post had been deleted - would there have been any evidence?

---

22 Jul 06 - 01:49 PM (#1789970)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jeffp

It's called an audit trail.

---

22 Jul 06 - 03:12 PM (#1790053)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

If the post had been deleted - would there have been any evidence?

Yes, Jeff and Max and I can read and undelete all deleted posts. I can't see right off who did what editing, but we can look that information up when we need it.

Shambles, there's really nothing wrong with anything you've posted. That's not the issue. Many of your ideas are good. In principle, I agree with your concern about our editing policy, and I agree that editing should be done with extreme moderation. I do my best to heed that principle, much to the chagrin of many who would like to see far stricter moderation.

Hiowever, there is a problem with the sheer volume of what you post and with the fact that you post multiple copies of the same thing in multiple threads - and sometimes you post the same thing multiple times in the same thread. Certainly, it's fine to post a link to another thead - but you've posted some links twenty times, and you've copy-pasted some quotes more than twenty times.

That's the problem, Shambles. It's not what you post - it's how often you post the same thing. That's why you're restricted to one active complaint thread at a time, because you have had a pattern of multiple posting that has spanned a number of years. If you want to post complaints to another thread, you have to wait 24 hours, or keep posting to the same thread. If you fail to comply with this restriction, your messages will be moved or deleted.

-Joe Offer-

---

22 Jul 06 - 04:04 PM (#1790079)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

That's the problem, Shambles. It's not what you post - it's how often you post the same thing.

Perfectly logical.

So our usual suspects can just carry on following your example and post only abusive personal attacks and inflict the kind of foul and obscence language on our forum that we have evidence of in this thread and these will be quite safe from deletion. But what our forum must be protected from at all cost by stepping up unrecorded imposed selective and anonymous censorship actions - are any posts from me - not containing anything offensive but simply material that may also appear in other threads....

Is this punishment really proportionate to the so-called 'crime' and can it be considered to be free from personal bias?

Is it really too much to expect a move back towards equal treatment for all posters on our forum - rather than finding excuses for more inequality and more petty restrictions. Are not even the youngest of posters here old enough to decide for themselves what they will read, respond to or ignore?

And if imposed censorship MUST be stepped-up at this point - are posters not old enough to be informed where and why such imposition has taken place in order to protect them? Then all posters will be aware of the true nature and level of censorship that you have judged for them is required to be imposed, and can then express an informed opinion whether they consider this stepped-up censorship to be as desirable as you have claimed in this thread that Mudcatters do.

Why can there not be an indication and explanation given for where all imposed censorship actions have taken place?

---

22 Jul 06 - 04:10 PM (#1790082)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Because whatever reason is given for the deletion, you or someone as cantankerous as you are, will gainsay Mudcat's right or reason for doing it.
In other words Roger with people who are professional members of the awkward squad like you are, Joe et al can't win!
Giok

---

22 Jul 06 - 04:58 PM (#1790107)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

Why can there not be an indication and explanation given for where all imposed censorship actions have taken place?

The stuff we delete is garbage, Roger. It's duplicate stuff, personal attacks, Spam, and racism. If I delete a personal attack and leave a message saying: this message was deleted because in it, Susie called Janet a shithead, what good does it do? I haven't removed the garbage - I've just called attention to it.

I suppose if you don't trust us, then there'd be a need for explanations of deletions - but if you don't trust us, then you wouldn't believe the explanations, so what's the difference?

So, I guess if you don't trust us, that's too bad. I'm saddened that seems to be the case. I don't think the volunteers and I have done anything to deserve that distrust. There's just no logical reason for us to do all the stuff you accuse us of doing - why would we want to bother to get involved in all that pettiness?

But back to the basic issue, Roger - in your time at Mudcat, you've posted over eleven thousand messages. Several thousand of those messages were complaints against Mudcat editing, and you've expressed the same few basic ideas over and over again - oftentimes repeating yourself word-for-word. Enough is enough. If you want to complain about Mudcat, go ahead, but restrict yourself to one thread at a time. If you want to post more, try finding other subjects to talk about. This obsession of yours with Mudcat editing just isn't healthy. It's getting you all upset, and shortening your life and making your teeth fall out and ruining your eating habits.


-Joe Offer-

---

22 Jul 06 - 05:02 PM (#1790111)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

I have an extra set of uppers. (My cousin worked in a funeral parlor.)

---

22 Jul 06 - 06:11 PM (#1790154)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Joe, it's useless to play the violin in front of an ox.

---

22 Jul 06 - 07:09 PM (#1790222)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

Anyone heard of this song before? "Darby and Joan"?

---

22 Jul 06 - 07:16 PM (#1790223)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

OK. It's in the DT. There's the sheet music to go with it. I have no idea how to do the links.

Shambles, I apologize for interrupting the flow of things. Keep well.

---

22 Jul 06 - 07:23 PM (#1790226)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

The stuff we delete is garbage, Roger. It's duplicate stuff, personal attacks, Spam, and racism. If I delete a personal attack and leave a message saying: this message was deleted because in it, Susie called Janet a shithead, what good does it do? I haven't removed the garbage - I've just called attention to it.

This is weak. If you really have to remove it - when you record it, all you have called attention to is that fact. A brief explanation of why - does not have to go into any detail or risk offending anyone. If a post does not appear - the poster will then know - if they do not see any indication of censorship - that the mistake is theirs and paranoid posts like Shag's - assuming the worst - will be a thing of the past.

When prisoners send or receive letters - the blanked-out words at least indicate that censorship has taken place. If prisoners can know the true nature and level of the censorship they are subject to - perhaps our forum can also be permitted and trusted to know this?

But despite this being repeatedly said to be the main justification for the introduction of The Mudcat Editing Team - it is quite plain from this thread alone, that it is not abusive personal attacks and offensive foul language that are deleted by them.

For these personal attack posts remain. This is no surprise as the example of posting only such things to certain easy targets, is one set and encouraged by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, other volunteer fellow posters and their regular supporters.

The fact that I am seriously accused by these posters of abuse - and this accusation is used to high-mindedly justify the further step-up in personally motivated and selective censorship would be laughed at anywhere any normal logic applied.

As for trust - why is our forum not now even to be trusted to know the number and identity of those anonymous fellow posters who can impose judgement on them and in order to protect them, can delete posts and seemingly close threads quicker than posters can now start them?

If all the imposed censorship actions were indicated and briefly explained - our forum would know the true nature and level of censorship undertaken in their name and in order to protect them. They could then judge if all the secrecy and division involved in this was proportionate. Why cannot our forum be trusted with this information?

This is still a forum to encourage threads containing discussion. It would now appear to be one obsessed with division and of finding ways to discourage discussion, imposing judgement on fellow posters and of finding the slightest of excuses to close threads.

It is not too late to return to all poster being treated equally, for all threads to remain open and for all posts to remain as posted and for us to stop judging each other's worth and get on with discussion and being allowed to agree to disagree.

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:04 AM (#1790533)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

How about a list of the reasons for deletions with a number for each one like,
1 Blasphemy
2 Bad language
3 Personal attack
4 Flame attack
5 Total rubbish
etc etc?

Then the clones can just say 'Deleted for 1' or 'Deleted for 5'

Or perhaps we could go to a members only site where policing the threads would be easier! Then you could post what you want under your own name.
Of course we could always ask Max to publish a list of the clones names and their home adresses, so that Roger can send them Christmas cards!
Giok

---

23 Jul 06 - 07:21 AM (#1790567)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Blah blah blah. Poor Roger,everyone picks on him. I wonder why...

---

23 Jul 06 - 07:41 AM (#1790583)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

Who's Roger?

There was Member here called Roger once. (Mudcat anme: Shambles)
Amazing Songwriter and posted fun and interesting stuff but he was abducted by aliens and well...that was that. Once the aliens put the little microchip thingy under his skin.. *twilight zone music*


I'll tell you something for nothing Giok and kendall.
It made me believe that we are NOT alone in the Universe and that is when started buying and reading that great media source called: The National Enquirer.

Happy Sun Day! (even if it is still raining here..*smile*)
Jude

---

23 Jul 06 - 08:14 AM (#1790598)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

Mucho Coffee required. Reminder to self: Drink Coffee then post, drink coffee then post!. Doesn't help my errors but it sure helps me ignore them!

*double smirk!*

Jude

---

23 Jul 06 - 08:47 AM (#1790612)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Azizi

A personal experience:

Last night around 10ish there was a one word racist slur-the n word spelled out-that was posted by a Guest in a children's rhyme thread.
I reported this to the Help thread and within minutes of my reporting it, it was gone. I am not saying that it was my posting to the Help thread which resulted in that post being removed. One or more moderator may have seen that message before I reported it. And one or more Mudcat Members and/or Guests may have directly contacted Joe Offer or another moderator to report the existence of that slur in that thread.

Be that as it may, I am glad that someone quickly deleted that post. I want to publicly thank the moderator/s for that action.
That slur may have been directed to African Americans, but it diminished the person posting it not me & not other African Americans.

And imo, its continued presence in that thread would have diminished this forum.

This is not to say that I think that the n-word should be removed from every Mudcat thread in which it is found. Imo, context is important. For instance, I understand when quoting lyrics and/or quoting or referring to folk cultural sayings some folks will spell out that word-and others like me will not. Imo, the use of that word would not necessarily call for that post's deletion. The context has to be considered for the use of that word.

However, there are times when posters will test the limits of civil discourse, and completely go over those limits with regards to racist, sexist, profane, spam, personal attacks etc.

I'm grateful that we have moderators who can and do remove such posts.

I don't know if Giok was serious about his listing of reasons for deletions as indicated in his 23 Jul 06 - 06:04 AM post. But I am supportive of a public indication in that specific thread that a message has been deleted. For instance, if this were the case, that specific post in that children's rhyme would be there-with the date of the posting, and the poster's name [in the instance I am citing, one of the anonymous guests]. But the slur would be removed and be replaced by the message such as this one "this message has been deleted because of its use of a racial slur". I'm not suggesting this particular language, but I am suggesting some such language that puts the person on notice that his/her message was deleted because Mudcat has no tolerance for out of context use of racial slurs etc.

I recognise that public indications of a message being deleted is Max's decision or is Joe Offer's decision because Joe has been given that authority by Max. However, I'm not sure if a final decision has been made about this matter. I want to provide this input if the matter of posting succient messages in place of deleted messages is still open for public comment.

In my opinion, posting a public message that a post has been deleted for a specified reason shows that person who posted that unacceptable message-and the Mudcat community at large that Mudcat does not tolerate such language. By 'the Mudcat community at large', I include persons who have just recently joined Mudcat, persons who may be visiting Nudcat for the first time, and person who have been lurking on this forum for a while trying to decide if they will join or otherwise participate in our discussions.

I think that it is important to replace an unacceptable post with a succient message as to why that post is unacceptable. Imo, this would serve as a deterrant for such postings. I also believe that it would help to encourage more persons from possibly targeted groups to visit and to post on Mudcat.

I don't think that I'm the only one here who is trying to encourage more participation in Mudcat by African Americans and other people of color. Some African Americans who I have talked to have said that they have visited Mudcat. I think it's doubtful that they saw that particular example of unacceptable posting on Mudcat last night, because it was removed so quickly. But if they did see that slur, and went back to read that thread, they wouldn't find it [since that message was a way of refreshing an archived thread]. They know that the thread was there, but later it wasn't, and they also know that they saw what they saw. Imo, by not posting a succient, form-like message saying that that message was deleted and why, this forum is missing an opportunity to show that we mean it when we say that we don't tolerate the [out of context] use of such slurs.

When I'm asked by African Americans I know is this community welcoming to Black people and other people of color, I say yes. I also explain to the best of my ability the distinction between in context and out-of-context use of the n-word. And I let people I'm talking to know that Mudcat doesn't tolerate the out-of-context use of that word or any other racist, sexist, or homophobic slurs. I don't deny that some slurs have appeared on this site-after all Mudcat is part of the real world. However, what is important-I think-is how we deal with such slurs when they appear. Again in my opinion, it would be helpful to show people that Mudcat is quickly on the case in deleting such posts, By posting a message in place of that slur, it lets people know that such post are not acceptable here.

Although I feel strongly that it would be a good thing to have a public indication that such posts have been deleted, if the decision has been made not to post such messages in place of the deleted message, I will abide by that decision.

---

23 Jul 06 - 09:26 AM (#1790628)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I want to provide this input if the matter of posting succient messages in place of deleted messages is still open for public comment.

I trust that everything is still open for public comment - as this is supposed to be a discussion forum for the public and it is said that....

We usually delete only personal attacks, racism, and spam.
-Joe Offer-

But that is 'we'. Joe Offer - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has already told us in this thread that the step-up in providing no indication or explanation for where censorship action has been imposed - is the way it is going to be and a change to always indicating where this has occured - is NOT going to happen. Presumably because he does not wish to do it for the (rather weak) reasons he has stated but also because he states that Mudcatters wish it.

Do they? And do their wishes matter anymore? Is it only the wishes of the mysterous and sinster sounding 'we' - that now matters?

---

23 Jul 06 - 09:27 AM (#1790629)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

There was also a Racial/sexual slur posted on another Thread directed at Welsh Women last night.
It was removed.
No explanation given because the subhumans that post such garbage are fully aware of the hurt it causes and that is why they do so.
Self moderating and contacting the help section to bring posts of this nature to the admin is, for me, the best way to go.
Get the garbage out of the Mudcat quietly and without fuss.
Best this kind of twisted hate is removed asap and the eegit that posted said garbage given no reponse.
To bring the reasons up for removing hate posts simply starts a discussion which would be loaded and only cries out for yet more numb nuts with an obvious problem to come in and foul the Mudcat with their opinions.
So Thanks Mudelfs and Thanks Joe for dealing with the Flamer last night quickly and stelth like.
Morons do not deserve an explanation...they know why their posts have gone and so do the Mudcatters that are unfortunate enough to seen those posts.
Nuff said IMO.
One Love. One World.

Jude

---

23 Jul 06 - 09:36 AM (#1790630)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Morons do not deserve an explanation...they know why their posts have gone and so do the Mudcatters that are unfortunate enough to seen those posts.

Do non-morons deserve an indication that censorship has taken place and an explanation for why?

---

23 Jul 06 - 09:47 AM (#1790641)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

Do non-morons deserve an indication that censorship has taken place and an explanation for why?

I think that non-morons would have less need of an explanation than morons.

---

23 Jul 06 - 10:29 AM (#1790670)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Also if that is the crap we DO get to see, all be in briefly, maybe it is just as well we don't have to read the crap that the Admin removes before we do huh!

That, of course is what you are supposed to think and expected to be grateful for.........
But anyone who has been online for any period will have just about seen it all and already had much of it arrive unannounced in their in box and ignored it. Good or bad - it is the online world and most of it is filtered automatically anyway.

But how do we know the level and extent of all this we are supposed to be protected from on our forum? Because we are now told this by the 'we' who wish to carry on protecting us from it and who can't even trust us enough to be informed of their identity.

The implication is that all the secrecy and division involved in having this unknown number and anonymous 'we' - is necessary because of the vast quantity and level of all this 'crap'......Is it?

If our forum could see when and where all the occasions when 'crap' is deleted in our name and in order to protect us - we would all be able to judge if this secrecy and division was proportionate and worth the sacrifices that are being made to the public's freedom of expression on our forum.   

Without this information - any judgement posted here about the level of censorship being OK and worth the sacrifice - is worthless. There is always a balance to be struck and few of us have any idea if the current balance is about right - or totally over the top.

If all censorship action taken from now on - were to be indicated and the reason why were briefly explained (even with a number code as suggested) - our forum would then be in a position to judge if the response being made was proportionate and worth the sacrifices being made to enable posters to be protected from making the decision ourselves what to read, respond to or ignore.

Rather like 'the war on terrorism' - censorship on our forum seems to have little effect on the guilty but places more and more restrictions on those just trying to go about their business. Those who impose restrictions on us in the name of 'the war on terrorism' also ask and expect us to trust them.

And of course we all do - don't we?

---

23 Jul 06 - 10:31 AM (#1790671)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

Welsh women are"easy"... I take it you mean "easy Prey" for rascist sexual misfits that prowl Forums. As are all women and men of any race, nationality or religion at risk obviously in any forum where people can posts slurs under the blanket of anon!
As I HAVE said before, it is a relief that the Mudcat has such a gREAT Admin Team that are on the ball when it comes to this type Anon Flamers.

Good point 23 Jul 06 - 09:53 AM . Thanks for bringing it up.
Though it really does highlight the case for those that are of the opinion there should be no Guest posting on the Mudcat I suppose.

Jude

---

23 Jul 06 - 10:32 AM (#1790672)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

and...my cap lock is behaving rather oddly today..:)

---

23 Jul 06 - 10:36 AM (#1790673)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I think that non-morons would have less need of an explanation than morons.

But as it is only the contributions of morons that are censored - by this definition any poster who has their contribution deleted - is a moron.

And a moron of course has no rights.........

But this word is just as meaningless (and damaging) as any other derisive term for a minority group.

---

23 Jul 06 - 10:47 AM (#1790677)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

As are all women and men of any race, nationality or religion at risk obviously in any forum where people can posts slurs under the blanket of anon!

It bothers you to called an abusive name by an anonymous fellow poster on our forum.

Does it not bother you to have your posts deleted and threads closed by an anonymous fellow poster on our forum?

Or would this not happen to you - as you are not a moron?

And as it would not happen to you - the fact that it happens to others and all posters are not now to be treated equally - is not a concern?

---

23 Jul 06 - 10:58 AM (#1790685)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

"However, there are times when posters will test the limits of civil discourse, and completely go over those limits with regards to racist, sexist, profane, spam, personal attacks etc.

I'm grateful that we have moderators who can and do remove such posts."

I'm fully in agreement with Azizi .... we need the moderators, and yes, some threads and posts should be deleted if not for the sake of human decency.

sIx

---

23 Jul 06 - 11:02 AM (#1790687)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Roger you are making less and less sense with every post, your 10:29 is totally paranoid.
G.

---

23 Jul 06 - 11:18 AM (#1790695)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Azizi

Alba, imo, your 23 Jul 06 - 10:31 AM post serves as an example as to why Mudcat needs a succient reason for a message being deleted [like the reasons Giok listed]

In that post you are referring to a post that is no longer in existence, but apparentely was racist/sexist with regard to Welsh woman. I'm wondering if that original message was deleted, and a message as to the reason for the deletion placed there instead, would you have still had the same need to write your 23 Jul 06 - 10:31 AM post?

Maybe. But imo, having that message would tell that poster to cease his/her posting of such vile messages because we at Mudcat are aware he or she is doing it and in no way do we condone it.

But again, this is just my opinions. To use a saying I learned here at Mudcat, your mileage may vary.

---

23 Jul 06 - 11:29 AM (#1790700)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

If anybody who helped run this place had HALF a stone in their sack, "Shambles" would have been banned a long time ago....

---

23 Jul 06 - 12:13 PM (#1790729)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Are you on some kind of kick that you know will be deleted? What is your game anyway?

---

23 Jul 06 - 12:49 PM (#1790745)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Please note Roger and Azizi another silly childish post that was racially incorrect, and also I'm sure a lie, (as with Guest personality he couldn't get laid at a whore's wedding), was deleted prior to Kendall's post. I saw it so it was there!
Giok

---

23 Jul 06 - 02:31 PM (#1790837)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

You may judge me to be a moron and to therefore have no rights and agree totally that anonymous fellow posters should close threads, my posts should be deleted and subject to all forms imposed censorship with no indication or explanation.

But what of other posters?

Recently posts from (at least) two other posters were also deleted along with mine (in addition to the entire threads that were also closed). These were not offensive posts and neither of these posters would be generally considered as morons.

One of them later indicated that they were OK with this - having seen the explanation provided by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team as to why their post was deleted and after I had brought this fact to their attention. They did not seem to care that I or others may not be not be OK with this treatment - but that it a matter for them.

But if the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has his way - in this new stepped up censorship move (justified as being what Mudcatters want) - there would have been no indication that censorship action had been imposed nor any explanation given as to the reasons.

