mudcat.org: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Censorship on Mudcat

Georgiansilver 30 Jan 05 - 05:27 PM
John MacKenzie 30 Jan 05 - 05:30 PM
Georgiansilver 30 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM
The Shambles 30 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM
Bill D 30 Jan 05 - 06:32 PM
Georgiansilver 30 Jan 05 - 06:44 PM
GUEST,.gargoyle 30 Jan 05 - 11:04 PM
Joe Offer 31 Jan 05 - 12:32 AM
Peace 31 Jan 05 - 01:29 AM
Joe Offer 31 Jan 05 - 02:42 AM
The Shambles 31 Jan 05 - 03:12 AM
Joe Offer 31 Jan 05 - 03:19 AM
Joe Offer 31 Jan 05 - 03:20 AM
Billy Suggers 31 Jan 05 - 04:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 31 Jan 05 - 05:40 AM
Amos 31 Jan 05 - 06:07 AM
GUEST 31 Jan 05 - 06:36 AM
The Shambles 31 Jan 05 - 10:17 AM
John MacKenzie 31 Jan 05 - 11:08 AM
SINSULL 31 Jan 05 - 04:47 PM
Clinton Hammond 31 Jan 05 - 04:59 PM
Peace 31 Jan 05 - 05:06 PM
Donuel 31 Jan 05 - 06:39 PM
Jim Tailor 31 Jan 05 - 06:48 PM
Richard Bridge 31 Jan 05 - 07:05 PM
Once Famous 31 Jan 05 - 09:16 PM
Clinton Hammond 31 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM
John MacKenzie 01 Feb 05 - 05:00 AM
Once Famous 01 Feb 05 - 10:26 PM
GUEST 02 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM
GUEST,Amos 02 Feb 05 - 12:29 PM
The Fooles Troupe 03 Feb 05 - 01:10 AM
Peace 03 Feb 05 - 04:34 AM
Gurney 04 Feb 05 - 04:42 AM
Amos 04 Feb 05 - 07:09 AM
GUEST 04 Feb 05 - 07:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 05 Feb 05 - 06:45 AM
Clinton Hammond 05 Feb 05 - 12:35 PM
Once Famous 05 Feb 05 - 01:09 PM
Clinton Hammond 05 Feb 05 - 01:26 PM
Bert 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM
GUEST,mystified 06 Feb 05 - 10:48 AM
GUEST 06 Feb 05 - 10:56 AM
wysiwyg 06 Feb 05 - 10:59 AM
GUEST 06 Feb 05 - 11:08 AM
Clinton Hammond 06 Feb 05 - 03:13 PM
Teresa 06 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM
Clinton Hammond 06 Feb 05 - 04:08 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM
Big Mick 06 Feb 05 - 04:16 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Feb 05 - 04:37 PM
Big Mick 06 Feb 05 - 05:00 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Feb 05 - 02:03 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Feb 05 - 02:15 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Feb 05 - 02:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 07 Feb 05 - 05:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Feb 05 - 02:20 AM
The Shambles 15 Feb 05 - 06:09 PM
Clinton Hammond 15 Feb 05 - 11:39 PM
GUEST 16 Feb 05 - 11:47 AM
GUEST,MMario 16 Feb 05 - 11:59 AM
George Papavgeris 16 Feb 05 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Feb 05 - 02:59 PM
The Shambles 18 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM
Peace 18 Feb 05 - 07:02 PM
Blissfully Ignorant 19 Feb 05 - 08:34 AM
The Shambles 24 Feb 05 - 06:43 AM
The Shambles 24 Feb 05 - 06:49 AM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Feb 05 - 06:59 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Feb 05 - 07:07 AM
Joe Offer 24 Feb 05 - 02:51 PM
Raedwulf 24 Feb 05 - 04:24 PM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Feb 05 - 07:39 PM
Pauline L 24 Feb 05 - 09:15 PM
Noreen 25 Feb 05 - 05:34 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 25 Feb 05 - 07:34 AM
GUEST,Jon 25 Feb 05 - 09:08 AM
The Shambles 25 Feb 05 - 12:44 PM
Peace 25 Feb 05 - 12:46 PM
Clinton Hammond 25 Feb 05 - 12:50 PM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 05 - 12:55 PM
Clinton Hammond 25 Feb 05 - 01:01 PM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 05 - 01:13 PM
Clinton Hammond 25 Feb 05 - 01:16 PM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 05 - 01:19 PM
Raedwulf 25 Feb 05 - 02:56 PM
Clinton Hammond 25 Feb 05 - 03:30 PM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 05 - 06:00 PM
Clinton Hammond 25 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 01:05 AM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 01:09 AM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 01:11 AM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 01:47 AM
RichM 26 Feb 05 - 08:40 AM
Clinton Hammond 26 Feb 05 - 11:12 AM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Feb 05 - 04:51 PM
John MacKenzie 26 Feb 05 - 05:09 PM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 05:19 PM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 05:23 PM
Jeri 26 Feb 05 - 05:25 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Feb 05 - 06:04 PM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 06:12 PM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 06:54 PM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 06:56 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 07:05 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Feb 05 - 07:05 PM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 07:06 PM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 07:12 PM
Peace 26 Feb 05 - 07:14 PM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 07:15 PM
GUEST,another guest 26 Feb 05 - 07:29 PM
GUEST,Jon 26 Feb 05 - 07:40 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Feb 05 - 08:05 PM
GUEST,Niggly 26 Feb 05 - 08:06 PM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 08:30 PM
Amos 26 Feb 05 - 08:33 PM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 08:43 PM
Joe Offer 26 Feb 05 - 09:36 PM
GUEST 26 Feb 05 - 09:40 PM
catspaw49 26 Feb 05 - 11:25 PM
Little Hawk 27 Feb 05 - 12:06 AM
Peace 27 Feb 05 - 12:13 AM
Peace 27 Feb 05 - 12:19 AM
Little Hawk 27 Feb 05 - 10:58 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Feb 05 - 01:47 AM
GUEST 28 Feb 05 - 05:00 AM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 05 - 08:44 AM
GUEST,Mr (almost perfect) Red 28 Feb 05 - 09:16 AM
GUEST 28 Feb 05 - 08:25 PM
Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull 01 Mar 05 - 08:53 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Mar 05 - 10:16 AM
GUEST,Charlie from Ashby de la Zouch (by the sea) 01 Mar 05 - 10:43 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 02 Mar 05 - 01:59 AM
Raedwulf 07 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM
Peace 07 Mar 05 - 03:27 PM
wysiwyg 07 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM
Georgiansilver 07 Mar 05 - 03:52 PM
Georgiansilver 07 Mar 05 - 04:19 PM
Raedwulf 07 Mar 05 - 04:28 PM
Georgiansilver 07 Mar 05 - 04:31 PM
Raedwulf 07 Mar 05 - 04:37 PM
wysiwyg 07 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM
Raedwulf 07 Mar 05 - 04:55 PM
wysiwyg 07 Mar 05 - 04:56 PM
Peace 07 Mar 05 - 09:59 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 08 Mar 05 - 02:52 AM
jeffp 08 Mar 05 - 08:44 AM
wysiwyg 08 Mar 05 - 09:05 AM
Peace 08 Mar 05 - 11:14 AM
Pauline L 08 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM
wysiwyg 08 Mar 05 - 11:37 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 09 Mar 05 - 06:22 AM
The Shambles 16 Mar 05 - 02:09 AM
The Shambles 16 Mar 05 - 02:58 AM
wysiwyg 16 Mar 05 - 09:11 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM
Jeri 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 16 Mar 05 - 01:20 PM
Raedwulf 16 Mar 05 - 02:16 PM
The Shambles 16 Mar 05 - 02:31 PM
Joe Offer 16 Mar 05 - 03:08 PM
Ebbie 16 Mar 05 - 03:19 PM
Raedwulf 16 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM
Peace 16 Mar 05 - 04:16 PM
The Shambles 16 Mar 05 - 07:14 PM
Peace 16 Mar 05 - 07:21 PM
Jeri 16 Mar 05 - 07:32 PM
Peace 16 Mar 05 - 07:39 PM
Sorcha 16 Mar 05 - 08:04 PM
Azizi 16 Mar 05 - 08:36 PM
GUEST,William Shatner 16 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM
Azizi 16 Mar 05 - 08:55 PM
The Shambles 17 Mar 05 - 03:27 AM
wysiwyg 17 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM
catspaw49 17 Mar 05 - 09:32 AM
The Shambles 17 Mar 05 - 02:26 PM
GUEST,Peter Woodruff 17 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM
Peace 17 Mar 05 - 02:49 PM
catspaw49 17 Mar 05 - 03:22 PM
Sorcha 17 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM
wysiwyg 17 Mar 05 - 03:34 PM
wysiwyg 17 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM
Joe Offer 17 Mar 05 - 04:17 PM
wysiwyg 17 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM
MudGuard 17 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM
Peace 17 Mar 05 - 05:19 PM
GUEST,William Shatner 17 Mar 05 - 05:40 PM
Peace 17 Mar 05 - 07:05 PM
catspaw49 17 Mar 05 - 08:50 PM
Joe Offer 17 Mar 05 - 10:09 PM
Peace 17 Mar 05 - 10:47 PM
Little Hawk 17 Mar 05 - 10:57 PM
wysiwyg 17 Mar 05 - 11:15 PM
MudGuard 18 Mar 05 - 07:33 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Mar 05 - 08:51 AM
Paco Rabanne 18 Mar 05 - 09:01 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Mar 05 - 09:12 AM
Paco Rabanne 18 Mar 05 - 09:29 AM
The Shambles 18 Mar 05 - 09:37 AM
GUEST,Joe Offer 18 Mar 05 - 10:57 AM
GUEST,Flamenco ted 18 Mar 05 - 11:19 AM
GUEST,Joe Offer 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM
GUEST,Flamenco ted 18 Mar 05 - 11:48 AM
GUEST,Joe Offer 18 Mar 05 - 12:23 PM
GUEST,brucie 18 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM
GUEST 18 Mar 05 - 12:50 PM
GUEST,brucie 18 Mar 05 - 12:51 PM
GUEST,Giok 18 Mar 05 - 12:56 PM
Raedwulf 18 Mar 05 - 01:49 PM
The Shambles 18 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM
John MacKenzie 18 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM
Peace 18 Mar 05 - 04:27 PM
Raedwulf 18 Mar 05 - 06:51 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM
Peace 18 Mar 05 - 09:13 PM
Joe Offer 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM
The Shambles 19 Mar 05 - 05:17 AM
John MacKenzie 19 Mar 05 - 05:30 AM
GUEST,Jon 19 Mar 05 - 05:40 AM
kendall 19 Mar 05 - 07:41 AM
John MacKenzie 19 Mar 05 - 08:12 AM
Jeri 19 Mar 05 - 08:28 AM
harpgirl 19 Mar 05 - 09:24 AM
kendall 19 Mar 05 - 03:02 PM
Peace 19 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM
catspaw49 19 Mar 05 - 05:12 PM
Peace 19 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM
Georgiansilver 19 Mar 05 - 05:22 PM
Peace 19 Mar 05 - 05:37 PM
Amos 19 Mar 05 - 06:06 PM
Azizi 19 Mar 05 - 08:21 PM
Joe Offer 19 Mar 05 - 10:52 PM
George Papavgeris 19 Mar 05 - 10:55 PM
Peace 20 Mar 05 - 12:53 AM
The Shambles 20 Mar 05 - 06:39 AM
The Shambles 20 Mar 05 - 06:48 AM
The Shambles 20 Mar 05 - 07:19 AM
GUEST,Jon 20 Mar 05 - 07:33 AM
The Shambles 20 Mar 05 - 07:35 AM
GUEST,Jon 20 Mar 05 - 07:41 AM
Azizi 20 Mar 05 - 08:05 AM
John MacKenzie 20 Mar 05 - 09:03 AM
George Papavgeris 20 Mar 05 - 09:07 AM
Joe Offer 20 Mar 05 - 12:20 PM
George Papavgeris 20 Mar 05 - 01:39 PM
Peace 20 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM
The Shambles 20 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM
Raedwulf 20 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM
John MacKenzie 20 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM
Big Mick 20 Mar 05 - 04:50 PM
bobad 20 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM
The Shambles 20 Mar 05 - 06:25 PM
GUEST 20 Mar 05 - 07:16 PM
The Shambles 21 Mar 05 - 01:51 AM
John MacKenzie 21 Mar 05 - 03:16 AM
George Papavergis 21 Mar 05 - 04:28 AM
GUEST 21 Mar 05 - 04:37 AM
Gurney 21 Mar 05 - 06:13 AM
harpgirl 21 Mar 05 - 08:34 AM
GUEST 21 Mar 05 - 11:00 AM
John MacKenzie 21 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM
Peace 21 Mar 05 - 12:46 PM
John MacKenzie 21 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM
The Shambles 21 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM
Peace 21 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM
Little Hawk 21 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM
Peace 21 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM
Azizi 21 Mar 05 - 04:01 PM
Big Mick 21 Mar 05 - 05:26 PM
Peace 21 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 21 Mar 05 - 07:04 PM
Peace 21 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 21 Mar 05 - 07:17 PM
Peace 21 Mar 05 - 07:19 PM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 22 Mar 05 - 12:04 AM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 12:08 AM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 22 Mar 05 - 12:20 AM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 01:16 AM
The Shambles 22 Mar 05 - 10:57 AM
Paco Rabanne 22 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM
Noreen 22 Mar 05 - 11:15 AM
Paco Rabanne 22 Mar 05 - 11:19 AM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 11:20 AM
Wolfgang 22 Mar 05 - 11:36 AM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 11:44 AM
John MacKenzie 22 Mar 05 - 12:49 PM
George Papavergis 22 Mar 05 - 12:49 PM
Big Mick 22 Mar 05 - 01:07 PM
George Papavergis 22 Mar 05 - 01:18 PM
Noreen 22 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 02:43 PM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 03:32 PM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 03:49 PM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 03:50 PM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 06:52 PM
Peace 22 Mar 05 - 08:21 PM
Big Mick 22 Mar 05 - 08:28 PM
Azizi 22 Mar 05 - 08:52 PM
Azizi 22 Mar 05 - 08:58 PM
Big Mick 22 Mar 05 - 08:59 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 01:51 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 02:02 AM
Azizi 23 Mar 05 - 04:34 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 05:57 AM
Paco Rabanne 23 Mar 05 - 06:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 06:35 AM
GUEST 23 Mar 05 - 09:33 AM
Wolfgang 23 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM
Little Hawk 23 Mar 05 - 09:57 AM
Peace 23 Mar 05 - 10:16 AM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 12:09 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 12:25 PM
George Papavgeris 23 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM
Wolfgang 23 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 12:47 PM
Noreen 23 Mar 05 - 12:48 PM
George Papavergis 23 Mar 05 - 12:55 PM
Wolfgang 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM
George Papavgeris 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM
George Papavgeris 23 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM
catspaw49 23 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM
George Papavgeris 23 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM
Wolfgang 23 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM
PoppaGator 23 Mar 05 - 01:56 PM
John MacKenzie 23 Mar 05 - 01:59 PM
catspaw49 23 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 02:38 PM
catspaw49 23 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM
John MacKenzie 23 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM
GUEST 23 Mar 05 - 02:51 PM
Peace 23 Mar 05 - 02:54 PM
George Papavgeris 23 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM
Wolfgang 23 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM
Peace 23 Mar 05 - 03:27 PM
GUEST 23 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM
GUEST,MMario 23 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM
The Shambles 23 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM
Peace 23 Mar 05 - 03:44 PM
Noreen 23 Mar 05 - 04:03 PM
GUEST,MMario 23 Mar 05 - 04:06 PM
GUEST 23 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM
John MacKenzie 23 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM
George Papavgeris 23 Mar 05 - 06:47 PM
The Shambles 24 Mar 05 - 02:11 AM
The Shambles 24 Mar 05 - 02:16 AM
George Papavgeris 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 AM
The Shambles 24 Mar 05 - 03:56 AM
The Shambles 24 Mar 05 - 04:26 AM
Noreen 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Mar 05 - 07:42 AM
Wolfgang 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM
Peace 24 Mar 05 - 12:17 PM
The Shambles 24 Mar 05 - 12:39 PM
Peace 24 Mar 05 - 12:44 PM
GUEST,Jon 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM
The Shambles 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM
George Papavgeris 24 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM
Raedwulf 24 Mar 05 - 02:19 PM
Raedwulf 24 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM
Raedwulf 24 Mar 05 - 03:02 PM
Raedwulf 24 Mar 05 - 03:12 PM
GUEST,Jon 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM
Big Mick 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM
GUEST 24 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM
Donuel 24 Mar 05 - 10:45 PM
The Shambles 25 Mar 05 - 03:26 AM
GUEST,Jon 25 Mar 05 - 04:21 AM
Joe Offer 25 Mar 05 - 04:55 AM
Big Mick 25 Mar 05 - 10:35 AM
GUEST 25 Mar 05 - 01:15 PM
wysiwyg 25 Mar 05 - 01:30 PM
Joe Offer 25 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM
The Shambles 25 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM
The Shambles 25 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM
The Shambles 25 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM
Bill D 25 Mar 05 - 07:18 PM
catspaw49 25 Mar 05 - 07:36 PM
Joe Offer 25 Mar 05 - 10:54 PM
michaelr 26 Mar 05 - 12:34 AM
The Shambles 26 Mar 05 - 03:02 AM
Joe Offer 26 Mar 05 - 04:20 AM
catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 05:10 AM
harpgirl 26 Mar 05 - 05:48 AM
GUEST,Jon 26 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 08:22 AM
jaze 26 Mar 05 - 09:06 AM
jaze 26 Mar 05 - 09:18 AM
GUEST,Scaramouche 26 Mar 05 - 09:48 AM
Jeri 26 Mar 05 - 09:54 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Mar 05 - 10:40 AM
The Shambles 26 Mar 05 - 01:24 PM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 01:28 PM
Joe Offer 26 Mar 05 - 02:02 PM
Little Hawk 26 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,Jon 26 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM
Jeri 26 Mar 05 - 03:43 PM
Joe Offer 26 Mar 05 - 05:30 PM
GUEST,Jon 26 Mar 05 - 06:43 PM
Jeri 26 Mar 05 - 07:02 PM
Joe Offer 26 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM
catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 08:08 PM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM
GUEST,the shrink 26 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 08:57 PM
catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 09:24 PM
Little Hawk 26 Mar 05 - 09:30 PM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM
catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM
Little Hawk 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM
catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 09:56 PM
Little Hawk 26 Mar 05 - 09:57 PM
wysiwyg 26 Mar 05 - 10:58 PM
wysiwyg 26 Mar 05 - 11:00 PM
Little Hawk 26 Mar 05 - 11:07 PM
Ebbie 26 Mar 05 - 11:37 PM
The Shambles 27 Mar 05 - 02:40 AM
GUEST,Jon 27 Mar 05 - 03:32 AM
The Shambles 27 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM
The Shambles 27 Mar 05 - 07:04 AM
The Shambles 27 Mar 05 - 07:32 AM
GUEST,Jon 27 Mar 05 - 07:34 AM
Big Mick 27 Mar 05 - 07:43 AM
wysiwyg 27 Mar 05 - 08:23 AM
catspaw49 27 Mar 05 - 10:51 AM
The Shambles 27 Mar 05 - 11:03 AM
The Shambles 27 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM
Jeri 27 Mar 05 - 12:02 PM
GUEST,Jon 27 Mar 05 - 12:07 PM
catspaw49 27 Mar 05 - 12:41 PM
The Shambles 27 Mar 05 - 01:10 PM
catspaw49 27 Mar 05 - 01:37 PM
The Shambles 27 Mar 05 - 01:53 PM
katlaughing 27 Mar 05 - 02:07 PM
Once Famous 27 Mar 05 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,Ed Skenieuwezscheivevitz 27 Mar 05 - 02:42 PM
catspaw49 27 Mar 05 - 03:03 PM
John MacKenzie 27 Mar 05 - 03:25 PM
harpgirl 27 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM
Joe Offer 27 Mar 05 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 27 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM
catspaw49 27 Mar 05 - 05:25 PM
harpgirl 27 Mar 05 - 05:35 PM
catspaw49 27 Mar 05 - 05:41 PM
Ebbie 27 Mar 05 - 06:06 PM
Joe Offer 27 Mar 05 - 10:22 PM
GUEST,jOhn from Hull 28 Mar 05 - 05:16 PM
GUEST 28 Mar 05 - 05:17 PM
GUEST,Ebbie 28 Mar 05 - 08:14 PM
GUEST,bobad 28 Mar 05 - 09:27 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Mar 05 - 07:23 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Mar 05 - 07:56 AM
GUEST,Giok 29 Mar 05 - 08:15 AM
Peace 29 Mar 05 - 02:03 PM
catspaw49 29 Mar 05 - 03:56 PM
wysiwyg 29 Mar 05 - 04:13 PM
GUEST,MMario 29 Mar 05 - 04:36 PM
Peace 29 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM
katlaughing 29 Mar 05 - 05:11 PM
Peace 29 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 29 Mar 05 - 05:54 PM
Little Hawk 29 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM
Peace 29 Mar 05 - 08:27 PM
GUEST 30 Mar 05 - 01:09 AM
George Papavergis 30 Mar 05 - 02:12 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Mar 05 - 03:30 AM
The Shambles 30 Mar 05 - 05:06 AM
Joe Offer 30 Mar 05 - 05:21 AM
George Papavgeris 30 Mar 05 - 05:51 AM
Joe Offer 30 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM
George Papavgeris 30 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM
George Papavergis 30 Mar 05 - 06:32 AM
George Papavgeris 30 Mar 05 - 06:59 AM
The Shambles 30 Mar 05 - 04:30 PM
Peace 30 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM
George Papavergis 30 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM
kendall 31 Mar 05 - 08:02 AM
GUEST,MMario 31 Mar 05 - 08:39 AM
Little Hawk 31 Mar 05 - 09:15 AM
The Shambles 31 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM
GUEST 31 Mar 05 - 10:03 AM
Joe Offer 31 Mar 05 - 12:50 PM
John MacKenzie 31 Mar 05 - 01:27 PM
Little Hawk 31 Mar 05 - 01:41 PM
Peace 31 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM
Peace 31 Mar 05 - 02:00 PM
Georgiansilver 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM
Georgiansilver 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM
Wesley S 31 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM
wysiwyg 31 Mar 05 - 05:13 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 05 - 07:20 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 05 - 07:38 AM
John MacKenzie 01 Apr 05 - 08:29 AM
The Shambles 01 Apr 05 - 09:29 AM
GUEST,Amos 01 Apr 05 - 11:13 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 05 - 12:07 PM
Raedwulf 01 Apr 05 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,Wolfgang 01 Apr 05 - 03:06 PM
catspaw49 01 Apr 05 - 03:11 PM
GUEST,Wolfgang 01 Apr 05 - 03:23 PM
catspaw49 01 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM
Little Hawk 01 Apr 05 - 05:36 PM
The Shambles 02 Apr 05 - 05:07 AM
John MacKenzie 02 Apr 05 - 07:37 AM
Raedwulf 02 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM
Jerry Rasmussen 02 Apr 05 - 02:54 PM
The Shambles 02 Apr 05 - 02:56 PM
wysiwyg 02 Apr 05 - 03:54 PM
GUEST,Jon 02 Apr 05 - 04:34 PM
Raedwulf 02 Apr 05 - 06:55 PM
Big Mick 02 Apr 05 - 08:39 PM
katlaughing 02 Apr 05 - 10:44 PM
The Shambles 03 Apr 05 - 05:52 AM
George Papavgeris 03 Apr 05 - 06:27 AM
The Shambles 03 Apr 05 - 07:53 AM
John MacKenzie 03 Apr 05 - 09:32 AM
wysiwyg 03 Apr 05 - 10:19 AM
The Shambles 04 Apr 05 - 05:15 AM
The Shambles 04 Apr 05 - 08:57 AM
kendall 04 Apr 05 - 09:02 AM
wysiwyg 04 Apr 05 - 09:08 AM
The Shambles 04 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM
Wolfgang 04 Apr 05 - 10:22 AM
John MacKenzie 04 Apr 05 - 12:45 PM
Jerry Rasmussen 04 Apr 05 - 04:05 PM
Little Hawk 04 Apr 05 - 05:31 PM
Jerry Rasmussen 04 Apr 05 - 06:09 PM
Little Hawk 04 Apr 05 - 06:10 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 04 Apr 05 - 06:25 PM
Little Hawk 04 Apr 05 - 10:37 PM
catspaw49 04 Apr 05 - 11:18 PM
Little Hawk 04 Apr 05 - 11:22 PM
catspaw49 04 Apr 05 - 11:26 PM
Little Hawk 04 Apr 05 - 11:33 PM
Wolfgang 05 Apr 05 - 06:23 AM
GUEST,Jon 05 Apr 05 - 06:36 AM
catspaw49 05 Apr 05 - 07:07 AM
Wolfgang 05 Apr 05 - 07:22 AM
The Shambles 05 Apr 05 - 09:00 AM
GUEST 05 Apr 05 - 09:11 AM
The Shambles 05 Apr 05 - 09:22 AM
Wolfgang 05 Apr 05 - 09:37 AM
The Shambles 05 Apr 05 - 09:41 AM
The Shambles 05 Apr 05 - 09:52 AM
Wolfgang 05 Apr 05 - 09:53 AM
GUEST,Jon 05 Apr 05 - 10:06 AM
Little Hawk 05 Apr 05 - 03:30 PM
GUEST,Jon 05 Apr 05 - 03:43 PM
Noreen 06 Apr 05 - 07:36 AM
Wolfgang 06 Apr 05 - 08:48 AM
Paco Rabanne 06 Apr 05 - 09:01 AM
katlaughing 06 Apr 05 - 09:13 AM
John MacKenzie 06 Apr 05 - 09:43 AM
GUEST,Joe Offer 06 Apr 05 - 12:24 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 06 Apr 05 - 12:54 PM
GUEST 06 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,Joe Offer 06 Apr 05 - 02:04 PM
Bill D 06 Apr 05 - 03:56 PM
jpk 06 Apr 05 - 09:46 PM
Once Famous 06 Apr 05 - 10:12 PM
catspaw49 07 Apr 05 - 12:11 AM
Paco Rabanne 07 Apr 05 - 03:44 AM
GUEST 07 Apr 05 - 04:20 AM
The Shambles 07 Apr 05 - 06:54 AM
Noreen 07 Apr 05 - 07:31 AM
George Papavgeris 07 Apr 05 - 07:34 AM
Paco Rabanne 07 Apr 05 - 08:45 AM
The Shambles 08 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM
John MacKenzie 08 Apr 05 - 07:13 AM
catspaw49 08 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM
John MacKenzie 08 Apr 05 - 08:29 AM
Margo 09 Apr 05 - 12:32 AM
The Shambles 10 Apr 05 - 07:50 AM
Once Famous 10 Apr 05 - 05:45 PM
Peace 10 Apr 05 - 05:55 PM
The Shambles 11 Apr 05 - 02:12 AM
GUEST 11 Apr 05 - 05:43 AM
GUEST 11 Apr 05 - 05:45 AM
GUEST,El Greko sans biscuit 11 Apr 05 - 05:47 AM
The Shambles 11 Apr 05 - 12:23 PM
George Papavgeris 11 Apr 05 - 12:31 PM
The Shambles 12 Apr 05 - 02:24 AM
Peace 12 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM
George Papavgeris 12 Apr 05 - 02:42 AM
The Shambles 12 Apr 05 - 03:21 AM
Peace 12 Apr 05 - 03:30 AM
George Papavgeris 12 Apr 05 - 05:33 AM
John MacKenzie 12 Apr 05 - 05:38 AM
George Papavgeris 12 Apr 05 - 05:41 AM
George Papavgeris 12 Apr 05 - 05:42 AM
The Shambles 12 Apr 05 - 05:56 AM
The Shambles 12 Apr 05 - 06:29 AM
Wolfgang 12 Apr 05 - 06:47 AM
GUEST,Jon 12 Apr 05 - 06:55 AM
George Papavgeris 12 Apr 05 - 09:18 AM
katlaughing 12 Apr 05 - 10:56 AM
The Shambles 12 Apr 05 - 01:08 PM
jeffp 12 Apr 05 - 01:10 PM
John MacKenzie 12 Apr 05 - 01:27 PM
George Papavgeris 12 Apr 05 - 02:23 PM
The Shambles 13 Apr 05 - 02:07 AM
The Shambles 13 Apr 05 - 03:12 AM
GUEST,Jon 13 Apr 05 - 03:39 AM
The Shambles 13 Apr 05 - 04:31 AM
Wolfgang 13 Apr 05 - 05:18 AM
George Papavgeris 13 Apr 05 - 06:01 AM
The Shambles 13 Apr 05 - 07:15 PM
The Shambles 13 Apr 05 - 07:18 PM
George Papavgeris 14 Apr 05 - 04:15 AM
George Papavgeris 14 Apr 05 - 04:17 AM
George Papavgeris 14 Apr 05 - 04:23 AM
Wolfgang 14 Apr 05 - 09:09 AM
The Shambles 14 Apr 05 - 02:03 PM
George Papavgeris 14 Apr 05 - 02:11 PM
GUEST 14 Apr 05 - 02:18 PM
John MacKenzie 14 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM
The Shambles 15 Apr 05 - 12:52 PM
GUEST 15 Apr 05 - 01:08 PM
wysiwyg 15 Apr 05 - 01:13 PM
The Shambles 15 Apr 05 - 07:15 PM
The Shambles 16 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM
GUEST 16 Apr 05 - 04:21 PM
The Shambles 17 Apr 05 - 07:36 AM
wysiwyg 17 Apr 05 - 11:15 AM
GUEST 17 Apr 05 - 12:53 PM
wysiwyg 17 Apr 05 - 04:31 PM
GUEST 17 Apr 05 - 04:37 PM
The Shambles 17 Apr 05 - 07:47 PM
The Shambles 17 Apr 05 - 08:08 PM
GUEST,pinion 18 Apr 05 - 03:41 AM
The Shambles 18 Apr 05 - 10:04 AM
The Shambles 18 Apr 05 - 03:05 PM
The Shambles 19 Apr 05 - 02:26 AM
The Shambles 19 Apr 05 - 03:09 AM
The Shambles 19 Apr 05 - 05:06 AM
Paco Rabanne 19 Apr 05 - 11:35 AM
The Shambles 19 Apr 05 - 12:49 PM
Joe Offer 19 Apr 05 - 03:14 PM
The Shambles 19 Apr 05 - 04:29 PM
Joe Offer 19 Apr 05 - 05:23 PM
The Shambles 20 Apr 05 - 02:31 AM
Paco Rabanne 20 Apr 05 - 04:09 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Apr 05 - 11:55 AM
GUEST,Joe Offer 20 Apr 05 - 01:33 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 20 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM
GUEST 20 Apr 05 - 02:50 PM
GUEST 20 Apr 05 - 02:53 PM
GUEST 20 Apr 05 - 02:58 PM
GUEST 20 Apr 05 - 03:20 PM
Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull 20 Apr 05 - 08:11 PM
GUEST,The Speaker 20 Apr 05 - 08:54 PM
GUEST,Joe Offer 20 Apr 05 - 10:30 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM
GUEST 21 Apr 05 - 02:40 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Apr 05 - 02:54 AM
John MacKenzie 21 Apr 05 - 05:23 AM
GUEST 21 Apr 05 - 06:57 AM
George Papavgeris 21 Apr 05 - 07:24 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM
GUEST,Giok 21 Apr 05 - 09:09 AM
GUEST,Anastasia 21 Apr 05 - 09:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Apr 05 - 10:05 AM
GUEST,jeffp 21 Apr 05 - 10:22 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Apr 05 - 10:34 AM
GUEST,jeffp 21 Apr 05 - 10:42 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Apr 05 - 10:45 AM
GUEST,jeffp 21 Apr 05 - 12:02 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 21 Apr 05 - 01:44 PM
frogprince 21 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM
John MacKenzie 21 Apr 05 - 06:33 PM
Ebbie 21 Apr 05 - 06:42 PM
Paco Rabanne 22 Apr 05 - 06:58 AM
The Shambles 22 Apr 05 - 07:14 AM
The Shambles 22 Apr 05 - 07:41 AM
John MacKenzie 22 Apr 05 - 08:47 AM
Paco Rabanne 22 Apr 05 - 08:54 AM
George Papavgeris 22 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM
George Papavgeris 22 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM
George Papavgeris 22 Apr 05 - 09:31 AM
George Papavgeris 22 Apr 05 - 09:32 AM
George Papavgeris 22 Apr 05 - 09:33 AM
Paco Rabanne 22 Apr 05 - 09:39 AM
Paco Rabanne 22 Apr 05 - 09:47 AM
GUEST 22 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM
John MacKenzie 22 Apr 05 - 10:55 AM
Paco Rabanne 22 Apr 05 - 11:04 AM
GUEST 22 Apr 05 - 11:10 AM
John MacKenzie 22 Apr 05 - 11:11 AM
Paco Rabanne 22 Apr 05 - 11:12 AM
Joe Offer 22 Apr 05 - 11:47 AM
The Shambles 22 Apr 05 - 12:06 PM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 02:38 AM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 02:54 AM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 03:02 AM
GUEST,Jon 24 Apr 05 - 03:34 AM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 04:40 AM
George Papavgeris 24 Apr 05 - 04:59 AM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 06:12 AM
GUEST,Jon 24 Apr 05 - 06:20 AM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 06:46 AM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 07:01 AM
GUEST,Jon 24 Apr 05 - 07:39 AM
Bill D 24 Apr 05 - 12:14 PM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 12:43 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 01:00 PM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,Veteran Member 24 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM
The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 05 - 05:44 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 24 Apr 05 - 06:23 PM
George Papavgeris 24 Apr 05 - 06:58 PM
GUEST,Same Veteran Member 24 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM
The Shambles 25 Apr 05 - 02:25 AM
The Shambles 25 Apr 05 - 03:26 AM
George Papavgeris 25 Apr 05 - 03:54 AM
GUEST,Jon 25 Apr 05 - 04:14 AM
Joe Offer 25 Apr 05 - 04:22 AM
The Shambles 25 Apr 05 - 04:30 AM
The Shambles 25 Apr 05 - 04:38 AM
GUEST 25 Apr 05 - 04:55 AM
GUEST 25 Apr 05 - 05:13 AM
GUEST,Jon 25 Apr 05 - 05:17 AM
George Papavgeris 25 Apr 05 - 05:55 AM
George Papavgeris 25 Apr 05 - 05:59 AM
GUEST,Veteran Member, Again 25 Apr 05 - 09:31 AM
Donuel 25 Apr 05 - 10:45 AM
The Shambles 25 Apr 05 - 12:46 PM
Donuel 25 Apr 05 - 12:53 PM
George Papavgeris 25 Apr 05 - 01:18 PM
The Shambles 25 Apr 05 - 02:18 PM
GUEST,jeffp 25 Apr 05 - 02:25 PM
GUEST 25 Apr 05 - 02:25 PM
The Shambles 25 Apr 05 - 02:38 PM
Bill D 25 Apr 05 - 02:39 PM
The Shambles 25 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM
Bill D 25 Apr 05 - 02:52 PM
jeffp 25 Apr 05 - 02:58 PM
The Shambles 25 Apr 05 - 03:22 PM
jeffp 25 Apr 05 - 03:50 PM
GUEST 25 Apr 05 - 03:53 PM
GUEST,georgiansilver 25 Apr 05 - 04:24 PM
GUEST,georgiansilver 25 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM
George Papavgeris 25 Apr 05 - 07:32 PM
GUEST,jOhn 25 Apr 05 - 07:58 PM
catspaw49 26 Apr 05 - 01:33 AM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 02:24 AM
chris nightbird childs 26 Apr 05 - 02:57 AM
George Papavgeris 26 Apr 05 - 03:11 AM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 03:18 AM
George Papavgeris 26 Apr 05 - 03:27 AM
catspaw49 26 Apr 05 - 05:38 AM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 05:54 AM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 06:25 AM
catspaw49 26 Apr 05 - 06:44 AM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 08:06 AM
jeffp 26 Apr 05 - 08:57 AM
Paco Rabanne 26 Apr 05 - 09:00 AM
jeffp 26 Apr 05 - 09:16 AM
Paco Rabanne 26 Apr 05 - 09:20 AM
Paco Rabanne 26 Apr 05 - 09:21 AM
Paco Rabanne 26 Apr 05 - 09:26 AM
GUEST,Jon 26 Apr 05 - 09:26 AM
Paco Rabanne 26 Apr 05 - 09:28 AM
George Papavgeris 26 Apr 05 - 09:31 AM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 09:40 AM
jeffp 26 Apr 05 - 09:43 AM
Paco Rabanne 26 Apr 05 - 09:51 AM
GUEST,Same Veteran Member Again 26 Apr 05 - 10:08 AM
George Papavgeris 26 Apr 05 - 10:14 AM
GUEST,MMario 26 Apr 05 - 10:18 AM
Paco Rabanne 26 Apr 05 - 10:29 AM
Gervase 26 Apr 05 - 10:48 AM
George Papavgeris 26 Apr 05 - 12:21 PM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM
jeffp 26 Apr 05 - 03:03 PM
George Papavgeris 26 Apr 05 - 03:41 PM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM
George Papavgeris 26 Apr 05 - 05:08 PM
George Papavgeris 26 Apr 05 - 05:09 PM
jeffp 26 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM
George Papavgeris 26 Apr 05 - 06:10 PM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 07:02 PM
GUEST,Jon 26 Apr 05 - 07:10 PM
Jeri 26 Apr 05 - 07:19 PM
Jeri 26 Apr 05 - 07:19 PM
Jeri 26 Apr 05 - 07:21 PM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 07:23 PM
GUEST 26 Apr 05 - 07:36 PM
Bill D 26 Apr 05 - 07:44 PM
Chris Green 26 Apr 05 - 07:57 PM
Joe Offer 26 Apr 05 - 08:03 PM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 08:12 PM
GUEST 26 Apr 05 - 08:18 PM
GUEST,Jon 26 Apr 05 - 08:30 PM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 08:56 PM
GUEST 26 Apr 05 - 09:03 PM
The Shambles 26 Apr 05 - 09:14 PM
George Papavgeris 27 Apr 05 - 04:06 AM
GUEST,Jon 27 Apr 05 - 04:50 AM
GUEST,autoshambles 27 Apr 05 - 04:51 AM
GUEST,autoshambles 27 Apr 05 - 04:51 AM
GUEST,autoshambles 27 Apr 05 - 04:51 AM
Paco Rabanne 27 Apr 05 - 04:58 AM
George Papavgeris 27 Apr 05 - 05:02 AM
Wolfgang 27 Apr 05 - 05:11 AM
The Shambles 27 Apr 05 - 05:22 AM
George Papavgeris 27 Apr 05 - 05:35 AM
The Shambles 27 Apr 05 - 05:52 AM
George Papavgeris 27 Apr 05 - 06:08 AM
The Shambles 27 Apr 05 - 06:22 AM
George Papavgeris 27 Apr 05 - 06:33 AM
Gervase 27 Apr 05 - 07:25 AM
Wolfgang 27 Apr 05 - 11:58 AM
Joe Offer 27 Apr 05 - 01:13 PM
The Shambles 27 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM
Wolfgang 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM
George Papavgeris 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM
GUEST,MMario 27 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM
Joe Offer 27 Apr 05 - 07:06 PM
The Shambles 27 Apr 05 - 08:08 PM
The Shambles 27 Apr 05 - 09:12 PM
GUEST,Jon 28 Apr 05 - 03:14 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Apr 05 - 03:35 AM
GUEST,Jon 28 Apr 05 - 03:50 AM
Gervase 28 Apr 05 - 04:03 AM
George Papavgeris 28 Apr 05 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,Spaw 28 Apr 05 - 06:41 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Apr 05 - 07:46 AM
GUEST,Jon 28 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Apr 05 - 08:14 AM
Gervase 28 Apr 05 - 08:21 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Apr 05 - 08:27 AM
Gervase 28 Apr 05 - 08:49 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 28 Apr 05 - 08:55 AM
George Papavgeris 28 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM
Gervase 28 Apr 05 - 09:25 AM
Paco Rabanne 28 Apr 05 - 09:45 AM
GUEST 28 Apr 05 - 10:17 AM
The Shambles 28 Apr 05 - 12:48 PM
GUEST 28 Apr 05 - 12:54 PM
Joe Offer 28 Apr 05 - 01:54 PM
The Shambles 28 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM
George Papavgeris 28 Apr 05 - 02:35 PM
GUEST 28 Apr 05 - 02:40 PM
George Papavgeris 28 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM
GUEST,Jon 28 Apr 05 - 02:47 PM
Bill D 28 Apr 05 - 02:53 PM
George Papavgeris 28 Apr 05 - 02:59 PM
GUEST 28 Apr 05 - 03:01 PM
GUEST 28 Apr 05 - 03:02 PM
gnu 28 Apr 05 - 03:47 PM
Joe Offer 28 Apr 05 - 04:09 PM
Jerry Rasmussen 28 Apr 05 - 04:12 PM
GUEST 28 Apr 05 - 04:13 PM
catspaw49 28 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM
GUEST,MMario 28 Apr 05 - 04:18 PM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 03:22 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 03:38 AM
George Papavgeris 29 Apr 05 - 04:11 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 04:17 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 04:44 AM
George Papavgeris 29 Apr 05 - 04:59 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 05:16 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 05:54 AM
Gervase 29 Apr 05 - 06:28 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM
GUEST,autoshambles 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM
GUEST,autoshambles 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM
George Papavgeris 29 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 08:15 AM
jeffp 29 Apr 05 - 08:31 AM
catspaw49 29 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 01:05 PM
jeffp 29 Apr 05 - 01:21 PM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 01:42 PM
jeffp 29 Apr 05 - 01:45 PM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 01:50 PM
Joe Offer 29 Apr 05 - 01:52 PM
George Papavgeris 29 Apr 05 - 02:21 PM
The Shambles 30 Apr 05 - 07:30 AM
George Papavgeris 30 Apr 05 - 01:34 PM
The Shambles 30 Apr 05 - 06:44 PM
Joe Offer 01 May 05 - 02:48 AM
The Shambles 01 May 05 - 07:58 AM
George Papavgeris 01 May 05 - 08:20 AM
George Papavgeris 01 May 05 - 08:21 AM
George Papavgeris 01 May 05 - 08:23 AM
The Shambles 01 May 05 - 09:22 AM
catspaw49 01 May 05 - 12:19 PM
The Shambles 01 May 05 - 04:01 PM
gnu 01 May 05 - 04:33 PM
The Shambles 02 May 05 - 03:40 AM
George Papavgeris 02 May 05 - 03:45 AM
The Shambles 02 May 05 - 04:53 AM
GUEST 03 May 05 - 05:12 AM
Wolfgang 03 May 05 - 12:33 PM
The Shambles 03 May 05 - 01:12 PM
GUEST 03 May 05 - 01:21 PM
GUEST,Sleepless Dad 03 May 05 - 01:29 PM
The Shambles 04 May 05 - 02:05 AM
Gervase 04 May 05 - 04:21 AM
The Shambles 04 May 05 - 05:59 AM
Gervase 04 May 05 - 06:50 AM
The Shambles 04 May 05 - 02:31 PM
The Shambles 08 May 05 - 07:06 AM
GUEST 08 May 05 - 12:57 PM
The Shambles 10 May 05 - 06:21 AM
Bill D 10 May 05 - 07:09 PM
Peace 10 May 05 - 11:46 PM
The Shambles 11 May 05 - 03:06 AM
Georgiansilver 11 May 05 - 06:15 PM
Joe Offer 12 May 05 - 01:26 PM
Bill D 12 May 05 - 01:36 PM
The Shambles 19 May 05 - 10:24 AM
GUEST 19 May 05 - 10:31 AM
The Shambles 19 May 05 - 10:34 AM
GUEST 19 May 05 - 10:40 AM
The Shambles 19 May 05 - 10:43 AM
GUEST 19 May 05 - 10:47 AM
The Shambles 19 May 05 - 10:57 AM
George Papavgeris 19 May 05 - 11:29 AM
GUEST,jOhn 19 May 05 - 03:43 PM
The Shambles 23 May 05 - 03:44 AM
The Shambles 23 May 05 - 03:54 AM
John MacKenzie 23 May 05 - 04:18 AM
GUEST,Jon 23 May 05 - 04:30 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 23 May 05 - 06:54 AM
JennyO 23 May 05 - 06:57 AM
The Shambles 23 May 05 - 07:18 AM
The Shambles 25 May 05 - 02:03 PM
John MacKenzie 25 May 05 - 03:11 PM
George Papavgeris 25 May 05 - 03:42 PM
The Shambles 25 May 05 - 07:47 PM
GUEST,Jon 25 May 05 - 08:12 PM
catspaw49 25 May 05 - 08:20 PM
The Shambles 25 May 05 - 08:25 PM
The Shambles 25 May 05 - 08:34 PM
catspaw49 25 May 05 - 08:47 PM
Jerry Rasmussen 25 May 05 - 08:50 PM
Don Firth 25 May 05 - 08:55 PM
catspaw49 25 May 05 - 08:57 PM
John MacKenzie 26 May 05 - 03:17 AM
The Shambles 26 May 05 - 10:33 AM
GUEST,MMario 26 May 05 - 10:42 AM
The Shambles 26 May 05 - 10:42 AM
The Shambles 26 May 05 - 10:46 AM
GUEST,Sleepless Dad 26 May 05 - 11:17 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 May 05 - 01:49 PM
GUEST,Sleepless Dad 26 May 05 - 02:14 PM
Ebbie 26 May 05 - 02:15 PM
The Shambles 31 May 05 - 02:52 PM
GUEST 31 May 05 - 03:10 PM
gnu 31 May 05 - 04:55 PM
The Shambles 01 Jun 05 - 04:07 AM
GUEST,Jon 01 Jun 05 - 04:26 AM
George Papavgeris 01 Jun 05 - 04:40 AM
gnu 01 Jun 05 - 05:33 AM
GUEST,Yawn 01 Jun 05 - 06:17 AM
The Shambles 04 Jun 05 - 10:06 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:27 PM

