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 - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]


BS: Censorship on Mudcat

Big Mick 02 Apr 05 - 08:39 PM
Raedwulf 02 Apr 05 - 06:55 PM
GUEST,Jon 02 Apr 05 - 04:34 PM
wysiwyg 02 Apr 05 - 03:54 PM
The Shambles 02 Apr 05 - 02:56 PM
Jerry Rasmussen 02 Apr 05 - 02:54 PM
Raedwulf 02 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM
John MacKenzie 02 Apr 05 - 07:37 AM
The Shambles 02 Apr 05 - 05:07 AM
Little Hawk 01 Apr 05 - 05:36 PM
catspaw49 01 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM
GUEST,Wolfgang 01 Apr 05 - 03:23 PM
catspaw49 01 Apr 05 - 03:11 PM
GUEST,Wolfgang 01 Apr 05 - 03:06 PM
Raedwulf 01 Apr 05 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 05 - 12:07 PM
GUEST,Amos 01 Apr 05 - 11:13 AM
The Shambles 01 Apr 05 - 09:29 AM
John MacKenzie 01 Apr 05 - 08:29 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 05 - 07:38 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 01 Apr 05 - 07:20 AM
wysiwyg 31 Mar 05 - 05:13 PM
Wesley S 31 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM
Georgiansilver 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM
Georgiansilver 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM
Peace 31 Mar 05 - 02:00 PM
Peace 31 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM
Little Hawk 31 Mar 05 - 01:41 PM
John MacKenzie 31 Mar 05 - 01:27 PM
Joe Offer 31 Mar 05 - 12:50 PM
GUEST 31 Mar 05 - 10:03 AM
The Shambles 31 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM
Little Hawk 31 Mar 05 - 09:15 AM
GUEST,MMario 31 Mar 05 - 08:39 AM
kendall 31 Mar 05 - 08:02 AM
George Papavergis 30 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM
Peace 30 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM
The Shambles 30 Mar 05 - 04:30 PM
George Papavgeris 30 Mar 05 - 06:59 AM
George Papavergis 30 Mar 05 - 06:32 AM
George Papavgeris 30 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM
Joe Offer 30 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM
George Papavgeris 30 Mar 05 - 05:51 AM
Joe Offer 30 Mar 05 - 05:21 AM
The Shambles 30 Mar 05 - 05:06 AM
GUEST,The Shambles 30 Mar 05 - 03:30 AM
George Papavergis 30 Mar 05 - 02:12 AM
GUEST 30 Mar 05 - 01:09 AM
Peace 29 Mar 05 - 08:27 PM
Little Hawk 29 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 Rdwulf".

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 03:06 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: 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 Rdwulf".


{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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM

500 El Ted


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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:15 AM

Alanis Oppisete?


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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:17 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: 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 - 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 - 05:21 AM

Shambles, sincerely,
-Joe Offer-


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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 6 June 7:37 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright 1998 by the Mudcat Caf Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.