Can all forms of imposed censorship actions in future be indicated and a brief explanation provided?

---

23 Jul 06 - 02:45 PM (#1790842)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

i was just posting on the 'are girls easy' thread, and it dissapeared. Why is it allowed to have threads that ask 'are all men perverts?, but not 'are all girls easy?

This is another case of deleting a thread but with double standards.

---

23 Jul 06 - 02:46 PM (#1790843)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Roger you are making less and less sense with every post, your 10:29 is totally paranoid.

*Smiles* With an editing comment from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team like the following inserted into this thread - should it really be much of a surprise if I were to sound more than a little paranoid?

Shambles, the "Mudcat Update from Max" thread has nothing to do with deleted posts - but you posted links to this "deleted posts" thread seven times in that thread and all seven were deleted. I deleted the "Boo" for good measure,since it didn't have anything to do with the thread.
Your campaign against Mudcat editing is restricted to one active thread at a time. This restriction has become necessary because of your long history of posting the same thing over and over again, oftentimes in threads that have nothing to do with your topic of choice. Say what you want, but restrict your comments on Mudcat editing to one thread. Once that thread is no longer active, you may post comments on another thread that deals with Mudcat editing, or you may start another thread.
This restriction applies only to you, and only to the subject of Mudcat editing policy. It is necessary because of your long history of abuse, and because of your repeated failure to comply with requests that you limit your practice of copy-pasting the same information in multiple threads. Reasonable duplication and "thread drift" is certainly acceptable, but not for you - you have repeatedly gone far beyond what anyone would consider to be reasonable, and your posts have therefore been placed on restriction. It is important for people to understand that these restrictions apply only to you, and that they are a result of your long history of abuse.
If you make good use of your one-thread allowance and don't attempt to play games with the restrictions placed upon you, I'm sure you can say everything you need to say on the issue.
-Joe Offer-

Equal treatment by 'moderators' to all posters can be defended without accusations of personal bias and without making the whole forum paranoid. But special treatment to individual named posters or groups (be it preferential or discriminatory) cannot.

---

23 Jul 06 - 02:51 PM (#1790848)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

"Can all forms of imposed censorship actions in future be indicated and a brief explanation provided?"

Oh, I sincerely hope not!

---

23 Jul 06 - 02:53 PM (#1790851)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

can any of the moderators please answer, why i was just posting on the 'are girls easy' thread, and it dissapeared. Why is it allowed to have threads that ask 'are all men perverts?, but not 'are all girls easy?

This is another case of deleting a thread but with double standards.

---

23 Jul 06 - 03:11 PM (#1790868)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Madam, or Miss, if you can't see the difference, no amount of explanation will do a bit of good.

---

23 Jul 06 - 03:13 PM (#1790870)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Shambles, you are certainly not a moron. Your problem goes much deeper than that.

---

23 Jul 06 - 03:14 PM (#1790872)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Oh, I sincerely hope not!

Any reason for that sincere hope?

How can any poster express an informed opinion on the current level of imposed censorship (especially a favourable one or think it proportionate) if is not recorded when and where it occurs and there is consequently no way they can know what this level is?

If there is nothing to hide in these censorship actions - where then is the harm in recording where and why they have taken place?

And if those who currently feel themselve qualified to impose such judgements do not want to be open in their dealings - perhaps such imposition should stop?

As this recent step-up in unrecorded deletions is said to be in response to the wishes of Mudcatters - perhaps the wishes of all Mudcatters can first be sought in poll - to ascertain if this is in fact the wishes of Mudcatters?

---

23 Jul 06 - 03:21 PM (#1790877)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall - PM
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 03:11 PM

Madam, or Miss, if you can't see the difference, no amount of explanation will do a bit of good.

In other words, you don't know. Or you do, but you won't say

---

23 Jul 06 - 03:24 PM (#1790883)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

I do know, and if your IQ is over 60, so do you. You strike me as a troll.

---

23 Jul 06 - 03:30 PM (#1790887)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Little Hawk

If someone claps their hands on a thread about deleted posts & closed threads, does anyone hear it?

---

23 Jul 06 - 03:36 PM (#1790890)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: katlaughing

But imo, having that message would tell that poster to cease his/her posting of such vile messages because we at Mudcat are aware he or she is doing it and in no way do we condone it.

Any response to the "vile" messages feeds into the egos of those who post them. It calls attention to them whether intentional or not.

Now, what the fuck are any of you doing that you have the TIME and DESIRE to read about every little bit of editing which is done on this site???!!! One would think that is ALL you come here to read.

---

23 Jul 06 - 03:37 PM (#1790892)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

You strike me as a troll

You strike me as a troll. I asked a question which you can't answer and now you call me a troll.

---

23 Jul 06 - 03:39 PM (#1790893)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

clairerise, you know very well the reason the easy girls thread was removed was because it was offensive. Simple as.

---

23 Jul 06 - 04:12 PM (#1790919)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: gnu

Soooo... just thought I would drop by and add my two cents. I very seldom read Shambles' posts or threads, but I felt, this time, I had something to contribute.

I just finished cooking up a huge batch of fish cakes... not salt cod... salt Alaskan Pollock! I actually bought it by mistake. Thought it was cod. We'll see how they turn out. Hey, at half the price, even a mistake is worth a try. Almost like clicking on this thread and reading a few of the last posts. I hope my fishcakes turn out better.

Well, that's it, really.

Except for... J H C !! Would you give it up already?!! Go do something useful, like make some fishcakes or something. F***!

---

23 Jul 06 - 04:20 PM (#1790924)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

clairerise, you know very well the reason the easy girls thread was removed was because it was offensive. Simple as.

Just like Slag's had assumed (wrongly as it turned out) that their post was censored.

To prevent all this inevitable public paranoid reaction and guessing - why cannot any and all imposed censorship action be recorded and the reason for it briefly explained?


None of what I have seen here has even attempted to address what was so offensive about the long-running Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 thread that it had to be immediately subject to imposed closure by the chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

And of course it is totally paranoid for anyone to think that this editing action may have been personally motivated. When it is perfectly obvious to the entire forum that it is.........

---

23 Jul 06 - 04:29 PM (#1790933)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Little Hawk

Most things anyone does are personally motivated, unless they are forced to do it by someone else.

---

23 Jul 06 - 04:39 PM (#1790940)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Hillheader

If I joined a club and found I did not like the rules I MAY in the first instance query why the rules are what they are. However, if I discovered that they are what they are because the majority of the members want them that way, I would leave the club never to return and perhaps start my own for people who shared my views.

I am not a major player on this site, but I do like it and find it well moderated.

---

23 Jul 06 - 04:42 PM (#1790943)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

dont be silly. you cant say threads called 'are all girls easy' is offensive and 'are all men perverts' isnt.

What is it that means the latter can stay, but the former cant

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:01 PM (#1790956)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Dave the Gnome

It is quite simple, clairerise.

It perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling Men but not one calling Women.

It perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling Moslems but not one calling Jews.

It perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling English but not one calling Irish.

It perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling Whites but not one calling Blacks.

As long as you are aware of what is and is not PC you will get on OK.

Cheers

DtG

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:02 PM (#1790957)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

'So Thanks Mudelfs and Thanks Joe for dealing with the Flamer last night quickly and stelth like.'

I hope the posters have been permanently blocked too.

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:05 PM (#1790962)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

clairerise: Would it be too much to ask you to write sentences that actually begin with capital letters?

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:09 PM (#1790969)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: SINSULL

So - how go the fish cakes, gnu?

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:11 PM (#1790971)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: SINSULL

99

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:12 PM (#1790972)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: SINSULL

200
I always wanted to do that!

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:16 PM (#1790974)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Jeri

I deleted one post which was blank. It was the only thing in the thread, so the whole thread went. If you'd like to start another thread with an actual post with words and punctuation and stuff, I'm sure the usual troll-friendly people will come along and play. They'd already posted in the male thread, which is why that one didn't disappear when the initial non-post got deleted. If you want to wind people up, it would be nice if you'd at least attempt to look like you put some work into it.

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:20 PM (#1790976)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Now, what the fuck are any of you doing that you have the TIME and DESIRE to read about every little bit of editing which is done on this site???!!! One would think that is ALL you come here to read.

This moderate language from a volunteer 'moderator' who has publicly stated that she would like to see me banned.........

If I joined a club and found I did not like the rules I MAY in the first instance query why the rules are what they are.

In the days when I first joined our forum - there were no rules.

What would you do if some of your fellow members did not like this and started to impose their rules and restrictions, which you did not agree with? Would you stay and try to hold your ground for something you valued and felt part of or would you just give up and leave?

However, if I discovered that they are what they are because the majority of the members want them that way, I would leave the club never to return and perhaps start my own for people who shared my views.

How would you establish what the majority do want? And why would you consider this would make any difference - for it has been pointed out many times that our forum is not a democracy.

Whenever any form of poll has been conducted in the past - the majority of posters are not in favour of censorship. Why not start a thread to find out what the majority of posters want - asking a question like - 'Are you in favour of more or less imposed censorship'?

The noisy few in this thread who consider they are in the majority may be in for a surprise........But as imposed censorship is not always currently indicated where it occurs - there would still be the problem that few if any posters have any real idea what the current level of censorship is and many posters (on the music related section esprcially) are still under the mistaken impression that there is none. An impression that many appear happy to try and leave leave them with.

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:26 PM (#1790983)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

While I don't want to add fuel to the fire, I must agree that I also found the 'Are all men sexual perverts' thread offensive too, and wish that it had been removed.
Please can we have it that all stupid rude and contentious threads started by Guests shall be automatically deleted?
Giok

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:33 PM (#1790989)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

I agree with you, Giok. However, what I find most offensive is the GUEST's poor grasp of English. The thread title poses a question, and it's accepted in written English that one will indicate so with the use of end punctuation, in this case a question mark.

I very seldom take anyone's written English to task because I find that rude and unnecessarily pedantic on a forum. However, that poster should read a style book and try to understand some basic conventions.

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:33 PM (#1790990)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

this was the point i was trying to get to john. Although i see now, your more honest direct way is better.

I found the easy girl and all men sexual perverts threads equally offensive, and i find it offensive that the moderators obviously think it is ok to bash men and not women. When in fact, that kind of crude attacking of men or women is simply uncalled for and should be deleted.

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:34 PM (#1790994)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

peace i think there is more offensive material in that thread than punctuation.

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:34 PM (#1790995)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I deleted one post which was blank. It was the only thing in the thread, so the whole thread went.

God Jeri - you must be really bored. Why not go and make some music instead?

If you really had to do something - (and I often think the result of all this is a mad race to see which of our guardians can get there first) - the thread could have been just closed. Then our forum and the originator would be aware that some form of censorship action had been imposed.

---

23 Jul 06 - 05:35 PM (#1790998)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

"peace i think there is more offensive material in that thread than punctuation."

Sarcasm is not my long suit.

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:07 PM (#1791039)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

Thread #93088   Message #1790842
Posted By: clairerise
23-Jul-06 - 02:45 PM
Thread Name: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads


i was just posting on the 'are girls easy' thread, and it dissapeared. Why is it allowed to have threads that ask 'are all men perverts?, but not 'are all girls easy?

This is another case of deleting a thread but with double standards.

---

For the record:
Clairerise anonymously started the following threads with blank messages:

• BS: are all girls easy?
  
• BS: Are all men sexual perverts
  
• BS: City with easiest girls in UK?

Clairerise, you may have been attempting to be funny, but what you accomplished was more manipulative and deceptive than funny. Don't do it again.
All three threads have been deleted.
-Joe Offer-

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:31 PM (#1791056)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

you have just learned something, 'clairerise'.....

Roger:"How can any poster express an informed opinion on the current level of imposed censorship (especially a favourable one or think it proportionate) if is not recorded when and where it occurs and there is consequently no way they can know what this level is"

...and how can a citizen of the USA or the UK express an informed opinion on the operations of the CIA and MI5 if they are not privy to the details and given regular explanations of their actions? I think you ought to start a campaign to stop all this secrecy in MI5, and if it works, I'll work on the CIA here!

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:34 PM (#1791059)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

Bill D: Secret Agent

Ya know, this thread is really gonna blow yer cover.

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:35 PM (#1791063)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

And I'll tackle the Gaelic Mafia here.
Giok

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:35 PM (#1791064)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Sorcha

THANK you Joe!!!!! You go, guy!

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:43 PM (#1791071)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

"secret agent" ??? *grin*.. My newsreader is Agent...but it's no secret.

My cover as a determined old curmudgeon was blown a long time ago.

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:43 PM (#1791072)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jacqui.c

Good for you Joe - we lose Martin and another idiot takes his place. Ah well, at least we're now aware of this one.

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:45 PM (#1791075)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

any proof joe? because i can assure you, you are very wrong. you have misled here, and i think i know why too...

---

23 Jul 06 - 06:45 PM (#1791076)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Sorcha

And IMO, Joe is doing the RIGHT thing by 'outing' these members. I did it ONE TIME...he didn't out me, but I fessed up cause I felt so badly.

---

23 Jul 06 - 07:25 PM (#1791111)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: katlaughing

Please can we have it that all stupid rude and contentious threads started by Guests shall be automatically deleted?

Yes, Giok! That would be GREAT! Though, we probably wouldn't need it if we went to members only posting in the BS.

Joe, thanks for outing the troll. IMO, each one like that needs to be exposed.

---

23 Jul 06 - 07:37 PM (#1791118)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Slag

Shaum-blaise' (Shambles). I figured out where my post went. I have an old Compaq Presario and Windows 98 which glitches and crashes with amazing regularity. I've had this happen before where I'll have a partial crash and/or the connection drops out. With certain online games its really maddening be cause you are playing away and nothing is really registering. Regardless it was "No biggy" because I made my same points elsewhere. Where is the hypocracy in that? (see SRO at Eden's Gate).

As for the rest, it's a rather tedious arguement. If your post gets squelched, try to figure out why and then rephrase your comment. If you can't do that then just consider this: Your idea or comment managed to negatively impress at least one person to the extent that they thought it best that it didn't appear here. Hey how about a third tier forum? THE TOILET. Issue a PW protected pass for those who really want to go mucking about in the sewer, getting all indignant and infuriated over stupid stuff that should have never been said in the first place. See above re THE MUDCARP.

---

23 Jul 06 - 08:18 PM (#1791158)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Shambles, a serious question for you. How about all members be polled and asked if you should go or stay. Would you agree to abide by their decision? You know I would vote you off the island in a heartbeat.

---

23 Jul 06 - 08:33 PM (#1791174)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

I know I've said this before but it didn't take, so here goes again.

If somebody starts a thread or posts a message and says "posted without comment" (I know our friend Dick Greenhaus has done that in the past) then THAT is allowed.

But if someone posts without comment simply by leaving the message blank, then some damned trigger happy editor (who doesn't have the intelligence to realise that no message can also mean no comment) comes along and deletes it.

For those of you WITH low intelligence, NO MESSAGE can also mean NO COMMENT.

Here it is again 'cos I know that you missed it the last time that I mentioned it.

For those of you WITH low intelligence, NO MESSAGE can also mean NO COMMENT.

---

23 Jul 06 - 08:40 PM (#1791179)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Slag

It always helps to define your terms at the beginning.

---

23 Jul 06 - 08:43 PM (#1791183)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

With an editing comment from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team like the following inserted into this thread - should it really be much of a surprise if I were to sound more than a little paranoid?

In a word, yes. You've gone out of your way to waste the time of the "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team". If you're then surprised that the "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team" imposes restrictions on how much of his time you can waste, then you really haven't grasped cause and effect.

But special treatment to individual named posters or groups (be it preferential or discriminatory) cannot.

Rubbish - of course it can. A moderator is someone who's proved themselves reasonably sensible and able to be trusted with the job of filtering out the crap. Every functioning forum (with no exceptions) has them. So that's your preferential treatment right there, because Joe and Jane Newbie don't get that ability. Every functioning forum (again, bar none) also has the ability to block known spammers - there's your discriminatory treatment too.

Oh, about your earlier post. I apologise unreservedly for saying that Max and Joe told you to fuck off and get a life. How stupid of me to paraphrase them that way, when they were less crude and more expressive. Joe actually said "I'm sick of your shit" and that you were a "buffoon" - since you're so insistent on exact words, I presume these are accurate descriptions of you and the content of your posts? And Max actually requested that you should leave the Mudcat, his precise words to you being "you too should bid farewell", which is not capable of any other interpretation. If you think there's some other interpretation, I'd really love to hear the logic behind it. Otherwise, given how much you previously attached to the exact text of Max's "Rules", I'd equally love to know why you've not followed that request.

Graham.

---

23 Jul 06 - 09:18 PM (#1791204)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Does The Mudcat Cafe or our discussion forum set aside on it - stand for censorship? Has it anything at all to do with being pro-censorship?

No of course it does not.

So why have we reached a stage on our forum where it appears that asking for all posters to be treated equally and for them to be openly be allowed to decide for themselves what to read, respond to or ignore is bad?

Or where being seen to be anti-censorship and to make a stand against censorship is running an anti-censorship campaign and this is a bad thing? Who then is running a censorship is good campaign?

For in some posters eyes - (and encouraged by this current siege mentalty on the part of our 'moderators') - to post anti-censorship views is now seen to be exactly the same thing as posting anti-Mudcat views. If you are seen to post an anti-censorship view - some loyal mudcat member will feel they are showing this loyalty by telling you to go away and form another forum -if you don't like censorship? ....Who does like censorship?

With this new step-up in censorship announced in this thread - any thread started on the subject of censorship - will now be seen by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team as a "complaint thread' and be limited, rationed and automatically closed..........

Perhaps the few posters who now seem obsessed with thinking that censorship, restrictions, divisions and finding ways to prevent posters from saying what they wish and preventing other from reading it - is what our discussion forum is now about - can go away and leave the rest of us - (I suggest it is the the majority of us) in peace and to discuss what we wish?

In the meantime - can they please ensure that ALL imposed censorship actions are openly indicated and explained - to enable our forum to know the true nature and extent of censorship - so we all then have the evidence to decide if all this is really proportionate?

---

You're Free, Roger!!!!

Post all you want, say anything you want - just keep it in one thread, just like most people do.
Don't be paranoid. You don't get deleted, Roger - you just get consolidated.

Oh, and if you post a blank message, expect it to be deleted. Contrary to Bert's opinion, Joe and the clones think that blank messages were posted either by mistake, or for obnoxious reasons. If you wish to say "no comment," say "no comment."
-Joe Offer-

---

23 Jul 06 - 10:19 PM (#1791246)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Who likes censorship you ask? I DO when it comes to spam, racism, personal attacks and your ceaseless carping about questions that have been answered time and time again.

And my question goes unanswered. Are you real? You remind me of an old Star Trek episode.."I am Landrew" (A machine)

---

23 Jul 06 - 10:28 PM (#1791248)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

It's 07/23/2006 11:22 AT here where I live ... I'm now anticipating how many more posts there will be to this thread tomorrow 07/24/2006 ... my speculation is 17. Today was a pretty high count considering how long this thread has been around. Amazing it just won't fade away. People are just fascinated by the Shambles ... or, are they just easily goated when he pushes the buttons.

sIx

---

23 Jul 06 - 10:30 PM (#1791249)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

Bert, the only people here with low intelligence are the ones who perpetuate this stuff and encourage this crap from this moron.

---

23 Jul 06 - 11:07 PM (#1791272)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: katlaughing

Bert, when we joe clones first started volunteering, empty posts were routinely expected to be deleted as they took up space on a slow-loading, over-taxed system and it also helped for all of those who were on dial-up or had hamsters powering their syetems at home. (love ya Bill!) I see no reason for that to change. If someone wants to register a "no comment" then they can damn well type it in.

kat

Hi kat, I think it may be a cultural thing because recently I've known people to post a blank message to say that they have seen the thread but they refuse to comment on it. Ther could also be other personal reasons.

A blank message doesn't take up much space on modern systems so I don't see why the clones just can't let them be.