PLEASE leave the censorship on the "Cat" to the people who try hard to get it right...and stop criticising them....Some of you are here just to cause trouble of one sort or another...O.K but leave the censors to do what they do best....and they do it better than you would O.K??????? Best wishes, Mike.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:30 PM

Oh Mike that's like a red rag to a bull for some of our well balanced contributors. You can tell they're well balanced, they have a chip on both shoulders. :~)
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM

ROFLOL...what on earth was my intention John?
Best wishes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77737&messages=82

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77678&messages=39

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77622&messages=34


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:32 PM

tsk, georgiansilver...now you've set him off again...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:44 PM

Do you know? I think I have but I stand by my beliefs and suggest that the censorship on the "Cat" is about what it should be....and I don't care what anyone says to the contrary...You are doing a great job lads....and I don't see myself as a thread creep or anything like.
Best wishes, Mike.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 11:04 PM

The MC,,,, is free enterprize,,,, at its best.

IF... you believe you.... can do Max - one better - go to it and best wishes with the project.

For myself - this is the most libertarian playfield imagainable - all of my censorings have fallen outside the MC's and the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of acceptable community morals.

Go off and make your own playground - I like the sand in my diapers here - just fine.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:32 AM

Well, we have played cat-and-mouse at times, haven't we, Garg?
But thanks for the compliment, Mike. We try to keep a balance and do our best not to be heavy-handed.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:29 AM

If there was any serious censorship here, do you think this thread would continue to exist?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:42 AM

Yeah, the trouble is, I like most of the people I censor...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:12 AM

Perhaps it is a case of not liking people as much as liking to censor them?

Actually being in favour of any form of censorship is a rather strange concept. The generaly feeling (outside of this forum) is that imposed censorship action may sometimes be thought necessary - but not ever thought welcome.

For people generally supporting what they think is an acceptable level of censorship mainly the censoring of everybody else and not them) do not seem to recognise the fact that once imposed - the level of censorship only ever increases.

When the greatest supporters of censorship - are those who are priviliged to impose it - you may question if they have any real will to actually solve the problem. For if the problem is solved - there will be no need to have anyone to censor and they will not be in a 'job' that they obviously like.

I don't see imposed censorship as a solution - but as creating another problem - is not the same as not being concerned about the actual problem. Although that is the 'spin' that supporters of censorship here will use - to try and ensure that they can carrying on doing just as they wish.

It is not whether you like censorship - like others to be censored -like to be censored yourself - or if you like censoring others - but if these measures actually work?

Are there less counter-productive measures that may work better?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:19 AM

99...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:20 AM

100!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Billy Suggers
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:42 AM

Well I think this place is just GREAT - and Joe & co do a hero's job. There are things that don't fit in a folk - oriented place like this & are better fulminated about elsewhere - and they are rare indeed.

What the admins do here is not so much censorship as an appplication of common sense & common decency. And THATS what makes a community a community. Try to regulate it (or totally de-regulate it, which is the same thing if you think about it) and the whole damn thing fails. Leave it to taste & common sense and it works. I'm all for benign dictatorship!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:40 AM

Let us look in detail at the recent and favoured methods of censorship we are currently expected support and examine who these measures actually affect the most.

The imposed deleting of entire threads throws out all the positive contributions made in the thread, along with the bathwater and prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result.

The imposed closure of entire threads prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result.

The imposed deletion of the offending posts only - is slightly less counter-productive but for some reason, seems to be less favoured.


It is accepted that these methods are reactive and none of them - actually prevents the offending posts from first appearing.

Members who are thought to have offended - can be contacted by personal messages and threatened with having all of their future posts blocked. Any subsequently blocking will prevent any future posts thought to be offending from this member - but will also prevent any positive ones from them.

Such action against 'guests' - may be possibly but more difficult.
   

Who is entrusted to impose this censorship?

Well we are told Max has entrusted Joe and Jeff and the number and identity of the rest of our volunteer censors are intentionally witheld.

Do any of these counter-productive measure prevent anything? Or could it be that in practice they acually make things worse?

None of us may like seeing the offending posts here - but that does not mean that we have to support the only answer proposed - especially as this cannot prevent the ofending posts from appearing.

Are there alternatives to this censorship?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:07 AM

Actually sometimes I wish there were MORE censorship here, some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny; some way to filter out the intentional lure, the troll, the gouging and the come-ons which are meant only to embroil others; some way to block the inanity and kill posts which are intended to distress others.

But that would not be the Mudcat, would it?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:36 AM

and where is JOhn from Hull? silence for some time now as he has been blocked. JOhn we miss you.
    No, he hasn't been blocked.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:17 AM

Actually sometimes I wish there were MORE censorship here, some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny; some way to filter out the intentional lure, the troll, the gouging and the come-ons which are meant only to embroil others; some way to block the inanity and kill posts which are intended to distress others.

But that would not be the Mudcat, would it?


No and it would not be the real world either. Many of us would probably agree with your aims but it is a knee-jerk' - 'wish list' if an understandable one.

Achieving any of it - is not done by a easily stated wish for MORE censorship. As in practical terms this means placing your trust in someone elses judgement to remove just the things YOU don't want and leave the things YOU do.

That is what I mean by censorship just creating and adding to the problems.

Unless you give-up and go elsewhere - there is no easy short-cut to you making the choices on the forum. To you deciding what to open. To you deciding what to ignore or what to respond to. Inviting censorship to do this for you - just means that you are denied more and more of these choices. And there WILL be more censorship you will find you may not agree with - as it is like flood-water - you can say when the level is plenty high enough for your liking - but the water tends to keep-on rising anyway.

The answer to all this is simple and many posters simply get on and do it. Perhaps more posters (and our volunteers) can be encouraged to follow the fine example that these posters are currently setting.

You ignore what is not to your taste. You don't ever respond (especially in kind) to obvious provocation and you do not ever encourage others to do this. There is nothing funny in doing this - the idea that there is any humour in this - probably causes of most of the forum's problems.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:08 AM

Yes Shambles, whatever you say Shambles.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: SINSULL
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:47 PM

jOhn from Hull is experiencing technical difficulties and has not been blocked. See Joe Offer's post on the JfromH thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:59 PM

Be glad I'm not one of the mods here, or there'd be a HELL of a lot MORE 'censorship'

But ya... if ya don't like it, lump it!

:-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:06 PM

OK, I am glad.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:39 PM

The time and money saved from avoiding bitter litigation allows the censorship here to pay for itself.

Not to mention forgoing years in prison for the spiteful undesirables such as XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXX XXXXXX who post links to child porn .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:48 PM

"...some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny;"

But then it wouldn't be cross-cultural/transatlantic anymore, would it? And who would hold sway? ...the Brits who don't get our humor, or we who don't get theirs?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:05 PM

I think it might sometimes improve the tone if the true names and addresses of those who set out to be offensive (guess who I nominate) were published.

I really (sometimes) would like to know what makes some of the offenders tick.

Speaking as one of the earlier offenders, with a thread a long time back called "Has Gargoyle got piles?" - I don't care if he has piles, I just wanted to know why sometimes he can be a rational and constructive individual and sometimes quite - well, you know.

As John Barden (or was it Dave Bryant?) said some time ago - we use our real names, and you can easily trace us. We accept responsibiity for waht we say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:16 PM

Send all correspondence to:

Martin Gibson

c/o Prince Charles
Fuckingham Palace
London, England
Planet Earth

I'll be waiting for your card, DICK!


Hah!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM

"...some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny"

There is... don't post to them...

This place'd be pretty damn quiet if it wasn't for those post though...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:00 AM

Even got Prince Charles's address wrong!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:26 PM

I'm sure he'd get the card, anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM

Perhaps we should also leave the Iraq situation to the people who try hard to get it right...and stop criticising them....and leave our Governments to do what they do best....they do it better than we would O.K???????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:29 PM

We tried that, Nameless.

It didn't work well at all.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:10 AM

69!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 04:34 AM

The breakfast of champions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gurney
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 04:42 AM

Somehow I always pictured that as someone eating sparkplugs...

I've posted this before, and now again. I've been on a forum that was virtually closed by backbiting and illwill. And no, I took no part in it.
Twats will always be with us, but a lot of guests are members in making, and contributers, so I do approve of guests being able to post.
I vote (if anyone is interested) that the present level of moderating be maintained.
I don't think it is really censorship.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:09 AM

It's not censorship in the institutional sense. It's a civilizing restraint. But whining comes with the territory.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:59 AM

Censor





Official with power to supress whole or parts of books, plays, films, news,letters etc, on grounds of obscenity,threat to security, etc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 06:45 AM

The 'whining' (of a few noisy posters - over many years) is - what I suggest - has caused all of this quite unecessary imposed judgement. And the 'spin' - that all this censorship is vigously defended by, as being required. Despite its obvious inablity to prevent over time, the only thing it is supposed to be set-up to combat and protect us from.

For despite all the unpleasant threats made to occasional offenders by our volunteers and the deleting and closure of entire threads - the same long-term offenders are still offending (and addressed here by our volunteers quite politely). This leads many folk to post and question IF any censorship at all, IS in fact taking place.......For IF it is taking place - it does not appear to be affecting the offending posters or improving the general tone.

For all posters have always had all the tools they needed to deal with threads and posts that may not be to their taste.

The practice of passing judgement on the worth of other poster's - rather than just noting, responding or ignoring the views contained in their post - has been encouraged by our volunteers to be just about the 'only game in town'.

The constant call from many other posters - for others to be encouraged to follow the sensible and effective example - (that I suggest the majority of posters manage to set without too much difficulty) - which is never to post to respond to obvious provocation - is ignored by our volunteers.

This example is ignored in favour of invited support for continued imposed judgement action taken as they wish, by our volunteers. Who seemingly themselves are incapable of not responding in public (and in kind) to obvious provocation and generally behave just as they wish - whilst excusing and justifying every one of their actions.

That this negative example is the one that is generally being followed by many other posters - is perhaps not too surprising.

I have no expectation that any of our volunteers (known or anonymous)are going to volunteer to stop. For although this is not a paid position - it would obviously appear to have its rewards as there are no shortage of willing volunteer judges.

However and perhaps, if more and more of the rest of us do set and follow a more positive posting example - it can finally be demonstrated by us - that there is no need for any of our volunteers and their judgement to be imposed upon us? Then we will all be happy.......?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 12:35 PM

I suspect a lot of shit-disturbers come here to post because they aren't allowed to pull their kinds of crap on any other message boards...

If mudcat'd pony up, these people'd be FORCE to go the hell away...

What some here call "Censorship" (as if it's some kind of dirty word or something) most message boards call day-to-day moderation...   And they seem to tick over quite nicely...

What's wrong with posting, and enforcing a Code Of Conduct?

And to the 'mods' who claim they don't want the job of such... fine... hand your keys over to someone who will do something to help this place...

The only other option folks, is that if you don't like that mudcat ISN'T moderated, please visit the egress... (Cause things aren't likely to change around here... Someone would have to care enough to want to act... and have the back-bone TO act...)

It's not like Mudcat is the ONLY such place on the net... If it bothers you so much, find somewhere else to post...

Or accept this place for what it is... and that no matter how much you'd like it to, it's not gonna change...

It is after all, just a message board...

(I know... I know.. "Oh but we're a community!" yer gonna say... well, EVERY message board group says that.... So even if you are, it's not special... unless YOU think it is... then sure... it's special... to you...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:09 PM

I would like to volunteer and write the code of conduct.

OK?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:26 PM

LOL!! MG... yer almost as funny as Joe!

hehehehehe


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bert
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.
    Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,mystified
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:48 AM

"BS.Prove that I ain't 'The Man'! U can't"

DELETED >> why ??????????????
    To find threads, the easiest tool is the Filter. Put a pertinent word like prove in the Filter box and set the age back. The Filter searches thread title names only, so it's fast.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:56 AM

why indeed ? it seemed harmless enough for a BS thread.

someone here definitely has a problem with mudcatters having fun
and silly [drunk ???] laughs together a weekend


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:59 AM

"BS: Prove that I ain't 'The Man'! U can't" hasn't been deleted, or closed. It's right here:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=78083

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 11:08 AM

oops.. false alarm
well it did'nt show up on search for me and I dont know why
the other guest couldnt find it


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:13 PM

"hasn't been deleted, or closed"

More's the pity


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Teresa
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM

Clinton says, "I suspect a lot of shit-disturbers come here to post because they aren't allowed to pull their kinds of crap on any other message boards..."

Ahem! I respectfully disagree! Checked out Slashdot or Usenet lately? Those make this place look like milk and cookies.

'tis a good thing, too in my opinion.

Teresa


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:08 PM

I gave up on Slashdot and Usenet a long time ago...

That they might stink more than some of the shit here, is hardly praise at all...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bert
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.


Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-


I fear that this list can only increase - perhaps it could be first publicly explained – why when there is no editing action taken or required here – that our volunteer's reply was chosen to be made in the form of an editorial comment (so as not to refresh this thread)? Not an option that is open to all of us - as explained in the following?

Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:23 AM on this thread http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77737&messages=82
But if I reply to a question or comment within the message where the question was asked, there's no question to whom I am responding, is there? I find that efficient and clear, and see no reason to do otherwise. It also serves to avoid refreshing threads that are contentious, even though contentious people might like to force me to refresh them.
-Joe Offer-


Perhaps it can be publicly explained what exactly our volunteers find 'contentious' about this thread - that they do not wish to refresh it? And are 'contentious people' now those who simply dare to hold and express a different view to those of our volunteers?

The thread where I spoke of contentiousness wasn't particularly contentious. I was speaking of other threads.
-Joe Offer-
The problem is that well- intentioned folk like Bert are rather too ready to defend and inform other posters what they honestly believe (or are told to believe) is currently happening under the cover of our volunteer's 'spin'. This is not very helpful - as the reality – (if also still mainly well-intentioned) is somewhat different.

Bert who will protect us from deliberate personal attacks (and incitement for other to indulge in these) – when they are made upon us - by our volunteers (and defended and justified by them)? Some following examples of the double standard that is making this forum look foolish and oppressive.

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM
I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen.
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation.
Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
-Joe Offer-


I can deal with deliberate personal attacks (even from our volunteers, if I have to). By not ever responding in kind – but I cannot accept incitement from our volunteers to encourage other posters to indulge in the very activity all this imposed volunteer judgement is supposed to be protecting us from. There are sadly many other examples of this double standard being set by our volunteers – incredibly and sadly - all of it defended and justified by them.

Perhaps Bert you can do your best to ensure that this practice – and all of this volunteer imposed judgement - can now stop and a less hypocritical and a more positive example of conduct is set for the forum's posters to follow?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:16 PM

The only thing that you can be sure of, Roger, is that I will point out that your whining seems pathological to me. Apparently there are many others that agree.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:37 PM

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 19 Sep 04 - 10:31 PM

Why do you feed this creature?? I just read the whole thing and find 99% of it just fodder for this poor guy to continue to feel relevant with his waffle twaffle approach. I am going to suggest that all of us shun this and all of his posts, with two exceptions. I would suggest that only Sir john9 and Catspaw answer him from here on out. Let's give it try, eh? This ought to be fun.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 05:00 PM

I agree, Roger. I think that your hauling out this old post is your subconscious way of acknowledging I am right. Why don't you just try contributing like you did in the old days. You had some relevance then.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:03 AM

I do always try to contribute as positively as I can. But as everyone can see from this latest personal attack by you upon me - made just after my plea for a better example to be set - my 'relevance' - mental capacity and just about every other part of my personality are judged on the basis only what I post. By you and your other nameless and numberless volunteer 'posse' members - who directly and by setting such a poor public example from this special postion of responsibility - are encouraging other posters to judge others in the same needless fashion and to post personal attacks also.

Some other volunteers use their 'editorial comments' to contribute to this discussion (so as not to refresh this thread). Any comment on the issue from anyone will be welcome (whatever their view). But you (as a known volunteer) refreshing this thread by making only one of your usual bullying personal attacks - will only make my point and just make things worse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:15 AM

Another 'editorial comment' made in this thread (and not refreshing this thread) when there was no editorial action taken.

The thread where I spoke of contentiousness wasn't particularly contentious. I was speaking of other threads.
-Joe Offer-


The thread referred to as 'wasn't particulaly contentious' - was still subject to two 'editorial' contributions to this thread - neither of these contributions - refreshed it. Why?

As it it was not judged as a 'contentious' thread - why not set a good example and contribute to it in the conventional that is open to everyone else and refresh the thread. Or ignore the thread - if you did not wish to refresh it?
    There, now, Roger, don't get your hinder in a binder. Try to think back on what it was I said about my reasons for posting editorial answers within the message that asks the question. Avoiding refreshing a contentious thread was a secondary reason, an advantageous side-effect. Can you think of the major reason I gave?
    You know, if you don't pay attention, it doesn't do me any good to bother answering your questions. So, I guess I consider this issue closed. I understand what you are saying. You don't like it when I type in brown in messages. That is your preference as to what I should do in regard to this matter. I prefer to answer questions where they are asked, because it is efficient and direct and avoids confusion - and it avoids refreshing contentious threads. And since this is my action we're talking about, I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. And whatever the case, it really isn't a big deal either way. The fate of the world does not depend on whether or where I type in brown.

    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:59 AM

The facts are all here - it is up to those reading this to judge.

In the use of these so-called 'editorial' comments - all that is being politely requested (and ignored) - is they are always confined to accompany some 'editorial action'. Where there is no such action imposed upon us in the thread - any contribution (or judgement on the worth of the thread))that any volunteer wishes to make - can then be made under the same conditions as everyone else. By either refreshing the thread or not doing - so by ignoring the thread.

In both these cases - the volunteer in question had chosen - earlier made a contribution in the conventional manner and as a result had already refreshed the thread once. Clever reasons and justification have already been given and can probably continue to be made for the defence of this double standard. It would be nice if they were not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 05:42 AM

There, now, Roger, don't get your hinder in a binder. Try to think back on what it was I said about my reasons for posting editorial answers within the message that asks the question. Avoiding refreshing a contentious thread was a secondary reason, an advantageous side-effect. Can you think of the major reason I gave?
You know, if you don't pay attention, it doesn't do me any good to bother answering your questions. So, I guess I consider this issue closed. I understand what you are saying. You don't like it when I type in brown in messages. That is your preference as to what I should do in regard to this matter. I prefer to answer questions where they are asked, because it is efficient and direct and avoids confusion - and it avoids refreshing contentious threads. And since this is my action we're talking about, I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. And whatever the case, it really isn't a big deal either way. The fate of the world does not depend on whether or where I type in brown.

-Joe Offer-


It matters little what colour these 'editorial comments' come in. My request - that has been ignored in order to present yet more 'spin' - is that in order to set a good example to others - this practive be confined to only when some editorial action has in fact taken place.

For the other advantage of this privilige given to our anonymous volunteers and in my opinion abused by them - is that having placed their so -called 'editorial' comment - if they are later not satisfied with it - they can come back and change or add to it (as was done above). Again without refreshing a thread that (in this case) was already posted to and refreshed in the conventional way.

The rest of us ordinary mortals would have to either simply accept what we had originally posted or have to post again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 02:20 AM

I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid.

Our preferences may be thought by some to be completely perfectly valid - but sadly our preferences are not completely equal. As your preferences are not open to the rest of us.

Like many other posters - I prefer NOT to make abusive personal attacks on others and prefer not to incite others others to do this. Unlike our volunteers who do prefer to do this and will use any 'spin' to later justify these attacks - no matter how hypocritical that setting this poor example appears to the forum.

Setting a good example by never indulging in this practice - no matter what the provocation - is a preference that would hope that should 'hold sway' if the entire purpose of all this imposed volunteer judgement was really as stated. And was not - as I suspect that it now is - (well-intentioned) people who simply do what they prefer to do (in other words - as they like) and will defend and justify all of their imposed judgement of others - by the use of clever-sounding but hollow 'spin'.

As I said - I do not expect our volunteers to volunteer to stop or to volunteer to set a better example. But the facts are all here for all posters to judge them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:09 PM

Is a benign dictatorship a reality


Can closed threads be re-opened


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:39 PM

You're drooling all over yourself again shambles...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:47 AM

why is it that GUESTS are never censo


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:59 AM

the truth of the matter is that if censorship was as much a problem on the Cat as roger suggests- this thread - and many others - would not be visible.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 01:11 PM

Ah, but that's part of the fiendish conspiracy, don't you see? Leave a thread about censorship untouched, but cut, slash and burn where opinions don't fit those of Those In The Know just coincidence. There is no censorship on Mudcat.

PLUS I am sure I hear an extra click when I click the mouse button; I am sure it's been taken over by Those Who Oversee Joe Offer means well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:59 PM

the truth of the matter is that if censorship was as much a problem on the Cat as roger suggests- this thread - and many others - would not be visible.

What I demonstrate is that the reality of all this (probably well-intentioned) censorship - is not the same as the 'spin' and justification that is given by those volunteers who mainly wish to continue to impose their reactive judgement upon others.

I suggest that this form of imposed censorship is just creating another unecessary problem, setting the wrong example, creating more division and making little difference to the problem it is supposed to be addressing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM

Deleted post


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 07:02 PM

I can't be arsed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 08:34 AM

Personally, i don't think we should need censorship...we're adults, right? We should be able to know what is likely to cause trouble, and not post it. And when someone does it deliberately, we should be able to ignore it and deprive them of the attention they're looking for...but hey...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:43 AM

http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=2645&messages=94

To save going over it all again - you will find most of the detailed argument in the above thread.

Questions that I had to ask many times in this thread - were eventually answered by Joe Offer.

Please explain to me why it not possible, polite or desirable to obtain the originator's permission before making any changes to thread titles?

Why is imposition thought now to be the first, best and only option?


As for your question that you have repeated ad nauseam, my answer is that I do not believe it is necessary to expend so much time and effort on a simple editorial action. If the thread or message originator wishes to object or to discuss an editorial action with me, they are free to do so.

Like many such answers to many similar questions on this subject – the answer can probably be summed-up as 'because that is what I (or sometimes 'we') choose to do' - live with it......

All I can do is to try and ensure that contributors are aware of the reality of what is happening to our forum - under the 'spin' and leave it for you to judge if this is really the right direction.

Now I always had thought that what a thread was titled was a matter for the originator. I also thought that using a prefix or not – was an option for the originator. This is not the case – Joe Offer tells us that these are for our anonymous volunteers to change at will – and without first obtaining permission from the originator.

Song Challenge; Camilla and Charlie were lovers

The Song Challenge bit - was added anonymously – without first asking if I minded this change.

I do mind this imposed change - because it was a thread parody song – with the intention of folk being invited to add to and finish this song. A song challenge is for different songs on the same subject.

I asked (in this thread) if this could be changed back. The choice that Joe Offer now presents me with is to leave it as it is - or for him to remove the Song Challenge bit – and this will then result in this musical contribution being placed with the BS……………..

Not perhaps the biggest single issue facing the world - but perhaps worth bringing attention to and sensibly debating in this thread?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:49 AM

The events surrounding this thread may be of interest too?

Sing Song Banned


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:59 AM

My recent Accordion thread got stuffed around with too - changing it from a nonsense thread to a BS thread - instead of putting the 'serious' posts into the previous sensible thread... sigh!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:07 AM

The horrors of Darfur

This thread - (perhaps one that should be brought to everyone's attention) did escape (for a while) with a FOLKLORE prefix - before being confined 'below decks'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 02:51 PM

You know, Shambles, you're absolutely correct. Things could be done differently. Sometimes, though, choices are made that are not your choices. Such are the vicissitudes of life. The editorial actions you question were performed for good, honest reasons. These actions may not fit your criteria, even though your criteria may be perfectly valid and commendable - but what else is new?

Thread titles are changed to make the Forum Index more understandable and to make threads easier to find. Threads are given titles that will help people decide whether to open or not to open a thread. If we change a thread title, we usually try to do it by adding a word or a tag, leaving the original title mostly intact - we do this out of respect for the intentions of the person who originated the thread, but also with the intention of making the Forum Menu a more useful index. While we respect the intent of the thread originator, a thread is a community creation and not subject to the control of the originator.

Let's take an example. Somebody started a thread the other day and titled it Phil Ochs. There are several other threads with the same title, and we've included them all in our Phil Ochs crosslinks. The thread originator wanted to know if anyone had seen Ochs perform live - so I changed the title to "Phil Ochs - ever see him perform?." Doesn't that make sense - to differentiate this thread from all the others with the same title?

The Horrors of Dafur thread started with a "Folklore" tag, but it was not related to folklore in any way and it did not belong in the music part of the Forum because it had no music information in it. It's understandable that the originator wouldn't want to put a "BS" label on a thread about a tragedy. The originator could have left the tag blank, but it's no big deal either way. In situations like that, we just remove the improper tag and move the thread to the non-music section - without the "BS" tag. We do the same with non-music obituaries - move them to the non-music side without adding a BS tag. These are common-sense things done to make Mudcat easier to navigate. Changing a thread title is not an earth-shaking decision, and there's no need to discuss every such action. If we stopped to discuss each thread title change we make, we'd never get anything done. Usually, we use common sense, and nobody objects. Note also that when we change thread titles, we ordinarily leave the message title of the original message unchanged - another attempt to honor the intention of the thread originator (we do occasionally change message titles for indexing purposes, particularly when messages contain lyrics or other music information that needs to be indexed).

Non-music threads go to the bottom half of the Forum Menu because they are not related to music - not because they are "bad" threads. Sometimes, a thread will be moved from top to bottom or vice-versa as the thread develops in one direction or another. It may start out as a chit-chat thread and end up loaded with songs. I suppose one could argue that some people don't notice threads in the bottom half of the Forum, and so "important" threads should be kept up top. One could also argue that if we keep "important" non-music threads on the bottom, maybe people will learn to take a look there on occasion.

Many of the editorial decisions made here are arbitrary - but most of the decisions we make in life are arbitrary, aren't they?
We make choices, and life goes on. We could choose other things, and life would still go on. Or, we could stop and debate every step we take until we all come to agreement - and life would come to a standstill.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:24 PM

Roger - I would never dispute your sincerity, but I would always rather have Joe moderating events than you. Joe is pushed in when people may be stepping on toes. You step on toes when no-one ever pushed you in. Go figure....

Nothing personal. I look forward to buying you a pint some time. But... Joe & the clones let the board breathe. I'm not saying you'd asphyxiate it, but despite your talk of freedom, I suspect you'd struggle to resist the temptation to strangle it...

Regards,

Rædwulf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:39 PM

Yeah, well since there was a previous Accordion 'serious' thread - I started a 'silly' one for some fun, but it turned into a serious one - my frustration is not with the editors, but all the posters who didn't read closely or think on the right wavelength.... this place does have a life of it's own.... which is why I keep coming back.

Robin


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Pauline L
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 09:15 PM

I hang out at another forum that uses a Moderator system. People who post frequently are sometimes given three points to award that day. The points are "recommend" or remove." "recommend" and "remove" points are shown on the screen. Most people use their "removes" to target personal insults, which most of us don't like and don't want on our website. When a post gets a certain number of "removes," that post is deleted, but the thread remains. The method works pretty well. The group is much smaller than Mudcat, and that contributes to the success of this method.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:34 AM

Shambles, I far prefer your previous, positive attitude on this forum, as exemplified by your post to the first thread I ever started on the Mudcat, nearly 5 years ago.

You seem pretty exclusively negative these days, which gets very wearing for even the most tolerant people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 07:34 AM

Sadly we ALL (at some time will) have to accept that we have no control over the postings of others.

Noreen I prefer Joe's positive side and I try to keep my postings as positive as I feel his less than positive control over every aspect of the current set-up will permit.

Why IS imposition thought now to be be the first, best and only option?

Is it really so very necessary that the thread song that I started - should have to have the title that Joe Offer imposed upon it - or else be confined to the BS?

Is this really positive? Or is it something else? I will leave you to judge.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 09:08 AM

It's something else Rambles...

Joe is in a position of authority here - a position Max has kept him in for years - the only reason I can assume for that is that Max believes Joe does his job well ... but come on...

"control over every aspect of the current set-up".

Your lines of reasoning are insane,

This time I will try to ask you to explain to me how come Joe has authority above Max?

The only logic I can see in your arguments remains that Max is either in control or out of control at your convenience.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:44 PM

Changing a thread title is not an earth-shaking decision, and there's no need to discuss every such action. If we stopped to discuss each thread title change we make, we'd never get anything done. Usually, we use common sense, and nobody objects.

If changing a thread title is not considered (by our volunteers) to be 'earth-shaking' – then by the same token - leaving it as the invited contributor intended - will not shake the earth either. For at this point, the imposed change may well be considered to 'earth-shaking' by the contributor and a little prior discussion may not go amiss – as this is still a discussion forum. Some may consider this to be common sense and more in keeping with the spirit of our forum.

I am not sure what other things are needed to get done – but I do feel that whatever is done - should always take enough time be done properly. As in cases like these there is no earth-shaking hurry – is there? So there is no real reason why the originator cannot be first consulted about any proposed action.

As in this case – when somebody does object to the anonymous imposed judgement and action – perhaps they should not then, just be presented with more – take-it-or leave-it - options?

For this was a positive musical contribution – why should there ever be any question of it being sent to the non-music section?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Fu#kin' Censor THIS!
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:46 PM

What a friggin' drag.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:50 PM

What load of blather


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:55 PM

I want Clinton Hammond censored! He is insensitive and has strong opinions that are crap. He also had a hit done on a skunk once. He is deeply evil. His remarks should be censored, so as to spare the feelings of sensitive, caring people and animals...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:01 PM

"to spare the feelings of sensitive, caring people"

Falicy... no such being...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:13 PM

That's "fallacy", Roscoe...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:16 PM

Yer right it is... I blame my state of under-caffeine-'dness...

:-P


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:19 PM

Which reminds me...I need to log off and get some lunch. Thanks, Clinton!

Shambles...? Carry on without us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 02:56 PM

He usually does, & never notices that he's the only one talking or listening... :-/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 03:30 PM

I'd imagine it's pretty difficult to pay attention to the rest of the world, with ones head so far up ones own ass...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:00 PM

LOL! I love you deep down, Clinton...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM

I don't care, I'm not GOING deep down!

:-P


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:05 AM

You two wanna be alone?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:09 AM

THIS heralds censorship. THIS ain't what happens here, IMO.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:11 AM

... so you provide a link to it...

Very good, brucie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:47 AM

Thank you, GUEST.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: RichM
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:40 AM

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:12 AM

Looks like an old Scandinavian 'magic' symbol to me, brucie... And a Far East 'magic' symbol...   That it was at one time co-opted by the insane should not be held against the symbol...

Context is all

I don't see what it has to do with the thread though...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM

People who complain about censorship have no bloody idea what it was like under the Nazis. That was censorship. Likening what happens here (pruning) to censorship is absurd, IMO. That's what it has to do with the thread, Clinton.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 04:51 PM

" Likening what happens here (pruning) to censorship"
I guess it's just a matter of degrees brucie...

If my neighbour builds a fence that's a foot over my side of the property line, should I not complain, because in the past white people stole the whole continent from the natives? hardly...

"have no bloody idea what it was like under the Nazis"
And unless you were there, neither do you...

"absurd"
Absolutely...   THERE we agree 100%! LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:09 PM

19 posts in a row on this thread and none of them from Shambles moaning about how Joe Offer pooped his party. That must be a record!
Giok ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:19 PM

Clinton,

The stuff that gets 'pruned' here deserves it. Many moons ago someone posted to say that he/she (it was a GUEST) would like to kill an elected official who is in Washington. It was one of thos posts where stuff got outta control. That was a breach of Federal law in the USA. I said so within a few posts. The GUEST post was deleted. Good call on someone's part.

My ex-father-in-law was a guest of the Third Reich in one of the camps. His wife was in Belgium during WWII, and I listened to both of them when they talked about it. So, in a manner you are right. I, personally, don't know. However, I personally DO know--if you know what I mean, and even if you don't.

The fence analogy: there are laws to handle the problem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:23 PM

I seem to have censored my Name !!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:25 PM

I'm wondering if "Godwin's Law" for web forums as well as Usenet. If so, I suppose we can put this baby to bed. (Sometime this century, maybe.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:04 PM

"That was a breach of Federal law in the USA."
The internet is a global medium that doesn't (At least it shouldn't) give a flying f#ck for "USA Federal Law"... I do plenty of things that might be considered 'illegal' in the USA or in other countries... I do things that some people might call immoral too... wanna ask me how much I care?

" The stuff that gets 'pruned' here deserves it."
Some say not enough stuff here gets pruned/deleted/censored or whatever you wanna call it... some say too much... There's only ONE persons say that has ANY merit, and that's Max (And 'him' through the people he has chosen to mod in his absence)

My fence analogy, you obviously missed the point...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:12 PM

Clinton,

Ya want to argue do so. But not with me, OK?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:54 PM

That would be another kind of censorship, brucie. If there's going to be free speech, Clinton can argue with whoever the hell he likes..., including you.

And you should accept that


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:56 PM

Let's hear another apology from brucie!!

C'mon brucie...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM

Roger - I would never dispute your sincerity, but I would always rather have Joe moderating events than you. Joe is pushed in when people may be stepping on toes. You step on toes when no-one ever pushed you in. Go figure....

Well as I would never wish to - or ever feel qualified to impose my judgement (sincere or otherwise) upon anyone else - and Joe is very likely to un-volunteer - and none of us have a say in it anyway - there is not much to figure - but it is a view and at least a contibution to a debate on a public discussion forum. As to describing what is now going on - on our forum, as moderation......

Moderator: arbitrator, mediator; Prespyterian minister presiding over any ecclesiastical body.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:05 PM

"That would be another kind of censorship, brucie. If there's going to be free speech, Clinton can argue with whoever the hell he likes..., including you."

Who the hell are YOU?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:05 PM

TS... go outside... pay a screen-door on a submarine a nickel to trade places with you... get yourself a better life than the one you currently have...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:06 PM

"Let's hear another apology from brucie!!"

Here's yer apology GUEST: Go take a flying fuck to yerself, dipshit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM

Who am I?
Well I'm me, of course, and I respect the right of Clinton to argue with me, if he so wishes.

Do you not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM

You ain't no one. You are a nameless dipshit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM

Good man brucie!

Isn't that the kind of thinking that led to the extermination camps, in the first place?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM

"Well I'm me, of course, and I respect the right of Clinton to argue with me, if he so wishes."

You ain't you. You're a dipshit. Period. And a periodic dipshit at that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:12 PM

"Isn't that the kind of thinking that led to the extermination camps, in the first place?"

You are STILL a dipshit. And a stupid one at that. Go shag yerself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:14 PM

PS Dipshit: I got no more time for you today.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:15 PM

Heavens above brucie!!

Do you not see yourself as sharing the same traits as Hitler?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,another guest
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:29 PM

Seriously though, brucie, Guest has a point.

You might want to go to an anger management course. You seem to revert to insult, when you seem to have no answer.

That is very bad.

Especially for a school teacher


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:40 PM

Well Rambles I don't doubt your insincerity.

Your logic would demand Max to be so perverse that he actually appoints people to destroy his own dreams. (something I do not believe he is)

Try adding words like "appointed by Max" when referring to Joe or the clones and you would see how nonsensical you are.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:05 PM

Brucie... grow the f#ck up would ya...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Niggly
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:06 PM

Which Hitlerian traits did you have in mind, Guest?

I've heard that Hitler loved dogs, for instance. He was also highly patriotic, and he nursed a deep sense of grievance for past historical wrongs against his people, as he saw them. He thought his people were the most special people in the world, and deserved a special role.

Aren't those all traits of Ariel Sharon? (although I'm not sure about the dogs part...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:30 PM

Which traits?
Linking the swastika to here, for 1.

Don't think Ariel would have done that


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:33 PM

Then why did he invade their country?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:43 PM

Good question, Amos.

But does Ariel Sharon go around calling people 'nobodys', 'dipshits Period', Periodic dipshits, and then refusing to apologise for attempting to stifle the right of some-one else on this Forum to speak freely?

Mmmmmmm, I see your point.

There you are, brucie.
Ariel and Adolph, all in one!

Do you have a dog?
(I don't want to know the answer to that, really)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 09:36 PM

Bruce, you really shouldn't go around calling nameless people dipshits. I've never thought of asking this before- What IS a "dipshit"?
The world wants to know.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 09:40 PM

Oh dear...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:25 PM

A dipshit is the offspring of a jerkwad and a fucknuts. It's in the fourth tier of profane vocabulary.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:06 AM

And there you have it. Very good, Spaw.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:13 AM

Whatever you say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:19 AM

That to Clinton, guest, other guest and other guest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 10:58 PM

I wonder what's on the third tier?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 01:47 AM

"Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation." Saint Augustine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 05:00 AM

He used to masturbate a lot, Sham, didn't he?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 08:44 AM

Perfect moderation is a silly idea. People who are moderate do not try to be perfect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Mr (almost perfect) Red
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:16 AM

How about moderating purfecshun?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 08:25 PM

Everything in moderation
Especially moderation........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 08:53 AM

your'e all nuts!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 10:16 AM

"To go beyond the bounds of moderation is to outrage humanity." Blaise Pascal


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Charlie from Ashby de la Zouch (by the sea)
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 10:43 AM

Sounds like a good excuse for a bit of Jake Thakeray:

I love a good bum on a woman, it makes my day.
To me it is palpable proof of God's existence, a posteriori.
Also I love breasts and arms and ankles, elbows, knees;
It's the tongue, the tongue, the tongue on a woman that spoils the job for me.
Please understand I respect and admire the frailer sex
And I honour them every bit as much as the next misogynist.
But give some women the ghost of a chance to talk and thereupon
They go on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on.

I fell in love with a woman with wonderful thighs and hips
And a sensational belly. I just never noticed her lips were always moving.
Only when we got to the altar and she had to say "I do"
And she folded her arms and gathered herself and took in a breath and I knew
She could have gone on again, on again, on again till the entire
Congregation passed out and the vicar passed on and the choirboys passed through puberty.
At the reception I gloomily noted her family's jubilant mood,
Their maniacal laughter and their ghastly gratitude.

She talks to me when I go for a shave or a sleep or a swim.
She talks to me on a Sunday when I go singing hymns and drinking heavily.
When I go mending my chimney pot she's down there in the street,
And at ninety-five on my motorbike she's on the pillion seat
Wittering on again, on again, on and again and again.
When I'm eating or drinking or reading or thinking or when I'm saying my rosary.
She will never stop talking to me; she is one of those women who
Will never use three or four words when a couple of thousand will easily do!

She also talks without stopping to me in our bed of a night;
Throughout the sweetest of our intimate delights she never gives over.
Not even stopping while we go hammer and tongs towards the peak -
Except maybe for a sigh and a groan and one perfunctory shriek.
Then she goes on again, on again, on again on and I must
Assume that she has never noticed that she's just been interrupted.
Totally unruffled she is, and as far as I can see
I might just as well have been posting a letter or stirring up the tea!

She will not take a hint, not once she's made a start.
I can yawn or belch or bleed or faint or fart - she'll not drop a syllable.
I could stand in front of her grimly sharpening up an axe,
I could sprinkle her with paraffin, and ask her for a match -
She'd just go on again, on again, on again even more.
The hind leg of a donkey is peanuts for her, she can bore the balls off a buffalo.
"Mother of God," I cried one day, "Oh, let your kingdom come
"And in the meantime, Mother, could you strike this bugger dumb?"

Well, believe it or not, she appeared to me then and there:
The Blessed Virgin herself, in answer to my prayer, despite the vulgarity,
Shimmering softly, dressed in blue and holding up a hand.
I cocked a pious ear as the Mother of God began.
Well she went on again, on again, on again, on, and I
Will have to state how very much I sympathise with the rest of the family.
Give some women the ghost of a chance to talk and thereupon
They go on again, on again, on again, on again,
And again, and again, and again, and again
They will go on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on.

Now... take away the tits, and add a grey beard... and what image does that bring to mind?????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 01:59 AM

"Exactness and neatness in moderation is a virtue, but carried to extremes narrows the mind." Francois de Salignac Fenelon


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

Well as I would never wish to - or ever feel qualified to impose my judgement (sincere or otherwise) upon anyone else

Are you sure about that, Roger? Are you really really sure? Because you ram your views far more often, far more persistently & far more vehemently down everyone's throats than any of the clones ever do.

No, Max would never be daft enough to offer you the chance to moderate Mudcat. Your over-expressed, rigidly monomaniac views have shown you are not competent to be a moderator (whatever & whoever you want to quote to prove that your view is the right one).

I have fulfilled such a function in a number of different fashions on the Net & off of it. I've occasionally been criticised for it, & resigned in one instance because I felt that such criticism was entirely unjustified. I did my best, as I believe Joe does, to provide a balance between opposing views, and I was editing a snail-mail journal, which is a lot more difficult, so I feel I'm a little qualified, at least, to offer some kind of informed opinion.

Your philosophy would cause far more damage. I don't believe you'd over prune. Instead (to continue the gardening analogy), you'd allow Mudcat to be strangled by the weeds. Joe is willing to pull a few up by the roots, but you'd slowly lose the good growth as it fell away, despairing of space to flower.

Personally, as I've said before, I don't believe Mudcat is moderated as well as it could be. I think Joe & the Clones are too lenient. The baiting of brucie (which he was stupid enough (sorry brucie, but it's true!) to play up to) is a not untypical abuse of Guest privilege, IMHO. But I express my opinion occasionally, when the moment seems appropriate. And maybe Joe listens & thinks the arguments aren't quite convincing enough. And maybe he & Max think there isn't so much of a problem as to need the work & hassle that the solution would take.

But you raise it again & again. And again & again. And again & again & again & again... And you never seem to realise that it is only you banging the same tired old rhythm on the same worn out old drum. Me? I'd be wondering whether I was out of step with the rest of board & whether I ought to reconsider my opinions. But it never seems to occur to you...

Regards,

Rædwulf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:27 PM

"The baiting of brucie (which he was stupid enough (sorry brucie, but it's true!) to play up to) is a not untypical abuse of Guest privilege, IMHO."

You ain't sorry. But that's OK. You sign your name, and that's good enough for me, Raedwulf. I always did like you.

Bruce M


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM

Those literary quotes of Sham's are all wrong-- they are not talking about editorial moseration, but about self-control. As in, "everything in moderation."

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:52 PM

What is moderation? Good thought but what is it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:19 PM

Come on...what is moderation?..........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:28 PM

In the context of an internet board (which seems to escape Roger all too frequently) , moderating means keeping the discussion within "reasonable" bounds. Yes, "reasonable" is subjective & dependent on the moderators. But it is normally taken to mean pruning anything overtly offensive. So no spam (which everyone except the spammers seem to find offensive), no anonymous slanging matches (MC is a bit weak on stopping this, IMHO), public personal vitriol is discouraged (which MC allows a reasonable amount of latitude on, but does sometimes close down), that kind of thing.

It does not normally mean allowing absolutely anything, or trying to be overly sensitive. We're all adults here (more or less), & if you're not prepared for a bit of "give & take", be careful of what you say & how you express yourself. If you're flamed you quite probably asked for it (even if you didn't think so), so don't expect the mods to defend you.

Email communication is often prone to misunderstandings. Either accept that, or find another another way of explaining what you were trying to say. I've had to do both before, & I'm not always exactly conciliatory in my expressiveness, shall we say! Moderation comes from all sides, & if you're not, you've no grounds for complaint. (Note: Roger, IMHO you are not moderate in your constant sniping about moderation, as you might have gathered! ;-) )

I've no complaints about the way that Mudcat is moderated, except in the latitude allowed to anonymous Guests below the BS "salt" (which is where I usually dwell), & I've been both sinner & sinned against.

R


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:31 PM

Ashby de la Zouche by the sea?.....How far from the sea can you get?
Best wishes, Mike.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: Oi! Brucie, you Rodney!!
From: Raedwulf
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:37 PM

*Bzzzzt*

Wrong, Mr Murdoch! I am actually sorry to tell you that you've been a pillock, but in this thread, you have been. Generally, you're a good & intelligent guy, but you don't play with trolls (been there, done that) by making yourself look a complete twit & offering them a cheap score. Which is exactly what you did here.

I like you well enough to take the trouble to tell you so. Make me do it again, & I'll call you something worse! ;-)

Regards,

Rædwulf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM

That's OK. It's an honored tradition here to feed the trolls just enough to keep them alive. As long as you don't place them internally, make them spawn, and try to auto-nourish the results on placenta (which is something both men and women can actually do), it's OK.

Right?

:~)

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:55 PM

Yep! But brucie were givin' 'em breedin' room... Hence the resounding :p

;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:56 PM

Eeeeeeew...........

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 09:59 PM

Coulda been worse. Least I was only castigated.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 02:52 AM

"The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom." Aristotle

The quotes are from this site called Everything In Moderation. Which is a site about the moderation of internet website etc.

http://www.everythinginmoderation.org/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:44 AM

Ah, yes. Aristotle was a very prolific writer on internet issues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 09:05 AM

The quotes may be from a mod site, but Aristotle was not writing about the internet!

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:14 AM

"Yep! But brucie were givin' 'em breedin' room... Hence the resounding :p"

Of couse, whether or not I give a rat's ass is another issue. LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Pauline L
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM

Great truths endure. Even though Aristotle didn't write about the Internet, if what he wrote was good, it can be applied to the Internet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:37 AM

The internet has an entirely different meaning for the word-- it's not the same concept at all.

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 06:22 AM

Raedwulf says

Are you sure about that, Roger? Are you really really sure? Because you ram your views far more often, far more persistently & far more vehemently down everyone's throats than any of the clones ever do.

I am sure that I can't 'ram' or impose - nor have I any wish to. I can only express my view, present the facts and hope to shape our forum in the traditional way – by my contributions to a discussion forum - which you and other posters, can easily choose to ignore.

Our unknown and numberless volunteers are NOW able to shape our forum by what they choose to delete by the imposition of their judgement - it is not quite so easy for the rest of us to ignore this. Especially if your invited contribution is permanently lost when an entire thread is deleted. Not because there was anything wrong with it – but because our volunteers could not be bothered to take the time, to deal only with what they considered the offending post.

In the context of an internet board (which seems to escape Roger all too frequently) , moderating means keeping the discussion within "reasonable" bounds. Yes, "reasonable" is subjective & dependent on the moderators. But it is normally taken to mean pruning anything overtly offensive. So no spam (which everyone except the spammers seem to find offensive), no anonymous slanging matches (MC is a bit weak on stopping this, IMHO), public personal vitriol is discouraged (which MC allows a reasonable amount of latitude on, but does sometimes close down), that kind of thing.

I do try and produce evidence to support my view of the reality of all this imposed censorship. See my posting in this thread of -06 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM – for evidence. This shows that our volunteers – from their privileged and responsible position- set the poor example of indulging in abusive personal attacks, incite other to do the same and seem to think this is amusing. Is this the example that moderators should be setting?

The nature of this part of a website - that is open for and has historically been shaped by the contributions of the public – does not ever escape me. I think there is evidence that it does perhaps escape some of our volunteers who are very confused about what this part of Max's website is in reality or what their imposed editing action is really try to acheive. This confusion over purpose - is very evident from the nature of the imposed editing action.

The idea that our forum is (MAINLY or ONLY) a site for research – is probably the biggest misconception. The attempt to intentionally turn our public discussion forum into this by the imposition of this view – when its strucure will allow much more - is probably the single biggest mistake. It is probably not very honest to support the editing actions of this practice either for this attempt is not moderation – it is something else.

I found this definition : person using strength or power to coerce others by fear – persecute or oppress by force or threats. This was not the definition of the methods or intention of a moderator – but those of a bully.

The facts are all here – you judge……But these facts will demonstrate that if you should post and assume to judge our volunteer judges (in any way other than being totally uncritical)- you should probably be prepared for them to mount abusive personal attacks, incite others to do this and encourage the idea that this practice is humourous - when undertaken against certain (safe) targets.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:09 AM

Another example of objective 'moderation' from our volumteers - or another example of bullying? You judge...........

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-semitism
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 15 Mar 05 - 11:10 AM

Dewey .... your attempts to alibi your original contentions won't fly.

It is entirely appropriate that we would combine threads that are essentially the same or going to the same place. Don't like it? Oh well.....

If I had caught all this earlier, I would have deleted it. Bill D doesn't need defending. His goodness shines through. As a Christian, I wish more Christians were like him. Bill might challenge your arguments, but he doesn't attack you. He is the classic example of being tolerant of others views. Would that more of my Christian brothers and sisters were like that.

Oh yeah ..... goodbye.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:58 AM

Anti-semitism

The above thread was closed.
    Yes, Shambles, we do close threads when they get out of hand, especially when they drift into racism and personal attacks. I'm so glad you noticed, but this is not a new policy.
    By the way, the Kurd Thread was also closed.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:11 AM

Regarding Mick's post quoted below--

1. In addition to being a supervised site volunteer workig within policies made clear by site administrators, Mick is a member here with as much right to have (and state) an opinion as anyone else.

2. If Mick HAD deleted or closed the thread in question, his action would have been reviewed by site administrators. His action could have been reversed if he had not interpreted or applied policy correctly.

There ya have it. Another tempest in a teapot, debunked.

~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM

You would appear to welcome to express your opinion and seen in isolation your judgement may appear to have some substance. However a picture is beginning to build-up from many such instances - that possibly does not support your view? But it seems that a higher authority even that our volunteers may have been responsible for closing this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-semitism
From: WYSIWYG - PM
Date: 15 Mar 05 - 04:54 PM

Dewey, as you know I'm a praying woman. I'm praying that this thread will be closed, that you will find and join the site you dream of, and that God will speak to you there in such a way that you realize how really dumb you have been at Mudcat.

~Susan


That thread was closed - so it looks as if (at least some of your) prayers were answered....By the Chief 'Goderator'?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM

Wikpedia entry on Internet Trolls - it's interesting, it's pretty deep, and it rings so many bells, you'll need ear plugs.

This thread: another example of personal attack via 'polite' stalking - or another example of trolling? You judge.......

.....or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 01:20 PM

In some of the personal abuse presented to me by our volunteers and their supporters - I will settle for 'polite' anything. But of course troll or trolling is just another device and yet another name to call someone whose views you may not like or share.

If this thread was such a thing it would present no threat or concern and could safely be ignored. If it was honestly thought to be such a thing - then the very best example for our volunteers to set - would be to ignore it and not to post to the thread to send it right back to the top again.

[As Joe Offer manages not to do - when he again expresses his personal view as an editorial comment when no editing has taken place and inserts it into someone else's post without their permission]

Perhaps a good guideline for the future would be that if a thread is not judged to be worth refreshing - it is not worth contributing to?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:16 PM

Oh crap, Roger! Our mods are people, not saints. As Susan has already pointed out, the mods are also members & are entitled to post their opinions. If you think that's wrong, then perhaps the rest of us should start a campaign to get you installed as a mod? I mean, we could be sure you'd never censor anything, & since you'd then feel duty bound to shut up...

;-)



Ditto to your comments about Joe. What on earth is the problem here? We all know who said what. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps Joe chose to make the remark in the 'editorial' fashion because he is commenting on Mudcat policy, rather than expressing his own personal opinion? Only if his personal opinion is in opposition to the official line does your complaint have any substance (& then only on a very technical, pedantic basis, cos we still know exactly who said what to whom...). Since, as far as I am aware, Joe's expressed opinion *is* the official line, you are, once more "tilting at windmills" Don Shambles! ;-)

In fact, it is arguable that in your persistent sniping at Joe, you are in fact indulging in a campaign of "personal abuse", albeit politely phrased (but that makes it no less wearying, believe me!). On a more tightly moderated board you would have been warned or somehow circumscribed a long time ago. Be thankful for small mercies!

If you can find threads where a moderator has both been abusive & has controlled the debate (by editing, deletion or closure) then you might well have a case for editorial abuse that needs answering. Exactly that accusation was what caused my resignation from my snail mail journal. I defended myself (with a clear conscience, I might add), the accusation was politely ("but nevertheless...") repeated, I resigned. Abuse of privilege is serious (NB: I don't regard combining two threads (vice your above quote) as stifling debate, merely streamlining it. Dewey can presumably continue to post to the open thread?).

In which case, by all means squawk as loudly & as publicly as you can. If others agree with you, I am sure that your case would be taken up. If it isn't... I'm afraid your constant repetition is something that many of us seem to find tiresome. You jump at shadows, you can be a monomaniacal bore. Too much of the reaction I've seen here suggests that too many members would be inclined to agree.

I say again, "But you raise it again & again. And again & again. And again & again & again & again... And you never seem to realise that it is only you banging the same tired old rhythm on the same worn out old drum. Me? I'd be wondering whether I was out of step with the rest of board & whether I ought to reconsider my opinions. But it never seems to occur to you..."

Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, Roger?

Best wishes,

Rædwulf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:31 PM

If you can find threads where a moderator has both been abusive & has controlled the debate (by editing, deletion or closure) then you might well have a case for editorial abuse that needs answering.

IF..........? *BIG SMILE*

This evidence has been provided or linked to in this thread. There is no shortage of such evidence of our forum now being shaped by this - but if you are determined to hold and express a view that ignores all of this evidence - I am not sure why you would expect me or anyone else to take your opinion seriously.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:08 PM

Oy, Rædwulf, I think you've just opened the door to further tirades. Shambles has an entire library of quotations to misquote. I did make a mistake in judgment in 1907, and I said something that implied something negative about Shambles (but I did not say it in a brown editorial comment). He has copy-pasted it many times since then, in many different contexts. Since he has posted it so often, I think he may actually be quite proud of what I implied about him, but I certainly have come to regret what I said.