---

24 Jul 06 - 12:09 AM (#1791307)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Little Hawk

Would anyone take extreme offence if someone else decided not to take sides in this particular debate? I'm just asking, because I don't want to cause offence, you understand.

You see, there are a few things that I find offensive now and then...but that doesn't mean I think they should be censored. Then again, there's the odd thing that I actually DO think should be censored...very occasionally.

Therefore I don't know where I stand on this, I can't figure it out, I'm totally befuddled, and I am quite unable to decide.

So I'd rather just leave the bitching about it to those who ARE able to decide. Is that offensive to anyone? Gosh, I hope not! If it was, I would lose a whole lot of sleep tonight...and maybe have to consult an analyst about it, and that would be bloody expensive, so please DON'T be offended! Or at least if you are, don't tell me about it, okay? Pretty please?


Dave the Gnome, when you said:

"It's perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling Men but not one calling Women.

It's perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling Moslems but not one calling Jews.

It's perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling English but not one calling Irish.

It's perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling Whites but not one calling Blacks.

As long as you are aware of what is and is not PC you will get on OK."

You were right on. That is exactly how present day fascist mind-control is orchestrated and accomplished. Yes, folks, THAT is something I do have a definite opinion on.

---

24 Jul 06 - 03:28 AM (#1791387)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Would anyone take extreme offence if someone else decided not to take sides in this particular debate?

I would not be extremely offended or surprised - but I would think it sad to post to a thread but add nothing to its subject.

Let us be clear.

The phrase 'personally motivated' in this context means to misuse one's power over a long period of time, to take censorship action and single-out someone or some group and clearly be seen to subject them to special treatment because you do not like them or what they say, but to dress this up as being for more respectable sounding reasons and to encourage public support for this.

---

24 Jul 06 - 04:59 AM (#1791432)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

Shambles, did you copy-and-paste that last post from some private store? Cos I could have sworn you posted exactly the same thing, same words even, last year.

I quote from something you yourself quoted:-

"This restriction applies only to you, and only to the subject of Mudcat editing policy. It is necessary because of your long history of abuse, and because of your repeated failure to comply with requests that you limit your practice of copy-pasting the same information in multiple threads. Reasonable duplication and "thread drift" is certainly acceptable, but not for you - you have repeatedly gone far beyond what anyone would consider to be reasonable, and your posts have therefore been placed on restriction. It is important for people to understand that these restrictions apply only to you, and that they are a result of your long history of abuse."

Your 09:18 is a perfect example of why this is required - there isn't a single thing in there that you haven't already said and got answers to. Now Joe may well dislike you personally, but every word he said above is justifiable.

I suggest it is the the majority of us

Check back up the thread, and on every similar thread you've started, and count the number of posters for and against. I suggest you're wrong...

---

24 Jul 06 - 05:28 AM (#1791445)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread and did not refresh the thread.

You're Free, Roger!!!!
Post all you want, say anything you want - just keep it in one thread, just like most people do.
Don't be paranoid. You don't get deleted, Roger - you just get consolidated.

Oh, and if you post a blank message, expect it to be deleted. Contrary to Bert's opinion, Joe and the clones think that blank messages were posted either by mistake, or for obnoxious reasons. If you wish to say "no comment," say "no comment."
-Joe Offer-

If a blank message MUST always be deleted (even one from Dick, Kendall or some other favoured poster) or a thread MUST be closed - can there be some indication given that censorship has taken place and a very brief explanation as to the reason for it?

Our guardians cannot have it both ways and I fear that it now appears that is exactly what they do want. If they wish to increasingly find reasons to judge and swear at posters and anonymously impose all kinds of unfriendly censorship actions - a pretence cannot be maintained that this is NOT in fact happening.

I suspect that this is the reason why the request to record ALL instances of imposed censorship action does not appear to have found much favour (yet). I can understand the thinking that posters finding indications of blanked and censored posts in a forum such as this - will perhaps not leave a very good impression of our forum.

But if that is the reality and there is nothing to hide - why not be perfectly open about this and enable all poster to be aware of the true level by always indicating where it has occured? I can suggest two reasons.

1. It could be that there are so many forms of imposed censorship taking place as amtter of routine, that if it was all indicated - it is thought that every poster would be shocked and demand a more proportionate response.

2. Or it could well be that the level is seen to be so low that all the unknown numbers of anonymous fellow poster involved in protecting us are seen not to be needed at all and the increased division, judgement, restrictions and paranoia caused by this can be ended.

Only when our forum is aware of the true nature and level of all forms of imposed censorship actions - will any poster be able to express an informed opinion of it.

---

24 Jul 06 - 05:40 AM (#1791454)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Check back up the thread, and on every similar thread you've started, and count the number of posters for and against. I suggest you're wrong...

There remains only one way to find out.

When the secret ballot was introduced at our local Union branch meetings - the results were vastly different to the sort of results reached previously by using a show of hands. It was thought that voters may have felt less intimidated by this method and that a secret ballot enabled a more accurate result to be obtained.

---

24 Jul 06 - 05:54 AM (#1791467)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Poll -stop flaming and abusive posting

---

24 Jul 06 - 11:51 AM (#1791700)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Grab

I can suggest several other reasons which don't require the moderators to be actively looking for people to victimise, as you claim:-

3) It would add a not-insignificant extra amount of time to the time that moderators already spend.

4) It isn't necessary when there isn't any content in the posts. Your stated interest is ensuring that no content is lost. If there is no content (and an empty post is as purely content-free as can be), then why bother? It adds to the page-loading time, and wastes space on Max's server.

5) Deletion of spam advertising also adds no content to the Mudcat "knowledge base". If spam is not deleted and spammers find that it stays around, they are more likely to return and flood the forum.

6) The purpose of deletion of flames is to avoid escalation of conflict. As Joe has previously said, deleting something and then quoting what you deleted in the comment would be utterly ridiculous. Should the moderators have to to paraphrase the flames, so you have a long series of moderator comments saying "Martin Gibson flamed catspaw49", "catspaw49 flamed Martin Gibson", etc, etc? This increases the time to load pages, and wastes space on Max's server. I can see no benefit beyond the knowledge that moderators are doing their jobs.

7) Drawing attention to deletion of flames and spams "has little effect as a deterrent to these 'vandals', for it is done with such a fuss as to bring the attention that is so craved by them and is the main reason for their postings", according to a poster called Shambles (thread "BS: Poll - Stop Flaming and Abusive posting", date 30 Aug 04, time 02:33). Silent deletion removes that attention.

8) When a particular poster has been wasting their time for over two years (I didn't realise it was that long - thanks for bringing up that old post to remind us) by repeating the same questions without change, even when answered long ago, then finding further reasons to insult that poster is utterly redundant. And note that insults are *not* anonymous.

9) Knowledge of how much work has been wasted shepherding your obsession may lead to a concerted campaign by the moderators to have you banned permanently.

10) The only "increased division, judgement, restrictions and paranoia" is present with you. No-one else is affected by any of these. If you stopped your campaign, then the restrictions placed on you would stop.

Graham.

---

24 Jul 06 - 12:07 PM (#1791720)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Ooh too logical mate, Roger would never go for that!
G.

---

24 Jul 06 - 12:11 PM (#1791727)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Cruiser

A suggestion regarding self-censorship:

Stay out of the whole cotton-picking BS section.

---

24 Jul 06 - 01:13 PM (#1791772)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Wolfgang

Just for the sake of clarity of terms:

paranoia: widely varying output, sometimes with no relation to input or even without any input at all
obsession: always same output irrespective of and in volume in no meaningful relation to input

Wolfgang

---

24 Jul 06 - 02:02 PM (#1791828)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I can suggest several other reasons which don't require the moderators to be actively looking for people to victimise, as you claim:-

Where have I made such a claim?

---

24 Jul 06 - 02:27 PM (#1791843)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

As Joe has previously said, deleting something and then quoting what you deleted in the comment would be utterly ridiculous.

Of course it would.

But that is not the suggestion being made is it?

7) Drawing attention to deletion of flames and spams "has little effect as a deterrent to these 'vandals', for it is done with such a fuss as to bring the attention that is so craved by them and is the main reason for their postings", according to a poster called Shambles (thread "BS: Poll - Stop Flaming and Abusive posting", date 30 Aug 04, time 02:33). Silent deletion removes that attention.

That is my argument for dealing with those assumed to be 'vandals'. I suggest in the first instance NOT deleting them and leaving their posts alone. To permit adult posters to judge for themselves whether they wish to respond or ignore the post - so that no form of censorship is required.

It is of course too late for this option - once this choice is made for other posters - by our 'moderators'. By them imposing some form of censorship action. But what is the harm in then recording that fact and providing a brief expanation if this censorship action is thought to be required?

Without this - the assumption will be made that the silently censored post was from a 'vandal' (or a troll or moron etc). When of course - it may not be. But our forum will never even know that any form of censorship took place. And the illusion (or lie) of an uncensored forum can be maintained.

Why does the phrase 'silent deletion' remind me of a sniper?

---

24 Jul 06 - 02:34 PM (#1791850)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

"If a blank message MUST always be deleted (even one from Dick, Kendall or some other favoured poster) or a thread MUST be closed - can there be some indication given that censorship has taken place and a very brief explanation as to the reason for it?"

Everyone else but you has heard the answer many times.......NO!

Don T.

---

24 Jul 06 - 04:45 PM (#1791955)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

Me favoured? Who says so?

---

24 Jul 06 - 05:03 PM (#1791970)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Slag

Yaaaawn!

---

25 Jul 06 - 02:42 AM (#1792396)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: skarpi

lo ll .ow re ou ts he me ry th es nd is ds? ey er rn
ng st ve n th is ap!! us ia

I ht is as er ut ll ou ld n nd ep in th is ap nd ou
ve o e te y g t e d


l e t i d

---

25 Jul 06 - 03:24 AM (#1792405)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

If someone wants to register a "no comment" then they can damn well type it in.
kat

Everyone else but you has heard the answer many times.......NO!

Don T.

Yes there have been many views and opinions expressed and they are all perfectly valid. But have good enough reasons been provided and a final answer ..........?

There is of course no anti-censorship campaign to be encouraged to be attacked for some reason - just some posters trying to get their views and experiences across and others (some using many means not available to all posters) trying to prevent this.

If any step-up in my attempts to get my views and experiences across is perceived, it will always be in response to a step up in measures to prevent this.

A few months back The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly announce that he had already formally requested that posting of BS be limited to memebrs. This because of the failure of the current restrictions and censorship to imposed the sort of peace that he required.

Max did eventually publicly comment on this but this change requested by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (and openly supported some other menbers of this team) has not happened. It may yet but as of this moment - our forum remains a discussion forum open for the the public's views. It is not yet the private members club that a noisy minority of posters have long wished it was and have done their best to turn it into.

So the public views and wishes of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team do not always turn out to be the final word. So the recording of all imposed censorship actions may still happen - as posters here have requested. I hope that it does - mainly in the hope that this measure will reduce the level of all imposed censorship actions and bring an end to judgement and petty restrictions.

I have no real problem if our forum is turned into a private members club (as I suspect it is in the process of becoming) - it will be sad how a fine thing was limited in the way it has happened. But it will not be a place that I will be very interested in contributing any longer.

But I feel it is time for some HONESTY. If Max is happy for the our forum to be now censored and restricted in the way it is now - then can this be openly seen to be the case and the pretence not maintained that it is NOT the heavily censored forum that it has now be allowed to become?

The first step toward this honesty is for all cases where and when any form of imposed censorship action has been judged to be required - is recorded and a brief explanation provided for our forum as the the reasons.

Perhaps Max could inform us if this can happen?

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:32 AM (#1792454)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

If you don't like the answer, keep asking the question till you get the answer you want, is that it Roger?
This site is not going to be run the way you want it, or the way Joe Offer wants it, it will be run the way Max wants it.
As has been said before, if you want to dictate how a forum should be run, go start your own.
This site has been and is continuing to evolve, this evolution is partly as a response to people like you and Martin Gibson, and other like minded people who feel that they should be top dog, and dictate the mores of this site, and partly as a result of experience gained as it goes along as to what works best for the majority of members.
Evolution is an ongoing process and nothing you can do will reverse it, we must evolve or die.
Don't be a dinosaur Roger!
Giok

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:52 AM (#1792467)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following 'editing comment' as it was inserted (anonymously) into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Hi kat, I think it may be a cultural thing because recently I've known people to post a blank message to say that they have seen the thread but they refuse to comment on it. Ther could also be other personal reasons.

A blank message doesn't take up much space on modern systems so I don't see why the clones just can't let them be.

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:25 AM (#1792478)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

This site is not going to be run the way you want it, or the way Joe Offer wants it, it will be run the way Max wants it.

Max can of course run his site - The Mudcat Cafe - how he wishes but The Mudcat Discussion Forum is the part of his site that he has (currently) set aside for the public.

That's right, Shambles. There is a general feeling among Mudcatters that enough is enough,........
Joe Offer

As this latest step-up in 'silent deletion' - is justified by what is claimed to be what Mudcatters generally want - perhaps it can be first formally established exactly what Mudcatters do want - by actually asking all of them?

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:28 AM (#1792480)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Well Kendall did make a suggestion earlier in this thread, why don't we do that?
G.

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:44 AM (#1792486)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Well Kendall did make a suggestion earlier in this thread, why don't we do that?

When you have finally managed to turn our forum into your private members club - you will then be able to black-ball anyone you wish.

There is of course nothing stopping you all from leaving the rest of us in peace now and going away to form your own private members club - as you appear not like and agree with the open invitation Max currently extends to the public on our forum.

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:56 AM (#1792495)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

It's you who doesn't like the status quo Roger not me, I'm quite happy with things as they are, apart from the occasional moaning git!
G

---

25 Jul 06 - 07:40 AM (#1792550)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

But have good enough reasons been provided and a final answer ..........?

The final answer was provided two years ago by Joe. Max provided a final, final answer months ago. What part of "no" are you having problems with?

And the illusion (or lie) of an uncensored forum can be maintained

This is a *moderated* forum, and has always been one. If you choose to believe that "moderated" is synonymous with "censored", then by your definition it's censored. Most of the rest of us don't consider moderation to be censorship, because the reason for moderation is not to prevent people expressing their opinions. No-one has ever prevented you expressing your opinions here, have they? The only restriction placed on you is that you are only allowed to express your opinion in one place at once, and that's only after two years of mass-mailing your opinion across offtopic threads.

but The Mudcat Discussion Forum is the part of his site that he has (currently) set aside for the public.

You've missed the crucial qualifier - set aside for the public to use according to rules determined by Max and enforced day-to-day by Joe, Jeff and the moderators. Max only "extends an open invitation" as long as people follow those rules. In real life, private places such as stately homes often extend an open invitation to the public - but if you walked into a park, insisted that they changed the flowers because you didn't like them, and then sat shouting through a bullhorn as a protest when the groundsmen said no, I suspect you'd be turfed out in pretty short order. You wouldn't expect to get away with that in real life, so why do you expect to be able to do it here without consequences?

If Max is happy for the our forum to be now censored and restricted in the way it is now

Again, what part of Max's post did you not understand? And what part of "You too, should bid farewell" didn't you follow?

There is of course nothing stopping you all from leaving the rest of us in peace now

Again, what part of "You too, should bid farewell" didn't register with you? When the owner of the site tells you, with no possible ambiguity, that you're no longer wanted due to your behaviour, most people would take the hint that their opinions didn't coincide with the site owner's opinions. So for you to tell us what you think Max wants for his site is a bit bloody rich, don't you think?

Graham.

---

25 Jul 06 - 07:55 AM (#1792565)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: kendall

On a dead man's door you can knock forever. I'm outta here. It's all been said, over and over and over.

---

25 Jul 06 - 02:46 PM (#1792925)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Slag

Even in a filly-buster you have to read THROUGH the phone book. You can't repeat the same name over and over. Therefore I iterate, "YAW__AWWWWW_AWN!"

---

25 Jul 06 - 03:17 PM (#1792951)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

On a dead man's door you can knock forever.

Kendall - as that is at least the forth time to my knowledge that you have posted that phrase - it is a good thing for you - that the one and only punishment of automatic 'silent deletion' for that most terrible Mudcat 'crime' of duplication does not apply equally. Yes - this would show that you do appear to be favoured.

I'm outta here. It's all been said, over and over and over.

Perhaps it has not all been said - perhaps we have not seen it because it has all just been 'silently deleted'?

How would we know?

---

25 Jul 06 - 03:58 PM (#1792978)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

No-one has ever prevented you expressing your opinions here, have they?

Yes they have. Many times.

Even a thread that was specially set aside by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for the issue of censorship with much fuss - was despite the assurance given - subject to imposed closure.

As indeed are most of the threads on this subject. It is because the ones that are started are closed - that new ones are started to replace them (and these are then closed).

Or have you not noticed?

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:01 PM (#1792979)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

closing of a thread, as you point out, does *not* prevent you from expressing your opinion.   YOu have just refuted your own point.

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:01 PM (#1792980)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Do you need to be censored?

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:03 PM (#1792982)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

closing of a thread, as you point out, does *not* prevent you from expressing your opinion.

Then what is the point of closing threads?

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:05 PM (#1792984)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

Kendall - as that is at least the forth time to my knowledge that you have posted that phrase - it is a good thing for you - that the one and only punishment of automatic 'silent deletion' for that most terrible Mudcat 'crime' of duplication does not apply equally. Yes - this would show that you do appear to be favoured.

So how favoured would a person for whom I can find at least 20 examples of quoting Max's "don't sweat the rules" be?

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:09 PM (#1792988)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,an internet historian

http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/zumabot.html

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:17 PM (#1792994)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

So how favoured would a person for whom I can find at least 20 examples of quoting Max's "don't sweat the rules" be?

How many of those examples are in threads that have NOT been subject to imposed closure?

So not really very favoured at all.........

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:24 PM (#1793004)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

How many of those examples are in threads that have NOT been subject to imposed closure?

Open or closed makes no difference to the use of the quote being allowed to stand.

The truth, shambles, is that you have got away with more duplicate posts, repeat threads, off topic posts to carry out your campaigns in other threads, etc. than any other person and have done so by a long way.

---

25 Jul 06 - 04:52 PM (#1793027)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Is closing threads censorship? (with some irony - yet another closed thread).

It is the imposed judgement and closure of threads that CAUSE the duplication that then leads to the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's need for selective 'silent deletion' of the duplication...........

For example - if threads on this issue containing my posted views were not subject to imposed closure and remained open for any poster to refresh at any time - there would not be any duplication for the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to get their knickers in a twist about and impose 'silent deletion' upon.   

For once closed - the only way a thread can be refreshed and added to - is by asking the permission of our guardians who imposed closure on it in the first place - to re-open it.

As all these threads are suitable to be started in the first (without obtaining prior permission from our guardians) Perhaps from now on - all threads can remain open and free from imposed judgement?

Or is far more likely that the next restriction is going to be that permission to start a thread MUST be first obtained from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? I am sure that is one suggestion of mine that will find favour......

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:15 PM (#1793047)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

I think Internet Historian's Zumabot link tells a good tale. Here's an excerpt:

Three years ago, Usenet's culture and history discussions suffered under a flood of huge swaths of repetitive propaganda concerning the supposed Armenian murders of Turks in 1918 (history shows that the killing was the other way around), coming from a poster named Serdar Argic at a site known as zuma.UUCP.

Serdar responded to, seemingly, every and any Usenet post he could find that mentioned Turkey or Armenia, even in newsgroups that had nothing to do with either country. The poster was generally harangued with such phrases as "your criminal Armenian grandparents" (even if the poster happened to be, say, Japanese) and with over-the-top subject headings such as "The Self-Admitted Crook and Liar", "The Criminal SDPA-ASALA Grandparents of The Gum Brain", or "A mouthpiece for the fascist x-Soviet Armenian Government". This was usually followed by a lengthy essay concerning the alleged Armenian mass murders.

Some participants tried to argue with Argic, but that only made matters worse as he replied to each post with more harangues, along with successively more hysterical accusations concerning secret Armenian conspiracies. Some watched in amusement, and some even wrote parodies mocking the overwrought style of the posts. But the amusement quickly turned to annoyance when it became apparent that the sheer volume of Serdar Argic posts was overwhelming the discussions on the hardest-hit newsgroups.

It quickly became apparent, however, that his responses didn't have much intelligence behind them. For one thing, they followed a distinct repeating pattern. For another, Argic did not appear to distinguish between the nation and the bird: posts containing references to Thanksgiving turkey were as likely to become targets as posts discussing Turkey's foreign policy.

Over time, a consensus built: Serdar Argic was not a person, but a computer program which scanned the news articles and responded to any article that contained certain words, plugging in the name of the article's writer ("John Sugaharo's criminal Armenian grandparents") and other random phrases. Because of the robotic nature of the responses, this program was promptly dubbed "the zumabot".

The problem was that Zumabot, just like some of the posters here, flooded Usenet groups with words, so much so that others could not carry on a discussion. Was it a restriction of freedom to attempt to control the amount that Zumabot posted, or were others restricted in their freedom of expression because of the volume of repetitious stuff posted by Zumabot?

I see that the Gaza Strip thread is flooded with 814 messages, much of it copy-paste propaganda and rantings from anonymous posters using multiple names. I can't imagine that it's possible for anyone to post a sensible opinion in that thread or the many others like it. I tried to say something when the thread was about 500 messages long, and I was condemned because somebody contended that I hadn't read the entire thread (which I hadn't).

Somehow, that seems unfair, like our freedom to discuss has been overwhelmed by those who feel a compulsion to post words in ridiculous quantities.

What can we do to take back our forum, so we can once again enjoy the humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion?

-Joe Offer-

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:22 PM (#1793055)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

What can we do to take back our forum, so we can once again enjoy the humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion?
-Joe Offer-

I have suggested exactly how - and as you have ignored most of it - I could explain over again - but you would then just delete it for duplication.

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:22 PM (#1793056)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Roger you've been told, open another complaint thread, and the old one gets shut down. No good complaining about not knowing why threads have been closed.
ONE THREAD AT A TIME ROGER.
Giok

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:25 PM (#1793057)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

What can we do to take back our forum, so we can once again enjoy the humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion?
-Joe Offer-

How about every poster having to first obtain permission to post from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team?

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:29 PM (#1793062)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

No good complaining about not knowing why threads have been closed.

Equally there is no point in complaining about duplication in different threads - if threads are closed and new ones then have to be started in order to continue the discussion.

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:36 PM (#1793070)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Do you need to be censored?

The above editing comment from the following (and now closed) thread.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

There is nothing like a man of their word......

---

25 Jul 06 - 05:58 PM (#1793084)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

That's like saying "I used to be 15 once, why am I not 15 now?"
G

---

25 Jul 06 - 07:12 PM (#1793148)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

Once upon a time in the early days, the Mudcat was experiencing something like this. Shambles left and things got better. Worked then, should work now.

---

25 Jul 06 - 07:35 PM (#1793164)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Jeri

I've only made two mistakes about people's character here at Mudcat, and Shambles was the first. When he made a show of learing the last time, I wrote, trying to convince him to stay. I think it's likely he never intended to go and just wanted to play folks, and it't the thing I most regret, out of all I've done here.

Joe, I'd like Mudcat to be membership only (cookieless people allowed to post with a password), with a couple of people such as Max and Jeff with a 'boot' button. We've gotten so many 'surf-ins' and Google probably has us listed for quite a few flame topics.

I think it might be a good idea if a volunteer were to set up a blog for the political stuff, to get most of it off Mudcat. I'd like to discuss politics sometimes, but so would a lot of others who get hammered by angry, hate-filled folks with a lot of time to post, and it's often not possible to discuss things rationally here, with people who actually listen, and care a little bit about you and not just proving their dick's bigger.

Martin Gibson wasn't kicked out because he was THE problem, but because people couldn't leave him alone. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's gone, but for me, it was the angry mob following him around that was the most significant thing. Roger is outwardly polite, but none of the things he wants (most of which we have to assume), he's not going to get. In retaliation for this impotence, he trolls. He slaps up multiple copies of virtual posters. His posts seem to have one intended result with their oh-so-civilized, 'in-your-face', persistent, ridiculous demands: to annoy. They have no other logical result. Consider the probability he'll get Joe to change the way he does things by staking out threads waiting for him, baiting him, accusing him and just plain trying to piss him off.

He can't have things his way, so he tries to make certain other people's lives miserable. Then, even more people come along and witness poor Joe trying to explain something to a brick wall that doesn't want an answer, or see kendall write for the bazillionth time, "You can knock on a dead man's door forever," to which I ammend in my head, "you trying to PROVE that!?" Then there's Giok, who has a possibly unlimited tolerance for "same shit, different day." Now comes the 3rd ring of Shambles-troll hell. You've got Shambles, then the people who talk to them, then there's the people who bitch about the people who talk to him, although I may qualify for the 4th ring just by pointing out I'm in the 3rd ring. Let's face it - the longer we know each other, the more we get on each other's nerves.

In any case, what you have is a big mess of people feeling badly. At it's center is Shambles. If you forget about right and wrong and just look at this practically, what's the one simplest action that would have the greatest effect? It's banning Roger. I'd guess we'd have to go membership-only for that to be most effective.

I'd like it of all of us members had little check boxes by someone's name. (It could be subjects as well.) If we checked it, it would filter out all of that person's posts. Granted, we'd then have to filter out those who constantly quoted him or responded to him. This might not be a bad thing though, as it may make people think that if they keep it up, fewer people are going to be seeing their messages. Before anybody thinks I'm too stupid to have thought people might filter me out, too, I'd honestly appreciate it if people who didn't want to read my posts didn't find them in their face. It might throw thread continuity off, but for sensitive individuals, it might be worth it.

Then there's voting buttons. If, for example, 10 people voted to zap somebody, then they'd be off the island.

Seriously, I can't see this flaming and spamming stuff doing anything but getting worse, until the place becomes somewhere the people I like having around won't tolerate it any more. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I came upon Mudcat for the first time today, I might use the DT, but I wouldn't dare post in the forum

---

25 Jul 06 - 07:36 PM (#1793166)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Somehow, that seems unfair, like our freedom to discuss has been overwhelmed by those who feel a compulsion to post words in ridiculous quantities.

What can we do to take back our forum, so we can once again enjoy the humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion?
-Joe Offer-

There are many things that also seem unfair. But this concern of yours about 'quantities' is only the latest in long line of things on our forum that you judge to be concerns - like birthday threads - claims for the 100th post etc etc. All of which are dealt with with the same and only weapon that seems to be used for everything you judge to be a concern.

This is some form of judgement, inhibition, restriction censorship - usually imposed after any possible damage has been done.

Many posters may share your concerns, your judgement and taste but not always agree with the same old solution. As the result of chasing all these things is just endless restrictions - and still you are never satisfied and complain - as you do here about - the lack of and how to return to - 'humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion'.

Joe if you are really serious about such a question perhaps you will first be prepared to accept that - if you do not like what our forum is now and wish to publicly moan about it here - you (as current Chief of the Mudact Editing Team) have played no small part in this?

Rather than looking and appealing for more support from those who may be like-minded and at the same time looking for yet more scapegoats to blame and to censor - perhaps it is time for you to finally accept that there little YOU can do to 'take back our forum' - that you have not already done?

And rather than still looking for yet things to do - it is time to accept that there are things on our forum that are just not able to be controlled to conform to your tastes - especially by the only method you now seem able or prepared to try?

And that freedom of expression means having to be exposed to things that may not be to everyone's taste and that most of a moderator's role is simply put up with this and just as importantly, to tell others who may also complain and judge the worth of their fellow posters- to put up with it also?

---

25 Jul 06 - 07:50 PM (#1793181)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Slag

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz--skzzsnicks!! Huh? Are we there yet? Wake me when it's over. Oh, if you want to delete this post, be my guest. ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............!

---

25 Jul 06 - 08:02 PM (#1793192)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

We* do our best to retain the content of what you've posted, but the location and multiplicity of your posts have become a serious problem and will be controlled.
Joe Offer

A serious problem - really? A serious problem where the best and only solution (as with everything else) is imposed 'silent deltion'?

Instead of making all this fuss - why not simply let adult posters decide for themselves what they wish to read, respond or ignore?

If you really think that a poster is posting just to get a reaction. Why then oblige with one?

If you think a poster is just trying to get around restrictions (and succeeding). Why try and impose yet more for them to get around?

If you don't want more threads started. Why keep closing the existing ones?

---

25 Jul 06 - 08:07 PM (#1793196)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jacqui.c

I agree with Jeri.

---

25 Jul 06 - 08:40 PM (#1793223)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: katlaughing

Me, too, Jacqui! Well-put, Jeri!

---

25 Jul 06 - 09:18 PM (#1793244)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

re: What Jeri said and sort of suggested.

Here is a (seemingly fairly new) forum that discusses some controversial subjects. Though I'm not sure I care for the precise divisions, I was struck by the structure and rules. They have features some of us have dreamed about, including 'ignore' and registration in order to post. The FAQ. 1st area in the FAQ
They have PMs and an NEAT email system......

There may be some ideas in it that are worth considering.

---

25 Jul 06 - 09:21 PM (#1793246)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

I am aware that the programming language and technical aspects might limit what Mudcat could do...but we need ideas.

---

25 Jul 06 - 09:25 PM (#1793248)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

(you would note, if you followed any of those links, that many 'features' are prefaced by "The administrator may allow"...or enable...or permit...certain privileges.)

---

25 Jul 06 - 09:31 PM (#1793251)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

Good post Jeri, I agree with you with all of your post with the exception of ....

"If, for example, 10 people voted to zap somebody, then they'd be off the island."

I'm sure 1 inidividual could easily round up a posse of 10 to vote some hapless, innocent victim they just happen to disagree with, or just don't like. Unfortuanetly humans tend to congregate in groups of similarity and being human, they can be a bit too irrational.

It is obvious to all, who are the head aches here in the Cat, and the ones who act like occasional jerks (myself included) ... occassional jerks you can ignore, head aches, well they are like an ongoing migraine, who needs them.

sIx

---

25 Jul 06 - 09:54 PM (#1793255)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

And for the semi-technically inclined, there are off-the-shelf, plug-in forums available.

So, don't say "I'd love to have my own forum and run it MY way, but I don't know how."

Here's your chance! Maybe that's what "ignorancesucks" did.

---

25 Jul 06 - 10:34 PM (#1793283)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: katlaughing

Another good example of an elegant forum, imo, is Talk Classical. You can see a list of options, including how to "ignore" certain posters, edit your own posts, rate threads, etc. on their FAQ about usage page.

I do agree with sIx about the voting off bit. I wouldn't like to see that happen.

---

26 Jul 06 - 12:37 AM (#1793339)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

yeah, banning should be ONLY by the administrators....but they can take suggestions... ;>)

---

26 Jul 06 - 12:50 AM (#1793348)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

Kat's example and 2 of Bills examples are vbulletin. It is an off the shelf one but a commercial one. It's rekoned to be good though - I know my web host likes it and thinks phpbb(see below) a bit limited.

The one Bill described as off the shelf is one I wouldn't touch unless really stuck because it is "database less" as they call it.

phpbb is a very popular decent off the shelf free board.

All of these boards use php which can be used on Windows, Linux and others. MySQL is probably the preferred database for both "proper" forum systems.

---

26 Jul 06 - 02:06 AM (#1793371)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

If all these posters - like the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are so unhappy with what most of there efforts have turned our forum into and pi***d with who they currently have to share posting on it with - why do they stay?

There is nothing stopping them getting together and starting their own site - where they will not have to share it with anyone not to their tastes. I suspect that if they did finally find the courage to do this - they would still find something to moan about and someone to scapegoat and blame.

Why should our forum be further turned into this private members club because a noisy minority do not like the fact that it is not already one and remains freely open to the public - as it always has done and as Max obviously wants it to?

---

26 Jul 06 - 02:23 AM (#1793375)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

If all these posters - like the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are so unhappy with what most of there efforts have turned our forum into and pi***d with who they currently have to share posting on it with - why do they stay?


shambles, the way the forum does largely work to the way these people want. The editing, closure and deleting features that Mudcat has displease YOU, not them.

As I've said before, if you really do want to go back in time, I will happily write you a "clone" of the Mudcat Help forum which is the Mudcat forum as you want it. I will even host it for you. Then you can have your own place exactly as you want it.

---

26 Jul 06 - 03:09 AM (#1793392)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

shambles, the way the forum does largely work to the way these people want. The editing, closure and deleting features that Mudcat has displease YOU, not them.

The difference is that I and many others - are prepared to accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public. And accept that they will not see things only to their taste from like-minded people.

I do not expect those who I may have a difference of opinions on to be banned and publicly call for this - as if such a thing will solve all problems. As it is more than possible to simply ignore posts that are not to your taste.

I suspect that 'these people' are may only be pleased with the 'editing, closure and deleting features' to the extent that it is me and other posters who are subject to them and 'these people' (currently) are not.

As for our forum working as 'these people' want - from their constant moaning and scapegoating and requests for more and more restrictions to be imposed on others - it would be difficult to tell 'these people' were content - as you maintain they are.

But as I maintain - no poster will be ever be able to an informed opinion on the true nature and level of censorship if it is the sinister sounding 'silent deletion'.

All that is required on our forum - is not one of (a few select) like-minded people - but a return to an open and fair structure which with no fuss or judgement - simply keeps out of the way and enables posters to be seen to agree to disagree. And if 'these people' do not like Max's model - they are always free to form their own private members club.

---

26 Jul 06 - 03:31 AM (#1793395)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

I do not expect those who I may have a difference of opinions on to be banned and publicly call for this - as if such a thing will solve all problems.

I do not like the public calls for banning or related suggestions such as voting either...

As it is more than possible to simply ignore posts that are not to your taste.

Well some posters seem to do thier best to ensure they are not ignored by starting multiple threads and repeat posts...

I do agree with you up to a point, that many of us could do better at ignoring some stuff. Mudcat is a troll's paradise - there is no doubt about that. Again, IMO much of it really does come down to users driving the mods into action though and I don't think you will change the userbase now.

But as I maintain - no poster will be ever be able to an informed opinion on the true nature and level of censorship...

Yet you seem to believe you offer one?

---

26 Jul 06 - 05:07 AM (#1793464)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Yet you seem to believe you offer one?

As I am subjected to most of it - I can at least try to demonstrate the true nature and level of this.....

If none is ever openly indicated where and when it takes place - with our new stepped-up 'silent deletion' - our forum could be under the mistaken view that there was none. I suggest many posters are still under this impression.

If it was always indicated when and where it was judged neccesary to impose and why - the blank spaces and closed threads - may then give the view that there was far too much.

But we know that most cures and medications have side-effects so there is little point in trying to pretend otherwise is there? If there is nothing to hide - then why not be open about it?

---

26 Jul 06 - 05:33 AM (#1793484)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

As I am subjected to most of it

As the most prolific troll here, it's not really surprising. The only reason I can see that you're doing this here is because you'd get a punch in the nose for doing it in real life.

I repeat: What part of "You too, should bid farewell" didn't you follow? I note that you haven't had the gall (pun intended - boy is that ever an appropriate name!) to try and wriggle out of that one.

If you really think that a poster is posting just to get a reaction. Why then oblige with one?

Fine. See ya.

Graham.

---

26 Jul 06 - 05:43 AM (#1793489)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

As I am subjected to most of it - I can at least try to demonstrate the true nature and level of this.....

shambles, you push the moderators more than any other poster. My own assesment of what you say has happened is that you have been getting off lightly.

All that you are demonstrating is that if pushed hard enough for long enough, the mods may act.

---

26 Jul 06 - 06:42 AM (#1793518)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

"Instead of making all this fuss - why not simply let adult posters decide for themselves what they wish to read, respond or ignore?"

Maybe if you grow up we could try it Roger.

G.

---

26 Jul 06 - 06:58 AM (#1793531)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Wolfgang

He can't have things his way, so he tries to make certain other people's lives miserable. (Jeri)

I've read last weekend a feature about a man in Germany who moved to a little village (some 60 houses) many years ago. He is what most people would consider a learned man, a teacher by profession. He felt slighted by some of the 'native' inhabitants one day. There surely was a nucleus of truth to this feeling. It happens in villages that those who always have been there at first are not nice to newcomers.

The man felt hurt and felt not taken serious so he complained and was still not taken serious. Then he started to document each instance of when others in his opinion violated the rules. He taped their conversations in order to be able to replay what they had said one day to demonstrate that at times they were inconsistent and that what they said one day was different from what they had said the other day. He started to videotape them when they parked on the wrong spot etc.

He brought his neighbours to court each time he could find a reason. They reacted too the same way (at least to stop him (video)taping them without their knowledge. Now his day is filled with noting all the transgressions there are and to write reports or to respond to reports. The village is filled with hate and mistrust by now and the judge responsible for reports from that village needs help for he can't deal with all the cases.

The teacher in an interview claimed that he doesn't know how all that came and that he has nothing to do with it. He only reacts to the provocations and tries very ratiopnally to show the other villagers the mistakes and wrong accusations they have made. In particular, he likes to point out any inconsistencies in their behaviour towards him and others he perceives.

No, he doesn't want to move because he feels well there. If only the others would stop their ways of treating him unfairly everything could be as good as it was when he first came there. He liked that atmosphere and would love to have it back. No, he doesn't like to do with what now his days are filled, he'd rather have more time for his hobbies if only the others would leave him in peace.

Another German story: A German living in Latin America feels that once the state of Germany has done injustice to him. All his moves to get an apology or to find a court to revise the decision have failed. But he can't give up when he feels injustice has been done. So he seeks a way to do as much damage to Germany as he can.

He finds a loophole in the German laws. He can adopt legally as many people as he wants. By adoption these people become Germans and have in principle a right to social welfare money. So he adopts in Latin America some thousand adults from there (perhaps even 10,000 by now) and asks for German passports and for social welfare money. The German government says no (against a literal reading of the law) and a German court agrees with the government decision (the letter of the law is just one factor in German courts).

He now feels again that injustice has been done to him and only him for he knows several dozen cases where adoptions in Latin America have been acknowledged by the German authorities. So he knows that the law is bent only in his case, for such a minor difference like between 10,000 and say 2 adoptions should not have the consequence of treating him differently. So he now knows for sure that not only the German authorities but also the courts are biased only in his special case.

He now seeks a way to tranfer his adopted children to Germany all at the same time but he has not been successful yet.

Sorry for the thread creep. I don't know why these two real life stories came into my mind when reading the sentence I have quoted.

Wolfgang

---

26 Jul 06 - 07:31 AM (#1793549)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

All that you are demonstrating is that if pushed hard enough for long enough, the mods may act.

If the 'moderators' did not feel they had to react but maintain a pretence that this was not happening - there would be nothing for me to demonstrate - would there?

---

26 Jul 06 - 07:50 AM (#1793556)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

If the 'moderators' did not feel they had to react but maintain a pretence that this was not happening - there would be nothing for me to demonstrate - would there?

So you do comfirm you are just demonstrating that you can provoke a rection from the mods then. That you are prepared to inflict all this stuff on Mudcat just to prove this.

Amazing. Tell me why you feel so victimised when your demonstrations eventually provide the result you desire to happen?

---

26 Jul 06 - 11:56 AM (#1793723)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

So you do comfirm you are just demonstrating that you can provoke a rection from the mods then. That you are prepared to inflict all this stuff on Mudcat just to prove this.

Jon - perhaps you did not read the first post in this thread.

As in the middle of all this silliness - I would appear to have been granted permission to start a new thread on this subject by Joe Offer – I think I will. I think it important that posters on our forum are aware of the true extent of the personally motivated censorship on our forum. What you feel about it is a matter for you. But I suspect that it may be as well to express your view now and in this thread – as you may not get the chance to do so again.

These are my honest views and suggestions. Nothing is being inflicted on anyone is it? No one has to open this thread do they?. Its subject is clearly indicated in its title - so there is there an excuse for any anonymous fellow poster to imposed another title of their choice?