I also once said that I was sick of Shambles' whining, and Shambles apparently considers that to be a personal attack from me. I don't think it was an attack - but it was a personal opinion and not Mudcat policy, so I didn't put it in a brown editorial remark. He's still whining, but I've learned to take it with a sense of humor and to more-or-less ignore him most of the time.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:19 PM

1907? Gads, the Shambles has been going on even longer than I thought.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM

Joe, lots of people are sick of Shambles'... ummm... repetition? (Alright Roger, I'll come quietly, yes I really meant whining...) ;-)

On the other hand, I've PM'ed Roger to try to find out exactly what "evidence" he is referring to. The most obvious possibility (which I told him I assumed is not the one he means) is the thread he has referenced today. Which was going nowhere & consists of a number of people entirely disagreeing with Dewey. I wouldn't necessarily characterise it as "personal attacks", as compared with, say, the slanging match that went on between me & Martin G on the Holocaust thread (mea culpa, sinner & sinned against, to a degree!). It certainly isn't the "abusive & controlled" thread that I referred to above. If that's the thread he meant, then he's suffering tunnel vision again IMHO, but I await his clarification.

The real point here is that Roger can quote anything he wants anytime he wants. But until he gets support from named & known members, he still has one inescapable question to answer - Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions.

Two different ways of asking the same thing, & a question which, so far, Roger has preferred to sidestep...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:16 PM

This thread reminds me of the worst case o' crabs I ever had. Took weeks and weeks to get rid of them. Like the herpes virus that rears its head at coldsore season, so too does this thread remind us that the days of our lives are numbered. Fungus in the jockstrap; warts on the petunia; tits on a bull.

Pass that over here, will ya Dave? I promise not to inhale.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:14 PM

It is entirely appropriate that we would combine threads that are essentially the same or going to the same place. Don't like it? Oh well.....

Is it entirely appropriate that thread titles are for our volunteers to impose their judgement and change in any way without seeking the permission of the originator - especially when there is no question of the original title being offensive?

And if you do not consider that this practice by our volunteers is entirely appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of our forum - is it entirely appropriate that the rest of us are told by these volunteers - at this stage in our forum's development - in effect to take it or leave it - as 'we' are going to do it anyway?

Joe Offer - whilst claiming thread titles are his to change at will -has stated that the posts themselves are sacrosanct - but does not see that insisting on imposing his editing comments in these posts - without permission and where no editing has taken place in order not to refresh the thread - is not honouring this...What is next?
    Ah, but Roger, I draw a little line. The space above the line is your space, and I leave it alone. And I write in brown, so people won't confuse my comments with yours. Besides that, my usual brown responses are editorial comments in response to your questions about editorial actions. Does it not seem appropriate to give editorial answers to editorial questions in editorial format?
    As a matter of fact, what is wrong with the brown comments, other than that they are a violation of your own arbitrary rules that you seek to impose upon the editorial staff of Mudcat? Isn't that it? - that you want to be king, and you've had a royal snit for threee years now because no one has seen fit to recognize your royalty?
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:21 PM

If I had any friggin' hair left I'd pull it out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:32 PM

Damn. Brucie, I had this image of you with a full head of wavy hair, just like William Shatner. I guess when one has illusions about others' hair, there's always hell toupe.

Look at it as watching somebody make balloon animals out of logic. They're supposed to be giraffes and weiner dogs and stuff like that, but they all look like sausages with legs, which pretty much means they DO look like weiner dogs, but not giraffes. And presumably, you still have eyebrows and nose hair.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:39 PM

LOL

Good one, Jeri. Yeah. I'm at the age where I got hair damn near every place I don't want it and none of the places I do. I'll be buying black satin pillow cases so's I can find it all in the morning. Thanks for the laugh there gal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:04 PM

Oh fer gawd's sake. Just shut up. First and LAST time I'll post to this one. Good grief Charlie Brown.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:36 PM

Forget Captain Kirk.

Where is Spock when we need him?!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,William Shatner
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM

Leonard is otherwise engaged at the moment. I'll try to handle this.

Shambles, you must realize that every world has its imperfections. No society or microcosm of society will ever meet one's every hope and requirement perfectly. Grow up, sir. Accept the fact that things are as they are, and get on with your life. Either that or buy the damned forum out, and run it as you see fit.

- William Shatner


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:55 PM

But Captain,
your statement "Accept the fact that things are as they are, and get on with your life " doesn't take into consideration the drive we humans have to correct and enhance what is..

I'm not concerned about challenging "what is" from the inside.
It's just that it doesn't appear to me that Shambles has made his case that wrong has occurred.

Maybe Spock could make Shambles see reason about this.
IMO, Captain Kirk failed in his attempt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:27 AM

Ah yes - logic.

Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed!
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM

Sorry, Peter. We routinely close or delete all threads that look like they're going to be an attack on an individual. Yours got deleted before it turned into another slugfest. There was no way it was going to turn out to be a constructive discussion.
As for any thread about gargoyle or Martin Gibson, we don't even think twice. We delete it.
Learn to live with it.
-Joe Offer-


The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement.

Being forced to live with these ultimatums from our volunteers may be life - but not as we have come to know it on our forum.....

All I am trying to do is to demonstrate that what is defended in the 'spin' is not what is now happening in reality. The reality of this should be very clear from the evidence and links in this thread. You judge from reading this evidence - where we are now and where we are going.............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM

God give me the serenity to accept things which cannot be changed;
Give me courage to change things which must be changed;
And the wisdom to distinguish one from the other.
- Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr
Union Theological Seminary
NYC, 1932


~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 09:32 AM

"All I am trying to do is to demonstrate that what is defended in the 'spin' is not what is now happening in reality. The reality of this should be very clear from the evidence and links in this thread. You judge from reading this evidence - where we are now and where we are going............."

Yes, the reality is Mudcat is moving toward a higher level of moderation and not even Joe wants to say so. For a very long time we were able to enjoy the freedom that a small community can provide. Only Garg was much of a problem and even then we "knew the devil" so he was a sort of in-house troll that required very little attention. As the place grew we acquired the things that come with a larger community and that also meant that to keep pure chaos and anarchy from reigning supreme, certain steps had, repeat had, to be taken. And whether you or I or Max or Joe or Jeff like it, additional things will more than likely need to be implemented as growth continues. Sorry , but you can't go home again. Funny thing though Sham, I think Joe longs for those older days and hates the idea of doing more even more than you do. He doesn't want to do more and I think he hopes every additional thing will be the last.

But it just don't work that way.

More changes will happen. Period. You aren't going to like them and neither will Max or Jeff or Joe of me, but happen they will out of necessity. The difference here is that you think you CAN go home again and the rest of us sorrowfully know you can't. You continue to harp on these issues ad nauseum and unless you are much less intelligent that I figure you to be, I have to question the reason you do so. What is the point? Face the simple truth......You are not going to change things back to where they were and you are not going to stop the growth of this place which will make even more structure necessary. You will however sacrifice any credibility you have left. Your continual carping in the face of all reality does not make you a courageous martyr or whatever, it just makes you look like an ass.

"The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement."

I belong to a large auto racing forum that works exactly that way and yet it is freindly with excellent discussions, many of them quite heated. But the rules are strict and the mods enforce them tightly with no recall. Even with all that is imposed there, the place is still fun and it works. No, it's not got much freedom but civil discussions are the norm and even in our "fun forum" over there, the rules are still in effect. Life there is much easier. Freedom requires personal resopnsibility and very few here will take it and it makes an A number One breeding ground for trolls and flamers.

Try to adjust and if you can't at least try and shut up. You are accomplishing nothing on any sort of positive note with this continual whining.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:26 PM

Yes, the reality is Mudcat is moving toward a higher level of moderation and not even Joe wants to say so.

Funny thing though Sham, I think Joe longs for those older days and hates the idea of doing more even more than you do. He doesn't want to do more and I think he hopes every additional thing will be the last.

This is what you think Joe thinks. It is not what he says and until he does say this - it is probably better if we just judge him by his actions - and what he does say.

I have not said this and I certainly have no wish to return to some mythical golden period. I support the forum continuing to natuarally evolve by its invited contributions from the public. I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this.

But I also do not wish to see the same old excuses wheeled-out to justify the bad example now being set by our volunteers - in the use of abusive language, personal judgements, and generally responding in kind - by those few who assume that their inabilty to act responsibily and ignore obvious provocation - is shared by other posters. It is not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

I have been censored on Mudcat and probably Joe Offer did me a favor.

Peter


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:49 PM

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill because they ticked me off."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:22 PM

"I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this."

Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go! The contributions of the members you so heartily endorse become nothing but forum killers as the trolls and flamers run amok unchecked. Soon there will be fewer and fewer good memebers until eventually nothing is left but the worst and then, and only then, they too will leave. In their wake they will leave nothing of value.

You can't see that though can you? You refuse to accept that moderation and censorship becomes needed when forums reach certain levels. Mudcat maintains a tiny amount by all comparison and you can't even accept that! I can direct you to some very good forums where conversations move along quite freely and yet are very heavily censored. You'd be apoplectic! And one other thing......most all of your posts on this thread would have been deleted. MAtter of fact, this entire thread would have been zapped as soon as it appeared. And yet the folks in those forums all seem to have a good time talking about the topics that interest them and there are no trolls or flamers. Mods let them know when they're stretching the envelope and things fall back in line. Personally I think that level of moderation and censorship is too much, but I can also see it works.

I fail to see why you refuse to understand that the limited moderation here is no big deal. We ought to be grateful that this is all there is. But with growth, more will probably become mandatory. Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM

Shambles, you are behaving like a juvenile throwing a temper tantrum. If you don't like it, why won't you just leave?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:34 PM

Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you.

There are two people I know of who DID "leave" here and start another forum. Guess what. They moderated. More than here. Because it was clear that conversation was killed off here too often without some structure. They had membership criteria, required registration, and moderation.

~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM

PS, that post of mine was directed to Shambles in support of catspaw's point.

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 04:17 PM

Did anyone notice what a wise sage Catspaw has become? What happened to the old Catspaw that we knew and loved?
[grin]
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM

It can only happen when one takes a break from Mudcat for awhile. (Apparently, a longer while than I've experienced.) :~)

~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: MudGuard
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

Did anyone notice what a wise sage Catspaw has become? What happened to the old Catspaw that we knew and loved?

The old Catspaw got - of course - censored ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:19 PM

Same Shit, Different Day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,William Shatner
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:40 PM

I had a heart to heart talk with him, and he's been much steadier since. Sometimes it just takes a few kind yet firm words from a more experienced hand to get a person on the right track and turn things around. I'm proud of what Pat...may I call you "Pat"?...has achieved in the last year. He's basically a very fine man with a warm and caring heart.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 07:05 PM

Different Day, Same Shit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 08:50 PM

Feel free to call me Pat, Shatner, and I will call you Jackass.

And no, Spaw has never been censored.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:09 PM

Yeah, hey, my cat Van Gogh* got censored, too. Now he's an "it" - but he is much more docile.

Poor Catspaw.

-Joe Offer-



*usually known as "Gooey" or "Go-Go."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:47 PM

The most unkindest cut of all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:57 PM

The first cut is the deepest!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 11:15 PM

Joe, here in our area, they say, "Has your dog been tutored yet?" It doesn't ever get said about female dogs tho. :~)

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: MudGuard
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 07:33 AM

Ups, "censored" seems to have a second meaning of which I was not aware ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:51 AM

Pat

"I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this."

Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go!

I think this is one of the saddest and most negative contributions that I have ever read on this forum. It reminds me far too much of the justifications that Bush and Blair are currently giving us – as to why our precious freedoms must be curtailed for the common good and why we must as do as they tell us...For if there are no remaining freedoms – there can be no common good.

Pat, you may be prepared to articulate and accept that there is some sort of inevitable decline into the negative aspects of human nature and that well-intended and very successful attempts to encourage and tolerate the public's freedom of expression – like Max's public discussion forum – are doomed into becoming the private playground of a judgmental and favoured few.

I - and I suspect many other posters do not accept this as inevitable. Things like this fine forum - only go this negative way – if some people wish it to – it suits a few others and the rest do nothing to prevent it. And if you are prepared to let the positive aspects slide and encourage the negative ones.

The contributions of the members you so heartily endorse become nothing but forum killers as the trolls and flamers run amok unchecked. Soon there will be fewer and fewer good memebers until eventually nothing is left but the worst and then, and only then, they too will leave. In their wake they will leave nothing of value.

In truth when those you would judge as 'good members' - currently set and are encouraged to set the example of acting the same and responding in kind to the flamers and trolls – it is difficult to tell them apart……….But this is a public discussion forum. It is not a place for one poster to be encouraged to judge the worth of another poster's entire personality, to call them names and question their possible motives – from only what they may post. It is what is said in the post that matters - and the only choice open to a poster is to reply or not.

You can't see that though can you? You refuse to accept that moderation and censorship becomes needed when forums reach certain levels.

You seem unable to accept the reality of a forum that still remains open to all of the public. Perhaps you should stay in those that are not? Or start one of your own where you could choose and judge your fellow posters? I can accept that some form of moderation may at some point be required but not that this is ever inevitable or when contributions reach a certain level. If this is the case – the reward for the success of Max's public discussion forum – would appear to be that it must die or become something else…………..

I fail to see why you refuse to understand that the limited moderation here is no big deal. We ought to be grateful that this is all there is. But with growth, more will probably become mandatory. Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you.

But if or when some form of moderation is ever required – I expect you may agree that the requirement is that this moderation it is always open, fair, and has a clear object. That many folk still don't think that any moderation at all is taking place and that it is currently being undertaken and imposed by anonymous fellow posters – rather knocks the first one on the head.   

If it were a matter for me to decide – if or when I thought that imposed censorship was needed on this public discussion forum and that the encouragement of setting a good example and other measures could not deal with any problems – firstly I would consider it to be a BIG DEAL. I would ensure and constantly review that whatever was introduced was open, fair and had a clear object. If or when that is the case on our forum – I will support this……My earler posts in this thread will show who is being most affected by all of this current imposed censorship.

I think the saddest part of your post was how quickly you have given-up on the special place that his forum has always been thought to be. In order - it would appear to support a place that would be as ordinary and intolerant as every other site on the internet. If this part of Max's website - that he set aside for the public's contributions had ever been ordinary - many contrubutors would not have stayed for so long and tried to ensure that it never became ordinary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:01 AM

I've just had my 200th post censored!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:12 AM

I've just had my 200th post censored!

I didn't.

Or not yet anyway. Your one must have been judged as offensive subversive and likely to bring the whole edifice down.

There will no doubt be some editorial comment (in brown writing) to explain why your post was deleted.......?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:29 AM

I'll tell why my 200th post was deleted, I'll bet Leadfingers complained because he missed it! Typical bamjo player, too slow to catch a cold!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:37 AM

As sombody said.........

Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 10:57 AM

Ted, I don't know how to tell you this, but I think Shambles got the 200th post, fair and square. I don't believe there's been a single message deleted or moved from this thread.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Flamenco ted
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:19 AM

Good afternoon Joe,
                  I can't even log in at the moment, but I have DEFINITELY had a few 100th posts deleted today!! How much is Leadfingers paying you?
                   Anyhow, no matter, I have to toddle off to the North York Moors for the weekend. Carry on deleting!
                  Flamenco, the true path!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Flamenco ted
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:48 AM

Hang about Joe! If you re read post number 11 and 12 on this very thread, you will see that YOU tried to bag the 100th posts yourself!!! As for the music threads, I see leadfingers trophies are still all over the place. Is it a banjo thing?
Have to go TTFN


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:23 PM

Hey, Ted - I said the counting messages were a no-no on music threads and serious discussions. Most of us stopped taking the Shambles campaigns seriously a long, long time ago.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM

I find it hard to believe that this thread is still going.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:50 PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:51 PM

Y'all take a good look at the post above this one. THAT is censorship. Now, please take two pills and write back in a year. Thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:56 PM

I am totally pissed off with the whining of 'Shambles', and I'm tempted to tell him where to go, and what to do when he gets there, but that would put me back in the ranks of those who respond to flamers and trolls, and I'm 'Cold Turkey' on that one. Shambles the only thing I can say to you that is polite is "Get a life". You obviously aren't going to get your own way, and you are sulking because someone deleted your pearls of wisdom. Just give it a rest, and if you are that upset, why don't you give the benefit of your erudition and angst to another site, where they will no doubt get as fed up with you as I am.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 01:49 PM

You see Roger? Even Giok's sick of you (mind you, he's a miserable Socts ***)... ;-)

More seriously, you have sidestepped this question twice now. At the third time of asking,

Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions?

Three strikes & yer out, 'ccording to ol' "Blow-job" Clinton...

And Roger, you never responded to my PM. You are avoiding & ignoring my questions. What does that say about you, that would continually question? Are you afraid of giving answers? Or is it only those answers that make you seem a fool that you avoid?

For the benefit of everyone else,

Hello Roger,

Which thread? "Censorship" has grown & I don't have time to wade through it all over again. More than one person has suggested that the Anti-semitism thread was closed because it got too personal, so I'm assuming at this point you're displaying your too well proven 'aversion' & that it's not that one. PM me the thread link & I'll take a look. Be warned though, I'll post my response to you publicly, especially if I think you're talking crap!

Best,

R


Roger won't tell me which thread he thought was particularly censored, same as he won't answer my question. Go figure...

R


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM

Perhaps one of the reasons I did not respond to these PMs is because what is said in these is expected to be personal, to remain private and not be publicly splashed across the forum and there are certain people I felt that could not trust to honour this convention...If so -it looks as if I was right......

BTW someone certainly did delete Flamenco Ted's 200th post. It was there when I first looked and then it was gone............Perhaps the reasons for this imposed judgement upon it, who it was that imposed it and the terrible harm that leaving it in place would have done - will be explained to us in time?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM

Perhaps some peoples habit of intruding into posts they have not made any other contribution to, just to make the 100th/200th/300th post, is regarded as not contributing anything of value to the thread, and a waste of bandwidth. If that is the case then deleting a post that contributes nothing to the sum of Mudcat Knowledge is an act of mercy. It is only done as Joe said above the line, or in the case of BS, where the thread is a serious one. That is something that will only be learned by reading the post in question, if you can't be bothered to do that then your post deserves to be deleted.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 04:27 PM

Goodnight, Mary Ellen.
Goodnight, Bobbi Jo.
Goodnight, Goodnight, Billy Bob
Goodnight, Susie Des Moines
Goodnight, Al--who the f### is Susie Des Moines?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 06:51 PM

Congratulations, Roger. That is the single worst piece of BS I've seen on this board. I asked you that question in private two days ago. You can manage to make public answers to other later responses to your comments, but (somehow) you can't answer the public question I asked twice (you're still weaselling, Roger), you can't even offer me a private acknowledgement (not even an "I don't think it's worth answering") of my PM. And when I ask the same question publicly, you whine & cry.

Why the f*** should anyone respect your 'privacy', when you don't have the 'honour', or the basic common courtesy, to offer even the slightest answer, eh? Your effort at playing 'wronged victim' is pathetic. You could have answered me, given me the chance to look at whatever thread it was that particularly annoying you (& that I would have supported you were you right was as implicit as the fact that I would have criticised you if I thought you were wrong). You didn't. Instead you chose to ignore the PM, yet 'answer' other posts that presumably serve your biased purpose better.

Face it, Roger, nobody but you & the occasional Guest thinks that Mudcat is such a terrible place. You achieve nothing & Mudcat is no 'freer' for your bleating. Until the rules change, I'm afraid you are a particularly worthless whiner. Even Guests are right occasionally. But you, off the subject of PELs...

Bye, bye, Roger...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bert
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-
[in brown]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
It would appear that it far from covers it.

Posts claiming the 100th etc post in a thread - must be added to the seemingly endless and increasing list of things that must be deleted. Perfectly logical Jim - just look at the damage to the whole fabric of the forum that will be done if these terrible and subversive contributions are allowed by our volunteers to remain.......

Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:13 PM

"Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us?"

THIS will help.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM

Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so.
-Joe Offer-
Here's Ted's (deleted) message:
    Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
    From: flamenco ted - PM
    Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM

    200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:17 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-
[Not in brown]

The chief of the Mudcat Editorial Staff and the one in charge of our anonymous volunteers actually had no idea if this post had been deleted or not - but decided to present the defence for this imposed action anyway - just in case. But of course these type of routine deletions - because (some) people 'think of them as obnoxious' - are not a BIG DEAL and only considered worth the bother of our lesser anonymous volunteers to delete as a matter of routine in order to protect us.

Whatever one's personal taste in the posts you send or the ones you open and read - I tend to think that anonymous volunteer posters imposing their personal judgement on any of the contributions invited from the public - by Max the site's owner - should always be considered a BIG DEAL.

Perhaps, if or when the intention of the post in question - is clearly NOT offensive and there is no need to rush to protect us - the originator could be contacted - before any judgement is imposed, without their knowledge and possibly against their wishes? This would show the appropriate respect to all the contributions invited by the site's owner for many years and be more in keeping with the tolerant spirit of our forum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:30 AM

Tolerance cuts both ways Shambles; you should try it.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:40 AM

Here we go again Rambles. Either:

1. Joe and the clones are acting against Max's will (something I do not believe), in which case the question you really need to be asking is why Max allows such a situation to exist.

2. Joe and the clones are acting with Max's will in which case you sould be asking Max why he sets the policy (one I've no objection to) he does.

Until you at least try to make the effort, you will make no sense. This is either a persistant attack on Joe (which I suspect it is) or you have created the fantasy in your own mind that Max is in charge but isn't in charge.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 07:41 AM

Without some control this site could degenerate into just another cesspool of personal attacks, and end up inhabited by nasty people who drive good folks away.
If a handful of assholes lack the wit to temper what they say here, they should be censored.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:12 AM

"A handful of assholes"

I wish you hadn't said that Cap'n, such a nasty image.
Giok ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:28 AM

EEeeew!
Sort of an Ed Gien/Buffalo Bob (Silence of the Lambs) thing, idinit?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:24 AM

What I find amusing Roger, is that there are a number of people here on the thread who wish to censor you by trying to get you to stop posting about censorship just because they don't like hearing you say the same thing over and over in many different ways and sometimes with a new twist. But you have the right to continue to speak on censorship and I hope you do. Thank god you can speak up. And shame on the people who want to censor you just because you are repetitive and sometimes illogical. It is your right and I am not being sarcastic.


I for one, believe that according to their rules you will not be censored for just being repetitive, but they are tempted! So then you will have demonstrated that censorship at Mudcat occurs when someone feels like it, because they have been annoyed, or because they have arbitrary or misused powers. Sort of like the Bush administration.   

keep speaking up Roger. The world needs people like you.

love, harpgirl


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:02 PM

You are right, Giok, that is not a pretty sight.
Speaking as the target of a recent vicious, sick attack, I have no patience with those who lack impulse control, and combine that with a nasty inarticulate mind.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

Different Shit, Same Day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:12 PM

From the time we are born we give up freedom and liberty for convenience and safety. How far we are willing to travel the road is the question and this is why Roger that I do not support the Patriot Act and most of the other policies purporting to protect us by Bush and others. But it is silliness to argue the cause of unlimited freedom as you seem to do as NO ONE has it. In "The Political Illusion" Jacques Ellul argues that "The people will fancy an appearance of freedom; Illusion will be their native land."

Most of us assume freedoms that do not actually exist and when confronted with the fact that we must fight for them, stop and take a look at just how important that particular thing is. Now if it is important to you, then the fight and the civil disobedience required is part of the game. Are you saying that you are willing to stand up and fight for a censorless system here?   OR are there some things that YOU feel need censored?

Max has continually approved the work of Joe and The Clones and when he hasn't or has had a question, it seems as though they handled it themselves. Are you saying you want to be privvy to this? Seems to me we are ALL privvy to this because Joe and The Clones have kept right on during the YEARS you have been harping away! This should be evidence to you but I guess it isn't. How about if Max sends you a note that says, "I approve the way it is! Now shut the fuck up!"....Would that do it? Re-read Jon's comments above as I think he may have it right...............

But listen, if you think we should be censor free......Tell Joe that is the way YOU want THIS THREAD to be and I'll back you up. Then, I guess we can start playing The Dozens huh?

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM

I come back to this thread regularly in hope there will be new light shed on censorship. There isn't. Keriste, Roger, if you can't change the tune will you at least change the chords?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:22 PM

Gets better and better!......beware! Whenever you give an opinion on censorship, it sort of gives something away about you!....Is this the end of the thread or does it carry on indefinitely?
Best wishes, Mike.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:37 PM

If it carries on indefinitely, it woill becaome more difficult to access. So, if it's a vote, I go fer indefinitely.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:06 PM

Harpgirl:

I don't think anyone should have the right to make Shambles "Shuddup awready!". I do wish someone could persuade him to, though.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:21 PM

Shambles, you have made your point over and over and over again.
We've read it and most don't agree.

And who cares whether we agree or not..It's not our website.

Mudcat it owned by Max, right? If he doesn't agree with your position, then it seems to me that it's time for you to accept the fact. You've made your position known-as is your right-and it appears that Max doesn't buy it.

Shambles, I respect the fact that you are exercising your right to make known your discontent about what you see are problems here. And I do believe you are well meaning.

Outside of Mudcat, you may already be an advocate for other causes that have the goal of making the world a better place. If so, I applaud you.

May I suggest that you take some of the energy that you are expending fighting this cause of censorship on Mudcat and
re-direct taht energy to those other causes?

Best wishes,
Azizi


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:52 PM

Well, the irony of it all is that Shambles has never been censored. He has always been allowed to say exactly what he wants to say. Now, I will admit that we have sometimes thwarted his desire to post multiple copies of the same message in multiple threads, and we have combined threads when he has see fit to start multiple threads on the same subject - but at least one copy of every word Shambles has written remains posted here at Mudcat.

Many of us have strongly disagreed with Shambles, but I don't think that's censorship. In fact, it would be censorship if we were not allowed to disagree.

So, the only personal effect that "censorship" has had on Shambles is that he has not been allowed to post multiple copies of posts.

Poor Shambles.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:55 PM

When I was barely a teenager, there was a local "village fool" in our neighbourhood. Everyone knew his "buttons": If you mentioned the name of a well-known actress, he would drool; and if you mentioned the word "knife" he would swear uncontrollably.

The poor guy could hardly make ten steps on the street before a kid, or - just as often - a grownup, would shout either or both "buttons", just to witness his inevitable reactions for the umpteenth time.

With April Fool's Day looming, I have an idea......:-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:53 AM

This is gonna be fun.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:39 AM

I don't think anyone should have the right to make Shambles "Shuddup awready!". I do wish someone could persuade him to, though.

I've always been a man that's open to ----persuasion. Perhaps this could be tried?

I fail to see why 'shutting me up' should appear to matter, so much to so many. For no one is imposing my view upon anyone else - against their will or forcing anyone to see it my way - if you don't open this thread or close any other thread imediately you see a post from me there - that problem is easily solved....

The wisdom or need for anonymous volunteer posters passing their personal judgement on the worth of another poster's contributions and deleting it or closing entire threads - if and when they feel like it - without the posters prior knowledge and on all occasions - remains to be addressed or debated.

Does it really have to be as unpleasant as all this bullying? If censorship or moderation MUST NOW take place on our forum (and expect to be generally supported) - should it not be OPEN, FAIR AND HAVE A CLEAR OBJECTIVE?

In all honesty - can this current practice be defended as being OPEN, FAIR AND HAVING A CLEAR OBJECTIVE?

Is it really SO good that any positive suggestions as to how effectiveness and support can be improved - must be met with sarcasm (and worse) from our volunteers and their supporters?

Anyone who may be in agreement with me that things need to be improved - is hardly likely to be prepared to post publicly to say this and subject themselves to this treatment - are they?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:48 AM

We've read it and most don't agree.

Perhaps most of those who are prepared to post to say this - are anonymous volunteers themselves?

Turkeys voting for Christmas?

Not that anyone here has a vote.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:19 AM

And who cares whether we agree or not..It's not our website.

This is part of Max's website that he has provided for all of us for open public discussion. So in that sense, although the website is Max's – the forum is ours. His stated role in this is only to "facilitate"

From: Max - PM
Date: 10 Mar 00 - 12:54 AM

OK, gargoyle, you got it. I tried to give your membership back months ago, but you apparently never got my message. Your tactics are crude, you are often inappropriate and rude, and I obviously cannot ever agree with you for the simple fear that anyone would think that your type of efforts could or should be effective, but you are undoubtedly a knowledgeable member of our community. My motive for your membership? People want to be able to talk to you… and as ambiguous as I may seem here, my sole function is to facilitate that… because that is what The Mudcat is all about
.

May as well wheel this quote out again. With apologies to those who may have read before.

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.


These quotes are from the time where it was accepted that 'all animals were equal' on our forum. Now that some animals appear to have taken over the farmyard - make their own rules and now declare that 'some animals are more equal than others' – to anonymously impose their judgement upon and delete the contributions of others - perhaps a review is in order?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:33 AM

Good grief Shambles, perhaps you genuinely are insane.

"Now that some animals appear to have taken over the farmyard - make their own rules and now declare that 'some animals are more equal than others"

How did they achieve this? Did they blackmail Max? Have they got him tied and gagged somewhere? Did they hack thier way into his computer?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:35 AM

Perhaps Max will explain?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:41 AM

"Perhaps Max will explain?"

At long last some progress has been made. Please do what I suggested before and ask him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:05 AM

Shambles,
with regard to your post dated 20 Mar 05 - 06:48 AM that
quotes a comment that I had made earlier:

"We've read it [your complaints]and most don't agree."

In response to this you wrote:

"Perhaps most of those who are prepared to post to say this - are anonymous volunteers themselves? "

Well, you probably were not directing that comment to me, but just for the record let me say that I may be anonymous and I have done some volunteering for various efforts that I believe in. But if you are referring to my serving as an assistant to Joe Offer, nope that ain't me..I'm just a new kid on the block. {Well I'm not a 'kid' anymore, but the rest of my comment is the God's honest truth.}

I must say Shambles that I like the creativity of your comment "Turkeys voting for Christmas"

I hereby give you notice that I intend to borrow that phrase, but change the holiday to Thanksgiving. In so doing that would give the comment more USA cultural punch!!

Shambles, it seems you're on a mission, and no one and nothing will deter you from 'doin your thing'. Since this is a 'free country', and a free online community, I support your right to fuss.

But I thank God that no one is FORCING me to read your remarks.
That would truly be cause for concern.


Azizi


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:03 AM

Well we all know what is left on the ground in that farmyard when the animals are let out. Now unless you're into arse watching, you can't always tell which animal produced which shit, but the worst thing you can do in these circumstances, is add to the pile.
Giok ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:07 AM

12 - I have given fair warning


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:20 PM

El Greko, what are you counting? - the number of times Shambles quoted Max's "Don't sweat the rules" statement? I think it's 14, not counting the number of times he quoted it in the Help Forum. That guy is a copy-paste whiz, isn't he?
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:39 PM

See my previous post on this thread, Joe :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM

El Greko is counting the days until THE day.

George, if you get me sucked into this one I will deserve it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

Well, the irony of it all is that Shambles has never been censored.

Whether my invited contributions to Max's website had ever been the unfortunate victim of imposed censorship by our anonymous volunteers or not has never been the issue (for me).

However, if I had made such a statement as the above - there usually are plenty of posters who would post to point out what they consider to be even the smallest error of fact - but as that is unlikly to happen in this case - I suppose it falls to me to point out that Joe Offer's statement is not true.

Unless of course you don't consider it to be censorship when your postings are deleted along with the entire contents of a thread - because our anonymous volunteers cannot be bothered to distingush between the offending posts and the rest?

Or when the title of a music thread (containing a song parody) is changed without your knowledged and against your wishes and you are then given the ultimatum of accepting the change - or of having your musical contribution sent to the BS section?

And talking of irony - as the Chief of the Mudcat Editorial Team was not aware that some anonymous volunteer had deleted a post from this very thread (on the subject Mudcat censorship) - perhaps it is unwise of him to make such statements?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

Well, the irony of it all is that Shambles has never been censored

Exactly. Harpgirl, no-one has demanded that Roger be censored, we just wish he'd shut up! He's the boy who cries wolf. One day (perhaps it's already been & gone) the wolf might really turn up. If we're relying on Shanmbles for our early warning system, we're stuffed, because next to no-one cares what he has to say on the subject any more (except to tell him to shut up).

Oh, & Roger, thank you for proving my earlier point. You continue to answer other posts, but ignore the awkward question. You know, the one I asked, that you really don't seem to want to answer. Just in case you've forgotten,

Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions?

(And, yeah, I looked up the other one eventually - I think you're talking crap. I'm not going to criticise Joe for those responses. I've bitten after severe provocation too. And Roger, you piss people off! Why are you so totally blind to that?)

The facts are all here - it is up to those reading this to judge. And the judgement of the majority of those who have posted here is that you're in the wrong as usual. Now what are you going to do?

Decide that you're better informed, or not the sycophantic lickspittles that you'd like to mark everyone else down as? I know what you're not going to do. You're not going to shut up, because you can't even face & answer the question that I keep asking you, & you keep hoping no-one else will notice...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM

Shambles you are nit picking, and if the complete thread that was deleted was so important, how come you're the only one still whinging?
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:50 PM

Because this is all a silly game by a pitiful man who gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him. You saw a clue above when Shambles posted "Perhaps Max will explain?". If Max were to do this, then Shambles could sit back and get some validation. Of course, then he would seek more.