The biggest lie of course in this thread - stated I fear, only to stir-up support for yet more restrictions - is the suggestion that it is some way unfair - as my posts in this thread are crowding it out and in some way preventing other posters from saying what they may wish to.

It is of course a lie as this thread (unless it is subject to imposed closure) can go on as demonstrated in other long-running threads which have escaped attention from our guardians. And the little box will expand to accomodated anything anyone wishes to post in it. So there is room for all views - and that was the point of starting this thread.

I have not posted any abusive personal attacks, not responded in kind to the many I am subject to and not protected from, - so why exactly do you consider I have gotten off lightly? As (unlike many of those who judge and accuse me) I have not actually done anything to warrant any form of imposed censorship.

Some of the so-called 'moderators' post abusive personal attacks at me and encourage other poster to do this by setting the example that such posts are acceptable. At least three of the known 'moderators' have publicly stated that they are of the opinion that I should be banned (but what terrible 'crime' this punishment is for - is not specified).

And amazingly the claim is made (and even more amazing accepted) that none of this special treatment reserved for me by some of these so-called 'moderators', is personally motivated. And you consider that I am getting off lightly! For what terrible 'crime' exactly?

Jon on your own site - you make the rules or can choose to ignore any when you feel like it. If you do not personally like a contributor to your site - you can judge and treat them as you wish as you do not have to answer to anyone.

But our forum does not belong to any of our so-called 'moderators'. They are only supposed to be following policy made by the owner and working withing certain guidelines. Not deciding which posters they may like and who they do not and treating them accordingly.

---

26 Jul 06 - 12:00 PM (#1793726)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

One of the wishes of the owner is that you leave.

---

26 Jul 06 - 12:01 PM (#1793727)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

actually - if you read joe's post that you refer to in your first post of this thread - he says you can stat a new thread if you have anything NEW. Not a new thread on the same old same old. As usual, you are sticking your own interpretation on other peoples words.

---

26 Jul 06 - 12:03 PM (#1793728)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

Does anyone actually read these posts from Shambles??

sIx

---

26 Jul 06 - 12:41 PM (#1793748)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

"The biggest lie of course in this thread - stated I fear, only to stir-up support for yet more restrictions - is the suggestion that it is some way unfair - as my posts in this thread are crowding it out and in some way preventing other posters from saying what they may wish to.


Gosh Roger I don't believe it, someone started a thread with an ulterior motive; I'd never have known if you hadn't told me.
I bet you wouldn't do an underhand thing like that would you?

Giok

---

26 Jul 06 - 12:47 PM (#1793758)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

So you do comfirm you are just demonstrating that you can provoke a rection from the mods then.

No - but I must 'fess-up' to the post with BOO! in it - after the link that I had been trying to post had been 'silently deleted' 7 times...........

---

26 Jul 06 - 02:08 PM (#1793825)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Sandman

Dear Shambles, if you visited other forums such as concertina net, the organiser admits he is a dictator, you would appreciate the democracy on this forum, if you do go there most of the people are very friendly, but like all forums you will meet one or two bad apples, one or two people who need to get a life and also the king of pedants.Thankyou for getting les cousins thread reopened.I enjoyed it.

---

26 Jul 06 - 02:51 PM (#1793850)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

But our forum does not belong to any of our so-called 'moderators'. They are only supposed to be following policy made by the owner and working withing certain guidelines. Not deciding which posters they may like and who they do not and treating them accordingly

As far as I understand it, the volunteers are working to the site owners wishes and the site owner feels you should go away.

---

26 Jul 06 - 03:15 PM (#1793859)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

oh and just for the record:

Jon on your own site - you make the rules or can choose to ignore any when you feel like it. If you do not personally like a contributor to your site - you can judge and treat them as you wish as you do not have to answer to anyone.

Acutally I don't hold that outright power anywhere, not even on the sites you might be considering to be my sites, although I do have an administration say in a couple of places.

Anyway time for me to make another attempt at keeping out of all these shambles debates...

---

26 Jul 06 - 03:49 PM (#1793886)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

As far as I understand it, the volunteers are working to the site owners wishes and the site owner feels you should go away.

You and both? I seem to remember that the site owner has been rather more forthright in his public opinion of you....?

[PM] Max Mudcat, Please organise these threads! (90* d)         
RE:         10 Feb 04

GUEST,Jon is right, there are many differing opinions here at the Mudcat. For instance, Jon's opinion is that his site is a "rival" to Mudcat. My opinion is that Jon is flattering himself with such status, and that he's an asshole.

---

26 Jul 06 - 03:53 PM (#1793888)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

And you should go away.

---

26 Jul 06 - 04:05 PM (#1793897)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=36166

---

26 Jul 06 - 04:10 PM (#1793901)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

From Max subsequent to that post:

Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.

---

26 Jul 06 - 04:18 PM (#1793909)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

not to mention the post pointed to is almost 8 years old and was in reference specifically to the use of "BS:" as a thread identifier.

oh - gee; an out of context qoute from The Shambles. How un-characteristic!

---

26 Jul 06 - 04:24 PM (#1793917)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

from that link: " It is what you make it."

and you, Shambles, have helped make it a place that needs a few rules, despite Max's causal, friendly off-the-cuff 'remark' of 6 years ago!.

The rule that is applicable is: Although it would be nice to not edit and have 'mods', it is sometimes necessary, and Joe and his 'team' do have the authority to edit and/or delete when THEY deem it necessary!"

Stomp your foot and declare "it aint right" all you please, Roger. A 6 year old attempt to be nice just isn't the overriding 'rule' any longer.

Wolfgang makes a STONG metaphor with his 2 stories. It's too bad you don't see the wisdom inherent in them.

---

26 Jul 06 - 04:59 PM (#1793941)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

And I'd like to say that Jon has done a wonderful job on his site, both the Annexe (http://jonbanjo.com/) and particularly folkinfo.org. He saw things at Mudcat that needed improvement, and he improved them. I especially like the way he has organized information on songs at folkinfo.org. He has also lent us space for MIDI files over the last year, since we haven't been able to upload to Mudcat MIDIs.
So I, for one, had a gread deal of respect and affection for John. I don't dislike you either, Shambles - I just don't like you enough to see you post the same thing 3,672 times. It's not you, Roger, and it's not what you have to say - it's the frequency with which you say it that's the problem.
We like you, Roger - but once is enough.
-Joe Offer-

---

26 Jul 06 - 06:35 PM (#1794022)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

What's this "we" stuff, bud. I don't know Roger personally. I only know him through his posts. I think he is destructive,creates problems we don't need, and tries to cover it up with a "nice" demeanor. When people start to ignore him, he frantically starts pulling up old threads and trolling for a reaction. The Shambles I see in his posts is manipulative. I don't like that person and I wish him gone.

I also don't care for the fact that many of you continue to feed this guy. But saying that is shouting in the wind.

Go away, Shambles.

Mick

---

27 Jul 06 - 02:20 AM (#1794280)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Ebbie

Shamblex, do you recognize the mean-spiritedness that allowed you to post that comment from Max? Frankly I hope you are ashamed of yourself.

---

27 Jul 06 - 03:37 AM (#1794306)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Dear Shambles, if you visited other forums such as concertina net, the organiser admits he is a dictator, you would appreciate the democracy on this forum, if you do go there most of the people are very friendly, but like all forums you will meet one or two bad apples, one or two people who need to get a life and also the king of pedants.

Sadly it is always the pedants who tend to make the most noise. But tend not to like being subjected to the same noise themselves.... May those who live by pedantry and judgement - also die by pedantry and judgement!!!

The 'organisers' and their few loyal supporters here will now willingly and even proudly tell you that there is no democracy on our forum. Some will even argue - despite the fact that our forum has always been freely open for the public's contribution by the site's owner - that is not our forum (but that it still would seem to be theirs).

But it has always been the case that many have supported our forum and thought it to be special - in that it was possible for posters to post pretty much what they wish to - with no or very little interference from the site's owner.

I just think that it is time for a little honesty. If this approach has changed and for whatever reason - and I have think I have demonstrated very clearly with this 'silent deletion' that it has changed - then it time to be open about this and not pretend.

The reason our current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team does not wish all forms of imposed censorship to be recorded is that it will bring attention to this. For the first time then all poster will be able to see the forms imposed censorship which is now claimed to be undertaken in their name and in order to protect them.

If it was all recorded and a very brief reason provide where and when any form of censorship was judged to be required - all posters would for the first time be able to judge for themselves if this censorship was proportionate. Would having this knowledge be such a bad thing?

Thankyou for getting les cousins thread reopened.I enjoyed it.

I think you misuderstand. I originated that thread a few years ago and I and others have refreshed it many times. This, all poster were able to do to all threads just by posting to it - until our 'moderators' were shown that they could subject threads to imposed closure (so that posters could then only post to them if they sent a PM and asked kindly if a thread could be re-opened).

Recently (see my first post in this thread) many other threads where posters have been conducting a discussion have been closed. And when a reason was given by our anonyomous 'moderators', it was that it was closed at the request of the moderator. As if no other consideration mattered and this total respect to the thread originator's wishes would always be honoured by them and should be honoured by every other poster.

My view would be that any originator making such a request should perhaps be told that they should have given it more thought when they started their thread.

The thread you refer to has not (yet) been subject to imposed closure.
I was making the point - as the thread's originator - by asking for it to be closed - that 'moderators' really do as THEY please and only selectively use such requests to justify imposing their (in some cases - possibly personally motivated) judgement to close certain posts on certain subjects. That thread was not closed - and even though its originator made the request for its closure - this request was ignored.

Where in an earlier exchange - the perfectly respectable title I had chosen for a thread that I had originated was changed without my knowledge and against my wishes - and I was told by The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, that even as as the originator- I was not even entitled to choose that.....

The rights of a thread's originator do seem to vary...................

---

27 Jul 06 - 03:45 AM (#1794310)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

Shambles sez:

Sadly it is always the pedants who tend to make the most noise.

Need I say more?
-Joe Offer-

---

27 Jul 06 - 04:42 AM (#1794337)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Yes Joe I had exactly the same thought when I read it, but as we know consistency is not Roger's strong suit. When it comes to looking for spurious points to hang his endless banal arguments on, he is a right little Vicar of Bray [pun intended].
Giok

---

27 Jul 06 - 04:46 AM (#1794338)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Sorry Ebbie and Jon for showing any mean-spiritness.

And for this - which should read as follows

And when a reason was given by our anonyomous 'moderators', it was that it was closed at the request of the originator

---

27 Jul 06 - 05:07 AM (#1794343)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Pedant:

A person who pays more attention to formal rules and book learning than they merit.

It that the same thing as a buffon, idiot or an asshole - other names that have been publicly called by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. None of whose selective editing actions against my posts are of course to be thought of as in any way personally motivated......*Smiles*

Nor those of those imposed by known 'moderators' like Mick, Jeri and kat who also post to say that wish me to be banned. I and our forum are of course expected to consider that any of their imposed censorship actions are totally objective........

And any imposed by the unknown number of anonymous fellow posters - many of whom could well form most of the usual suspects posting the usual abuse on this thread. Who knows?

This was not my battle nor my choice of weaponry but should those who feel themselves qualified to impose (by silent deletion) their pedantic judgement upon others - really expect their actions not to to judged by the same terms in return? And feel that they are entitled to respond by setting the example that name-calling is now acceptable forum conduct?

---

27 Jul 06 - 05:17 AM (#1794346)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

It doesn't bother me, Ebbie.

---

27 Jul 06 - 05:50 AM (#1794359)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Perhaps Ebbie you wiil now be just as keen in castgating and bringing to shame other posters here - who you also judge to be showing mean- sprititness in this thread?

Or perhaps it is just as well for all of us to stop using our forum to judge the worth of each other?

Do you not think that anonymously 'silently deleting' a fellow poster's contribution and providing no indication or reason for this imposed censorship action our forum - is about as mean-spirited as posters can get to one another?

---

27 Jul 06 - 06:09 AM (#1794369)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

Sorry Ebbie and Jon for showing any mean-spiritness.

Not many minutes later.

Perhaps Ebbie you wiil now be just as keen in castgating and bringing to shame other posters here - who you also judge to be showing mean- sprititness in this thread?

---

27 Jul 06 - 06:13 AM (#1794372)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

The following long-running thread    Affected by the Licensing Act 2003   was without any prior consultation with its originator or any other poster - subject to imposed closure.

This thread - despite containing much important information and providing as it did a means to record the on-going effects on live music of this legislation - was atomatically closed by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team when another poster started a new one.

The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has made his personal views of this issue on our forum very clear. In my view it has been a less than helpful approach and as indicated by the thread closure above - an inflexable and obstructive one. Where a pedantic approach (to his own rules) and a personal bias to some of the individuals invoved has overlooked the reality of the issue and the attempts posters have made to accomodate any concerns expressed about these threads on our forum.

Given the step-up in my personal restrictions announced in this thread - will the same fate automatically be imposed on this thread - should another poster start a new thread on a similar subject? Not that I would wish to put any ideas into any of the 'usual suspect's' heads...

---

27 Jul 06 - 02:55 PM (#1794784)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

When my kids were two or three the game was to ask "Why?" to every answer. Great fun if you are two or three. Do we have a case of arrested development going on here? Are we explaining simple truths to idiots or game players?

---

27 Jul 06 - 03:35 PM (#1794806)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

the problem is that deleted posts are just not consistent by those not deleted.

for instance, like i showed yesterday, much to joe's dissaproval, a thread entitled 'are all men sexual perverts' got a full days postings, whereas the thread 'are all girls easy' got deleted instantly for been offensive.

It is not consistent.

What does this mean? That basically you have bigoted mods running the show. dont like the truth? tough

---

What it shows is that empty messages and empty threads get deleted. Some may contend that a blank message is a statement - but at Mudcat, like it or not, it gets deleted.
Your three threads were deleted by volunteer/Clones because they were simply empty messages, which the Clones have authority to delete. The men's thread had to wait for my review because it got responses before the Clones got to it - I deleted it because it was started under deceptive and manipulative premises.
Not inconsistent - it just doesn't follow YOUR predictions. The topics, while they may have been distasteful, weren't the reason for deletion - they were deleted because YOU were playing manipulative games.
-Joe Offer-

---

27 Jul 06 - 05:10 PM (#1794873)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

"bigoted" = "doesn't agree with ME"

and like Joe showed, you, clairerise, started all those threads anonymously.

---

27 Jul 06 - 05:12 PM (#1794876)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

Why should it matter who started them?

---

27 Jul 06 - 05:22 PM (#1794884)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

It matters if they were started with malicious intent Bert.
G.

---

27 Jul 06 - 06:34 PM (#1794918)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

It matters if they were started with malicious intent Bert.

Why get your knickers in a twist by assuming what the 'intent' of a posts may be?

As it does not appear to matter now if threads are closed and posts' are silently deleted' with malicious intent - as long as they are someone elses.

---

27 Jul 06 - 07:01 PM (#1794932)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jeffp

Why get your knickers in a twist by assuming what the 'intent' of a deletion may be?

---

28 Jul 06 - 05:06 AM (#1795243)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: clairerise

Still doesn't explain why a thread asking are all men sexual perverts stayed, and a thread asking are all girls easy?

Whatever way you try to condemn me, the point stands. And...it is a point you are unable to refute. It is a sad indication.

---

Neither thread stayed for long. Both were deleted, but you're right that the men's thread survived a little longer.
But, whatever....
-Joe Offer-

---

28 Jul 06 - 07:53 AM (#1795335)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Why get your knickers in a twist by assuming what the 'intent' of a deletion may be?

As you have no evidence that the many and various forms of imposed censorship upon mine and other's contributions, are not malicious or personally motivated why would you assume (as you obviously appear to do and in face of the evidence to the contrary) that they never are? should you not at least be giving the victims the benefit of the doubt?

My knickers are less twisted about any assumptions than they are about the actuality of imposed judgements made and encouraged based only on assumptions about possible intent.

If all posters were openly to be seen to receive equal treatment - there would be little need for any judgements and assumptions to be made.

Where normal logic applies - in cases where there was ANY question that one individual may be seen to be recieving special and personlly motivated treatment from another in a position of trust and responsibility - the latter would remove themselves from any dealings.

Unlike this thread - where you will see that all other 'moderators' have been warned off.............

---

28 Jul 06 - 07:55 AM (#1795338)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jeffp

Why get your knickers in a twist by assuming what my assumptions may be? I have never stated any assumptions and I challenge you to find any.

---

28 Jul 06 - 08:10 AM (#1795349)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

Unlike this thread - where you will see that all other 'moderators' have been warned off.............

Who are all the other moderators?

---

28 Jul 06 - 08:28 AM (#1795355)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

You have Scottish connections Roger so you'll understand me when I suggest that you. 'Gang awa an' bile yer heid'
G.

---

28 Jul 06 - 08:29 AM (#1795357)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following editting comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

What it shows is that empty messages and empty threads get deleted. Some may contend that a blank message is a statement - but at Mudcat, like it or not, it gets deleted.
Your three threads were deleted by volunteer/Clones because they were simply empty messages, which the Clones have authority to delete. The men's thread had to wait for my review because it got responses before the Clones got to it - I deleted it because it was started under deceptive and manipulative premises.
Not inconsistent - it just doesn't follow YOUR predictions. The topics, while they may have been distasteful, weren't the reason for deletion - they were deleted because YOU were playing manipulative games.
-Joe Offer-

The message appears to be that there are only a certain few who are now allowed to play (what are assumed and judged by them to be) deceptive and manipulative games and to set the example of posting maliciously intended name-calling and personal attacks...........

Rather than being expected to support this hypocrisy - perhaps adult posters can now be left to decide such things for themselves? Rather than have anonymous and favoured fellow posters operating under a double standard - judging and assuming the intent and worth of posters and deciding for them?

---

28 Jul 06 - 08:33 AM (#1795362)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

You have Scottish connections Roger so you'll understand me when I suggest that you. 'Gang awa an' bile yer heid'

Are we to assume that this post of yours has malicous intentions - and will be 'silently deleted'?

No I thought not.

---

28 Jul 06 - 08:49 AM (#1795370)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Who are all the other moderators?

Their name is legion.

You may have missed the following (and various coloured) editing comments as these were inserted into an existing post and did not refresh this thread. But you can get some indication what great fun some of them appear to consider that lining-up to anonymously impose all this judgement, 'silent deltion' and all forms of censorship upon some of their fellow posters appears to be.

Some of their number may not see their role as a joke in the same manner and it would be nice to pay them credit. But as they are anonymous - they all tend to get tarred with the same brush. At the moment anyway.

Note to Clones: I'm here for the entire summer, so there's no need for you to do any editing work on this thread. I can handle it, if it's needed.
okay, joe! -clone-

dang it, you get all the fun. OK. And green is my color, whoever you are. LOL. Mudelf

[we hear and obey, oh exhalted one skinny clone]

Can I get Calomine for my itchy fingers then? Mudpiskie

---

28 Jul 06 - 08:55 AM (#1795376)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

I do like to see you kept busy Roger, we wouldn't want you to get bored, after all if you're hectoring us, you're leaving some other poor soul alone.
Giok

---

28 Jul 06 - 10:53 AM (#1795449)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I have never stated any assumptions and I challenge you to find any.

Will this assumption do for a start?

[PM] jeffp Mudcat Help&Trouble Forum? (Complaint) (90* d) RE: Mudcat Help&Trouble Forum? (Complaint) 11 May 06

I believe you're right, Spaw. Nobody can possibly be as stupid as Roger portrays himself and be able to breathe on his own. I think we've all been had by a master. To keep a joke running for this many years is a truly amazing feat.

Shambles, I salute you.

---

28 Jul 06 - 11:15 AM (#1795462)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I have never stated any assumptions and I challenge you to find any.

It wasn't too difficult to find some examples - was it? How about this one?

[PM] jeffp In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) (697* d) RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) 19 Aug 05

YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless you knew for sure the family history of whoever that (un censored) abusive personal attack was aimed - that would have certainly been an assumption also. And one that Ebbie may judge and take you to task for being a mean-spirited one?

---

28 Jul 06 - 11:19 AM (#1795464)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

now you are assuming that jeffp used "bastard" in the literal meaning - rather then the far more common usage.

---

28 Jul 06 - 11:25 AM (#1795469)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jeffp

I apologize for assuming that you are not stupid.

---

28 Jul 06 - 12:41 PM (#1795520)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

And one that Ebbie may judge and take you to task for being a mean-spirited one?

Shambles this is the second time you have had a go at Ebbie since apologising to her for showing mean-spiritedness yesterday in this thread.

Clearly your apology meant nothing.

---

28 Jul 06 - 03:33 PM (#1795630)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I have never stated any assumptions and I challenge you to find any.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologize for assuming that you are not stupid.

How about an apology for stating that you have never stated ANY assumptions and for losing your challenge?

---

28 Jul 06 - 03:48 PM (#1795651)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Ooh I'm so dizzy trying follow this circular argument.

---

28 Jul 06 - 03:59 PM (#1795657)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jeffp

No

---

28 Jul 06 - 07:45 PM (#1795829)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST, Ebbie

Shambles, I would be very surprised to think that you don't know what was mean spirited in your post. The rude things that you refer to were said directly to you; YOU brought in a third party.

I grew up in a large family. One of the things one learns early on - or should- Shambles, is that one never says the worst thing one can think of, and one fights fair. You seem to have missed that part.

---

29 Jul 06 - 05:09 AM (#1796061)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

I do like to see you kept busy Roger, we wouldn't want you to get bored, after all if you're hectoring us, you're leaving some other poor soul alone.
Giok

This is a classic.... It contains an 'I' a 'we' an 'us' and a 'you' - and just in case someone isn't spoken to or about - an unspecified 'other poor soul' is thrown in. All in an attempt to defend the posting only of an abusive personal attack and make it look as if it was undertaken in some noble and selfless cause.

And I am accused (along with every crime on the planet) of 'hectoring'?

I grew up in a large family. One of the things one learns early on - or should- Shambles, is that one never says the worst thing one can think of, and one fights fair. You seem to have missed that part.

Ebbie does your public criticsm of my 'crimes' extend to other posters? Does it extend to those who have not even been taken to task by you and have not apologised to you for their mean-spiritedness displayed in this thread? Is that what you consider to be fair?

What I consider to be fair is a return to equal treatment for all posters, for contributions to remain as posted and any form of imposed censorship be limited and always explained. Others seem determined to consider that this state of affairs would be terrible and resort to all manner of attempts to prevent any sensible discussion and debate or move from the status quo. Even though they are never happy with this and wish to impose more and more restrictions.

As for accusations that I have said the worst thing I can think of - I have certainly not done that. I have tried my best to stick to the issue. I have not judged Jon's worth at all and tried to avoid any form of personal judgement of any fellow poster and to avoid responding in kind to the judgement and isults I receive.

Ebbie - It had been pointed out in this thread what a third party's opinion of me was. As you made no comment on this, presumambly this is not judged by you to be mean-spirited? I just re-posted the same third party's judgement of Jon - which presumably Jon had already seen and later stated does not bother him.

So why does this bother you so much when the numerous other examples displayed here of mean-spritedness pass without any comment from you?

---

29 Jul 06 - 07:40 AM (#1796106)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Sorry Rog did I forget nit-picking, we are sorry, (that's from all of us BTW).
G.

---

29 Jul 06 - 01:55 PM (#1796289)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Sorry Rog did I forget nit-picking, we are sorry, (that's from all of us BTW).

I am sure that if I were to suggest that you go - 'Gang awa an' bile yer heid'    that Ebbie would judge this to be mean-spirited of me- so I won't suggest you do this.

However, when you earlier suggested it to me (as a favoured poster safe in the knowledge that yet another abusive personal attack from you would not be subject to 'silent deletion' - Ebbie (by her lack of comment) would appear to consider such a post by you, to be a suitable contribution to a discussion?

If posting mean-spiritness is judged not now to be acceptable conduct on our forum (by Ebbie at least) - perhaps such judgement should be equally applied to all posters?

---

29 Jul 06 - 02:09 PM (#1796297)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Ebbie

Gracious. Must be the mean spirit in me.

---

29 Jul 06 - 02:16 PM (#1796300)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

Shambles

you should go away

---

29 Jul 06 - 02:18 PM (#1796301)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

That's the spirit........

---

29 Jul 06 - 02:36 PM (#1796313)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Roger I tell you quite frankly that I didn't understand a word of you post of 01:55PM
Your circumlocution is a legend in some circles: now I know why!
G

---

29 Jul 06 - 03:03 PM (#1796334)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

Then let that spirit move you Shambles.... far far away from here

---

29 Jul 06 - 03:09 PM (#1796341)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

To try and move back to the threads' subject. Perhaps the following suggestion can be considered and discussed? This in an attempt to avoid any mean-spiritedness?

The following in Joe's FAQ was introduced a little late in the day - as the horse had long perviously left the stable but is probably sensible as a guide - or is is up to this point.

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community.
[Perhaps the word 'we' can be lost too and replaced with - but there are times when some action may need to be taken etc)?]

I suggest that the rest of what currently follows it can be safely lost and replaced by something like the following?

Whenever any form of action is judged necessary - this will be always be indicated and a brief explanation provided - but wherever possible, effort will always be made to avoid imposition, by an attempt to obtain prior agreement with the poster concerned (via personal messages).

Then perhaps it can be removed from the FAQ and placed in some prominent position on our forum so that ALL posters will be aware of it?

---

29 Jul 06 - 03:09 PM (#1796342)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

It is funny that the clones having at first deleted just threatening messages, then offensive ones, and then duplicate ones and then hijacking ones, finally ran out of things to delete.

To keep their fingers busy, as they couldn't go a minute without deleting something, they extended their great powers and now use them to delete NOTHING (For those of them who don't get it, a blank message is nothing).

---

Duplicate and blank messages have always been the first ones to be deleted, and the clones are not required to report those seletions. Deletion of offensive and threatening messages must be reported to Max, Jeff, or me for review. Offensive and threatening message were not really much of an issue for the first two or three years of the existence of Mudcat.
"Hijacking" and other obnoxious messages are responded to with appropriate expressions of annoyance and not usually deleted, but we reserve the right to control troublemaking of any kind. Some people seem to think that even the expression of annoyance is an unacceptable form of repression.
-Joe Offer, annoyed-

---

29 Jul 06 - 03:13 PM (#1796346)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

It's an old ploy Roger, those who don't want to follow the existing rules want to replace them with rules they CAN follow, i.e The rules according to Roger.
G.

---

29 Jul 06 - 03:32 PM (#1796354)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

"This in an attempt to avoid any mean-spiritedness?"

Your constant bullshit is the most mean-spirited thing in this thread

get fucked

---

29 Jul 06 - 03:41 PM (#1796365)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Some posters may agree that not all the so-called posting 'crimes' that currently receive the one and only maximum penalty of imposed and often anonymous 'silent deletion' or closure - are really serious enough to deserve this.

Some may think that always imposing such treatment anonymously as a first and only resort, based on assumptions - is showing mean-spiritedness and may very often prove counter-productive.

Some may think that so-called posting 'crimes' that are largely matters of taste or of a personal sense of order, should be dealt without haste - by our 'moderators' first making an effort to obtain agreement and understanding with the posters concerned about any proposed change. Or left alone.   

Some may think that that there are occasions when urgent censorship action of certain posts is the best option - but would prefer if such action was reserved ONLY for these occasions.

---

29 Jul 06 - 03:50 PM (#1796370)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

You're doing it again Roger, I don't understand your gibberish.
G..

---

30 Jul 06 - 03:19 AM (#1796666)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Duplicate and blank messages have always been the first ones to be deleted, and the clones are not required to report those seletions. Deletion of offensive and threatening messages must be reported to Max, Jeff, or me for review. Offensive and threatening message were not really much of an issue for the first two or three years of the existence of Mudcat.

I suggest this was the case because those whose would feel themselves qualified to inpose their judgement on us now - did not then themselves set the example that such things were acceptable by publicly indulging in making such posts. And set a less mean-spirited and less hypocritcal example than they currently do.

Perhaps simple duplicated or blank posts can now simply be left alone or dealt with by first contacting the poster (where this is possible)? As imposed anonymous 'silent deletion' may be judged as being a little OTT as a first and only resort?

"Hijacking" and other obnoxious messages are responded to with appropriate expressions of annoyance and not usually deleted, but we reserve the right to control troublemaking of any kind. Some people seem to think that even the expression of annoyance is an unacceptable form of repression.
-Joe Offer, annoyed-

Why should any poster be expected to be interested if the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, known members of that team or the unkown number of anonymous volunteer members of that team are annoyed about anything on our forum?

If any of these are annoyed by the conduct of their fellow posters - no one is preventing them from going eleswhere - where they will not be annoyed or can take their annoyance out on each other.

Can our forum be informed what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team defines - hijacking and obnoxious messages as? Would the following qualify?

Your constant bullshit is the most mean-spirited thing in this thread

get fucked

---

30 Jul 06 - 04:30 AM (#1796689)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

You could have said all that in just the last 4 lines Roger, why you indulge in all that verbal diarrhoea is beyond me. It just means people don't read your diatribes for fear of catching terminal boredom.
Giok

---

30 Jul 06 - 10:31 AM (#1796868)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

Well, Clinton sure did go beyond the guidelines there! Yes, indeed! He is a naughty boy!

It is my opinion, and I hope others will agree, that despite what Clinton says, Roger, you do not have to get fucked! Hope this helps.

---

30 Jul 06 - 11:44 AM (#1796940)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: catspaw49

Personally Bill, he may need fucked.....might be his whole problem. Pent up sexual urges causing his problem? Could be. I checked with Dr. Cajones at the NYCFTTS and he seems to agree. He wrote this scrip for Roger:

Rx for The Shambles

Go get yourself a partner of either sex that you might prefer and of any species you prefer and go at it til ya' "git 'r done." Then have yourself a good cry, an enema. a blowjob, perhaps a cigar, and see if ya' don't feel better. If not, repeat til you do ....... and don't return here til you clear it with Max.



Spaw

---

30 Jul 06 - 12:03 PM (#1796953)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Ebbie

When someone is restricted to airing his redundant and tedious view on one thread only how is it that I keep running into those same views on multiple threads?

I once had a brother who after having agreed to a pact of silence of a certain subject operated under the assumption that the only thing prohibited was the other person's right to respond.

---

30 Jul 06 - 12:20 PM (#1796969)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

ahem..Roger...I also, personally, absolve you of having to follow any of the prescriptions passed on by ol' Catspaw, who has been known to suggest even MORE complex behavior with even less provocation!

VERY naughty boys, 'spaw & Clinton both!

Now, as to other less....ummm....'personal' suggestions made by countless others for several years now...such as *stop complaining about the mods*....I might have a different opinion.

---

30 Jul 06 - 12:41 PM (#1796985)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jacqui.c

You're right Ebbie - the problem is spreading again!

---

30 Jul 06 - 01:40 PM (#1797020)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jacqui.c

I've been giving some thought to this subject.

It seems to me that, if a large number of Mudcatters were of the same opinion as Roger, this thread would have been inundated with their objections to the editing policy of Max's moderators. This is also the case with previous threads on the same subject.

Looking at the posters to this and to other threads of the same type it would appear that there are a minute number of people who want changes made, mostly, it appears, to allow them to ride their own hobby horses to death, or because they want to cause trouble, as in the case of the anti women/anti men threads. By default the majority of Mudcatters would seem to be quite happy with the way the site operates, as is the site owner.

---

30 Jul 06 - 06:40 PM (#1797235)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Peace

If y'all don't like Shambles POV, you are entitled to ignore it. has a right to express his thoughts, again and again and again. He is no less illuminating than some of his detractors.

---

30 Jul 06 - 06:46 PM (#1797237)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

Well said Peace.

jacqui.c says

...there are a minute number of people who want changes made...

Actually, the thing is - we DON'T want changes made. It's the folks making too many changes and deletions that have changed the face of Mudcat.

---

30 Jul 06 - 07:25 PM (#1797268)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

By default the majority of Mudcatters would seem to be quite happy with the way the site operates, as is the site owner.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is not happy - is he? He now does as he wishes to the all posts and threads on our forum but he is still not happy. And no matter what further restrictions he will attempt to impose - I suspect he will never be happy.

No - he is annoyed.

Over the years He publicly tells us that he is annoyed by birthday threads, by copycat threads, by posters that refresh old threads, by posters who start new threads, by PELs threads, by claims for 100th posts etc etc..... The list is endless.

Should any poster be expected to care if he is annoyed? ....If he is so annoyed - why does he not finally go away and leave the rest of us in peace?

Or leave it to a 'moderator' whose wish is to enable the wishes of posters and not to express his annoyance at them when their wishes may not match?

Some people seem to think that even the expression of annoyance is an unacceptable form of repression.
-Joe Offer, annoyed-

Does the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team really think that there IS an 'acceptable' form of repression? If so, perhaps he can tell us what this is?

---

30 Jul 06 - 07:30 PM (#1797272)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: katlaughing

Bert, you know better than that! Change is inevitable especially when the number of members increases as rapidly as Mudcat has over a relatively short period of time. Shambles has been at it for over seven years. Mudcat started really changing about 3-4 years ago. A lot of the old members got fed up with the constant bullshit that was tolerated and the lack of moderation and either left or quit posting. A FEW of them have started to come back now there is more balance.

Visit any of the various boards Spaw, I, and others have posted as examples of how moderating works well for the whole community. In any of those Shambles would have been zapped, no explanations, no debates, no ifs, ands, or buts, them's the rules. So, for that matter, would have several of the rest of us when we get out of line. It works well and they still have spirited, highly charged debates.

kat

---

30 Jul 06 - 10:21 PM (#1797349)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Joe Offer

This is a typical deleted message:

Subject: RE: Review: The Dubliners - What's the big deal?
From: GUEST,Porn - PM
202.159.212.165
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 12:14 PM

Visit Porn uha site. http://porn-uha.blogspot.com - 2 Hundred GB's of fresh porn. Thanks! Best reagards, Porn!

Shambles and Bert, do you really think we need to take the time to post an explanation for these?
-Joe Offer-

---

31 Jul 06 - 02:23 AM (#1797398)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Shambles and Bert, do you really think we need to take the time to post an explanation for these?
-Joe Offer-

Why not? And even if such posts remain in place - no online poster is going to be shocked by seeing such a post are they- as we all have gotten used to ignoring them. But such clear-cut examples as you have provided to justify your view and which will no doubt be supported - are not really the sort of 'silently deleted' postings and imposed judgement and actions that really cause concern are they?

But even is such cases - with no indication given as to when and where it takes place - no poster on our forum knows what the true nature and level of censorship is. So they cannot either agree or disagree with your view from any informed position.

If there are no alternative ways of acheiving what is now judged to be required or these have failed and this imposition MUST happen - all that would be required is some indication where any form of imposed censorship action was judged to have been required and very brief indicaton of the reason.

Like the following:

Post censored - Offensive material.
Post censored - Abusive personal attack.
Thread closed - (And the reason why).

If this imposition is judged to now be required on our forum - what would be the harm in always openly indicating this? I suggest the most harm is done by those wishing to undertake it - being seen not to wish to indicate this and not providing convincing reasons as to why.

---

31 Jul 06 - 12:37 PM (#1797821)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Ebbie

Shambles, one more time: Citing someone else's opinion of someone is not playing fair. Clinton's opinion of you is warranted. In my opinion.

---

31 Jul 06 - 02:06 PM (#1797934)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Shambles, one more time: Citing someone else's opinion of someone is not playing fair. Clinton's opinion of you is warranted. In my opinion.

You really couldn't make all these multiple standards of judgement up...Ebbie how can you accuse me of not playing fair? How can you consider anything about the current censorship chaos on our forum to be fair?

So Ebbie would you judge it to be fair if I responded in kind and inflicted on our forum - what my opinion of Clinton was and used the same language to do it? Or would you judge this be me not playing fair - especially if you judged the abuse not to be warranted? Would you judge me to be showing mean-spiritedness?

Does it matter if a post containing only an abusive personal attack is judged by you to be warranted or not? As by the 'rules' - which you appear to support when applied to my posting 'crimes' - surely it must be 'silently deleted'?

And preferably quickly before you can see it, to remove the risk of you and other posters being offended by it or even have a chance to just whether you judge the abuse to be warranted or not?

Perhaps Ebbie it is you who are displaying and supporting any mean-spiritedness?

---

31 Jul 06 - 02:14 PM (#1797945)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: catspaw49

Joe, you have made a serious error!!!!

Although I am glad that Sham now sees the need for removal of some posts, the changes you made in HIS post are exactly what he is complaining about! Restore all the words whited out otherwise you are censoring HIS post.....and I'm sure he doesn't want that.

Spaw

---

31 Jul 06 - 02:19 PM (#1797949)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: SINSULL

AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHH!
People are dying in the Middle East, Ohio is flooded and families are homeless, AIDS is still decimating whole villages in Africa and you waste all this time and space on pure bullshit!
Grow the hell up!

---

31 Jul 06 - 02:21 PM (#1797952)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post (of mine, despite the fact that I have repeatedly asked than nothing be inserted into my posts without my prior permission) and did not refresh the thread.

Yes, ordinarily a message like that would be deleted, but I didn't want to provoke you into a tirade about my deleting a message concerning yourself.
Since you asked, I'd be glad to. I'm glad you now see the need for such deletions.
Clinton's message has been deleted.
-Joe Offer-

As can be seen - I have pointed out that this abusive personal attack was NOT 'silently deleted'. For the record - I have NOT asked anyone to delete these two posts or any of the other abusive personal attacks directed at me. Perhaps an apology can be provided from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for wrongly stating to our forum in his editing comment - that I did?

However I have asked for other things which are simply ignored. Amongst these requests was that when any form of censorship action is imposed some indication is always given in its place and a brief reason stated.

Perhaps this can start in this thread?

---

Apology to Shambles: Sorry for the misunderstanding. Messages from Clinton have been undeleted. Your other requests have not been ignored - they just have not been accepted.
-Joe Offer-

---

31 Jul 06 - 02:31 PM (#1797967)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

Shambles... fuck off and get a life

---

31 Jul 06 - 04:42 PM (#1798114)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

Nope, CH, he just needs to leave, as Max indicated he should.

Go away, Shambles. There is not one reason to stay except to be a dumping ground for your repetitive crap. Just leave. Find a place where people value your opinion. Those people, including the site owner, are few and far between here.

---

31 Jul 06 - 05:19 PM (#1798151)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Wesley S

Mick - If you recall - Max suggested that Clinton leave also. I don't see much difference between Clinton and Shambles anyway.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 06:30 PM

Clinton, maybe you should pack it in and move on too. Do you do this to every thread? God I'm sick of this. I can't even stand to read this thread now. Who would possibly post to this forum knowing that a endless barrage of arguments will destroy their point and force them to spend all day defending it, and every subsequent attempt at meaning. You've posted 39 times in this thread, are you really that interested in this topic or are you bored, out of work or is convoluting threads a hobby of yours?

---

31 Jul 06 - 05:28 PM (#1798166)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

"arguments will destroy their point "

If it's that easily 'destroyed', then it was not not much of a point.....

---

31 Jul 06 - 07:04 PM (#1798255)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bert

Thanks for the explanations Joe, they go a long way to help the situation.

I do agree with Shambles though, that a simple explanation would not hurt, and it would go a long way to prove the integrity of the editors and back up their cause.

Now I'm off to the Limerick game thread to see what is going on there. Care to join me everyone.

---

31 Jul 06 - 07:34 PM (#1798275)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Who would possibly post to this forum knowing that a endless barrage of arguments will destroy their point and force them to spend all day defending it, and every subsequent attempt at meaning.

I feel that even after so many years of having every suggestion made being ignored and encouraged to be mocked - I still do my best to try and post to our forum despite the above.

Well I try my best with any reasoned attempt to argue with the rather simple but vital principle I try to defend at the heart of the point here. But too many posts here tend to ignore this approach and just resort to abusive personal attacks.