Shambles,I hate to break it to you but Max is someone that Joe and the rest of us reprobates made up to give you something to aspire to. It is all done with Photoshop and mirrors.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM

" gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him"

Big Mick you've hit the nail on the nail on the head there. There also seems to be no shortage of folks who get their validation from keeping him validated.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:25 PM

Oh alright then - for a bit of peace.

Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions?

Yes.


BTW if you look back at the post of - 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM - you will see that Flamenco Ted's (obnoxious) message - that some unknown volunteer deleted without the Chief of the Mudcat Editorial Staff being aware of this action - has silently slipped back into this thread. There is no explanation of why it is not now considered by some - to be 'obnoxious' any more - but it does now look a bit greener than when I last saw it............

Is it really too much to expect that any future editing actions can be a bit more limited and proportionate than they are currently? These posts may be irritating to some - but to describe them as 'obnoxious' in order to delete them - when there are far more 'obnoxious' posts that do safely remain - is hardly proportionate or sensible.

These posts do at least provide some fun to those who post them and as there is no question of them causing any real offence - perhaps it can be accepted that these are viewed as simply a matter of taste?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:16 PM

HELP make the rules, Shambles.
That's what Max said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:51 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules.

It is as well to provide all the words of the quote. The word 'us' is important - its use by Max in this context - is inclusve and accommodating. It means ALL of 'us'.

The use now - of the word 'we' by our anonymous volunteers - in the sense of which of Max's invited contributions 'we' allow and what we routinly delete - is exclusive and divisive.

Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. Seems clear enough.......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:16 AM

What does the re-insated message add to the sum of human knowledge, the erudition of Mudcat, and the average mental age of some of its contributors? If the deleted thread you complained about was as intelligent as that, I feel that I haven't missed much.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:28 AM

That isn't the point, Giok. Shambles is right in pointing out the duplicity of the different use of 'we'. If this cavalier attitude can apply to any message, where does it end?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:37 AM

Ted's message was deleted. Then reinstated. Whoever thought it offensive enough to delete was clearly acting without any consultation from Joe etc. Irregardless of it's merit giok, the clone was wrong, and proven so by it's reinstatment.

Shambles 1 --- Clone 0.
    Remember, it really doesn't make sense for Clones to have to check with Joe or Jeff before deleting - if that were the requirement, then there would be no reason at all for Clones to deal with problem posts, and Joe and Jeff would have to be omnipresent.
    The requirement is for Clones to consult with Joe and Jeff after a deletion, so that the decision to delete can be reviewed. This deletion was reviewed, and the message in question was undeleted.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gurney
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 06:13 AM

Moderator. "Any substance used to slow down neutrons in nuclear reactors."   Wordweb dictionary.

Different substance, same effect, as Brucie might say when in a benevolent mood.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 08:34 AM

Mick:

I find this remark about Roger objectionable and to be a personal attack:

"Because this is all a silly game by a pitiful man who gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him. "

Will you please use your powers as a clonehead and delete it? Thank you.


harpgirl


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:00 AM

Some people are starved for attention.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM

Just as well I'm not a clone then guest!
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 12:46 PM

"That isn't the point, Giok. Shambles is right in pointing out the duplicity of the different use of 'we'. If this cavalier attitude can apply to any message, where does it end?"

Anarchy. Chaos. Elections.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM

Any other choices?
G ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Amos - PM
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:07 PM


Dear Lord, protect us from chicanery,
From idle snipers, and inanery
From those who choose to spend their time
Concocting reams of tepid rhyme;
But most of all, from those who would
Pervert a forum meant for good,
And thus corrupt our faint divinity
With foulness cloaked in anonymity!


Amen


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM

Anarchy. Chaos. Elections.

. . . and TELEVISION.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

And...Reality TV!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

. . . and OPRAH!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:01 PM

And the USA President & Congress!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 05:26 PM

Your opinion is duly noted, HG.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM

Sorry for the thread drift here, but does anyone know how long ya cook a three-minute egg for?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:04 PM

My guess is, brucie, long enough so you know it's done. You don't want an underdone 3 minute egg, right? When I was still a young and inexperienced chimp, I heard it said that the watched pot never boils. I didn't believe it. I went out and got this pot, took it home, and sat down and watched it....for 15 hours! It never boiled. THEN I remembered, you gotta turn the stove on first.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM

Dang! That's it. So, like, ya start timing the egg when ya turn the stove on, right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:17 PM

Could be. Either that or ya gotta get the element on the stove up to full temperature first and then ya start timin' it. It's tricky. When the eggs come out too hard or too soft, I line 'em up on the windowsill and use 'em for target practice. Or I would...if I hadn't cracked 'em open already. Ain't that a bitch? If there was a way of determinin' whether the egg ain't done right WITHOUT crackin' it open then it would be a lot better all around.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:19 PM

Got that right. I have this pet ostrich, and getting a three-minute egg from one of hern is a real chore.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:04 AM

Try holding up a stopwatch, set to 3 minutes, and a loaded gun, aimed at the ostrich. Look at the ostrich meaningfully as the seconds tick away toward zero. I predict the ostrich will produce the egg on time in 9 out of 10 cases. In the 10th case you fire the gun, makin' sure to just barely miss the ostrich, and the ostrich WILL produce an egg on the spot. This method has never failed for me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:08 AM

Should I stand the ostrich above the pot of boiling water?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:20 AM

Yeah.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:16 AM

This is getting VERY COMplicated.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:57 AM

Flamenco Ted

If for your game - you wish your 100th post claims to remain and not be routinely deleted by our anonymous volunteers - the answer is simple. You post to make your claim but you also make a positive contribution to the thread that does add to the sum of human knowledge - on the lines of this one (and others) -

Because this is all a silly game by a pitiful man who gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him.

Such a positive contributions as this are safe from judgement and editing action by our volunteers - mainly because this was posted by one of them - and even when another posters states that they consider this post to be objectional and a personal attack upon another poster - it remains. This objection is simply noted (by the volunteer that made it!!!

So that is the fine example being set by our volunteers - for the rest of us to follow - if you wany your post to remain - you also make an abusive personal attack on someone.......?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM

Shambles,
         I totally agree with whatever it is you just said. Oh, 300 by the way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:15 AM

No its not


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:19 AM

Stop it Noreen, or I will have you deleted! Oh, 400 by the way! Leadfingers, eat my shorts!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:20 AM

You two want to be alone?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:36 AM

No its not (Noreen)

Noreen, you are passing your personal judgement on the worth of another poster's contribution. You are on the slippery slope leading directly into the next holocaust:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Wolfgang (:-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:44 AM

Duct taping someone's mouth is censorship.

Telling that person to shut the f#ck up is opinion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:49 PM

And a valid contribution in the circumstances Brucie, but then some people apparently don't know about the old adage, 'Quit while you're ahead'
Giok ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:49 PM

No - telling him to shut the f#ck up is an instruction, an order. Certainly no opinion. Unless you usually issue your opinions in the form of orders...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:07 PM

My opinion is that this is all about Shambles getting attention and gratification here that he can't get elsewhere. Fair enough, but could he come up with a new thing to bitch about for the next 7 years? This one is getting tired.

Sorry HG, but that is my opinion. And for what it is worth, it is him that keeps bringing it up. My opinion is that this is an affliction for which there is help.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:18 PM

...and my opinion is that Roger simply feels strongly about the way he perceives the moderation of this forum. I have no reason to think otherwise, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM

Ah, since you put it like that, Wolfgang:
I disagree with flamenco ted's mathematical deductions, but I will defend to the death his right to post them.

296 by the way


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:43 PM

Xander: It could be an opinion as to what someone should do. It was not directed at or to Roger. It was a general statement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:32 PM

Roger/Shambles:

If you were to become a clone, exactly what would you do to change things? Please be specific. I have read your many posts that remark on the present volunteers and what they do. What exactly would you do differently?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:49 PM

299


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:50 PM

Yep--the BIG 300


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:52 PM

Roger/Shambles:

If you were to become a clone, exactly what would you do to change things? Please be specific. I have read your many posts that remark on the present volunteers and what they do. What exactly would you do differently?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:21 PM

Refresh


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:28 PM

...and the silence was deafening.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:52 PM

We're still waiting...

Maybe Shambles is writing on other threads.

I've noticed that some of his post are on other subjects. So it's not fair to say that Shambles only has a one track mind.

It's just that so much of his track seems to go in this direction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:58 PM

And I let me go on record to say that I also will defend Shambles' right and anyone else's right to post whatever they want as long as what they post does not violate the posting guidelines.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:59 PM

Actually, Azizi, the Roger you see in the other threads is the one that I used to enjoy reading and occasionally jousting with. He is a very good poster when he doesn't get hung up in this stuff, IMO.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:51 AM

Make Shambles a Clonehead


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:02 AM

A Song For Mudcatters


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:34 AM

Roger, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the song that you wrote in 1999 and that you are pointing us to in 2005 was and is posted in a spirit of reconciliation with a theme of   unity inspite of diversity.

A portion of your song is

"We have different views
That's the way it'll always be
It don't matter who's right or wrong
We'll just agree to disagree"

-snip-

My Virgoian detail oriented nature mixed with my Sagittarius see the larger picture nature causes me to ask:
Aren't there times that it does matter who is right and who is wrong? And how is 'right' and 'wrong' determined? Who determines right and wrong? Isn't it usually those in power?

On this discussion forum, with regard to censorship-the topic of this thread-doesn't Max have the power and hasn't he delegated that power to Joe and "Joeclones?"

And with regard to your refrain:

"I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song"

-snip-

Again, the words sound well meaning, and I'd love to give you the benefit of the doubt that they are meant well...

Yet I have to ask, given the different views that you mentioned in your verse that I cited above, who determines the song that we all get to sing? Sounds to me like that might start a whole 'nuther arguement-excuse me-discussion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:57 AM

Aren't there times that it does matter who is right and who is wrong? And how is 'right' and 'wrong' determined? Who determines right and wrong? Isn't it usually those in power?

On our forum, I would strongly suggest that from its history, that who is right and who is wrong has never really mattered. That is why this forum was different. However, Joe - in his posts lately - has decided that what he judges to stay or goes - is not a matter of right or wrong.

On this discussion forum, with regard to censorship-the topic of this thread-doesn't Max have the power and hasn't he delegated that power to Joe and "Joeclones?"

As site owner Max to me is the one GOD. The forum is not a demoracy and Max is omnipotent. However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated without totally messing-up the rest of us mortals?

For would you say it then follows that - even when stting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right?


As for which song - none of of them are right or wrong so whatever songs we do sing - will be fine. It is the singing together that matters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:09 AM

Brucie has spoilt what was otherwise a thought provoking, nay dazzling thread, by posting 300 for no good reason!!! I demand that he be deleted from space and time for ever!!! I am offended, such behaviour is obnoxious!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:35 AM

Passing judgement upon the worth of another contributor's post - to judge whether to respond - how to respond or to ignore it - is what we all do as part of a discussion here.

Passing judgement upon the worth of another contributor's entire personality based on what they post - is not the same thing. It is futile and counter-productive - as that contributor will no doubt post again (however their worth may be judged by you) - as like the rest of us - they have that right to post - as Max has always extended that invitation to all of the public.

They will then no doubt start to judge the worth of your entire personality in return - and so on.......

In any public place - we will find things that are to our taste and things that are not and we choose to go to areas where things are to our taste. It is the same on our forum. It has been described as a big house with a different party going on in each room.

A tolerant attitude would see us opening the door and moving on - if the party in that room was not to our taste. We would try another door until we found a party that was to our taste. For the minute we close that door and don't re-open it - as far as we are concerned - the party in that room is over.

What appears to have happened and encouraged over time - is that although the house is big enough to accommodate all the parties - some posters seem to insist that the party that is not to their taste and which no one is forcing them to attend - is shut-down.....

As there is no lack of anonymous volunteers prepared to do the shutting-down - there appears to be more and more shutting-down and more and more needless and counter-productive judgement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:33 AM

The judgement emits on the value of the post of another contributing - with the judge if to answer - how to answer or be unaware of it - what do everything we as an element of a discussion here.

Émettre the judgement on the value of the whole personality of another contributing based on what they announces - is not the same thing. It is futile and against-productive - as this contributing still do not want any post of doubt (however them in value can be judged by you) - as as the remainder of us - they have that to announce well - as the maximum always prolonged this invitation with all the public.

They well then do not want any beginning of doubt to judge the value of your whole personality in the return - and so on.......

In any public place - we will find the things which are with our taste and things which are not and we choose outward journey with the sectors where the things are with our taste. It is similar on our forum. It was described like large house with a different part continuing in each room.

A tolerant attitude would see us opening the door and passing - if the part in this room were not with our taste. We would test another door until we found a part which was with our taste. For the minute we close this door and let us not reopen it more - with regard to us - the part of the fact the part.

What seems to be produced and finished time encouraged - is that although the house is enough large to adapt to all the parts - some posters seems to insist on the fact that the part of which is not with their taste and of which nobody forces them to be occupied - is the stop.....

Because there is no lack of anonymous volunteers ready to make closing-towards bottom - it seems y to have more and more closing-towards bottom and more and more a more useless and against-more productive judgement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM

Whenever I read someone (Spaw etc.) arguing seriously with Shambles I think by myself, don't they know by now that he never addresses the points made in such serious posts but only repeats himself as if he could not engage in a real conversation? But once in a while I get tempted to engage in what I consider a completely futile attempt when I see it by others. No, I don't think my attempt is any better (rather the opposite), I just feel it's my turn.

The forum is not a demoracy and Max is omnipotent. However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated (Shambles)

I do not at all understand what you mean, Shambles. (1) If you complain about the delegation act as such, then you have to complain to Max, as Jon has often pointed out without getting a reasonable response. (2) If you want to say that omnipotence cannot be delegated you're shooting down a straw-man for delegation of omnipotence was never the matter. It would be new to me, for instance, that the clones (and the original) could shut down the forum. Max has delegated a part of his power, complain to him if you object to that.

Your next paragraph ("for would you say it then follows that...") is an exercise in illogical argumentation. It presupposes nonsense and therefore the 'conclusion' you want us to disagree with (the anonymous volunteers are always right) does not follow at all. And BTW, Max is omnipotent in the sense of being able to shut down this site but from that does not follow he is right whenever he does something. These are two very different concepts.

Passing judgement upon the worth of another contributor's entire personality

You do it implicitely and not explicitely, Shambles, so don't complain if someone does it explicitely. From my point of view, you pass judgement for instance about my ability to understand what I read by reposting with slightly changed words the same arguments and by copying and reposting something everybody has already read themselves. You judge that I need the repetition for getting the correct understanding. I wish you could accept that I for instance read what you read, see what you see and still don't share your opinion. After the first couple of times any further repetition implicitely declares anybody else as dumb. I object to that.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:57 AM

"Fascinating," as Spock used to say...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:16 AM

Roger/Shambles:

If you were to become a clone, exactly what would you do to change things? Please be specific. I have read your many posts that remark on the present volunteers and what they do. What exactly would you do differently?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:09 PM

Wolfgang

Max is everywhere and sees all.

Discussions do develop. This conversation had moved on to the point made by Azizi about right or wrong and if the power to determine this had been delegated. My point is that the site owners arbitary judgement can be accepted without too much trouble but the delegation of this arbitary judgement to many others - presents more problems. As demonstrated.

Perhaps you could also answer a question?

For would you say it then follows that - even when stting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:25 PM

Perhaps the whole quote should be provided or if not - some indication should be provided that you have 'snipped' it? What i said was -

However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated without totally messing-up the rest of us mortals?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM

Roger,

What you just said doesn't stack up. If you accept Max's arbitrary judgement, as you say, why do you not accept the delegation of such judgement to the volunteers? It is still arbitrary, so what's the difference? Why is one Max's arbitrary judgement better than another's? After all, being omnipotent, he can always retract the delegation - but his (arbitrary) judgement remains that the delegation works.

A sort of "he sees it - and it is good".

Glory be to Max.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM

Perhaps you could also answer a question? (Shambles)

'Also' is hilarious as you don't, but I can oblige:

No.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:47 PM

Roger/Shambles:

If you were to become a clone, exactly what would you do to change things? Please be specific. I have read your many posts that remark on the present volunteers and what they do. What exactly would you do differently?


If you have read my many posts you will have already seen the answer to your question. Anonymous or known volunteer judges do not solve this problem - as currently structured - they create a different problem. I have no wish to join their ranks - although I am sure they will all be glad to have me....

Whatever our volunteers think - and despite their attempts to shape our forum by their imposed judgement, deltions and closures - it is the public and the example set by them - that will continue to shape our forum. So what is done differently - is up to you and me........

1 Every poster should always be encouraged to accept that this is a public discussion forum where everyone has been invited by Max to contribute on an equal basis.

2 It is not a courtroom or a market where we are encouraged to judge each other's suitability to post.

3 That the example we set - positive or negative - judgemental or accommodating - will be followed.   

How is that for a start?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:48 PM

No, they're not always right, but I agree with their judgement.

On the odd occasion when one of them has 'cracked' (as they are only human, unlike Max...) due to incessant illogical argument being repeated at them, the event has been reflected on and apologised for, if necessary.

Would that all posters were as reflective.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:55 PM

Reflective posters are useless, Noreen - you can't read them!

Roger,

there are some (very few) cases where deletion could be allowed, I think, namely when a potentially libellous comment has been made; or when personal information about someone has been disclosed, that could be open to abuse; that would be to keep Max safe from prosecution, as the owner of the forum.

But overall, I agree with you - let everyone post according to their knowledge, temperament and conscience; and let everyone else allow them the freedom to do so. We are big boys and girls and can deal with some abuse; and if we can't, we go somewhere else to play.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM

Be more specific, Shambles:

- People have started several threads with exactly the same lyrics request within minutes. Joe deletes/closes all but one to ensure a better discussion? What would you do?
- Someone's private E-Mail has been posted recently by someone else. Joe has erased it when he saw it. What would you do?
- Spam or links to pornographic sites have been posted. Joe deletes them. What would you do?

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM

Xander, you talk rubbish - as Martin Gibbons might have said in more flowery language :-)

Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM

If you accept Max's arbitrary judgement, as you say, why do you not accept the delegation of such judgement to the volunteers? It is still arbitrary, so what's the difference? Why is one Max's arbitrary judgement better than another's?

It is not - but it is less confusing.

Would you not agree that with children - one arbitary authority (right or wrong) will easier to accept and be less confusing to the chilren than more than one - all making different arbitary decisions?

If this parent delgates authority to a nanny etc - would they be wise to subject their children to a whole different range of abitary authority?

I suggest that when you feel that you must delegate on sensitive issues like imposed censorship - it is wise not to set loose a whole load of anonymous individuals all making their own arbitary judgements in the dark and taking action based on this no matter how well-meaning the intention is.

If it must be done - should it not be open, fair and have a clear objective? Is that really the case now?
    You're absolutely right, Roger, and I'm very glad you said that. We require Clones to do their editing anonymously and to notify Joe or Jeff of their actions for that very reason - because we wish to have control and consistency in our editing. We do not want the Clones to act as individuals, using individual judgment - so we do a 100 percent review of their actions. When there is a need for early action in certain situations, we ask them to act right away - but they are supposed to report what they did, and Jeff and I are able to review all their actions.
    Of course, we cannot submit their actions to review by the entire forum - What we delete is material that we do not want seen in a public forum, for one reason or another. Joe, Jeff, and Max conduct the review of the actions of the clones. Jeff and I consult with each other several times a day, and we consult with Max when he's available. But no, we're not about to ask permission of the entire Forum every time we do some sort of editing.
    That's not how life works. Ordinarily, people are trusted to do the work they do, and are not required to ask permission from people outside their work structure. The Clones report to Jeff and Joe, and ultimately Max. Jeff and Joe report to Max. That's our structure.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

...except we are not children, Roger. The argument again does not stack up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM

It's amazing. I had no idea the internet was available on the planet Praumoq. Do you get broadband service there Roger or is that not available yet?

Please go and start a forum. I am just dying to know how it all turns out for you.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM

No, they're not always right, but I agree with their judgement.

Always? Why?

On the odd occasion when one of them has 'cracked' (as they are only human, unlike Max...) due to incessant illogical argument being repeated at them, the event has been reflected on and apologised for, if necessary.

       'That old double standard has me in its spell'

I have yet to be aplogised to for the personal attacks mounted on me and for the incitement for others to do this - from our volunteers. .........All I have seen so far are excuses from them and for them.

I am sorry but we are all human (yes even me). But it is generally accepted that more is expected from those who are placed or volunteer for special positions of trust. Especially those who would feel qualified to judge others. Most of the cracking' you refer to, has come because those who feel qualified to judge us - consider that they are above judgement!

I don't make this generally accepted rule but I doubt if you would so easily excuse a court judge or Government official who 'cracked' and started to abuse their position but still wished to continue in office?

If our forum is to continue - we must all be responsible for our own actions at all times. I don't see that - on a public discussion forum where we are all invited to contribute as equals - there can be one expectation for one and not the other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM

Hang on, Roger - if you advocate the ideal forum with no censorship, as Xander effectively says below, then anyone, clones included, can post what they like; and we are "big boys and girls" to take it. Whther they apologise to some or others, what standards they use, is immaterial - because there is no censorship.

Why grizzle then?

Or is the case that you do in fact want censorship, but from named individuals who state their reasoning/rules they follow?

Reading through your many posts on the subject I find contradictions, and I am not sure which of the two above is the case.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM

Really, Shambles, you must tell it Max. He should know that the volunteers abuse their position. Please tell us then what his answer was.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM

there are some (very few) cases where deletion could be allowed, I think, namely when a potentially libellous comment has been made; or when personal information about someone has been disclosed, that could be open to abuse; that would be to keep Max safe from prosecution, as the owner of the forum.

This is refreshing. Yes of course that is sensible. But ironically as it stands - if the libellious comment was copy pasted to a music thread - it would be permitted to stay - according to Joe' latest version of his rules.

But this brings us to the level of cenorship. If it was limited to the above - there is surely no reason why the decision to delete or not could easily be made by Max alone?

Our volunteers could be then confined to changes requested by posters to their own posts and to bringing any more questionable contribution to Max's attention - for him to decide on possible editing action.

This brings us to Mudcat's version of Catch 22. When criticised - the level of censorship is defended by those who wish to do it - as not very high. But when it is suggested that if it is SO low that Max alone could deal with any imposed deletions - suddenly the level of problems increase to a level that he could not deal with alone.

Perhaps it is time for some folk to be a little honest and admit that they just like imposing their judgement and deleting the contributions of others and that is why they volunteer to do it?
    Wait! Wait! Logic Alert!!!
    No, Roger, we do not encourage or permit the posting of libelous music information.

    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: PoppaGator
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:56 PM

I can't believe I just wasted x-number of minutes of my life reading through this crap. I've checked into it once or twice over the past couple of months and each time, I have regretted having done so.

Well, the information about three-minute eggs and ostriches was mildly amusing and almost useful. The rest of it is all hot air, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm generally opposed to censorship, and my answer to those who find something objectionable is for them to simply not buy/read/listen/tune-in to whatever it is that they dislike.

Would that I could heed my own advice!

It's discussions like this one that I'd rather not see, and I take responsibility for myself to ignore them. When I have a moment of weakness, like I did today, I blame no one but myself for my loss of resolve.

I've never had a problem beng "censored" here. There have been a few isolated occasions when I've been glad to see some inadvertant posting of mine get deleted (like when I recently started a new thread twice).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:59 PM

One advantage of living in a world of your own, is that everybody knows you there.
Giok ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

I'm sure Max could handle all of it alone if he were so inclined to do so and spent all of his time on this website. He doesn't......as you might have noticed.

His good friend Jeff ahs been a major aide to him but Jeff too has a life. I assume that we all have a life Roger, even you and I. So Max, very early on, got Joe to do some of the stufffor him and was obviously happy enough with the results because all these years later, Joe is still here and doing the job Max requested.

Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval.

The other point is that to my knowledge, NO CLONE HAS VOLUNTEERED for the job. They have all been asked to help and agreed. Again, to the best of my knowledge, not a one has volunteered.

If Max finds this acceptable, why can't you? Or does it really matter what Max finds acceptable?

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM

Hang on, Roger - if you advocate the ideal forum with no censorship, as Xander effectively says below, then anyone, clones included, can post what they like; and we are "big boys and girls" to take it. Whther they apologise to some or others, what standards they use, is immaterial - because there is no censorship.

I have more than demonstrated here that I am well able to ignore many personal attacks and resist responding in kind and if I can do it so can others. So much of the justification for all this current censorship is not required

However, I was pointing out - in an answer to another post that stated that apolgies were currently given and on this current set-up -(with anonymous volunteers imposing their judgement upon the cotributions of others) - that I had not received an apology - not that really expected or wished for this.

My objection to these personal attacks and the incitement to others to do this - coming publicly from our volunteers - is the establishment and acceptance of the double standard and the poor example this is setting. When the whole justification for all these anonymous volunteers is to protect us from personal attacks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:38 PM

Wolfgang - is this Max's 'volunteer application form? I suspect I will fail......But you did ask me some questions - so I must answer.

- People have started several threads with exactly the same lyrics request within minutes. Joe deletes/closes all but one to ensure a better discussion? What would you do?

First accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Leave them both alone (or link them) so that posters would be aware that such a problem is possible to enable them to avoid it in the future There is time to show the respect of first informing the originators about any proposed action (where this is possible by PMs).

- Someone's private E-Mail has been posted recently by someone else. Joe has erased it when he saw it. What would you do?

Again - I would first accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Inform the originator, explain and ask if they wish me to remove it.

- Spam or links to pornographic sites have been posted. Joe deletes them. What would you do?

Again - I would first accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Ignore them and let them die a natural death.

Imposing your judgement, deleting or closing threads - without the knowledge of the poster - is a BIG DEAL. Where it is possible NOT to do this - it should always be preferred.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM

Oh you definitely need to start a forum!!! I gotta' see this!

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM

Roger you just defined anarchy.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:51 PM

shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here.

it is similar to the right of free speech in the US. Everyone has the right to publicly express their opinions - however - in a privatly owned establishment - even one that caters to the public - the owners and/or management may completly legally prohibit certain language or expel clients/customers/visitors whose speech they do no concur with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:54 PM

You can start a forum at MSN. Free and you would do the moderation--if any. I too would love to know how it goes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

Roger, I think that if you acted as you suggested in answering those 2 questions below (email/pornography) you would be liable to prosecution as the owner of the site. Certainly in the case of allowing someone's email address to remain there in a post. There are lawyers out there that would tie you in knots over that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM

shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here.

Yes but would you not agree that with any right - comes responsibilty?

For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right

Perhaps time for you to answer Wolfgang - I have answered yours.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM

Roger, I think that if you acted as you suggested in answering those 2 questions below (email/pornography) you would be liable to prosecution as the owner of the site. Certainly in the case of allowing someone's email address to remain there in a post. There are lawyers out there that would tie you in knots over that.

I did say that I would fail..........

But do we not all first have to accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that we have no control over the postings of others?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

Perhaps time for you to answer Wolfgang - I have answered yours. (Shambles)

Huh? Don't you read my posts? Look up my 23 Mar 05 - 12:33 post.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:27 PM

Roger,

Please start a site. I will visit there. Stay here, but start one too. Would love it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM

But do we not all first have to accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that we have no control over the postings of others?

no - because that is an implied fallacy. "we" as visitors to the site have no control. However - Max and his designees have both the control and the right to delete or edit any content of the site.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM

Sorry Wolfgang - I did see the post but didn't realise it was in answer to this.

For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right

So you wouldn't say that this was right. So we agree that it is wrong when they do this then?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM

Shambles - his reply to your question is that they are not ALWAYS right. (Which is the question you asked)

It is not an either or situation. You are twisting your own words as well as people's responses.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM

no - because that is an implied fallacy. "we" as visitors to the site have no control. However - Max and his designees have both the control and the right to delete or edit any content of the site.

Do you accept that whatever they may subsequently do - they first have to accept that they have no control over what posters choose to post to a forum - that is open to the public.....?

Unless they write all the posts themselves...

So in fact you could say that as what we post is up to us - we have the control (at least over our own posting)?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:44 PM

Unless ever post is previewed, NO they have no control over what gets posted. If I try to make the case that someone does nefarious things to sheep, that post will stand until it is deleted. Jaysus. That ain't rocket science. What the hell point are YOU trying to make?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:03 PM

Did you hear about the man driving the opposite way down a one-way street?

"Gee, there's a lot of people getting it wrong today- and no matter how much I tell them they're wrong they keep shouting back at me- and some of them have abused me!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:06 PM

correct - there is no control over what is posted here EXCEPT that once posted it is subject to the whim of Max.*


*note - among other things that Max has whimmed is that he allows certain other people to act as his extensions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM

Even if you can get every single person to agree that the world is stationary - the truth is "The turtle moves"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM

Shambles remember the old adage and STOP DIGGING.
Giok ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:47 PM

From Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man":

"...there's always a place for the angry young man
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks
And his honor is pure and his courage is well
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:11 AM

Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval.

Again the comforting 'spin'. Are you asking us to acept that approval to delete - is FIRST subject to approval?

For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right?


Did you hear about the man driving the opposite way down a one-way street? Yes - Wolfgang has already told it. But think about what you look like you are saying here.

That if someone posts a view that is not generally agreed with on a public discussion forum - that it is OK for folk to be encouraged to post simply to abuse them and to tell them to go away?

It is my view that those who wish to be driving where there is only one direction alowed - go out and start one. For that is NOT this site.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:16 AM

Youth Is Wasted On The Young


If the truth be told

Experience is wasted on the old

And youth is wasted on the young



When you have your youth

You have no finer weapon than the truth

And you wield it like a sword

When youth is gone

You need all your strength just to go on

And the truth now cuts you to the bone



If the truth be told,

Experience is wasted on the old

And youth is wasted on the young



Which one is right

The one certain, keen and ready for the fight?

Or the one, unsure, who knows the price to pay

Who are the fools

The ones who want to change all the rules?

Or the ones, who have changed them once before?



If the truth be told,

Experience is wasted on the old

And youth is wasted on the young



Roger Gall 1997


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 AM

Nice one, Roger. (By the way, you share the same name with the father of France Gall, who wrote her hit "Poupee de cire, poupee de son" with which she won Eurovision back in my wasted youth).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:56 AM

*note - among other things that Max has whimmed is that he allows certain other people to act as his extensions.

That word has a sinister sound to it. Do you mean like in hair braids or telephones or like in Max's Angels?

But is there any real need for any of these volunteers to be anonymous when anonymous posting has been such a contentious issue?

Pretending that any form of anonymous posting will be ever thought to be generally favourable is hardly realistic - is it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:26 AM

Not sure that it should matter much – but am I angry? …...If so who with and why?

I am probably not angry but I am a little sad.

However I do think that there is anger. And this anger and the judgement and intolerance that follows - comes from an unrealistic view of what a public forum can be. The idea that threads and their titles - started by the public looking for information will clearly match the idea that Joe or say Wolfgang considers as the most informative title or not be dublicated – is unrealistic.

That Joe, Wolfgang and others may see our forum as a site for research which needs an efficient means of finding information is a problem - as it is described as a discussion forum and most people never have seen or used our forum in this limited way.

The result of this thinking is that (amongst other things) Joe and his volunteers have slowly taken control over what a thread is called. Probably nothing too sinister an intent - in this but why must this change always be imposed without the originators knowledge?

Could it always be the case in future - that no change is made to a thread title unless the originator is first contacted and agrees to the proposed change?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 AM

That if someone posts a view that is not generally agreed with on a public discussion forum - that it is OK for folk to be encouraged to post simply to abuse them and to tell them to go away?

You're doing it again, Roger- (well, I suppose Michael Howard is getting away with doing it over and over again...).

You've been a member here long enough to know this isn't what happens. Most people here give others a chance to have their say, and even debate with them rationally (as many are doing here with you, for heaven's sake!)
The only time (as a rule) people get annoyed here is when arguments are being repeated ad nauseam and the responses aren't listened to or heeded.

Tell me Roger, why, do you think, are you a voice crying in the wilderness here? Don't you think others would be coming in on your side to support you, if all you say is valid?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:42 AM

Even if you can get every single person to agree that the world is stationary - the truth is "The turtle moves"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM

Shambles,

you also have not read my 23 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM post, at least not the part in which I dealt with your question before you started repeating it ad nauseam.

The question as you have asked it is nonsensical, but since you have insisted I have given you a short response.

I was not at all surprised you have made the wrong inference from my response as MMario has pointed out already. Either your debating tactic or your thinking is very muddled.

Basically, you have an interesting point which deserves debate and what you wish for is not obvious nonsense. It is not your opinion as such leading to responses you do not like as you seem to think, it is the way you argue for your ideas:

(1) You're repeating often verbatim the same questions and remarks as if you wouldn't listen at all to people you pretend to be in a conversation with. That either implicitely tells the others that they are dumb for they obviously need information repeated or in my eyes comes close to the behaviour of a kid asking for the umptenth time for something without listening to any response.

(2) You exaggerate the problem, the consequences, the evil-mindedness of your opponents and the responses you get in a way that makes them unrecognisable to others. Your Niemöller quote which you don't seem to understand is but one example.