Mainly because this response is now shown - by the example given by those few who feel themselves qualified to impose judgement on their fellow posters - to be an acceptable one. And that to feel accepted, on our now sadly divided forum (or rather to be seen to be on the right or the winning side)- would seem to be more important than to feel you were doing and supporting the decent thing.

The view of any poster does not not get any less valid - because others try every trick in the book (and a few that are not) to try and repress it and to try and make this repression appear somehow noble.

I am a man who remains open to persuasion - I have yet to be persuaded by any argument here that, anonymous, selective, secret and imposed judgement, division, inequality and hypocrisy are good things. Nor have I been persuaded that there is such a thing as 'acceptable' repression as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team seems to believe there is.

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Apology to Shambles: Sorry for the misunderstanding. Messages from Clinton have been undeleted. Your other requests have not been ignored - they just have not been accepted.
-Joe Offer-

---

31 Jul 06 - 07:56 PM (#1798291)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jeffp

Well I try my best with any reasoned attempt to argue with the rather simple but vital principle I try to defend at the heart of the point here.

I know I'm going to regret this, but I'll ask anyway.

Shambles, in all seriousness, can you sum up this principle and this point in fewer than 10 words each?

---

01 Aug 06 - 02:52 AM (#1798461)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Can it be explained why my request that any editing comments (especially those containing only personal opinions) are not inserted into my posts without my prior permission is ignored?

When and the time taken to do this can always be found and such action always justified even when no imposed censorship action has been imposed.

And why the simple matter - requested and supported by many posters - of always placing an editing comment to indicate where and when any form of imposed censorship action has taken place and is judged to have been required, does not find favour (at least does not appear to with those who feel themselves qualified to impose these judgements)?

---

01 Aug 06 - 03:16 AM (#1798474)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Shambles, in all seriousness, can you sum up this principle and this point in fewer than 10 words each?

I probably could make the attempt but why would I or anyone need to limit anything they may want to say here to less than 10 words or any other limit? This is not a chat room. It is a discussion forum and the little message box at the bottom will expand to accomodate all the words that any poster may feel are required, to enable them to say what they wish.

In all seriousness - if you really do not understand by now - now matter how many or how few words are used - you will never understand.

Perhaps I can ask you to provide - (in as many words as you require) - why you would consider that always placing some indication where and when any form of imposed censorship had taken place and giving a very brief reason why - would be so harmful to our forum?

Especially when against my wishes, some of our 'moderators' still insist on inserting all manner of editing comments into my posts (except of course the posts on mine that have been judged and subjected to 'silent deletion').

---

01 Aug 06 - 04:28 AM (#1798494)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: John MacKenzie

Roger the fact that this forum is divided is largely up to you, your aggressive and repeated postings FORCE people to take sides.
I say it again YOU are creating divisions on this site.
Just because Bert has taken up the cudgels on your behalf, it doesn't mean that suddenly your arguments have become acceptable to all and sundry, Bert is in the minority here, as all can see. Occasionally people will say "Don't pick on Shambles" or words to that effect, but that is just sympathy Roger not support, the natural support for the weak.
Now if you came round to my house and wrote graffitti on my wall I would erase it, and I would do so without asking your permission.
This Mudcat Cafe is Max's wall, and if he wants to erase your pitiful whinings, then he has every right to do so, him or anybody he appoints.
AND HE DOESN'T NEED TO ASK YOU OR EXPLAIN TO YOU OR ANYTHING ELSE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY HE PUTS UP WITH YOUR PUKING AND MEWLING..

Giok

---

01 Aug 06 - 05:10 AM (#1798515)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Can our forum be informed what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would now define the term 'hijacking' as?

---

01 Aug 06 - 06:51 AM (#1798557)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jeffp

So, I guess that's a "no."

---

01 Aug 06 - 10:53 AM (#1798783)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

So, I guess that's a "no."

Apology to Jeffp: Sorry for the misunderstanding. Your request has not been ignored - it has just have not been accepted.

But at least the full reasons for this have now been explained to you.

Perhaps I can ask you, or anyone to provide - in as many words as they require - why they would consider that always openly placing some indication where and when any form of imposed censorship had taken place and giving a very brief reason why - would be so harmful to our forum?

And why the alternative of selective imposed judgement and 'silent deletion' by anonymous fellow posters as a first and only resort - is not?

Why it is not now possible (or desirable) when any form of minor change is judged to be required to a contribution, for the originator to be first consulted (where this is possible) and agreement reached before any form of editing action is imposed on their chosen words?

Why it it is not now possible (or desirable) for all contributors to be seen to be once again to be posting on equal terms?

---

01 Aug 06 - 11:00 AM (#1798793)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

why they would consider that always openly placing some indication where and when any form of imposed censorship had taken place and giving a very brief reason why - would be so harmful to our forum?

loaded question. I don't think anyone has ever said they thought it would be harmful to our forum. I think it is an unreasonable request to ask of unpaid staff who are doing a job requested of them by the site owner.

why the alternative of selective imposed judgement and 'silent deletion' by anonymous fellow posters as a first and only resort - is not?

again - a loaded question - since Shambles insists on the inclusion of "selective" and "imposed" - and also saying that it is a "first and only" resort.

The people who edit, delete, etc are all acting as Max's proxies - with his consent. Since he does, and furthermore has stated that he reserves the right to delete, alter, edit, etc ANY POST or thread on the site it is not an imposition - but a possibility for any posting.   ** BY POSTING ** any author of a post on this site is agreeing to those terms.

---

01 Aug 06 - 11:16 AM (#1798804)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

Can it be explained why my request that any editing comments (especially those containing only personal opinions) are not inserted into my posts without my prior permission is ignored?

Shambles, you may have missed this, even though you block-quoted it, since it does not match up to how you're trying to paint the situation.

Your other requests have not been ignored - they just have not been accepted.
-Joe Offer-

What part of that was so hard to understand?

At the risk of being repetitive, please can you also let us know what part of "You too, should bid goodbye" did you not get? I notice that you've never yet responded to that, despite the number of times people asked you to explain why you're still around, given that Max has said he doesn't want you here.

Sorry for giving into temptation, given your earlier comment that anyone who suspects a poster is only trying to get a reaction should leave them be. I sincerely believe that this is the case with you. If it isn't the case, number one priority for you should be to explain why you're still here, and still banging on the same subject, after being told "You too, should bid goodbye". As a "reasonable man", the reasonableness of being politely requested to leave by the site owner should be an overriding concern to you.

Graham.

---

01 Aug 06 - 11:17 AM (#1798805)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

and Roger....what in MMario's post is unclear to you?

You ask loaded questions of the "When will you stop beating your wife?" type. You evade the issue when someone points out that the ultimate 'answer' is that Max has empowered certain people to DO editing.

"Can it be explained why my request that any editing comments (especially those containing only personal opinions) are not inserted into my posts without my prior permission is ignored?"

....see above. NOT ignored, just not accepted. Editorial comments of that sort BELONG at the point where the editing was done. It makes sense to put the comments there, whether you approve or not!

---

01 Aug 06 - 11:26 AM (#1798818)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Clinton Hammond

"Don't pick on Shambles"

Shambles isn't worth the steam off my piss

---

01 Aug 06 - 08:34 PM (#1799385)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

Why can't people accept Joe's advise, it's good for all our sakes.
He knows what he is talking about.
D.

---

01 Aug 06 - 11:48 PM (#1799492)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: katlaughing

subjected to 'silent deletion')

If a post falls in the threads and there's no one there, is it silent?

---

02 Aug 06 - 02:41 AM (#1799546)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

No one appears to want to provide an answer to this one?

Why it it is not now possible (or desirable) for all contributors to be seen to be once again to be posting on equal terms?

---

02 Aug 06 - 08:20 AM (#1799692)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

Because MAX (the site owner, remember him?) decided he wanted some people to moderate. He doesn't wish for them to have to stop being contributing members, either.

---

02 Aug 06 - 09:10 AM (#1799723)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: catspaw49

Actually Mario, it goes beyond that. We are NOT all equal here. I mean, you and I are and thousands others as well, even the unnamed Guests. However Sham is NOT equal.

Shambolina, let me explain this so there isn't anymore confusion on your part. With your passion for renaming things (Joe Offer='current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) I think it is time for you to refer to yourself as "Non-Entity Fellow Poster." You post here but you are a non-entity deserving diddly-squat, and you get plenty of diddly-squat so consider yourself lucky. You are qa non-entity because Max in very clear terms asked you to go. You stayed but you are now definitely a non-entity and not equal to your fellow posters.

Simple isn't it? Non-Entity Fellow Poster, I hope that you understand. If you don't it doesn't matter.

Spaw

---

02 Aug 06 - 09:44 AM (#1799742)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

You beat me two it, Spaw. Things aren't equal here, or anywhere. Moderators have certain privileges granted to them by Max, in exchange they try to keep things running smooth. Some folks, like this person Shambles, have made themselves less equal by squandering their reputation with inane cut and pastes, taking quotes out of context, and trolling for attention at the expense of others.

I believe he should accept the invitation of the founder/owner of this site and leave.

---

02 Aug 06 - 12:05 PM (#1799846)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

What he SHOULD do is go back to posting on music and the occasional funny thread and stop questioning the administrative policies and practices.....but he has painted himself into a psychological corner and can't comprehend how 97.83615% of all opinions can disagree with his paranoid nonsense.

He can't even figure out HOW to go away, as this campaign fills such a big part of his life, and he'd have to ummmmmm..write more letters to his MP on pub singing...or something.

Don Quixote at least had Sancho Panza to lead him away when the windmills got too frustrating.

---

03 Aug 06 - 02:49 AM (#1800293)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Yes of course they were loaded questions - but it is now a rather loaded situation.

Are there any more posters who would care to provide answers to them.

I remain unconvinced by those few provided so far.

---

03 Aug 06 - 03:56 AM (#1800319)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: catspaw49

Perhaps Non-Entity Fellow Poster, they are waiting for YOU to provide the answer as to WHY YOU ARE STILL HERE after being asked in plain terms by Max to leave. Go ahead......let's hear it!

Spaw

---

03 Aug 06 - 05:01 AM (#1800349)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Perhaps Non-Entity Fellow Poster, they are waiting for YOU to provide the answer as to WHY YOU ARE STILL HERE after being asked in plain terms by Max to leave. Go ahead......let's hear it!

I judge that may be the subject for another thread and not for this one. Although why you think the answer of this Non-Entity Fellow Poster - would be of any interest, is not clear. But this is only the latest of the names you feel you have some right to call me. It is at least less scatological than the usual names.

However, as I am limited to this one thread on 'deleted posts and closed theads' - perhaps you could start a new thread with your question clearly indicated in the title - and I may just answer it for you there.

Are there any more posters who would care to provide answers to my questions or discuss the merits of the few answers that have been provided to them here?

---

04 Aug 06 - 07:11 AM (#1801288)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Is that it?

I still remain unconvinced - by what some posters may judge to be the few rather mean-spirited answers provided so far.

Perhaps other posters reading this are unconvinced too?

---

04 Aug 06 - 07:15 AM (#1801292)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jacqui.c

Maybe they just aren't interested at all.

---

04 Aug 06 - 07:41 AM (#1801299)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Well if that IS all - I will make a start of replying to these.

I don't think anyone has ever said they thought it would be harmful to our forum.
MMario

Yes they have.

I'm sorry, Bert, but that's not going to happen. If we have to report and defend and debate deletions, it would only exacerbate the trouble caused by problem posts.
Joe Offer

MMario - your answer was: - I think it is an unreasonable request to ask of unpaid staff who are doing a job requested of them by the site owner.

I (and others) obviously do not see that this it is an unreasonable request to make at all, and have stated their reasons.

Should the main consideration of our forum really now be - what is judged (by a few) to be what is most convenient to them? Some - mostly those who feel themselves qualified to act as judge in that role - would now appear to think this to be the most important consideration....... So I will ask again - not if you think accepting this suggestion is convenient to you in your role - but what 'harm' it would do to our forum?

Perhaps I can ask you, or anyone to provide - in as many words as they require - why they would consider that always openly placing some indication where and when any form of imposed censorship had taken place and giving a very brief reason why - would be so harmful to our forum?

---

04 Aug 06 - 07:47 AM (#1801301)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: manitas_at_work

Because people would argue against the decision.

---

04 Aug 06 - 09:23 AM (#1801374)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

It doesn't HAVE to be 'harmful' to be a bad idea.

---

04 Aug 06 - 09:36 AM (#1801386)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

I (and others) obviously do not see that this it is an unreasonable request to make at all, and have stated their reasons.

And two years ago, those reasons were assessed by the people who would be doing the work. They decided then that your reasons were not compelling, so they said no and gave you their reasons. That was two years ago. You haven't changed your reasons since then, or provided one piece of new evidence. Why should they then have changed their opinion?

what 'harm' it would do to our forum?

"Harm" - none. "Good" - also none. You think different, but (as you've probably noticed) you've been unable to persuade the people who would have to increase the amount of their own time that they'd spend doing this. Since it's *their* assessment of how long *they* would be spending on it that counts, your opinion is irrelevant.

And your clear implication from that last post is that if it doesn't actively harm the forum then it should be compulsory. Now you could request that the moderators jump up and down on one leg and sing "Clementine" before they delete a post. It wouldn't harm the forum for them to do that, but they're pretty unlikely to do it.

As for "qualification", my only "qualification" is believing that they're doing this because they think it benefits the forum and doing it as lightly as possible (quote for that), as opposed to your assessment that the only purpose in doing it is either to play mind games with Mudcat posters (quote for that) or to conduct campaigns of victimisation against people they don't like (quote for that).

Graham.

---

04 Aug 06 - 09:42 AM (#1801392)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

excellent summation, Graham...

You would do well to read his post several times, Roger....

---

04 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM (#1801500)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Because people would argue against the decision.

Should not they be seen to still be able to do this?

And why would be seen to be harmful or 'exacerbate the trouble caused'?

Possibly they may have a point?

Possibly they may only wish to argue with its silent imposition?

Possibly if our forum could see where all forms of imposed censorship had taken place - posters would be in an informed position to judge if its current nature and level and the being price paid for this ' was really necessary?

Possibly some mutual agreement could have been reached prior to any impostion being judged as necessary?

---

04 Aug 06 - 12:16 PM (#1801504)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

Thanks Bill. I don't think it's that good, to be honest - I could almost be done by Joe for repetition, because it's the same reasoning I've been waving at Shambles for ages. He's yet to respond to it, though.

Oh sorry, missed a bit.

"Harm" - none. "Good" - also none. You think different, but (as you've probably noticed) you've been unable to persuade the people who would have to increase the amount of their own time that they'd spend doing this. Since it's *their* assessment of how long *they* would be spending on it that counts, your opinion is irrelevant.

From that, the natural conclusion comes. You've asked the people running the place to do things differently, and given your reasons. They've checked your reasons, decided that they don't agree with you, and given you a bunch of reasons why they don't agree with you. When you've disputed those reasons, they've civilly responded to you, but you haven't found a compelling reason to make them change their minds. This leaves three options open to you: either you can accept that your idea was rejected, and live with the forum in its present form; or you can appeal to higher authorities; or you can leave the forum and find somewhere more suitable for your tastes. You took number two, and your request was again turned down, firstly by Jeff and then by Max. That leaves you with only two honourable choices: stay and live with it, or go.

Graham.

---

04 Aug 06 - 12:25 PM (#1801514)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: catspaw49

And once again, Max has already requested that he goes!   Non-Entity refuses to give a reason he remains after being asked to go by the site owner.

Anyone see any compelling reason to continue responding?

Spaw

---

04 Aug 06 - 12:33 PM (#1801525)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

As for "qualification", my only "qualification" is believing that they're doing this because they think it benefits the forum and doing it as lightly as possible.

In my view the qualification required for any 'moderator' is for all of their imposed censorship judgement to be seen to be undertaken as a last resort and never show any cause for suspicion of it being selective and personally motivated.

Where there was any doubt - the moderator should fall back to just being an ordinary poster.

For example - Graham - you have avoided comment so far but would you judge the closure of the Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 thread - to be an action without any question of personal bias? And even if you would - would you be surprised if other posters did not?

Would you expect any poster to feel that any form of imposed censorship of their contribution was without this personal bias - when the moderator concerned was themselves setting the example of posting abusive personal attacks and calling this poster offensive names?

---

04 Aug 06 - 12:47 PM (#1801536)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

Spaw .... go rest. Your abnormal activity is clouding your thinking. Telling these folks not to respond does no good.

Shambles ..... leave. The owner has spoken, as you invited him to. When he did, he said you should go. I concur.

Mick

---

04 Aug 06 - 02:05 PM (#1801591)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: BS: Don't read guest posts
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 01:46 PM

Copy of deleted one-message thread that skipy started:
Subject: BS: The passion of Martin Gibson
From: skipy - PM
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 05:15 PM

light blue touch paper and retire.
Skipy

We delete all "Martin Gibson" threads. They cause too damn much trouble.
-Joe Offer-

---

04 Aug 06 - 03:40 PM (#1801678)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Manitas_at_home

"Should not they be seen to still be able to do this?"

Some of them (well, at least one) do anyway, so no-one is being prevented from complaining. But most people wouldn't notice so it saves the moderators work and dampens the tendency of the discussion to turn to censorship. But the most pertinant reason of all is that Max wants it that way.

---

04 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM (#1801873)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Some of them (well, at least one) do anyway, so no-one is being prevented from complaining.

The only way you may think this to be the case - is because you are currently allowed to see (some of) these views. But perhaps you would accept that there is currently a determined attempt by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to try to selectively limit these views?

Is that not just as worrying? For how would you know when the point was reached where everyone was being prevented from posting these views? Or that this imposed censorship action was not just personally motivated?

But the most pertinant reason of all is that Max wants it that way.

Would it be pertinant and is it fact true? Perhaps Max is happy to think that posters want it that way? ..........Do they?

---

04 Aug 06 - 08:41 PM (#1801902)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Jeri

Roger, I think you shifted your attacks to Max, and I think it's likely not going to end well for you. I supposed though, that what you want to do is force him to ban you. Shame that being obnoxious is that important to you.

---

05 Aug 06 - 02:41 AM (#1801978)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

The people who edit, delete, etc are all acting as Max's proxies - with his consent. Since he does, and furthermore has stated that he reserves the right to delete, alter, edit, etc ANY POST or thread on the site it is not an imposition - but a possibility for any posting.   ** BY POSTING ** any author of a post on this site is agreeing to those terms.

The Mudcat Cafe - reserving the right to do these things is of course very sensible but it is not the same thing as anonymous fellow posters doing this as what certainly and often would appear to be a rushed, first and only resort. Would you accept that imposed judgement and 'silent deletion' by anonymous fellow posters remains a big deal to the victim - even if (some of) the perpetrators appear to take it lightly as if it were some kind of game?

It is imposition when any form of censorship action is imposed without the poster's prior knowledge and possibly against their wishes - especially when the same result may be achieved by less drastic and more open and proportionate forms of action.

But no matter how sensible the principle may be - to claim that posters have ever agreed to these terms or even been asked to - is really questionable. Most of us would have taken such a thing as read anyway - without any need for it to be spelled-out.

Before you can contribute on many sites you do have to agree to the terms. One of the good things about our forum is that posters do NOTt have to do this (yet). And perhaps you will accept that we have not - in any formal sense agreed to these terms - have we?

MMario when you and I started posting here - they certainly was no set of terms like this - were there? And there was not this - 'The Mudcat reserves the right' etc. Perhaps you would agree that the introduction of this (and the further measures now detailed there in the FAQ - was bolting the door after many horses had already bolted?

---

05 Aug 06 - 03:01 AM (#1801982)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Manitas_at_home

" But perhaps you would accept that there is currently a determined attempt by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to try to selectively limit these views? "

I certainly would not!

"Would it be pertinant and is it fact true? Perhaps Max is happy to think that posters want it that way? ..........Do they? "

He has stated as much. If most posters weren't happy to accept that then you would have a lot more support.

---

05 Aug 06 - 02:47 PM (#1802235)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Raedwulf

Roger, you are a tedious mono-maniacal bore. I drop into Mudcat very rarely these days. I saw this title. Hard on the heels (& you'd want a sprinter's stop-watch to split them) of my first thought("Shambles will be on this thread") came the second - "Shambles started this thread".

Lo & behold...

Tired old drum, tired old drummer, no-one wants to listen...

---

05 Aug 06 - 09:11 PM (#1802434)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Alba

Good to see ye Raedwulf!

Yes this weary topic and this thread's starter are beyond tedious.
In fact reading this person's rambles often makes me imagine being forced to listen to piped Muzak while stuck in a Lift/Elevator indefinitely with no rescue in sight .
Good people could be driven to do bad things under such circumstances.. twisted smile

Anyway, as I said previously, good to see you and Blessed Be Raedwulf
Jude

---

06 Aug 06 - 04:42 AM (#1802568)
Subject: RE: Fiddle playing and surgery
From: GUEST,HarryO

General Sir Mike Jackson British Army has just spent 12,000 pounds on a face lift. Things are bad when even our soldiers become vain.

---

06 Aug 06 - 11:54 AM (#1802725)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Shambles, please try to remember that this is a thread about the Licensing Act. I can't allow you to hijack threads on other subjects and use them for your campaign against "Mudcat censorship." You'll find your messages, intact, in the thread titled Is closing threads censorship. If you really feel a need to discuss new aspects of the subject of censorship, you may start a new thread - but you may have only one thread active at a time on the subject, and it will be in the "BS" section. If it is littered with copy-pastes from other threads, it will most probably be closed.
I repeat, this particular thread is about the Licensing Act. If anyone posts comments about Mudcat administration here, those messages will be moved to the "closing threads" thread.
-Joe Offer-

" But perhaps you would accept that there is currently a determined attempt by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to try to selectively limit these views? "

I certainly would not!

Paul - as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, in the above editing comment - first inserted in the long-running thread that he closed - is making no secret of this attempt and special treatment - perhaps you may wish to reconsider?

I am not asking you to agree with these attempts or not - just to accept the fact that they are being made.......

---

06 Aug 06 - 01:30 PM (#1802765)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

mudcatters blame liberals, BNP'ers, trolls, the lot, to explain why mudcat has regressed into a gutter for fighting and abuse.

But the truth is, there has been a huge reduction in liberal fighting, (except for usual discussion) BNP'ers (can't remember the last time?) and trolls (they have reduced you cant deny) and yet the fighting continues unabated.

When will people learn nobody is to blame but us.

---

06 Aug 06 - 04:52 PM (#1802908)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

In my view the qualification required for any 'moderator'...

If that was aimed at me, you misunderstand - I'm not a moderator at all. I'm just your average bod, with no more rights than you had *before* you started mass-mailing across unrelated threads.

But perhaps you would accept that there is currently a determined attempt by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to try to selectively limit these views?

And perhaps we wouldn't.

Your "right" (however much of one you have) to express your views has not been affected. All that Joe has said (and he's said it many times) is that expression of the same view simultaneously in more than one thread is redundant and so will be merged/deleted.

just to accept the fact that they are being made.......

See, that's the thing. Certainly it's a fact that you're under restrictions. But the reason - well, let's see. Have you, or have you not, carried out mass off-topic postings and copy-paste postings? Were you, or were you not, been told not to do it, under penalty of sanctions taken against you? Did you, or did you not, continue to do it after warnings?

And given that there is ample evidence that the answer to all three of these is "yes you did", why do you now complain about sanctions being taken against you?

Posts from back in 2004 show that Joe was perfectly civil to you. Back in 2004, he had no problems with you at all. Two years later, after causing him untold hassle and wasted time, are you surprised that he doesn't like you? But even so, he's said explicitly that you're allowed to post what you like. You're just limited to how many threads you can do it on. Does this sound like the actions of someone dishing out arbitrary punishments?

but would you judge the closure of the Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 thread

There's a thread by that name which is *not* closed - still very much active, and you posted to it today. Searching back three years, there is no other thread with the same name. Has an old one been renamed? Or was it reopened after having been closed in error? I asked this earlier, and you never answered.

Graham.

---

06 Aug 06 - 06:26 PM (#1802970)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

It doesn't HAVE to be 'harmful' to be a bad idea.

Perhaps - something that does not do any harm - could be the very thing that defines it as a good idea?

---

06 Aug 06 - 07:12 PM (#1803010)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: jeffp

Perhaps not

---

06 Aug 06 - 07:13 PM (#1803011)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

"Can it be explained why my request that any editing comments (especially those containing only personal opinions) are not inserted into my posts without my prior permission is ignored?"

....see above. NOT ignored, just not accepted. Editorial comments of that sort BELONG at the point where the editing was done. It makes sense to put the comments there, whether you approve or not!
Bill D

Do you judge that editing comments of that sort are required, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts? If censorship must take place - why do you consider that does not then make sense to place all editing comments where they belong?

This where any form of imposed action has be judged to be required and to enable all poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and level of censorship on our forum.

Why do you consider one to be good idea and the other to be bad one?

I have little objection to editing comments of explanation being inserted into my posts. What I have objected to are personal views and judgements being inserted into my posts - under cover of this and not refreshing the thread. When if these need to be posted - they should be contained in conventional posts and refresh the thread - like the posts of every ordinary poster.

---

06 Aug 06 - 07:46 PM (#1803042)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

See how he does this boys and girls? This morning he noticed that no one was paying attention, so he throws out a piece of bait. Shambles gets nervous when people start to ignore him. I have seen him post two and three times to entice folks into the same old, same old, tired argument.

Shambles, for months you asked Max to respond to you. When he did, you didn't listen. He asked you to leave. Please do so.

---

07 Aug 06 - 06:05 AM (#1803296)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: manitas_at_work

"Paul - as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, in the above editing comment - first inserted in the long-running thread that he closed - is making no secret of this attempt and special treatment - perhaps you may wish to reconsider?"

No.

---

07 Aug 06 - 08:07 AM (#1803354)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

Do you judge that editing comments of that sort are required, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts?

As per my comments on another thread - no. If I've started a thread and it gets renamed by Joe/Jeff/anyone else, fine. If I disagree, I'll PM Joe and ask. If I get the answer back that it was for reason XYZ and Joe thinks it's in the best interests of the forum that it keeps this new name, that's as far as it goes - I may disagree, but I accept that it's his call. This is called "working within a moderated forum" and it's what everyone else on the Internet manages to do. Why is it so hard for you?

I notice that you haven't answered a single question from my previous post, all of which are relevant to opinions you've expressed. One might almost say that you're ignoring me. Is it anything personal that I should feel offended by and start a campaign against you about...?

Graham.

---

07 Aug 06 - 10:48 AM (#1803481)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

I think it's sort of a backhanded honor to be ignored by Shambles.

---

07 Aug 06 - 11:24 AM (#1803511)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

"Paul - as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, in the above editing comment - first inserted in the long-running thread that he closed - is making no secret of this attempt and special treatment - perhaps you may wish to reconsider?"

No.

Well the answer may may little logical sense given the circumstances and be flying in the face of the facts, but I can respect that it is the answer you have provided. You have not ignored my question - just made it clear that you have not accepted it.

Unlike Bill D - who has just ignored the following questions.

Do you judge that editing comments of that sort are required, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts? If censorship must take place - why do you consider that does not then make sense to place all editing comments where they belong?

This where any form of imposed action has be judged to be required and to enable all poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and level of censorship on our forum.

Why do you consider one to be good idea and the other to be bad one?

---

07 Aug 06 - 11:30 AM (#1803512)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: manitas_at_work

"Well the answer may may little logical sense given the circumstances and be flying in the face of the facts, but I can respect that it is the answer you have provided. You have not ignored my question - just made it clear that you have not accepted it. "

I accepted the question but not your premise. My answer is more logical than your first sentence above though. I just don't accept that the facts are as you imply.

---

07 Aug 06 - 07:37 PM (#1803969)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

And your clear implication from that last post is that if it doesn't actively harm the forum then it should be compulsory. Now you could request that the moderators jump up and down on one leg and sing "Clementine" before they delete a post. It wouldn't harm the forum for them to do that, but they're pretty unlikely to do it.

I was under the impression that our forum is here for the benefit of its posters.

I see that it is now appears to be accepted that our forum is here for the benefit of its 'moderators'.

Any 'moderator' who would consider that always indicating where and why any form of censorship action was undertaken - would be placing an unrealistic burden upon them - does not have to continue being a 'moderator' - do they?

The problem I have always had is that our known and our anonymous 'moderators' haved not considered that inserting many forms of editing comments and personal attacks all over my posts - to be any form of burden to them at all.....It often appears that they are fighting amongst themselves to do it.

---

08 Aug 06 - 02:18 AM (#1804149)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Manitas_at_home

Any poster who does not agree with the way the place is being run does not have to continue being a poster.

---

08 Aug 06 - 05:46 AM (#1804219)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Any poster who does not agree with the way the place is being run does not have to continue being a poster.

Does that also apply to those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters but who are still constantly complaining that they cannot impose the peace they require? And who propose to futher change our forum into member's only posting?

What hope is there when those who you would consider are now running it - admit their failure, do not like what they have created but show no sign of changing this failed approach - or of leaving?   

This 'like or lump it' approach is not one that would have attracted me to posting on our forum - it is an intolerant, mean-sprited and fairly recent approach. Had I just arrived - it would be a case of 'lumping it'.

But I an not a recent arrival - I know that there is a better way and as long as I remain a poster here - I will do what I can to see if we can return to this.

---

08 Aug 06 - 06:58 AM (#1804249)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: manitas_at_work

"But I an not a recent arrival - I know that there is a better way and as long as I remain a poster here - I will do what I can to see if we can return to this. "

You don't know there is a better way, you just think it. Max thinks the best way is to let Joe and clones moderate the forum. Whose opinion carries more weight?

---

08 Aug 06 - 07:02 AM (#1804252)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Grab

I see that it is now appears to be accepted that our forum is here for the benefit of its 'moderators'.

When did I say that?

In case it wasn't clear, the moderators are here for the good of the forum. The requirement for moderation has been set by Max, a long long time ago. If you believe the forum needs to be unmoderated, you'll have to convince him first. If you believe the site owner is wrong and you're not prepared to live with the conditions he imposes on the site, feel free to leave.

If Max decided that documenting changes was required, the moderators would have to decide whether they wanted to stay as moderators (with the extra time that would take), or whether they wished to give up being moderators. Fine. But until Max (or Joe or Jeff, as the people who run day-to-day stuff) decides that this is required, it is not compulsory on the moderators to do this. You can request it, but if they disagree then you have no standing to insist on it.

But I am not a recent arrival

As a matter of fact, in a rather crucial way you are. You were on the site ages back, yes, but you left (voluntarily) several years ago due to similar disagreements. You then returned to the site some time later. At that point, things were exactly as they are now. It was absolutely your choice to return to the Mudcat, knowing full well what the conditions were.

Graham.

---

08 Aug 06 - 09:32 AM (#1804331)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST,Jon

But I an not a recent arrival - I know that there is a better way and as long as I remain a poster here - I will do what I can to see if we can return to this.

The Mudcat method has always been to react (and at times a little too late) rather than anticipate in its approach to providing "moderation tools", its forum policy, etc. Changes have been introduced as shortcomings in your "better way" emerged. A Mudcat system like the help formum which worked in 1997 would fail dismaly with Mudcat in 2006.

Also, some changes have been around a lot longer than you suggest. I think you will find Joe Offer was able to delete posts in 1998. So that need emerged very early on.

---

08 Aug 06 - 09:59 AM (#1804352)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: artbrooks

"Any poster who does not agree with the way the place is being run does not have to continue being a poster.

Does that also apply to those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters but who are still constantly complaining that they cannot impose the peace they require? And who propose to futher [sic] change our forum into member's only posting?"

Is The Shambles not a member? The absence of "GUEST" before his name appears to indicate that he is. So, any change as described won't affect him one bit, right? So this is all rhetorical BS, right?

---

08 Aug 06 - 10:05 AM (#1804360)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

I know that there is a better way and as long as I remain a poster here - I will do what I can to see if we can return to this.

Intersting comment from someone who claims to have no desire to tell Max how to run Max's site.

---

08 Aug 06 - 11:07 AM (#1804404)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Also, some changes have been around a lot longer than you suggest. I think you will find Joe Offer was able to delete posts in 1998. So that need emerged very early on.

It was always possible for Max to do this also. It was never a course of action that was used widely or as a first and only resort as if this were the answer to every small problem - as it would appear to be now.

Intersting comment from someone who claims to have no desire to tell Max how to run Max's site.

You know that following Max's public comments over the years - that I consider that there is a difference between Max's site - which is a matter for him - and our forum - which he has stated is a matter for us.

A point even recognised by The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team when attempting to justify his latest personally motivated posting restrictions on me - by stating in this thread - that it is not because he wishes it, or Max wishes it - but because Mudcatters wish it.   

So it is obvious that Max (and even in this case, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) expects posters to decide the shape of their forum..........

---

08 Aug 06 - 11:15 AM (#1804416)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

well now! Max will be facsinated to discover that 'our' forum is not subject to the rules of 'his' site!

You have really stretched the bounds of reason for this one, Roger! Just what might Max have authority over? The color of the script at the top?

---

08 Aug 06 - 11:26 AM (#1804427)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Bill D - Is there any chance of you answering the following?


Do you judge that editing comments of that sort are required, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts? If censorship must take place - why do you consider that does not then make sense to place all editing comments where they belong?

This where any form of imposed action has be judged to be required and to enable all poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and level of censorship on our forum.

Why do you consider one to be good idea and the other to be bad one?

---

08 Aug 06 - 12:05 PM (#1804467)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

I can barely figure out from your convoluted phrasing even what the question IS! You constantly set up questions so that ANY answer just leads to more questions. I have noted before that your questions are loaded like the infamous "When will you stop beating your wife?"

The only answer possible is that editors who are empowered to BE editors *MAY* edit in the manner of their choosing! They *MAY* place comments where they wish. It is not up to me to decide. Nor is it up to YOU!

People have tried to reply to you rationally....they have tried pleading....they have tried humor....they have tried ridicule....they have tried insults....and they have even tried ignoring. Nothing works, as you simply twist any reply into impossible shapes to give you another way to distort the issue and rephrase the problem....which is ONLY a problem to you!

I am a damned fool for even answering you at all! You sound like a Turing Test gone horribly wrong, and I feel like I am debating this with a poorly designed computer program!

I'll stop beating my wife when you stop complaining about Mudcat policies!

---

08 Aug 06 - 12:17 PM (#1804479)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

"I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    William Shakespeare

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:07 PM (#1804533)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

If no indication is to be provided - where any form of imposed action has been judged to be required - how can any poster make an informed judgement whether the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum is proportionate?

Is it fair that posters should they be asked or expected to support it and our 'moderators' - without any indication of its true nature and current level?

Is it fair to be expected to blindly trust our 'moderators' in this - when they do not trust posters enough to inform them of who they are?

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:09 PM (#1804536)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

since Max reserves the right to modify edit etc any post to the forum, and the moderators act as Max's proxies; there is no need for any poster to make ANY sort of judgement about censorship on the forum. There is no censorship. There is merely the site owner exercising his rights. period.

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM (#1804537)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

I am a Moderator. Please leave.

Max is the owner. He has asked you to leave. Please do so.

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:11 PM (#1804541)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

BTW - they are not "our" moderators. they are Max's. any and all powers they have on this site are derived from and granted by Max. Not by "fellow posters", not by consensus, not be anything except the grace of Max.

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:12 PM (#1804542)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: catspaw49

Ya' know I think Shambolina is getting worse mentally. His posts are becoming more convoluted and I didn't think that was possible.....

Spaw

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:26 PM (#1804556)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

You men are all idiots! You don't seem to be smart enough to do anything else but conduct these inane arguments. Why not do something constructive, like help your wives? Oh, and the nancy boys can go knit something.

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:41 PM (#1804571)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: catspaw49

This morning I did two loads of wash, folded, hung, and put away. I cooked breakfast, did the dishes, made a quick run to Kroger's, and wiped down the leather interior in Karen's car.

Try not to be such a female chauvinist Guest.

Spaw

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:43 PM (#1804574)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: GUEST

Big deal. I do all that AND work a full time job. I'm not impressed and calling me a female chauvinist is just an obfuscation.

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:49 PM (#1804577)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Big Mick

You and I know who GUEST is from way back, Spaw. She has been this way forever, especially if anyone is critical of her posts.

I cook, help my wife, she helps me, I hunt, love good conversation, play love songs and rebel songs, do laundry, spend much time with the kids ..... a professional such as this person purports herself to be, would not make such assertions. They are done in a gratuitous fashion and don't do credit to a pro.

Roger, for years, has abused this forum. He sets himself up to be a martyr. He baits folks, then cries when they respond. A real pro in mental health would see that. I have simply had enough. Anyone who has read my posts would know that I have spent a lifetime advocating on behalf of the underdog. Most of what I sing about deals with folks facing adversity. Rog is not an underdog. He is just another bully who covers it up with a different demeanor. He sets up predicates that he can attack no matter how one answers. There is no interest in decent discourse, only in feeding his need to be a martyr. There was a time where I tried to understand him. But the day came when I realized I cared about this more than he did.

Please leave.

Mick

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:50 PM (#1804579)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

well, we men, being idiots, often resort to obfuscations....unlike women, who are always clear, helpful and organized.

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM (#1804581)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

not to mention being willing to stand behind their words with an identity!

---

08 Aug 06 - 01:56 PM (#1804587)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Bill D

*pay no attention the the woman behind that curtain!*

---

08 Aug 06 - 02:53 PM (#1804634)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

not to mention being willing to stand behind their words with an identity!

MMario - as a supporter of anonymous 'moderators' are you serious?

---

08 Aug 06 - 02:56 PM (#1804636)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: MMario

come off it shambles - MAX knows who his moderators are - and he is the only one who needs to know. Besides - anyone with half a brain can pretty well tell you who has an edit button.

---

08 Aug 06 - 03:14 PM (#1804646)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

come off it shambles - MAX knows who his moderators are - and he is the only one who needs to know. Besides - anyone with half a brain can pretty well tell you who has an edit button.

Good idea - I'll ask Catspaw.............

---

08 Aug 06 - 04:04 PM (#1804676)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

"Why not do something constructive, like help your wives? Oh, and the nancy boys can go knit something."

I loaded dishes in the dishwasher today,and even set on! ... as per knitting, way too complicated for me.

sIx

---

08 Aug 06 - 04:20 PM (#1804683)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: number 6

... I should add of course ... I did add the detergent.

---

08 Aug 06 - 05:48 PM (#1804730)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: Dave the Gnome

It's wonderful what you can learn from Stephen Fry. Be astounded yourselves and see that there is a word for it. Look up Battology

:D (tG)

---

08 Aug 06 - 06:56 PM (#1804784)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: The Shambles

Is The Shambles not a member? The absence of "GUEST" before his name appears to indicate that he is. So, any change as described won't affect him one bit, right? So this is all rhetorical BS, right?

Had our forum been exclusive rather that inclusive all those years ago - I would have had no interest in being a contributor. Whilst our forum struggles with the down side of remaining open for the public's contributions - and at the same time receives the benefits of this - and Max does not feel forced into finding some justification to exclude me - I will still be interested in being a contributor.

When - our forum becomes limited to members only posting - Max will not have to exclude me - as I would have no interest in contributing on this basis.

I think it is a dishonest cop-out to now lobby for our forum to be restricted and changed into a private members only club. There are many ordinary sites for those who wish to pick and choose only like-minded fellow posters. Those who like such things are welcome to them.

---

08 Aug 06 - 07:11 PM (#1804804)
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
From: catspaw49

LMAO......." and Max does not feel forced into finding some justification to exclude me - I will still be interested in being a contributor."

He owns the site and asked you to leave......shouldn't be anymore justification needed. But I gues you're just "special" aren't you Roger?.....LOL........

You really ARE mental Dude!

Spa

---

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-

---