(3) You try to trick people into false analogies and wrong conclusions. If you say that then..If you accept that then....Don't you think that....In close to none of these examples your premisses are clear. In most instances, my impression is that what you say is not what you want to imply. That makes a response extremely difficult, for if one responds to what you have said (and ignore what you may have meant) you invariably understand it wrong and try the next wrong inference.

(4) Your responses when you are asked are wishy-washy and seldom to the point. From my experience with you in threads and PMs I can say that you rarely do respond at all to points made (without an explicit question) and not always to explicit questions. You restate your point with slightly different words unless you even copy and paste. My impression is: "Is he thinking he's in a conversation or what?" Your response often gives no indication that you have read or understood what someone else has said.

That parody of a debate sometimes gives me the hard to resist urge just to make fun of you for that seems like the only sane way to react. If I had not written this serious post I may have written a parody of Roger with the task of controlling entrance tickets:
"Here's my ticket" "Let us first agree that we are both humans with equal rights who have no..." "Don't you want to see my ticket?" "...other way but unprejudiced communication on an equal basis..." "OK, I'll go in then" "...founded on the bill of rights and the UN convention..."

Sometimes I even think that you damage your cause more than any control and censorship freak could dream of. "Shut up" in this context is a well meant advice of a friendly person to stop you doing more damage to your cause than you have already done. Or at least, give it sometimes a break of two weeks or so. After such a break you may post more reasonable and clearly and people may be more willing to listen to the good sides.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:17 PM

Someone said the world needs people like Roger 'sticking to his guns', etc. Probably true, but find a fuckin' issue that is worthy of this type of approach. Fight world hunger, guns, no guns, abortion on demand, no abortion on demand. On a scale of one to ten, this fucking issue don't rate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:39 PM

Wolfgang

I agree with whatever it was that you might of just said...

I think that I prefer less wordy and more direct personal attacks - than those like this one - that are dressed-up to sound as if they were not this. And made in the pretence of making some contribution to the debate. Whilst carefully avoiding addressing any of the issues - which remain to be addressed - however you may see my shortcomings in debating them.

If I have inferred the wrong thing from your answer as - I suspect others may have also - perhaps you could clarify it for us?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:44 PM

Never try to teach a cat to sing. It's a waste of your time and it irritates the cat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM

Shambles it's qutie simple really. The issues over the levels of censorhip, people working anonymously, whether policies are applied evenly, etc. are perhaps worthy of discussion.

The way you go about it and the premis you use to base your arguments on are oten illogical and leads one to think that your interest is not in discussing matters in a straightforward manner but you are using the issues for other reasons.

If on the other hand, rather than discuss the matter, you wish to voice a complaint, you have a source you have yet to try.

As far as I see it Shambles, it's a bit like an equation. If you credit Max on one side you need the credit on the other side to balance it out.

Let's go for: "The posts made by people invited to the forum by Max are being dealt with by Joe Offer who Max appointed and the volunteers also appointed by Max in a system created by Max are causing problems and the system Max created is being abused by the people appointed by Max"

Why can't you say that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM

When you have shot the messenger so full of all sorts of arrows that they look like a porcupine and there is no point in joining in and trying to find fresh places to shoot them - you could just leave them to die.......

Or if they still struggle on to deliver their message - you may as well listen to the message and give it some serious thought - and possibly wonder why some many arrows are being fired in order to prevent you from doing this?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM

Roger, Roger... Wolfgang's last post was the friendliest you have had in a long time. Yet you chose to misread and belittle it ("I prefer less wordy and more direct personal attacks - than those like this one "). Well done - you just shat all over Wolfgang's goodwill.

Your vehemence in pursuing your goals is exemplary.
Your ability to describe your objectives clearly is woefully inadequate.
Your ability to recognise friend from foe is - well, nonexistent.

You have some points to make. We think we see them through your wordage, and some even agree and try to rephrase them to help. What do you do? Flail at those who try to help you.

Sod it. You're a lost cause mate, I'm out of here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:19 PM

No - telling him to shut the f#ck up is an instruction, an order.

Sorry, Xander, no it isn't (normally). For it to be an order pre-supposes that the 'orderer' has the authority to enforce either obedience or punishment. In most cases on Mudcat, this is not true.

I, personally, wish Roger would "shut the f#ck up" on the subject of censorship, because (in the words of Flanders & Swann) he's a thundering thumping boar.* I don't have the authority to enforce that desire, therefore I am expressing an opinion, not giving an order. And since not even Roger has suggested (as far as I remember) that he has been censored on this particular subject, the Clones (who do have the power to 'punish', by deletion at least) obviously haven't given an "instruction" either.

R

*On the subject of censorship, be it noted!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM

Oh alright then - for a bit of peace.

Oooo! Roger! What I could do with that quote!! ;-) Seriously, many of the rest of us would like a "bit of peace" from this particular piece of your monomania. I know I've been quite aggressive at you over this, but it's nothing personal.

Consider this - my impression is that most of the respondents in this thread find your argument to be as unpleasantly insistent as I've quite deliberately been towards you (it shouldn't take 4 repetitions of a question to get an answer out of someone as free with his opinions as you, should it?!). Why should we listen to you, when you won't listen to us? Why is your almost lone opinion worth more than our several & many?

I acknowledge your rather belated answer, but it is so uninformative as to be worthless. It seems to me that you still try to slide away from the question that is being asked of you. You answered the "Have you", but you didn't answer the implicit "why?" You can't answer "why" with "yes".

So?

Regards,

R


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:02 PM

Wolfgang 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM

Like EG, I can't see where you think that was a personal attack. Or, rather, I can see where someone of the mindset that you persistently display would view that as a personal attack!

Like EG, I despair of you, I really do. You ask for logical responses, you ask to be persuaded... then you dismiss everything offered, on one pretext or another.

Can you answer the question that so many can't? How do you prove to the paranoid that everyone isn't out to get him? Because, from where I am standing (&, I suspect, EG, Guest Jon, Wolfgang, & many others) you are the paranoid. How do we disturb the internal logic of your arguments? No-one seems to have managed it so far.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:12 PM

Oh, and BTW, Roger, demanding a quick answer from Wolfgang (which you did at 23 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM) is profoundly hypocritical, considering how long it took you to respond to my very much repeated question, considering how long it took you to answer brucie, & so on & forth.

Did you really stop to consider what you were doing/saying/posting? Because, at the moment, it doesn't look very much like it to me, at the least!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM

Raedwulf, I suppose I still can't work out whether he is paranoid or not.

A simple thread started like.

I'm beginning to feel that the levels of censorship at Mudcat are getting a little to heavy, I wonder whether the policy of having "invisible volunteers" is wise[...]

What do others feel?
Would not trouble me. Shambles goes

Posts made by people invited by Max to our forum are been tampered with by invisible volunteers
Maybe my examples aren't too good but the point I'm trying to make is that Shambles, not directly, but by implication is accusing others for obeying instructions that one can assume ultimately can only come from Max - at least if one gives him credit for control of his own forum.

Quite why Shambles refuses to see this simple logic is beyond me. If if it is not paranoia, it is a thinly veiled attack.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM

Wolfgang, old cyber friend, you are absolutely correct. My history on this forum will show that I enjoy debate. But I tried the same logic and reason on Roger, and came to the same conclusion. I gave up. He isn't listening, and he loves it up on the cross. In his delusional state, he believes that he is a voice crying in the wilderness.

That is why I adopted a different tact. I just tell him he is an idiot that everyone here sees through. Self fulfilling prophecy and all that. He creates the conditions that make people angry and then puts himself on the cross and complains about the personal attacks. Provides some sort of twisted validation, I guess.

Pathetic, IMO.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM

I started a thread "Help The Shambles Find A Worthy Cause." A few people contributed suggestions like "End world hunger" before it was declared a personal attack and deleted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:45 PM

How about these people who obliquely call for the murder of Terry's husband?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:26 AM

Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval

Perhaps someone can expain why it is that even when facts are clearly established - like when it is demonstrated in this very thread that volunteers are so empowered and do in fact delete another poster's contribution without any prior or any other approval and without Joe's knowledge – such as Flamenco Ted's posting in this thread – all of this is ignored -in favour of the sport currently being encouraged - of shooting the messenger and calling them names?

The 'spin' of what is supposed to be happening (as opposed to the reality) is perpetuated and supported by personal and abusive attacks (some from these volunteers) and as a result the example is given that making personal attacks and responding in kind to these– is acceptable.

Flamenco Ted's innocuous posting is deleted from this thread by persons still unknown for being judged 'obnoxious'. The result of the example this sets of hypocrisy, inefficiency and double standards – is that the very posts that the majority of posters would consider as 'obnoxious' and the main reason they may support the current example of censorship – are left in place. You can see a current example of where we stand - in a thread running at the same time as this.

What is antisemitism?

Meanwhile under the cloak of protecting us from abusive personal attacks changes are routinely being imposed upon the contributions of posters looking for information – without their permission or knowledge - by anonymous volunteers.

And those that post to support all this clearly increasing and damaging nonsense on our forum – question me and accuse me of being mad?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:21 AM

Yes Shambles, I do question you. Not everyone is saying you are necessarly wrong with some of your observations or that there may not be issues worthy of discussion. The fact is though you have been banging your head against a brick wall for ages and it should be clear to you that you are getting nowhere.

Another fact is that you have yet to try the top man. In this case it happens to be Max but I'd be telling you to go to Joe if it was his site, similarly with Mick, Jeri (if she could be the top man), etc. It is simple normal business procedure. Normal peoople either take the matter higher or let the matter drop.

If you try to take the matter to Max and either find you are ignored or that you are told that Max approves of the current actions of the volunteers, I might understand you trying to do something in the forum as you have nowhere left to go but that is not the case with you. You refuse to try the most sensible option first.

It is for that reason I question your sanity and/or motives.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:55 AM

I'm sorry, Shambles. Sometimes, you make sense, but not today. I can't figure out what it is you're saying or what you're accusing us of now.

volunteers are so empowered and do in fact delete another poster's contribution without any prior or any other approval and without Joe's knowledge
    As I've explained many times before, we do not require Clones to obtain prior approval of an editorial action. That wouldn't make any sense at all. We want the Clones to act quickly if there is a serious problem post that needs to be dealt with immediately, and then report their action to us. Mostly, the immediate problems that fall under this limited permission are severe personal attacks, racism, and Spam - stuff that's really obvious. If they had to get approval first then it would make more sense to leave all editing to the Mudcat Troika - and Max, Jeff, and I simply don't have time to be here every minute of every day. Ted's deleted 200th post slipped by me because Mudcat was having technical problems at the time, and my edit review tools weren't working. That post should not have been deleted.

Meanwhile under the cloak of protecting us from abusive personal attacks changes are routinely being imposed upon the contributions of posters looking for information – without their permission or knowledge - by anonymous volunteers.
    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Yes, we do routinely add clarifying words to thread titles, usually leaving the main part of the original title intact - in an attempt to help posters obtain information by making the title of their request more specific. Long experience has taught us that threads titled "Desperately seeking lyrics" get little response. But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks."

    And I have no idea what the anti-Semitism thread has to do with this one, except that Martin Gibson has been acting up there, as he sometimes does. All I can say is that we're working on him.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:35 AM

Another key point you miss, Roger, is that we are not required to refrain from posting our own opinions. The fact that I am a Mudelf does not preclude me from expressing my opinion about you. The fact that I tire of your incessant babbling is simply my opinion. And I am well aware that others whose opinions I care about and whom I like, such as Harpgirl, are not happy with my stance. But, quite frankly, I am tired of your shit. I am tired of saying, "Oh hell, that is just Roger". Were I able to use my so called powers in the way you think I can, I would have banned you, and deleted every posting you make from here forward. I recognize, however, the wisdom in giving you some threads (such as this one) to run your mouth in. Hence I always leave any decisions on your posts to Joe.

Max, whom I have the greatest respect for and consider a close personal friend, apparently thinks there is some value in having you around. Joe, whom is another close friend and whom I respect greatly, apparently is of the opinion that banning you is not a wise move. I will submit to their judgement. The only posts of yours that I delete or edit, are those that are dup's or to fix a link if necessary.

One last comment before I leave this thread. You should thank Joe. He has a much lighter hand on the delete button than some of the rest of us. Your attacks on him are unjustified. Joe is actually a calming influence. He is committed to keeping it clean, by combining threads that are about the same thing, or not allowing certain types of posts. I think he and Jeff have the best handle on Max's philosophy of letting it roll, yet he brings a necessary sense of organization and limited moderation to keep it from descending into a mishmash. You should be thanking him, not attacking him.

And it is still my opinion that you need to see a professional. I thought that years ago (1999)when you made a spectacle of your leaving, and I think it now with your need to bang a drum no one thinks has merit.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:15 PM

So, we have shambles who tirelessly posts to put forward his argument.
And we have the regular little band who tirelessly post to tell shambles he should stop posting.

Why are the regular little band unable to stop themselves opening this thread?
Why do they persist in this game? Do they need to have a person to persecute? It's becoming unsavoury.

Including you, apparently. You seem to keep opening it, and commenting. I guess that means that you are a part of the regular little band, no? If you don't like it, don't open it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:30 PM

... the sport currently being encouraged - of shooting the messenger ....

1. I don't need a messenger on the issues being raised-- I can see the Forum for myself.
2. Messengers are usually dispatched FROM someone, and TO someone.   Who sent you, Shambles?

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM

Well, Shambles and my ex-wife and George Bush have a lot in common. You can't really carry on a debate with them because they have such a limited grasp of the laws of logic. Still, it's kind of fun to play the game - like fishing in an overstocked pond.

If I had the chance, I'd love to needle Georgie. They'd probably arrest me, though.

I'll stay away from my ex, thankyouverymuch. That one is dangerous. She just got married to a very nice guy.
I wish him luck.

Guess I'd better stick to jousting with Shambles. His huffy, self-righteous lack of logic can be quite entertaining. Sometimes, though, I have to admit that I'm tempted to stick pins in my Shambles doll....

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM

As I've explained many times before, we do not require Clones to obtain prior approval of an editorial action. That wouldn't make any sense at all. We want the Clones to act quickly if there is a serious problem post that needs to be dealt with immediately, and then report their action to us. Mostly, the immediate problems that fall under this limited permission are severe personal attacks, racism, and Spam - stuff that's really obvious. If they had to get approval first then it would make more sense to leave all editing to the Mudcat Troika - and Max, Jeff, and I simply don't have time to be here every minute of every day. Ted's deleted 200th post slipped by me because Mudcat was having technical problems at the time, and my edit review tools weren't working. That post should not have been deleted.

Joe I have lost count of the times over the past few years that I have pointed out an editing action where you later excuse why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done. Usually only after the victim has publicly complained about it………The example in this thread of - why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done - is just the latest. Simply keeping on saying every time that these should not have been deleted – after they have - does not alter the indisputable fact that the 'spin' is not anywhere near the reality. It is not open, fair or have any clear object.

Because these type of things keep on happening - all I have ever asked for is a review of why these mistakes are repeated and why they keep being excused -so they can stop? In the context of personal attacks etc – I can see no better examples than in the 'What is antisemitism thread' but these – the very things that all of this censorship is supposed to be about and which many support it for – are not even touched by you or your volunteers…. Why?

But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks."

No they don't. So why can the originators of these request posts be first informed of any suggested changes? Why must these increasing changes be imposed by you and your anonymous volunteers - without the poster's knowledge?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM

Another key point you miss, Roger, is that we are not required to refrain from posting our own opinions. The fact that I am a Mudelf does not preclude me from expressing my opinion about you. The fact that I tire of your incessant babbling is simply my opinion. And I am well aware that others whose opinions I care about and whom I like, such as Harpgirl, are not happy with my stance. But, quite frankly, I am tired of your shit. I am tired of saying, "Oh hell, that is just Roger". Were I able to use my so called powers in the way you think I can, I would have banned you, and deleted every posting you make from here forward. I recognize, however, the wisdom in giving you some threads (such as this one) to run your mouth in. Hence I always leave any decisions on your posts to Joe.

I would like to state to the other volunteers (especially the anonymous ones) that anything I say here should not be taken as a personal criticism of you. I am sure that most of are responsible and well-intentioned and would not primarily see their role as sitting in judgement upon certain other posters, informing them of what they will allow or feel that it was acceptable to mount abusive personal attacks upon them and incite others to do this and feel that setting an example of a double-standard was a good one.

I would think that any armed cop who was tempted to be 'trigger-happy would be at least partially inhibited by the stack of paper-work that has to filled-in everytime they discharge their weapon. Perhaps a similar process here - where every imposed editing action required a written report to be submitted to Max for his approval - may have the same effect and result in less imposed judgement and a more proportiate approach?

These officers, judges and others in the type of postion that require them to be seen to be impartial - (if they take them seriously and one hopes they would not be employed for too long if they did not) - are very careful about expressing their personal opinions. Most take great care to keep these very clearly separate from their job. This is wise - For they know they could lay themselves open to accusations of prejudice and unfair treatment in the course of their duties - accusations that they may find very difficult to refute.

In cases where those in these type of jobs or roles were to be seen to have abused their position - they would be dismissed or be expected to resign (or in some professions - maybe even promoted).

Is it really not possible for any editing comments to be objective and factual and completely free of personal judgements and opinions made about other posters? This would also protect our volunteers from any accusations of unfair treatment and of abusing their responsible position of trust?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM

There was talk of possible legal action and libel etc. Perhaps the legally-minded among us could advise?

I am accused (amongst other things) of not being very good on this logic business - but do I follow correctly - the logic of the argument being proposed?

That - as they are appointed by Max - whatever our volunteers say or do is approved by Max and they are in effect - acting and speaking for Max?

Does it also follow that - if one of them calls another poster a name or worse - that this is also speaking and acting for Max and would be considered as official Mudcat Editorial Policy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:18 PM

have we beaten this horse to death?

are rhetorical and hypothetical questions getting wearysome?

Does anyone care?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:36 PM

Roger, I mean this sincerely and with no disrespect. I am even worried when I say to you that whatever is wrong with you is no small thing.

Your questions have been answered hundreds of times by people empowered to do so and yet when confronted with the same explanation but put forth in a different way in the forlorn hope that you might somehow understand, you see them only as "spin." You have this deeply held set of beliefs that you refuse to challenge in the face of all evidence to their contrary. Discussion with you has become impossible as you aren't even willing to accept evidence as evidence unless it can be grossly misconstrued to fit with your hypothesis.

I have a few questions for you that are simple and straightforward. If Max were to post and say, "It's fine the way it is Roger. Now drop it."..........Would you drop it?

Would you accept things as they are if Max said they are fine as they are as far as he is concerned?

OR.......

Would you carry on this rhetoric even with the certain and factual knowledge that whatever you said would make no difference?

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:54 PM

    Joe I have lost count of the times over the past few years that I have pointed out an editing action where you later excuse why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done. Usually only after the victim has publicly complained about it………The example in this thread of - why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done - is just the latest. Simply keeping on saying every time that these should not have been deleted – after they have - does not alter the indisputable fact that the 'spin' is not anywhere near the reality. It is not open, fair or have any clear object.
You're right, Roger. You DO complain time and time again. You can take a single incident and complain about it over and over again for two years. I answer it once, but you complain when I don't answer the same question about the same incident, each of the subsequent 937 times. How many times do you copy-paste the same statement from me and complain about it, over and over again? I've counted a few of your copy-pastes, and I've seen more than ten repeats of some of them.

When you come up with new stuff, that's one thing.
But your constant repetition is wearying.

Aren't you aware of how often you repeat yourself?
-Joe Offer-



(937 is hyperbole used for rhetorical purposes - but Shambles wouldn't understand that.)(and Ted, this is the 391st post in this thread)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 12:34 AM

Given Martin Gibson's recent sewage spewage, along with Shambles' rambles, I do find myself wishing Mudcat was a moderated forum like most --   where no one would waste time, energy and bandwidth on this bilge because it would never see the light of day... er, light of cathode ray tube.

Cheers,
Michael


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:02 AM

I have a few questions for you that are simple and straightforward. If Max were to post and say, "It's fine the way it is Roger. Now drop it."..........Would you drop it?
Catspaw

are rhetorical and hypothetical questions getting wearysome?
Bill D

But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks."
Joe Offer

No they don't. So why can the originators of these request posts be first informed of any suggested changes? Why must these increasing changes be imposed by you and your anonymous volunteers - without the poster's knowledge?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 04:20 AM

You know, Roger, usually I do inform thread originators, to make sure they can find the thread - but I don't ask their permission to change a thread name. If I can't find them, then I can't inform them. Remember also that we try to clarify thread titles by adding to them, leaving the original title as part of the new title.

Once upon a time, we'd get lots of song requests with generic titles, titles that couldn't be differentiated from other titles because they were all the same - "lyrics request," or "lyrics required," or "desparately seeking lyrics" (and they always spelled "desperately" incorrectly). Then we'd get all sorts of helpful Mudcatters posting to the thread, preaching that the people needed to start a new thread with a specific title. We'd also get people requesting many unrelated songs in the same thread, and those requests would get lost. A simple thread title change solves those problems.

So, Jeff created a utility that allows us to change thread titles, and we use it. With almost 78,000 threads, it's important that thread titles describe the contents of the thread. It's simply a process of indexing Mudcat threads so that it will be easier for people to use them. The philosophy is that the needs of the general community are more important the the wishes of the thread originator - although we do try to take the thread originator's intentions into consideration.

Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort.

Yes, there have been some people who have complained about a thread title change here and there, but the number of individuals who have complained has been very small. In fact, I imagine that 98.3 percent of the complaints have all come from the same individual, and I think we all know who that individual is.

-Joe Offer-
394


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:10 AM

I think Bill tires of your questions as well as mine. I tire of them too. But every factual question I can think of that you have asked over the past several years has been answered 97 ways from sideways in an effort to make it clear to you. You refuse to accept ANY answer that does not match your personal vision.

It matters not where it comes from at all. Any answer that does not fit is twisted into something sinister by you and then becomes yet another complaint. I simply want to know if there is any point that you will say, "Well, that's it. I made my case and stuck to my guns but now it's over."

I would think that a definitive answer from Max would be that point. Here's a song with some verses that are germane to the situation (italics are mine):

*************************************************************
Move On Down the Line

I got to move on, down the line
What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine
There's nothing left, but the lying
Move on down the line

This train we're riding, has reached the end
And it's no good to pretend
We were walking, hand in hand
Into some Promised Land

So long, I won't forget you
But, I never was 'gonna' let you
Tie me up and settle me down
Nothing's lost, nothing's found

The story ends, it's had it's time
And if you look, I'll think you'll find
The bottle's empty, we drunk it dry
There's no need to cry

This dog is happy, it's had it's day
There's really nothing more to say
No need to cut up, don't howl the moon
We don't sing the same tune


No need to tell me, I'm no good
I just thought, you understood
Just like the wind, needs to blow
I've 'gotta' go
*************************************************************

Interesting song.........Unlike the guy in the song, I see no need for you to go, but when do YOU reach the point of saying that we just don't sing the same tune?   Anything I have to say you won't accept. That is true of Joe and virtually everyone else as well. This leaves only Max as best as I can tell........That being the case, I don't find it rhetorical at all to ask you if an answer from him would end it for you or not. So on that basis, I ask again:

Would you accept things as they are if Max said they are fine as they are as far as he is concerned?

OR.......

Would you carry on this rhetoric even with the certain and factual knowledge that whatever you said would make no difference?


Spaw
Oh yeah.....I forgot to attribute the lyrics above to the writer. Seems it was written by some guy named Roger Gall........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:48 AM

Congratulations Roger! Your persistence has elicited many explanations
for the reasons for clonehead activities on mudcat. I see Joe has explained his reason for thread title changes. Interesting! (He may have said it before but this is the first time I've groked it.)

If it weren't for your "97 different ways of asking" we might still be kept in the dark about many things with regard to "censorship" on mudcat. Why do the verbal abusers on this thread not see that Roger's persistence has clarified many issues? Does anyone see also that the continuing dialogue helps to put the issue out in the open, debate it, keep the cloneheads thinking about why they do things, and is thus dialectical?

Oh, no. The boneheads, oops I mean cloneheads just keep telling you to shut up! The irony of this thread is astounding and magical! Go Roger!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM

Harpgirl. If you were unsure on why thread titles were changed, one straight simple question "Could someone please explain why thread titles are changed?" would have got you a straight answer.

Shambles is not asking straight questions but is making accusations and forcing people to defend themselves repeatedly.

If you want to encourage shambles' fantasy world where Max's dream is being wrecked by Joe and his evil empire, fair enough but don't pretend he's bringing out answers you couldn't have got by much simpler means.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:22 AM

Well said, Jon. It is a matter of asking. It is also a matter of accepting the answer. This place is what it is. Accept that and move on with enjoying it.

Harpie, if I thought there was some good coming from this, I would say so. You seem to be endorsing this man's assertion that there is something sinister going on here. There is not, and it seems to me that is what you should be endorsing. JMO.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jaze
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:06 AM

Well, gee, now I've just found out some of you were invited by Max. Now I really feel left out!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jaze
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:18 AM

400! Never did that before.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Scaramouche
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:48 AM

" shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here.

Yes but would you not agree that with any right - comes responsibilty? "

Yeah and part of that responsibility, Shambles, is to deal with things like porn postings, spam and public postings of email addresses.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:54 AM

If anybody thinks they're having an honest9discussion9about Mudcat editing policies, <you're<in the wrong thread.<.This9one is for9playing head games designed by Shambles.

It's a whole lot9less frustrating when you<realize you're<not making any progress9in9the9surface9level of communication9because that's just for show. Shambles'9intentions seem9to9be9to9see 9how many<hoops he can get others<to jump through while avoiding jumping through any himself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 10:40 AM

I thought we were overdue for a Jeri contribution - to refesh the thread. If this is is a game - it is one that you and many others are willing to play. But this is a relevant subject for discussion - why is it that so many post to say that they do not think it should be? I suspect if we were all saying the same things on censorship here - it would be thought to be a suitable subject for 'debate'.

Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort.

Now if this had NOT been the case here on the part of Max's accommodating forum – I, and I suspect many other long-term contributors would not have been attracted and contributed here for so long.

There were and are many places where pedantic judgements and tedious arguments about what was and was not 'on topic' and where control seemed to be the main object - The Mudcat Forum was never as ordinary as this and should never be allowed to be turned into one. Those that prefer this sort of place – should perhaps go there and leave the rest of us in peace?

This re-writing of history - where some animals are now more equal than others and feel qualified to sit in judgement and impose this judgement upon others - without their knowledge or permission - demonstrates exactly why I feel that credit for the forum that we have ALL created - is in danger of being stolen from us all - by a few.

Thread originators and posters generally have always been respected and should continue to be shown a respect that is not now the case. I agree that threads have always been the result of a community effort - they have been the result of contributions invited by Max. They have NEVER been and NEVER should be the result of deletions, closures, tinkering and general personal judgements of the the poster's worth - made by a selected and anonymous) few.   

You seem to be endorsing this man's assertion that there is something sinister going on here. There is not, and it seems to me that is what you should be endorsing. JMO.

I will leave others to judge from the evidence whether something sinister is going on. I have not said that there is. But if there is NOT anything sinister going on - an open approach - (with no secrets, threats and anonymous volunteers and the very minimum of imposed censorship) - a lack of sinister intentions will always be very clear.

It looks as if you have something to hide and protect if you choose to do this by adopting divisive and less than positive methods to prevent open debate. Folk may then tend to believe that there is something sinister going on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 01:24 PM

Max's stated view is that his role on the forum is only to facilitate. The role of anyone who is asked to assist in this – must surely be to also facilitate and enable the public's contributions – and not to sit in judgement upon the worth of them?

It makes little sense to judge and sort posters invited to a public forum - into what a volunteer may consider to be good or bad ones - for every contribution posted from the public – invited by Max to the public -is equally valid. But it is clear that this counter-productive practice IS at least what some of our volunteers presume their privileged role to require of them.

The result of all this being posted publicly – is that all contributors follow this example. Posters in turn would appear to think that the whole purpose of posting to the forum now - is to sit in judgement of the worth of their fellow posters and to post abusive personal attacks and respond in kind to others (rather than simply ignoring them).

Is it likely to ever prevent abusive personal attacks – when those in responsible positions – set the example of the double-standard? Of judging the worth of their fellow posters whilst themselves indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to also indulge in this and respond in kind to these abusive personal attacks? A practice that is well demonstrated (and defended) in this thread.

All that retrospective imposed editing action can effect - is what is removed or closed. It has no effect on preventing abusive personal attacks from first being posted. So if there is a genuine wish to prevent what most posters say they object to - some other and more imaginative methods MUST be found.

The most obvious and simple - but still seemingly impossible for some of our volunteers to manage - is to first set an example - to what they consider - to be lesser posters. One of:

NOT insisting on posting only to judge the worth of their fellow posters (good or bad).

NOT insisting on mounting abusive personal attacks – inciting other posters to do this or ever responding in kind or at all – to any obvious provocation.

I and many other second-class 'lesser' posters – do not have the problems that some of our privileged volunteers have and can manage perfectly well to post and not respond in kind to obvious provocation. If they are to remain a permanent feature - is it really too much to expect our volunteers to set the example of also doing this. If it is – are these really the right people to sit in judgement upon the worth of the rest of us?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 01:28 PM

Roger, in 1999 you pitched a fit and in an attempt to garner attention, you publicly announced you were leaving. Were your motives pure, you would have stayed gone. At one point, I even invited you back. I regret that now. Your motives are not pure, you are an attention grabbing troll, nothing more. Further, I believe you need help. ANYONE who cannot see that is blind, and anyone who encourages it when they know better, ought be ashamed. If they are not, I am of the opinion that they have an agenda just as you do. I am through dancing your dance. Keep playing in the sandbox, and I hope the rest of you don't mind it when you step in the occasional catshit.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 02:02 PM

Shambles, a message is (or can be) a personal Hyde Park for anybody who wants to express an opinion. But just like in Hyde Park, you control only your own message - you don't control the entire park.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM

While we're on the subject, can anyone define the term "folk music" for me?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM

As Shambles likes quoting, I've done a bit of research and will supply an extract from one quote and another full quote.

Subject: I'm against censorship
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 05:51 PM

Well, I suppose that there are messages that those of us with "delete" buttons delete as a matter of course.
Duplicate messages - that's obvious

"Get Rich Quick" and other Spam messages that have nothing to do with music - obvious

Messages that just take up space, like the one from the guy who filled a whole page with just his name - obvious
I don't think that's censorship - it's just tidying up. The only other messages I have deleted are the ones that were direct, personal attacks on Mudcatters, and I think I have deleted only two of those in the last couple of years.
[snip]
Max gave a few of us "edit" buttons and told us to use them with good judgment. I think we've tried to do that, perhaps erring on the side of freedom of discussion, but I think that's good.
[...]
Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 02:22 PM

Drop it, Shambles. Apparently, some sort of misdirected censorship did happen once, and the perpetrator was aparently a JoeClone® in training. It happened one time, and probably won't happen again. OK?
-Joe Offer-


Now the first and most obvious point is that Shambles has been banging on about this for rather a long time.

The second point is rather less obvious. The "no rules" post was made in Oct 99, yet in July 99 it is quite clear that there were unknown volunteers and some editing work was carried out, even personal had been deleted.

I don't think Max's statement was ever meant to be taken the way shambes does. I think his meaning was intended to be taken as "we try to be as free and easy as humanly possible" rather that the literal "do anything you like regardless..." interpretation shambles puts on it.

Whatever, the evidence supporting the state of the forum pre Max's statment does seem to me to invalidate Shambles usage of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:43 PM

Little Hawk, I would, but I'd refresh the thread and it might bother Shambles.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:30 PM

Gee, Jon, things were different back then, though...
Did I really say I had deleted two personal attacks in two years?

Now I'm lucky if I can get by deleting just two attacks in two days. Back in 1999, nobody ever called anybody a "cunt." We didn't have to deal with those things back then.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:43 PM

Yep Joe, I can see some things have changed. My point really was that the power existed and action would be taken if needed back then. Just in case I was missunderstood, I didn't mean to imply that you haven't been forced to move with the times...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:02 PM

Max himself shut down a couple of threads, if I recall correctly. In The Olden Times, I believe that was done with a bit of code that disappeared the 'Reply to Thread' window and the 'This Thread is Closed' thing was developed and implemented later.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM

Well, I had to look at your messsage twice, Jon, but I did understand you correctly. Still, it was a shock to remember that oncve upon a time, I had to delete only two personal attacks in two years.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:08 PM

Ya' know Joe, I keep thinking I'd like to invite RacePace, ZapIt, CornerMarshall, and a few others who are mods at a racing forum where I hang out, to join me here for a field trip. We'd have to have El Swanno standing by because there would likely be a stroke or heart attack or two. At the very least a lot of hyperventilation.

Give them a few minutes and any number of posters would be zapped into the ether. Boatloads of individual posts would be gone and threads would disappear right and left including this one. They'd be camped out on these pages and any time someone even looked like they might be attacking.....ZAP. No explanations will be given and only rarely will they bother with one. Shambles would be completely beside himself, but no one would know!

Truthfully, if you handle it right, you can discuss their decisions privately and they will in fact change their minds......but you need to know that attacking them or demanding anything of that sort from the mods there will simply be zapped. Truth is that it's a real friendly place with lots of fun and intelligent people who understand that you post on these things as a privilege, not a right. The rules are clear regarding attacks, profanity, porn, and the like.......and the place runs very smoothly. I have not seen any instance where they have killed off discussions or conversations that were being held within the rather simple rules. I don't see where either good discussions or the community atmosphere is affected for the worse at all. Seriously it's a whole lot better than the place where the 'Cat seems to be devolving.

Now this bunch around here may think all that harsh, but for those who do frequent other boards they know that you allow far more, and I mean faaarrr more than is the general rule. Might be time to get a bit more aggressive though................Just a thought.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM

Anyone ever consider that these folks, like Sham and martin gibson, are trying to force more moderation? Just a thought. Beyond being psycho's it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,the shrink
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM

In the case of Martin, that is exactly what I have presented as the purpose of his manner. I believe to someone as himself who lacks power in real life, to be moderated on an internet forum IS power.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:57 PM

yep, shrink, I think that is it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:24 PM

LOL Mick.........Hell Bro, could be anything! I think in Shambles case he has been at this for so long that he really is off the deep end mentally. Reminds me a bit of Lenny Bruce at the end of his life where he was so occupied with his court cases he could think of nothing else. His entire act was him reading court transcripts. Or maybe Roger has been wearing the wrong size underwear all these years.

The other guy isn't worth the time of day. He's a decent enough troll but he follows the same pattern ad infinitum: He makes a thinly veiled attack on someone and they respond. He then responds with far worse stuff, saying he was attacked. If you do the same thing to him, he of course claims your thinly veiled first strike was a major attack on him. His first strikes are never major attacks on you. I tried him both ways after watching him for awhile and it's pretty much the pattern. Also, should someone fail to respond after keeping this up for awhile, he does an Anon Guest posting to keep it going. Pretty basic stuff but it keeps working because for some reason it seems a lot of 'Catters either can't shut up or actually care what this disembodied voice has to say. If everyone would just let it drop.......but that isn't likely and he knows that as well. It would be easy enough to just zap him out on every questionable post. Most trolls weary of that after awhile too.

Roger on the other hand.........LOL, well there is a beautiful room awaiting him at the NYCFTTS anytime he wants!

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:30 PM

I'm glad to hear the NYCFTTS facilities are still open. I'd been wondering about that. I've got 15 people here hanging around the WSSBA who swear that they ARE William Shatner, and frankly, I'm getting tired of it. Most of them don't even look like him.

Talk about yer terminally screwed people...

There are also several Canadian politicians who could benefit from a short stay.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM

Yep, you're right Spaw. I am just getting to the point where the moderation you speak of sounds better and better. I would just hate to lose the freshness that spawned NYCFTTS, Reg and the boys, LFPS,Koko, the spud, ..... all of that. I guess if is far past too late though.

I hear you, maybe I will adopt a bit of that philo.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM

The problem here Mick is that so many of do care so much for this place and also know from history that getting 100% compliance to shunning is about impossible here. So we long for the "benevolent dictator" to right the problem. What is important to understand, at least to me, is that on the net fairness is not a requirememnt.

On the other board I am speaking of, Spaw is still pretty much Spaw. I have a rep their as well and I get by with a lot that others don't....and that's simply because the mods know there is nothing mean-spirited about my posts. I still get zapped occasionally and have to explain a joke to RacePace now and then. The persona put forward by MG wouldn't last a day. WE've had some and they kept coming back but the mods were equally relentless and the trolls lose everytime. I could sometimes say the same things and not even be noticed. It isn't fair of course, but it is the reality and it works.

Spaw

S


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM

Well, here's a thought. The forum has already been divided into an upper music section and a lower BS section. Why not subdivide it one level further, as follows:

1. Music - (the Etherial Realm of True Purity)

2. BS section - (for stuff that's somewhat less pure)

3. Truly Offensive BS section - (for stuff that's completely beyond the pale!)

Any post in which a person said something completely beyond the pale (whatever that is deemed to be) would be summarily dumped into the TOBS section as its own TOBS thread, with its own TOBS title, which would be the title of the thread it dared to first appear in with "TOBS-" added at the front.

Example: TOBS - What is the definition of Folk Music?

The TOBS section would necessarily be so far down the page that it would require considerable motivation just to scroll down there. This would be discouraging to the wretched souls who devise truly offensive posts, as they would more and more begin to feel that they had been consigned to some sort of purgatorial realm of terminal damnation.

If a particular poster caused more than 666 posts a year that were truly offensive, then a subroutine could simply dump all his future posts in the TOBS section from then on. This would amount to excommunication in Mudcat terms. I'm guessing that "Guest" would be there in jig time, probably talking to himself most of the time. Kind of like a man yelling at his own echo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:56 PM

ROTFLMAO.......Gawd Hawk.....I love it!!! In other words, Max needs to provide a place for every wacko, nabob, bottom dwelling slug on the net so they can have their big chance to have a forum of their own!

The idea cracks me up but I think you have a pretty hard sell there(:<))

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:57 PM

What you are describing, Spaw (that you get away with more than some do on that forum) is the reality in any group of people who have gotten to know each other over a period of time. Old friends get more benefit of the doubt than strangers do. Makes perfect sense to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 10:58 PM

No, put TOBS on the server that only runs some of the time-- the one for which there is not even a back door entry. Give it a separate URL altogether, and no link from here to there. You'd have to Google to find it. The color scheme also-- have to be totally offensive to the eye, like blinking black backgrounds, small yellow type for thread names and posts, etc. Require registration to post there, but make every post appear as being from a nameless Guest. Or just assign random numbers-- "Banished #00002," etc. Or use the IP number. :~)

No PM function.

Eliminate the blickifier there, and all other Mudcat conveniences too. Limit the characters per post, too, to something short and pithy. Install programming that would make a hash out of anything composed in a WP and then pasted as small bits. But no censoring, of any sort whatsoever.

The fix Mudcat Normal Zone so that links to the Hell site cannot be made or posted.

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:00 PM

PS, Hell is where to put the POP-UPs, and banner ads, and all that CRAP! People wanna post that shit, let them pay good money (via revenues generated) and fund the rest of Mud-damn-Cat! :~)

It's always simple to harness an addiction. Make it pay!

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:07 PM

Oh! Nasty! Imagine the misery in which the banished of Mudcat would wallow there in the TOBS section, like prisoners in some foul dungeon, longing for a scrap of bread or a beam of sunlight...

No point limiting the characters per post, though. Let 'em go on and on indefinitely, I say. Excessively long posts by obsessive people would be part of the misery. Allow NO paragraph breaks! Have jOhn from Hull design a subroutine to revamp ALL the spelling so that it looks like his.

Another thing that could be done for the regular BS section would be an automatic subroutine that alters all deeply offensive words into harmless words such as "tiddly", "ronson", and "macaroon".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:37 PM

I regret my own recent actions- mind you, I don't regret the things I said to the person to whom I said them- but I regret not leaving the problem to Mudcat, especially to Joe Offer. You da guys that have to deal with da problem- and I am capable of leaving it in your hands. I'll try to do so from now on.

Ebbiewhoispenitent


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:40 AM

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 02:22 PM

Drop it, Shambles. Apparently, some sort of misdirected censorship did happen once, and the perpetrator was aparently a JoeClone® in training. It happened one time, and probably won't happen again. OK?
-Joe Offer-


But it did happen again. So I didn't drop it. For it happened again and again it still does as it did – even in this thread. So do the same excuses given and so do the personal attacks that the whole editing edifice is supposed to be protecting us all from and which many good folk support because they believe the 'spin'.

The reality – as I have demonstrated – is somewhat different – the people mainly affected by current censorship – are ordinary posters. My circumstances have never been the issue for me but my postings are what I know most about. The 'spin' will tell you that I have never been the victim of any censorship here (by rather narrowly defining this as by terms such as 'tidying-up'). I do speak from the rather unique position of a thread originator – whose thread has been closed by Joe Offer TWICE……..Unfair treatment and over-zealous abuse of this position – I will leave it for you to decide

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=12450&messages=78

The explanation for this was not because the thread contained personal attacks on me or anyone – as it was folk saying nice things. But this was considered serious enough to cause this thread to be closed twice!

Can closed threads be re-opened


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:32 AM

Shambles. One portion of my post you did not quote was Joe Offer saying.

"Max gave a few of us "edit" buttons and told us to use them with good judgment."

Does that not tell you anything? Let's see if we can try a couple of questions based on Joe's statement. I'll give you a clue. The answers only need one 3 letter word.

1. Who created the situation where some members have more power than others that you complain about so often (something I have no objection to, on the contary I think a few people are needed to help out)?

2. If rather than using good judgment, they are abusing their privelage, who do you think you should inform?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM

The answer has two letters not three.

Us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:04 AM

Shambles, a message is (or can be) a personal Hyde Park for anybody who wants to express an opinion. But just like in Hyde Park, you control only your own message - you don't control the entire park.

-Joe Offer-


Perhaps it may slowly dawn on those that do wish it - that no one else IS wanting to take control of the whole park. It would appear that whoever it is that wishes to control every aspect of the whole park and entry to it - and is under the impression that they now do control it – is not even content with this and now does not wish posters to even control their own messages.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=78706

You will see that the thread title that I had chosen for my music related (parody) thread was changed without my knowledge and against my wishes. That I was then given the ultimatum of leaving the thread with the imposed title change or of having it changed back and this obvious attempt at a thread song – being sent to the BS (non –music) section. This was contained in a (brown) editing comment – where the personal opinion was expressed by Joe Offer - that all Song Challenge threads should be demoted to the BS non-music section…….

I will leave you judge what is happening here and where it is written that as a matter of routine that volunteers can threaten to send threads that are clearly music related – to the non-music section and why?

The view that Song Challenges (containing mainly original material) may not be worthy of a place on the music related section is perhaps a valid opinion. It is perhaps not the sort of opinion to express in an editing comment - if the volunteer expects their imposed editing judgement to ever be generally accepted as being objective. Such actions leave little room for defence - if or when accused of unfair treatment or of abusing their position.

Perhaps in future (and if these editing comments continue to take place) - and in order to prevent confusion - no personal opinions should appear in editing comments and these should be kept objective and factual?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:32 AM

Thanks for making me laugh out loud.

The problem here Mick is that so many of do care so much for this place and also know from history that getting 100% compliance to shunning is about impossible here.

The only things that we know for sure are impossible - are the things we make no attempt at.

If we are talking about not responding in kind or at all to obvious provocation - whatever percentage level that could be achieved (by posters always setting this example) would always be better that doing nothing and stating that making any attempt is futile.

It would also help and pay a big compliment to the many posters who do manage to easily do what you appear to find impossible. Unless of course for some reason you do not really wish to even make the attempt - but wish to continue to indulge in mounting personal attacks and respond in kind to them and to set this example?

So we long for the "benevolent dictator" to right the problem.

If we do - we will be waiting a long time. But of course - stating this cop-out always saves the resonsibility of actually doing anything positive yourself.

What is important to understand, at least to me, is that on the net fairness is not a requirememnt.

is this not a double-standard - as you would appear to think that being fair to our volunteers - is a requirement? This of course works both ways. As in any form of respectable policing anywhere - being open, fair and having a clear objective is always a requirment - except perhaps in police state......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:34 AM

At this point, Pip would say "anobeithiol"

Welsh adj: despairing, hopeless, desperate, forlorn


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:43 AM

Yep, Jon. There is no help available to the fool who will not be helped.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:23 AM

Again I would ask, Shambles-- when you use the word "we"-- who is the "we" who sends you as messenger?

And who is "we" on any given day and hour?

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:51 AM

Yeah, iut appears that Easter has really rejuvenated the boy doesn't it? But Pip has it right and if I knew how to pronounce that word, I'd be using it all the time!

I'd be happy to parse your postings all to hell and break down each thing, like your incorrect usage of the word volunteer or the fact that if you cannot see that your 2 letter answer is wrong and Jon's 3 letter answer is right, or a hundred other things........but there is no point.

You need to address all your problems to Max. Everyone here has answered you repeatedly and you say they are wrong or it is spin because it doesn't fit your vision. Time to question your vision Dude! And the only ones who can help you there are yourself and Max.

'Course questioning your own vision is hard and requires perspective and honesty......not everyone seems able to do it. Like this one guy I know who has a vision that is seriously impaired by the fact that his head is so far up his ass, his tonsils are tickling his forehead.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:03 AM

When I use the word 'we' - I always mean every single last one of 'us' contributors to our forum - including the 'great and all-powerful' Max....

Susan - who knows? I make no claims but the same one who sends you to 'us' may even send me and everyone else with the very same message. That we can stop judging each other's worth here and everywhere else - for they are the one who will do the judging - when the time comes. They are also said to work in mysterious ways.

To quote the great Dave Allen: 'May your God go with you'. LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM

Dealing with flamers and trolls


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:02 PM

Spaw you might like this cartoon. So might anyone else who doesn't mind some effing language and/or whose naughty-word protection software at work won't have cow about it.

As far as parsing postings, I do believe the<just plain wrong stuff is the bait. Stuff that is THAT<messed up, people feel compelled to put right. Whether it's intentional or he does it because he's not that good at communicating is hard to determine. He<completely<missed the point of WYS's question. Was it on purpose or not? Shambs, the "shoot the messenger" saying has to do with messengers who deliver someone else's<words. One wonders not only whose message you're delivering, but who you're delivering it to.

Maybe more important than "who is 'we'?" is "who is NOT 'we'?" I mean it adds another 'not' into the equation, and you seem to like negative words, what with sentences that read like "Should we not be encourged to not ever shoot the messager? No? Nonaynevernomore?" I mean, it would now be "Should not those of us who are NOT us be enouraged to not to shoot the rest of us, who are?" I mean, who really IS 'we'? Am I not we, as you are, are you not, we, and are we not all 'we' together? And if it's true that it's 'us' asking the questions, and 'us' providing the answers, are we not talking to ourselves?

I am the Walrus, and I have approved this message.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:07 PM

Spaw, Pip doesn't speak Welsh but she picked this word up from one of her Welsh speaking friends and likes it. Try:

ANNA-BAY-TH-E-OL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:41 PM

Thanks Jon!! A hug to the dear Pip from me!!!

Jeri........I have long felt there is a language called Shambalese. I first became aware of it back in '99 when I failed to understand what Roger was talking about. Being of a lesser intelligence myself, I enquired of him what it was he was trying to say because as I read it, it made no sense and I had some issues with him. I sent him a PM to get that clarification and received back THREE PM's, all of them 3 or more pages in length. After several hours of sifting through them repeatedly and trying to ascertain if they were in fact English or some other language, I gave up and went back to trying to get the little BB's in the eyes of the bear.

Today, you, Jeri, have given me hope! You seem to have been able to translate the Shambalese into English and even better, you seem to speak it fluently YOURSELF! How much work, study, and sheer perseverance this must have taken on your part I cannot imagine. When I read, "Should not those of us who are NOT us be enouraged to not to shoot the rest of us, who are?" I mean, who really IS 'we'? Am I not we, as you are, are you not, we, and are we not all 'we' together?", I knew you were the first person to successfully translate and use Shambalese as well as it's originator. Do you have a book and CD available? Do you take MasterCard?

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:10 PM

There was a time when dislexia, spelling, grammar and other problems that posters may suffer with - were treated with respect on our forum and not made the subject of ridicule. A time when what someone was trying to say was respected and considered more important that the form that it appeared in.

Also there was a time when personal conversations - of little or no general interest - were thought to be best undertaken via PMs. If these personal conversations were about another poster - it was once thought better and polite - not to conduct it publicly.

There was a time when what passed between members via PM were not thought to be for public knowledge. If someone wishes to say something to me that perhaps may be of little general interest - I would be more than willing to do this via PMs and to respect the convention of privacy that is customary in this method of communication.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:37 PM

...........anobeithiol...........oy...........simply amazing.......okay...lessee here......

ROGER SAYS:There was a time when dislexia, spelling, grammar and other problems that posters may suffer with - were treated with respect on our forum and not made the subject of ridicule. A time when what someone was trying to say was respected and considered more important that the form that it appeared in.

Are you telling me you suffer from some problem like dyslexia or bad spelling? Roger your lyrics and poetry are simply too well done and beautiful to believe that. No, this is in fact the point of all of this----NO ONE CAN MAKE OUT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY MOST OF THE TIME BECAUSE YOU CONVOLUTE WORDS TO FIT SOME OTHER PERSONAL VISION OR IDEA. YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO WHAT IS SAID BUT RESPOND INSTEAD TO SOME OTHER INTERPRETATION THAT ONLY YOU CAN SEE.

The fact that you are so articulate in your poetry makes many of us wonder why and how you can be so obtuse otherwise. It makes no sense and frankly makes me concerned for your mental health. You have been on this mission of yours for over 6 years now and refuse to see the reality of the situation. Your mind seems to be so consumed with this that you cannot read the "what is" but rather choose to read your own interpretation and you "communicate" it back in such a way that it is almost impossible to understand.

Forget it.....I'll just go back to the BB's and the bear........

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:53 PM

Are you telling me you suffer from some problem like dyslexia or bad spelling?

If it matters - and I really have spell it out to you publicly - YES.

Whatever I achieve or fail to achieve at in writing prose, poetry or song - comes only after considerable trouble and great assistance from a spell-checker. I am sure that many others also struggle in this fashion and perhaps should be encouraged to express themselves as best they can - rather than feel that they have to conform to your standards?

I do not - fortunately suffer from any diagnosed mental health condition. It may be as well for you to to consider that there may well be posters who do....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:07 PM

Fer keyriced's sakes, Shambs, I canNOT believe we were born on the exact same day and year. How about, as a b-day present to ourselves, you turn over a new leaf and give it a rest?!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:11 PM

Wrong Big Mick and idiot Guest.

I don't care about power. Except if there's 110v coming out of the socket.

I think it's the other way around. Big Mick and his ILK (love that word and how it's always used here) are the one's worried about power because the old guard who is usually pretty unfriendly with bad attitude toward outsiders and ones who don't subscribe to their "Hi, I'm a liberal, phony folkie" philosophy is kind of showing some bad cracks and has plenty others thinking.

Keep at it Shambles.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Ed Skenieuwezscheivevitz
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:42 PM

Hi. I am a very liberal and committed folkie, a man of the people, and I take serious umbrage at the rude and disgusting comments emanating from Martin Gibson. He is a far right fanatical cyber-thug and should be subjected to incarceration and deep psychoanalysis ASAP. I suspect that Martin Gibson is a plant by the CIA or worse yet is an agent for the Skull & Bones and the New World Order, his mission to spread chaos and disorder in liberal ranks and usher in a new era of totalitarian control by the war-mongering illuminati and the Bushites who are delivering our public school systems over to fascism and destroying the Constitution.

Just a short time ago I was in Chicago, reputedly Martin's hometown, and happened to meet a certain individual in a bar and get into a lengthy conversation. This individual was a chimpanzee, dressed in a suit. He was reasonably articulate, and seemed to be interested in what I had to say about music, society, politics, and other germaine subjects of that sort.

Little did I realize he was a psychotic agent of the New World Order. After listening to me innocently enough for at least an hour, he suddenly went berserk, whipped out a pistol, and threatened to blow me away on the spot. I fled the bar. You cannot reason with people who have lost the ability to engage in reasonable dialogue.

Now, here's the rub. I strongly suspect that the chimpanzee in question was the very same person who passes himself off here AS Martin Gibson. That's right. Either that, or he and Martin are working together.

Consider the evidence in common. Martin is from Chicago. I met the chimp in Chicago. Martin swears. So did the chimp. Martin is combative and short-tempered. So was the chimp.

I intend to ferret out the truth about this matter if it takes me the next 5 years, and I am willing to sift through every one of Martin's posts painstakingly and record them all in an extensive database program in order to prove once and for all that Martin Gibson is a right-wing agent bent on destroying liberalism in American. And he's probably a chimp too.

As for Shambles, well, I have read and reread the postings by you on this thread, sir, and I must admit that they are quite impressive, but the point is so subtle that it is still somehow eluding me. This is unusual. I have a mathematically exact mind that can normally graps any degree of arcane complexity, due to a 40-year career in folk music, and yet I cannot fully grasp what you are on about. You are either a genius or a complete idiot. My plan at this point is to recover and read ALL your postings from the past five years, and run them through my database analyzer. When I have reached a definitive conclusion as to their exact meaning, I will get right back to you. Meanwhile, do carry on. You are clearly a man with a mission.

Amd don't forget to buy my new album:

"Day of the Dolphins"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:03 PM

Glad you overcome the problems Shambles. And I am well aware of quite a few who have similar problems......and I make no fun of them....nor do I make fun of you. I'm well aware also that a number of us have some mental health problems actually diagnosed. None of this has anything to do with it. I am just trying to understand what the problem is with your failure to acknowledge what is being said.   I think perhaps the answer is quite simple....You refuse to do so.

So I guess rather than treat you as a member here who is stating an opinion, your long diatribes in the face of all factual info given you seems instead that you are just yet another troll. Is that it? You're a weird kind of troll perhaps.

So let's see............

You pose the same questions over and over and refuse to accept any answer given to you that does not conform to your vision.

You refuse to answer questions in a straightforward manner butinstead twist the verbage to suit your needs.

You don't acknowledge that Max is the final arbiter here and refuse to take your problems to him (in PM form if you like it so well). You even seemingly refuse to accept an answer from Max if he gives you one (and that's a mental health issue).

Under all of these conditions, why not just close this thread? Or maybe as you would obviously prefer, we all agree to give it a break?   I mean really, what the hell else can be said at this point? Is there anything you haven't stated and asked repeatedly? All of those things that I can see have been answered, but without answers you accept.....so there's no point in asking again now is there?

Anything new? If not, let this die.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:25 PM

Still droning on I see Roger!
I think it was Jerome K Jerome who said, "His huff arrived, and he went off in it" Remind you guys of anyone?
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM

Since we are on the subject, who are the cloneheads exactly at this moment in time? What have each of you deleted, changed, modified, or rewritten in the last week? Why? or why not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:54 PM

Ed Skenieuwezscheivevitz, are you Polish?
We had a great Polish Easter, Borscht with kielbasa, and slejie (picled herring) - Polish cheesecake for dessert, all made by my Polish wife and mother-in-law.
Happy Easter!
-Joe Offer-

450


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

Ed, you are the guy that needs his head examined. I'd get right on it. I should not have pulled the gun on you, but you should not have insulted chimps after givin' me a headache for a solid hour and a half with all your crazy paranoid political stuff. You are seriously out of touch, man. You need help.

No, I am not Martin Gibson. I ain't had the pleasure to meet him, but I figure I will one of these days. I don't work for the friggin' New World Order and I doubt that Martin does either, but who can say? I think you oughta learn to control your mouth, mister.

I listened to your "Day of the Dolphins" CD. Frankly, it's not good. Sorry to tell you that, but it's not. Not to me anyway. I figure it could be useful though, to break down hardened criminals and wring confessions out of them by repeated playings. It would be cruel and unusual punishment, but it wouldn't do permanent harm, so I'm for it.

I got your hat here. The one that says "Folk You!". I will send it if you provide a mailing address.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:25 PM

Harpy.......If I were a Clonehead, I would have to say that I haven't changed a thing in the past three weeks or more. However I would be thinking of adding "I just love Catspaw" to your above post. Whaddaya' think?

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:35 PM

Since we are on the subject, who are the cloneheads exactly at this moment in time? What have each of you deleted, changed, modified, or rewritten in the last week? Why? or why not?

I just love catspaw.

[so do I ----skinny clone
(I have not changed or deleted anything in 2 weeks, and then it was just editing spelling)
]

[I don't know .... I guess he is all right, given the fact that he is a layabout.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:41 PM

awwwwww........................geee whizz....................**blush**............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:06 PM

Yes, Joe Offer, he is.   His friends call him 'Skinny'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:22 PM

Joe's friends used to call him "Skinny." I haven't been called skinny in ten years, since I gave up smoking and gained weight....
But thanks, anyhow, Ebbie.
-Joe Offer, 190 pounds or so-

(I was 145)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jOhn from Hull
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 05:16 PM

Mr Shambles- Fuvkingf shut up, most pepople is fed up of seeiing you rubbish.john


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 05:17 PM

ps= you are big moany person, and never make any good tghreads any more.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:14 PM

jOhnNy, don't be a one-noter, OK?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,bobad
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 09:27 PM

Joe

It's that Polish food.It'll do it everytime.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 07:23 AM

None of this has anything to do with it. I am just trying to understand what the problem is with your failure to acknowledge what is being said.   I think perhaps the answer is quite simple....You refuse to do so.

I do repond to most posts made on the subject. I remain open to persuasion and demonstration that the facts are not as I state.

I do refuse to respond in kind or at all to abusive personal attacks. And this thread (and others) will show that I have not chosen to respond in kind to your abusive personal attacks upon me. It will also demonstrate to you - (who unlike many others - seem to find this impossible) - how perfectly easy it is to ignore all obvious provocation.

Others can judge - but what you have posted to me are abusive personal attacks and (mistaken) personal judgements. Although not I suspect posted really for MY attention but for the benefit of the rest of your posse members and the watching crowd. You should not be too surprised if I treat these abusive personal attacks (which you and some of your fellow posse members largely encourage by setting this example) in the same way as I treat the rest......

It has rather a lot to do with the fact that when you (and the other members of your posse) post only to make your uneeded and unrequested judgements on the worth of other posters - as in this case - you will usually be wrong. As all this judgement, division and personal abusive attacks from the favoured few - is NOT the object of our public discussion forum.   

You will also inhibit other posters and risk causing real pain - in an exercise that you seem to see as re-enforcing the bonds that hold your posse members together - i.e' the exclusion and riducule of those who do not think like 'we' do.

The answer to this for you - is simple. If you do not like or accept the fact that the public are invited to have their say and agree or not - or that they may choose and are entitled not to agree with you - perhaps you and those that find this discussion and open debate a problem - can find somewhere else where you can sit and judge each other's worth and abusive each other - until your heart's content?

Many post to say many different things - what I choose to respond to - and in what fashion remains a matter for me. As what you or any other poster may post to say is a matter for you. And that really is the answer to your problem. If don't like my view - fine. No one is forcing you to ever open this thread (or any thread) - or to discuss this subject ever again.   

My view is simple and is evidenced - that the 'spin' of what censorship here is being defended by - is not the reality of what is actually happening. Whether there is anything 'sinister' in this - is a matter for you to judge. But as this censorship it is not open, fair or have any clear objective - the motives of it will always be all open to question - until it is open, fair and has a clear objective.

The one certainty is that - whatever other damage has been done and is being done to our forum - all this retrospective editing and imposed judgement has not prevented abusive personal attacks from being mounted. Especially when the example is set by our volunteers indulging themselves in mounting these, inciting others to do so and encouraging the idea that there is something amusing in this. And still attempting to maintain some moral high-ground.

I have no real idea why this thread on this subject is thought by some to be any worse than one with 10,000 post saying nothing - or any on the many other strange subjects that threads are about - but if YOU don't POST to any thread - It will die (eventually).

Any thread that YOU don't decide to open IS EFFECTIVLY ClOSED...........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 07:56 AM

Glad you overcome the problems Shambles. And I am well aware of quite a few who have similar problems......and I make no fun of them....nor do I make fun of you. I'm well aware also that a number of us have some mental health problems actually diagnosed.

You do not seem to be aware that you never 'overcome' these problems. Folk are constantly struggling with them and whatever progress they may make in tackling them and whatever confidence they may have slowly gained - can be destroyed by a single casual remark, action or needless personal judgement made of their abilities.

Over a long period - Max's Mudcat Forum has been very helpful to me in building up the confidence to express myself in writing. I would like to see it remain a place where others would also feel safe and free to also be able to build-up their confidence and tackle what ever difficulties they may have. Without being judged.

If sometimes appears that folk now are being encouraged to think that what our forum is now only about - is for posting personal judgements of the worth of other posters and their right to post.

The idea that there are good posters and bad posters is not a judgement made publicly by Max - it is a matter only of personal taste. There are only good posts - (the ones that you find interesting to read and may respond to) and not so good posts (the ones that don't interest you and you will not respond to).

As it is possible for posts from the same poster to fall into both catagories - the idea that you should be encouraged to judge any poster to be a good poster or a bad poster is clearly nonsense and counter-productive.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:15 AM

'Judge not, lest that ye be judged' Cuts two ways Roger!
                         then there's
'If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen'
                         and of course the immortal
'When you are in a hole stop digging'

You've had support and encouragement, more than I think you deserve, from several people on this thread. I think you should rest on your laurels, as in the same way as 'You can't fool all of the people all of the time', you also can't persuade everybody to agree with your point of view, all of the time.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:03 PM

"It's that Polish food.It'll do it everytime."

Why does Joe polish his food?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 03:56 PM

Spaw's Spurious Spinnin' Volunteer Mudcat Posse...........Sounds like a song title. Anyway, while the posse is feedin' their horses and tossin' back a few smart-ass remarks, let me try again.

Shambles says....."I do re(s)pond to most posts made on the subject."

Okay then, let's keep this simple and straightforward. The subject here is censorship at "Max's Mudcat Forum." It's the thread title. I think it is fair to say that your very well established position is that there is too much to begin with and the system in place, along with those involved, is not to your liking and you believe it to be detrimental to the forum. I think we do agree that although it is often referred to by all of us to be "our" forum, the owner and final arbiter/decision maker here is Max. So now, two simple questions which are not rhetorical and are on the subject.....questions, in other words, of the type to which you say you respond.

Have you written directly to Max via PM/e-mail within the past 2 weeks regarding your concerns or linked him to this thread? If so, what response have you received?

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:13 PM

I have this image of Max coming home from a long, hard day in the Real World, and opening any one of a number of BS threads, maybe even this one, and wondering, "Shit, did I shave my legs for THIS?"

How many times can a man be motivated to re-tinker the old hardware, cut family time short, and rethink the design-- for the kind of crap that is now the daily fare at Mudcat? And people think censorship is the issue-- it ain't. Puerility, now there's a problem.

~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:36 PM

sometimes appears that folk now are being encouraged to think that what our forum is now only about - is for posting personal judgements of the worth of other posters and their right to post.

Huh? I must have missed That! Where is/are the post(s) that can be interpreted in that way?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM

"I have this image of Max coming home from a long, hard day in the Real World"

The implication of the above statement is that Mudcat is NOT part of the real world. That is a mistake in either perception or logic, IMO.

We can argue that TV is not part of the real world, but we all know better. The internet is as real as are many other technologies that exist today. No more, no less. Calling a shhep a dog will not make it bark; but calling the internet interactions of real people 'not part of the real world' doesn't fly right with me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:11 PM

That's a little facetious, brucie, imo. What I am sure Susan meant was from a long hard day at work in the 3D world. Also, remember that Max is the Primo Volunteer of us all, with Pene Azul right beside him. Besides that Susan is one of the first who has MADE Mudcat real in the 3D world, too, with guesting various 'catters, etc.

Shambles, it would be a lot better if you'd quit making sweeping generalisations about some perceived kind of amorphous persecutive moderating which you claim is so rampant and the "norm" on Mudcat. Joeclones are NOT the great and powerful OZ you seem to think we are.

Frankly, I am not sure why I am even try to reason with you; it's been proven so many times, over and over, that it does not good. Hope you had a happy birthday.

kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM

"What I am sure Susan meant was from a long hard day at work in the 3D world."

Well, as long as YOU are sure what she meant, then all is just fine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:54 PM

Have you written directly to Max via PM/e-mail within the past 2 weeks regarding your concerns or linked him to this thread? If so, what response have you received?

I doubt that you address and judge Max in the manner you do to me. Or discuss private exchanges publicly like you do with me. Call him names and question his sanity and invite others to follow your example - so if you make your demand to him - he may answer you.

As you make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming from you. So I won't - as it is none of your business.

Max is not the problem and does not need to be bothered for the solution - we all are the problem and we all have always had the solution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM

The solution is simple. Get a gun. A shotgun. Load it up good and proper. Aim it at the computer (from a safe distance) and let fly with both barrels.

There will be a lot of mess to clean up afterward, but it will be worth it. The little electronic demon that, along with your TV, has deprived you of a normal human life for decades now will be GONE, GONE, GONE.

You will find you now have oodles of time to do the normal and natural things you once did, long ago...the things that people in places like Cuba and Trinidad STILL do...like going outside, gardening, exercising, cooking, playing sports, reading books, enjoying the weather, riding a bike, cleaning, painting a picture, socializing, playing music...

Paradise lost will have been found again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:27 PM

Soon this thread will take lotsa time to load and that will be a good thing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:09 AM

If certain posters (i.e Brucie) had not posted to this thread (at least) 65 times - in order to say very little - this thread may have died a natural death some time ago.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:12 AM

As Brucie says, this thread is getting unwieldy. It also carries a lot of invective and unnecessary personal criticism.

I am a member of several forums, and some of them publish their "constitution". I will try to distil from them a feew simple rules regarding cencorship, and put them up for discussion. We don't have to apply them, this is up to Max. But it will be good to see if we can find some common ground by keeping it simple. Perhaps Roger and I might find ourselves on the same side of the fence as Little Hawk and Brucie...Who knows?

I will start a new thread for that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:30 AM

I see that some posts in this thread Dealing with flamers and trolls have just been deleted for - what the brown writing says is 'anti-social behaviour'.

Do we then expect this thread and all others to be also purged of all posts containing this 'anti-social behaviour'?

Can we perhaps be told how is this conduct defined and by whom? What posters it applies to and what posters it will never apply to - no matter how poor an example they set?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:06 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario - PM
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:36 PM

sometimes appears that folk now are being encouraged to think that what our forum is now only about - is for posting personal judgements of the worth of other posters and their right to post.

Huh? I must have missed That! Where is/are the post(s) that can be interpreted in that way?


Mmario – There is no shortage of these posts. The following one is probably one of the best single examples currently being set. There are a number of rules to follow – which this one demonstrates well. All of them ignoring the fact that encouraging all this personal judgement to be posted - is pointless and counter-productive.

1. First you make sure that the poster you are judging negatively is an easy target and any groundless inference you may make about them will be just more 'mud' that might easily stick.
2. Secondly you always use the royal 'we' and refer to 'us' – to imply that this is the view of those posters who matter.
3. Thirdly you never miss the chance to include some other poster's names and if you can – and if you get the chance - to make some ingratiating remarks about how positive a poster they are and what a good example they are setting.
4. It is not always necessary to make a thinly veiled threat of some sort – this is optional. As is actually making any contribution to the subject of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't Refresh A Closed Thread : RE jOhn
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:48 PM

Quite frankly, Roger, it is fortunate for you that someone as level headed as Joe, Jeff, and Max are, is making the decisions. If it were my decision, I would block you. Here is why.

First off, you have nothing constructive to say. The majority of your posts, by a large margin, are on a single subject. That subject is your dissatisfaction with this place. With very few exceptions (the Pianist thread) that is all you post about.

Second, It is clear that you gain some kind of gratification from complaining, and the resultant nasty responses from folks. It is like a Quixote complex gone mad. It seems counter productive to keep feeding this.

I know that M, J & J are correct in their response to you. But a number of us feel that the forum would be better served without you in it. I wish that were not so. In fact I remember a time when you contributed mightily to this place. I wish that were still the case. In short, you are the best case that can be made for a moderated forum. Fortunately there is only one of you.

I am posting this because of your focus on Joe. Joe has actually been one of your saving graces. There are a number of us that are pretty much at the end of our rope. You don't recognize that we understand Max's desire to keep this place as it is, hence you are allowed to continue. Instead of complaining about them, you should be grateful.

Mick the Mudelf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:21 AM

Shambles, sincerely,
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:51 AM

Was this the bit you meant from that thread, Joe?
I think one of the problems is that if you (as session leader or organiser or whatever) are seen to be laying down rules in a pub - like no singing etc - some folk seem to see that as a red-rag to a bull and will then do their best to just to mess things-up for everyone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM

No, George - just the thread title...
-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM

I thought as much; but the statement I quoted seems an excellent summary of self.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:32 AM

OK, El Gringo, I suppose you feel smug because you are in cahoots with Joe Offer and the faceless ones. What is wrong with feeling strongly about cencorship with no accountability? And why don't you "f*** off politely" back to Spain or Mexico or wherever it is you come from?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:59 AM

Thank you, Xander - I love you too.
You got the country wrong by the way, it's England. And I'm already there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:30 PM

I did also say the following in that same thread.

I did say that it was sad but if folk don't follow the conventions - this does not give you the right to start flouting them too. There is no polite way of telling someone to **** ***.

For if you have volunteered to prevent abusive personal attacks from being posted - should you really been seen to be setting such an example? Of saying anything like this - to another poster that Max has invited to contribute to the part of his site that he has set aside for contributions from the public?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM

When I tell someone to fuck off, I mean it in the nicest way possible.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM

I'm sure you do, Brucie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:02 AM

I wouldn't be paranoid if everyone were not out to get me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:39 AM

Shambles - I honestly cannot see how you draw those inferences from the post you qouted - if anything the OPPISETE appears to be true to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:15 AM

Alanis Oppisete?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM

Shambles - I honestly cannot see how you draw those inferences from the post you qouted - if anything the OPPISETE appears to be true to me.

OK MMario - how about this example then?

From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM

Those of you who continue to debate are very silly. This person continues to try and set the predicate that this is "our" forum. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Max owns it, maintains it and decides what it will or will not be. This person continues to draw you into the discourse based on incorrect assertions, has made it clear that he will not accept any answer other than what he wants to hear. It seems to me that those that encourage him are no less guilty than he is.


In this one - not only I am judged guilty (of quite what I am not too sure) but everyone else is judge to be guilty of something too.

Quite how anyone is judged guilty by engaging in debate in a public discussion forum set up for that very thing - escapes me. Or are we judged guilty of being silly? It looks as if there is an example being set here of encouraging an awful lot of personal judgement of the worth of fellow posters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:03 AM

Possibly because you, shambles, do not debate. You repeat the same (false) claims repeatedly and ignore anything posted which does not support your claims. You twist postings out of context to also support your claims. You ignore answers to your questions. You refuse to answer questions asked of you or answer a twisted and warped version of the question usually out of context.

this is not debate.

you are not being accused of debating. You are being accused of not debating. Your posted record supports this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:50 PM

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:27 PM

Well Joe you could adopt my motto for life.

You die if you worry; you die if you don't worry.
So why worry?


Giok ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:41 PM

That is an excellent philosophy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM

"In this one - not only I am judged guilty (of quite what I am not too sure) but everyone else is judge to be guilty of something too."

GUILT? I am guilty of lotsa stuff. Every now and then I'm a real asshole. I am not always polite. I sometimes take things the wrong way. However, this morning I noticed that the sun rose. And I was still alive to greet it. All in all, things could be lots worse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:00 PM

Not necessarily from the perspective of some 'catters, but from my perspective.

This thread--unlike my sheep-shagging thread from days of yore--has wasted lots of my time. I am OUTTA HERE! Yours in censorship.

Brucie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM

Number


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM

500 El Ted


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

Time for part two ??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:13 PM

No part 2. It can load 50 posts at a time as it is.

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:20 AM

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum.

Well as I read this first bit on 1st April - I thought this agreement must be an attempt at an April fool,s joke...For on another current thread - you will see another (known) volunteer - making a personal attack upon me - and saying the opposite.   

From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM

Those of you who continue to debate are very silly. This person continues to try and set the predicate that this is "our" forum. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Max owns it, maintains it and decides what it will or will not be. This person continues to draw you into the discourse based on incorrect assertions, has made it clear that he will not accept any answer other than what he wants to hear. It seems to me that those that encourage him are no less guilty than he is.



However, when I read the second bit....

However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

I was convinced that it was an attempt at an April fool's joke.........

For sadly - our forum has already been taken over by a trusted few.
Some who have betrayed that trust by setting the example of and indulged themselves in more 'combat' and abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters - than probably any other contributor.

Some who have betrayed that trust by worrying more about their control over every small aspect of what others post on their forum - ever being 'taken over' - from them - than they do about how chaotic, combative and judgemental our forum becomes.

I don't think that anyone really wants to 'take over'. But I have denonstrated that the current control affects the simple freedoms of resonsible posters MORE than it has any affect of the iresponisible ones.

And when from their behaviour and the example they set - it is difficult to tell those trusted ones from the (very few) iresponsible posters (especially when some of these reamain anonymous) - it is perhaps time for a serious review of all aspects of censorship here............So that it can once again become OUR forum.

That is ALL of us even our volunteers - who I really have no personal gripe with - but who - I feel are placed in an immposible position.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:38 AM

Mudcat censorship - a proposal


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:29 AM

Do you know what it means when someone puts something in quotation marks? You should as you use them overmuch yourself!
Once again you are playing selective quotes, eg However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos. quoted as if it were part of the same post. That's not how Big Micks post reads if I follow your blue clicky.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:29 AM

No you are right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 11:13 AM

I am delighted to announce that Shambles, based on PMs received, has decided to recant and mend his fences with Joe Offer, whom he has always privately worshipped. He has decided to support the Mudcat Clique in every way possible and is applying for a position as a Joe Clone. He is also recommending to Max that Big Mick be elected King to hand down policy decisions and organize the members. He did not specify which members.

In response, Joe Offer has reported he is deeply gratified at Shambles' conversion, and he plans to provide Shambles with a complete set of passwords to the site so that he can restore all posts previously deleted back to 1978, including everything Gargoyle ever wrote.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:07 PM

Amos that was private.

I would appreciate that you respect to convention that what passes between us in PMs - is not for public consumption.....Yet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:39 PM

When I use the word 'we' - I always mean every single last one of 'us' contributors to our forum - including the 'great and all-powerful' Max....

Roger,

I never gave you permission to speak for me.

You do not speak for me.

Since you are so scrupulously honest, in future when you say "we", kindly add the rider "except for Rædwulf".


{parenthesis: I think you will find that the list of exceptions grows beyond all bounds as soon as people realise they can ask you not to speak in their name}

When will you realise that you speak for yourself (&, maybe, harpgirl) & next to no-one else?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 03:06 PM

Amos,

you spoil it. Whereas Shambles struggles to add to the comic side of Mudcat you post a completley serious post in the middle of the hilarious exchanges. You don't honour this day.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 03:11 PM

LOL at Wolfie.......that was good!!!!!!

And who says Germans have no sense of humor?

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 03:23 PM

Amos,

you spoil it. Whereas Shambles struggles to add to the comic side of Mudcat you post a completley serious post in the middle of the hilarious exchanges. You don't honour this day.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM

It was only funny once Wolfgang....................geeziz, maybe Germans don't have a sense of humor..................

Spaw(:<)).....Do you want me to delete that second one Wolfie?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 05:36 PM

For flip's sake! Have some respect for the dead (me), and let this thread lie dormant for at least a day, will you!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:07 AM

Since you are so scrupulously honest, in future when you say "we", kindly add the rider "except for Rædwulf".

If you wish to exclude yourself from anything - you are perfectly welcome to do this.

I will continue to try and take care to use that word to be inclusive - so that I do not exclude you or anyone else.

For anyone to be rejected – intentionally or by default – and be excluded from anything against their wishes - remains a 'big deal' and not to be taken lightly. Those that don't see imposing their judgement and excluding other posters invited to the party - as always being a 'big deal' - perhaps should not be in the position of excluding anyone?

Keep in mind that perhaps the LAST person you want deleting stuff is somebody who says "Ooh, let me do it...I WANNA do it!"

Jeri in this thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=72778&messages=102&page=1&desc=yes


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:37 AM

That 1st of April has turned out to be one Mother of a long day!
G


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM

Roger - Congratulations. More meaningless drivel. Be clear, please. After all, you love clarity & truth.

Next time you say "we", are you speaking for me? Or not? And will you make it clear that you are not speaking for me, and that you are not speaking for anyone except those that have explicitly given you permission to speak for them?

No, I don't think you will, because you're full of... yourself... & intent only on anything that will support & reinforce your one-eyed self-interested version of reality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 02:54 PM

Put me on the list with Raedwulf, Shambles. You use the term "we" to imply agreement, and that you speak for others. You definitely do not speak for me. We are all free to express what we believe in here, but that's all that we do. We express what we believe. The only "we" is ourselves.

Jerry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 02:56 PM

When I use the word we (or us) - I do not presume to speak for - or answer for anyone else. I use the word to mean (me and) everyone else - because I wish to speak TO everyone else and not only to a selected few.


I was thinking back on my time posting as a member here - as a strange and developing game of football (soccer).

We start off on equal terms and kicking in the same direction as my fellow team members in an informal and very enjoyable game of football.
However, Soon one of them becomes the referee and starts to make-up the rules.
Then most of the rest of my team appear to also become referees and start kicking in the other direction.
Some of these begin to behave very badly and set a poor example on the pitch by making abusive personal comments and to judge everyone else and their right to play.
To give out red-cards and send others off the pitch.
Soon the pretence of having a game of football is ended and despite the increasing number of rules and officials to enforce them - the whole thing turns into bullying and becomes a free-for-all gang fight.

Is it time to put the jackets down (for goalposts) and try again?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 03:54 PM

When I use the word we (or us) - I do not presume to speak for - or answer for anyone else. I use the word to mean (me and) everyone else - because I wish to speak TO everyone else and not only to a selected few.

I'm neither concerned that you intend exclusion, Roger, nor about who does (or does not) feel you are authorized to speak for them.

I'm looking just at the practical side of "we."

At any given moment, on any given day, there is a completely unique "we" present at Mudcat. Now how do you propose making sure that everyone included in "we" on April 23, 2006 knows that something has or has not been agreed upon at a particular point in time? How will they know what the particulars are?

Hm?

~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 04:34 PM

I wouldn't worry Susan, he even has games of footbal with more than one ref on the field now - and it appears they even kick the ball.

As an aside, there was a ref in a non league game who wilfully did score a goal. The team he scored for was getting slaughtered and he saw it as a bit of humour as there was no doubt as to the outcome of the game. see here

Mind you, football is getting strange in other ways. 2 players on the same side decided to have a punchup today see here


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:55 PM

Stop talking crap, Roger. Your "team" consists of you, nobody else. So try using I in future, not a spurious "we" that gives an illegitimate legitimacy to your monomania.

You speak for yourself. Nobody else. When it comes to PELs, certainly there are plenty who share your opinions. When it comes to censorship, there's just you. Always you. Tediously you!

So stop talking "we", because there is no "we". Not until somebody publicly gives you permission to speak for them. It's just you, Roger. Always just you. Tediously, boringly, repetitively, you... {yawn}


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:39 PM

The alteration Mujcat needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over.

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 10:44 PM

New Mudcat Mantra: DNR! (DO Not Respond!)

OR,"Remember the Filter!" (Tick the Filter Out box, put the name of whomever's posts you do NOT want to see in the filter box and hit Refresh. Voila! Their posts no longer show up!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:52 AM

At any given moment, on any given day, there is a completely unique "we" present at Mudcat. Now how do you propose making sure that everyone included in "we" on April 23, 2006 knows that something has or has not been agreed upon at a particular point in time? How will they know what the particulars are?

As I have said - I do not presume (unlike others here) to speak FOR anyone else but I do not exclude anyone here that I wish to talk TO - so what does it matter?

Would I be safe to use the term Mudcatters as long as it was clear that I was not speaking for anyone else but myself?

How is that no one appears gets their knickers in twist when Joe and Co use the word 'we' in a divisive way - in order to exclude ordinary Mudcatters? But only when I use it to include and refer to all Mudcatters?


It is a very strange game when referees feel they can make the rules and switch between this role and become a player - at any point in the game they choose. Perhaps not a game that is open, fair or has any clear object?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:27 AM

Oh sod it - I was trying to abstain from further involvement in this, but...

...to stay with the football game analogy:

It's Max's ball.
Max gave it to his friend Joe, for him and others to have a game.
We (each one of us) came onto the field, asked to play and were accepted.
Joe, having the ball, made some rules for the game. Not many, and they make some sort of sense.
One of the rules is that he (Joe) will be the referee, and he and Max agreed on some linesmen.
Sometimes we may disagree with the referee's decision - so what. We still play the game.
Dissenters (grizzlers) are annoying, as they divert attention from the game.
Dissenters are occasionally shown the yellow card.
Persistent dissenters might be shown the red card and be evicted from the game.
Now and then passers-by (GUESTs) join in the game, and we let them. We only get really annoyed if they spoil a really good move (thread).
But we stay and play the game, as long as we have fun.
It's "our" game only in the sense that we are participating, and by making good moves (threads) we can make the game more fun.
When we are tired of it, we retire for a bit.
If we really don't like any of the above, we are free to go and play somewhere else.
I, for one am staying, and am grateful for the opportunity for a kickaround.

Choose your position.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:53 AM

It's Max's ball. No argument with that


Max gave it to his friend Joe, for him and others to have a game.

I think that even Joe Offer himself might agree that this is re-writing the history of this game more than a little.......Some might even describe it as complete balls......?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 09:32 AM

Well Roger if anybody should know about writing complete balls!!
G


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:19 AM

Roger, as I said, my question is not about exclusivity or about your "representing" "all Mudcatters." It's a practical matter. Please re-read my post and give it some thought.

~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:15 AM

Susan

I have thought upon the matter. I see your point. Do you propose to ban our use of the word 'we'? Or of the word 'our'? - Or the word 'us' or the ..........

I am the eggman.......

Perhaps starting another thread on this subject would be a good idea?


BTW It is now Official.......
Roger isn't the problem anymore.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 08:57 AM

I think that goes a bit too far, El Greko. Max provides Mudcat to all of us - equally. He has chosen a few of us to use our judgment in doing moderate editing to keep the peace. He chose volunteers he trusts, people who are trusted by the majority of Mudcatters.
-Joe Offer-


The above is an editing comment (in brown) in response to El Greco's game of football (from another current thread) and inserted in his post there.

Perhaps it can be demonstrated where and when the "majority of Mudcatters" have ever chosen to place their trust in any other poster or not to place their trust in others? Or ever been asked to make this divisive choice?

Especially when many of these people - "the majority of Mudcatters" are said by Joe Offer - to be trusted by - choose and are permitted to remain anonymous?   

Why then are the "majority of Mudcatters" (especially the ones that have always contributed honestly and been prepared to always use their own names) NOT thought to be trusted by Max?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:02 AM

Joe, you sure do make sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:08 AM

Roger, if you see my point, how do you propose to address the practical difficulties?

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM

Is it really sense to ever trust an anonymous person? Or be said to be doing this - or ever be asked to?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:22 AM

Why then are the "majority of Mudcatters" (especially the ones that have always contributed honestly and been prepared to always use their own names) NOT thought to be trusted by Max? (Shambles)

A typical presuppositional question, Shambles. This is but an extreme example of the questions that make a discourse with you so difficult and often pointless. The question has no menaingful response, for it presupposes something which is wrong and then only asks 'why' this is so. And it has nothing at all to do with what Joe has said in your quote.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:45 PM

It's called rhetoric Wolfgang, aka verbal diarrhoea.
G


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 04:05 PM

C'mon, Roger... that's the old "When did you stop beating your wife?" kinda question. There's no way you can answer it because the basic premise isn't true.

Jerry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:31 PM

I doubt that Max sits around worrying about how much he can trust the average Mudcatter (whoever that might be...).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:09 PM

Besides, LH, we all know in our heart of hearts that we are ABOVE average. :-)

Jerry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:10 PM

Yeah... (grin)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:25 PM

Max provides Mudcat to all of us - equally.

Is this basic premise at all true now in any sense? I had always thought this to be the case - so perhaps the fault in accepting this concept - is mine?

It is very difficult to pose questions that do not look a bit skewed at this point in our forum's development - because the basic premise has been skewed so much. In a completely mad world - a sane person's views would always be seen to be a bit odd. Let us examine some aspects of how the reality of the Madcat World now is.

The forum is given to us equally - but some (even anonymous ones) are trusted to be more equal than the others - who although prepared to use their own name and be accountable for their contributions - plainly are not thought to be trusted at all.

From this trusted postion - (some of) those trusted ones indulge in setting the example of judging the worth of and mounting abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters and inciting others to do this - all done in the name of preventing abusive personal attacks...and so on.

Perhaps it can be demonstrated where and when the "majority of Mudcatters" have ever chosen to place their trust in any other poster or not to place their trust in others? Or ever been asked to make this divisive choice?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:37 PM

Possibly. But would anyone purchase tickets to such an event?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:18 PM

Hawk, I think that would depend on the type and quality of the individual competitions. For instance, a Tug-O-War between a Shatner Team and a NYCFTTS Team might be a big draw. The Cletus Hardinger Air Biscuit Launch might draw a huge crowd but it would depend on wind strength and direstion.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:22 PM

Those are inspired ideas, Spaw. Specially the first one. I frankly cannot understand why, with a mind like yours, you aren't a household name by now (off Mudcat, I mean...).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:26 PM

I am Hawkster, it's just that they refer to me as "Ketchup."

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:33 PM

Ah....yes, I have heard of you. Very good.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:23 AM

Here's another beauty of a Shambles question:

What posters it [the 'bleeping' for anti-social behaviour] applies to and what posters it will never apply to - no matter how poor an example they set?

No meaningful response is possible to such a question. It presupposes something that is in my eyes not true (that there are posters to which 'it' never will apply). In addition to that, the usual Shambles argument (no Shables post is complete without it) of the poor example that 'they' set is woven into a question.

Well, it could be argued that this was meant as a rhetorical question, but I have made the experience that Shambles has repeatedly insisted upon a response to what at best was a rhetorical question and then has wrongly attributed his inability to understand my response to the response and not to the question.

I have no control over your style, Shambles, that's completely up to you. But with me leading questions or presuppositional questions do not work.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:36 AM

It's just impossible Wolfgang. Here is another example of Shambles getting things twisted.

The forum is given to us equally - but some (even anonymous ones) are trusted to be more equal than the others - who although prepared to use their own name and be accountable for their contributions - plainly are not thought to be trusted at all.

Where this one goes wrong is Shambles is comparing the fact that volunteers are allowed by Max to operate anonymously with anonymous posting. The problem is that the way the volunteer system works, you have to be logged on as a member to use the system. In other words, all volunteers are people who use a consistant name or handle for their posts at Mudcat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:07 AM

Wow.......Is that what those posts mean? I'm not being sarcastic here at all. Quite sincerely I tell you that I had no idea what he was talking about as I get lost in the twisted verbage. Jon, I have read your explanation several times and I'm willing to accept your answer on faith because I cannot make hide nor hair of the quote from Shambles.......so your explanation works for me.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:22 AM

The bad thing is that some real points that could be dabated get lost in that muddled approach. Even a good cause can be lost with a bad advocate.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:00 AM

The bad thing is that some real points that could be dabated get lost in that muddled approach. Even a good cause can be lost with a bad advocate.

That is as good an excuse of avoiding addressing important issues - as there is. Nothing is stopping you from doing a better job of conducting the debate - rather than being content to repeatedly post - simply to try to sabotage any debate - by only rubbishing the advocate.

No matter how many posters contribute only to confirm that the Madcat World is flat - and how bad a job I may make of demonstrating that it is not flat. The fact is that the good old earth (on which the Madcat World rigidly remains seated) still insists on revolving.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:11 AM

Early each day at the MudCat Cafe
The little old poster he comes.
In his own special way to the people he calls,
"Come, buy my bags, fall you crumbs.
Come feed the trolls, show them you care
And you'll be sorry you do.
Their egos are hungry,
Their lives are so bare;
All it takes is time taken from you."
Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag.
"Feed the trolls," that's what he cries,
All through the web, his posts fill the wires.
All around the world, the lists and the forums
are spammed as he sells his wares.
Although you can't see them, you know trolls are smiling
Each time someone shows that he cares.
Still his words, repeat though they're few,
Listen, listen, he's calling to you:
"Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:22 AM

The problem is that the way the volunteer system works, you have to be logged on as a member to use the system. In other words, all volunteers are people who use a consistant name or handle for their posts at Mudcat.

As always the facts do not always support the blind defence of all aspects of the current 'system'. For that is not the case when in order to protect their identity after a 'logged-on' anonymous volunteer had imposed and deleted a posters's entire thread - the anonymous volunteer then posts as a guest - to defend their action (Using - Guest Unrepentant Clone). Actions like this could easily be seen as flaunting this trusted position and taunting lesser untrusted posters from this anonymous role.

But these nit-picking details are not really the point as anonymous posting has hardly been generally popular in the past history of our forum - has it? Why would anonymous posting be thought to be generally any more acceptable now.

How can the rest of ordinary (untrusted) Mudcatters be said (by Joe Offer) to have been shown to place their trust in any volunteer whose identity in unknown and intentinally withheld from them?

As it is divisive - perhaps it is time that volunteers were given the choice of being known ( as to their credit, many are quite prepared to be) or of not being a volunteer?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:37 AM

only rubbishing the advocate
You are doing that job, I only comment it.

Flat, revolving? Huh? Two completely independent concepts. Speaking about the earth revolving makes really a bad job out of trying to demonstrate that the earth is flat.

Shambles, you took me to task for introducing a bit of humour into this thread. The comical relief introduced by your posts like the one above comes more often.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:41 AM

Subject: RE: Deleted post
From: GUEST,unrepentant clone - PM
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 12:03 PM

Ad-I deleted it. It was only 15 minutes after it had been posted, and I was not sure anyone else had even seen it. It was posted in the music threads, was obviously copied and pasted, and not only had no commentary to explain why you posted it, it was offensive and inflammatory.

Still, I should have left a note saying what I had done and why. I had a phone call and totally forgot. Apologies for that.

We allow a lot of non-music discussion on lots of things, but it just struck me as an attempt to fan flames. That is only the 2nd post I have deleted in several months. Obviously, this volunteer moderator game is not an exact science.


The whole thread -

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=69253&messages=88


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:52 AM

The complete quote was.

That is as good an excuse of avoiding addressing important issues - as there is. Nothing is stopping you from doing a better job of conducting the debate - rather than being content to repeatedly post - simply to try to sabotage any debate - by only rubbishing the advocate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:53 AM

As always the facts do not always support the blind defence of all aspects of the current 'system'. (Shambles)

Who does that? And what has that sentence to do with Jon's post?

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:06 AM

Wolfgang, I guess by "blind defence", shambles means that I have, in the past, worked under Joe as a clone (although admittedly there have been changes such as the addition to close a thread since then). And that I have programmed similar moderation facilities into other message boards...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 03:30 PM

No, no, no! It's the rutabagas. And it always was. Censor that if you dare.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 03:43 PM

That's got me thinking of the sig Richard Robinson (a regular on uk.music.folk amongst other things) uses:
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:36 AM

I've just stumbled across the following:

Subject: JOE OFFER Come Back To Us, All Is Forgiven
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 99 - 04:03 AM

Joe Offer.... known to dispense goodwill, help and gentle guidance in a common sense way which I for one am missing very much....

What changed??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:48 AM

Joe Offer's reaction (also in 1999) to Shambles saying goodbye to Mudcat

My opinion is that all this verbiage serves to make matters worse. We need to get back to talking about music and good times...I hope you come back. You're a good guy.

When looking back, 1999 seems like paradise.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:01 AM

I've just nicked the 7200th post on MOABS thread. Stand by for it's deletion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:13 AM

Good catches, Noreen and Wolfgang. Thanks!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:43 AM

Spaw is ketchup a good alias? You do know that it is sometimes necessary to bang ketchup hard on the arse to get it to work don't you?
Giok ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:24 PM

Ted, I'll crucify the JoeClone who would dare to delete your 7200th post - but I have to warn you that you have a very offensive apostrophe in your 09:01 AM post in this thread.

The correct expresssion is:
    Stand by for its deletion.

-Joe Offer, pedantically-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:54 PM

Joe Offer.... known to dispense goodwill, help and gentle guidance in a common sense way which I for one am missing very much....

What changed??

Noreen - I wish I knew and could answer that one.

The example that was set then - was one of friendly inclusivness and tolerance - which I supported 100%..........

Now it would appear that you either accept the 'goodwill, 'help', 'gentle guidance' and 'common sense' - that Joe and his anonyonous volunteers will impose upon you - OR ELSE you are expected to or told - to go away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM

Perhaps Mr. Joe and Mr. Shambles might consider working out their differences privately from this point forward? How's that for a "proposal"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 02:04 PM

Well, I'm not really involved in the discussion at the present time. Shambles just copy-pastes excerpts from what I've said in the past, and then replies to the excerpts.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 03:56 PM

a boy's gotta have a hobby to help keep him off the streets.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jpk
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:46 PM

and may god bless   see aint no censor's here


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 10:12 PM

Yes, there fucking is.

This place is getting censored more than ever.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:11 AM

Not the entire place Martin..........

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:44 AM

Sorry about the apostrophe Joe, I done gone left school when I was nine years old and Didn't get no education.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 04:20 AM

I thought you were still at school FT


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 06:54 AM

Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed!
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM

Sorry, Peter. We routinely close or delete all threads that look like they're going to be an attack on an individual. Yours got deleted before it turned into another slugfest. There was no way it was going to turn out to be a constructive discussion.
As for any thread about gargoyle or Martin Gibson, we don't even think twice. We delete it.
Learn to live with it.
-Joe Offer-


Learn to live with it. The question is what exactly is IT – that all Mudcatters are being told that have to now 'learn to live with' and who comprises of the 'we' that is now telling them this?

Is the same 'we' that is being spoken for here?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:12 PM

And Martin, it's just fine for you to say "fuckashitpiss" occasionally - as long as it isn't part of a personal attack. If saying "fuckashitpiss" makes you feel good, it's O.K.

We want you to feel good.

-Sister Mary Joe Offer, R.S.V.P.-


Whether stated in all seriousness or in jest - it is NOT my view – is it speaking for yours? Or perhaps the views of the rest of Mudcatters don't matter now? Perhaps we will just have to learn to live with this too - for there does not now appear to be any choice?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:31 AM

Correct.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:34 AM

Excellent Noreen - end of subject.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 08:45 AM

The Shambles is correct as usual.Nasty posts have stopped a lot of people I know from posting here anymore. I know they are reading, because we talk about various threads in the pub on a weekend. But they sure ain't going to post for fear of getting their heads bitten off.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

Someone posted recently to the effect that we - (meaning Mudcatters) - were not children.....This was just before they childishly took considerable trouble to create an alternate menbership and personality in order to start a thread - by expressing entirely bogus views........

Mudcat censorship – a proposal

At least those who are considered to be so anti-social and get their posts deleted by anonymous but 'trusted' volunteers - (for making 'obnoxious' posts to claim the 100th posts) - don't start an entire bogus thread - simply to entertain themselves with the genuine reactions posted to it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:13 AM

His huff arrived; and he went off in it!
G ¦¬]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM

I see he has a new 2 door hardtop Huff. The color is kind of distasteful though.......What would you call that? Babyshit Orange or Shitmuckledung?

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 08:29 AM

Looks a bit off colour [note spelling;~)] to me Spaw.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Margo
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:32 AM

OHHH, shut up.

BG, Margo


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 07:50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 07:41 AM

Without some control this site could degenerate into just another cesspool of personal attacks, and end up inhabited by nasty people who drive good folks away.
If a handful of assholes lack the wit to temper what they say here, they should be censored.


Any objective poster reading this thread from the start - will find a perfect example of the few 'who lack the wit to temper what they say here" This is with the current control that many still blindly support.

They will see the same names posting abusive personal attacks and being encouraged to make these judgements by the example that is set by our trusted volunteers.

Are good folks being driven-off by these 'nasty folks' and are they too worried about themseves being subject to these 'semi-official' personal attacks - to feel free to express a view that may also bring this attention upon them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 05:45 PM

FUCKASHITPISS

We now resume this stupid nonsense.

Thanks. You all wouldn't offend so easily if you had something other than a paper asshole.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 05:55 PM

Compared to this, the 'cat ain't even a minor infringement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 02:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Pubic information service
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:11 AM

Friggin' amazing.................I'll grant that I'm around less than I used to be and things do change over time, but when the hell did the chat become some kindof privileged communication? Is there about to be another altercation.....this one between the chatters and non-chatters? How in the name of gawd do we take such simple and fun stuff and jam-pack it with rules?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:43 AM

Paper assholes are handy, Martin - they are self-cleaning. You should get one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:45 AM

Then others wouldn't have to clean up after you


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,El Greko sans biscuit
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:47 AM

Sorry - the last two GUEST posts were mine.
Just a joke, Martin, no offence meant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM

Xander, you talk rubbish - as Martin Gibbons might have said in more flowery language :-)

Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts.


Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:36 AM

I happen to have met all three "bullies", GUEST, and my opinion is radically different to yours; I found them to be fair, erudite, logical and open-minded. But hey, the world is big enough for us to have different opinions, so no problem.

I am in favour of minimal censorship, next to zero: The only case I would say it is needed is when libellour remarks have been made, and that is only to protect Max as the owner of the site. As for the rest, sexist or racist or hate-mongering and name-calling posts don't worry me; I am old enough to ignore them and form an opinion about the posters - just like in the 3-D world, really. There is no better antidote than to ignore such rubbish and those that peddle it.


Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

...except we are not children, Roger. The argument again does not stack up.



'Oh the games people play now'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:31 PM

Funny, Roger. Read my 06:18PM post from the "Why do you offend so easily" thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:24 AM

What's the matter with this thread?

It was you who started it...........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM

As long as everybody's gettin' along . . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:42 AM

Morning, all


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 03:21 AM

Funny, Roger. Read my 06:18PM post from the "Why do you offend so easily" thread.

Is that the one where you claim that you may offend people - 'by being yourself'?

And where you go on to say that it was their fault - if anyone was offended by you taking-up another membership and a new name - in order to not 'be yourself' for an April fools' jest?

Perhaps this latter excuse from you would have a little more justification - if the jest in question - had not started on the 30th March? Perhaps anyone who was offended - could be excused for being offended by a April fools' jest - started some two days too soon?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 03:30 AM

"Perhaps this latter excuse from you would have a little more justification - if the jest in question - had not started on the 30th March?"

El G announced it at least ten days prior to starting the joke if memory serves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:33 AM

Thanks Brucie. Indeed, I gave plenty of warning (three times) well before.

Yes, Roger - that's me. No pretence. I occasionally crack jokes; especially April Fool ones. They are not malicious (at least I don't think they are, and I don't mean them to be). End of story. There isn't any more. No alterior motive. One can either laugh with me, laugh at me when the joke falls flat, ignore me, get annoyed, take offence where none was meant, misinterpret, quote out of context, whatever. People can make their own choice according to their conscience. Mine is clear.

Life's too short to spend trying to please all the people all of the time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:38 AM

Who takes any notice of George? :~)
G..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:41 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly -