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

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
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 04:29 PM

Joe first I should say that I do appreciate the conventional nature of your last contribution. The fact that it was posted honestly - so that the thread is refreshed - is refreshing. Even such a small move back to one where posters behave and are treated equally and are shown respect and encouraged to show mutual respect - is to be welcomed.

I am still confused over the use of 'I' and 'we' and when your personal view begins and when this stops.

I'm sorry, but I cannot take the time to investigate like this every time Shambles suspects that there has been an editorial action.

The answer to this is pretty easy. You either don't impose any at all. Or if 'you' or 'we' do feel that ANY editing action is required - (preferably consulting the originator first) - this is always made clear by an editorial comment - that makes it clear that editing action has been imposed and the details of who judged this was required and the reasons why?

This is what I mean by making it open. If there is nothing to hide - why make it look as if there is? If there is no brown writing - we will all know that no editing action has been undertaken.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 05:23 PM

Shambles, to determing the difference between "I" and "we" requires a modicum of intelligence. "I" is singular and refers to the speaker. "We" is plural, and refers to the speaker and various others, explained in the context when necessary.

This is not an issue here, and never has been. Please don't try to make it into one.


As for this convoluted sentence:The answer to this is pretty easy. You either don't impose any at all. Or if 'you' or 'we' do feel that ANY editing action is required - (preferably consulting the originator first) - this is always made clear by an editorial comment - that makes it clear that editing action has been imposed and the details of who judged this was required and the reasons why?
- I think I've answered it adequately, countless times before. What you propose is a very complicated process for approval of what is essentially a non-issue for most of us. Editorial actions ARE controlled - by Max, Jeff, and Joe. If you question an editorial judgment, consult with me. I am the one responsible for explaining that judgment. If we make an objectionable message disappear, we are not going to discuss that deletion publicly, but we are generally willing to answer private questions.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:31 AM

What you propose is a very complicated process for approval of what is essentially a non-issue for most of us.

There is nothing at all complicated in being open.

On what basis do you maintain that censorship on our forum (with 600+ posts on the subject in this thread alone and the countless others) is a non-issue for most of us'? It rather depends of what the question is.

Do you feel that you speak for 'most of us' here. And if you do - do you think that is enough? Should not you be really concerned about ALL of 'us'?

Censorship is thought very much an issue for you and your volunteers - who feel qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters - so why do you think it should it be any less of an issue for most Mudcatters who are subject to it?

If there is nothing to hide - why make it look as if there is?

Joe what I publicly propose to our open forum here and you dismiss - is a very modest and sensible move for many reasons - will you at least consider it?
    Yes, I did consider your proposal, Shambles - and I gave a thoughtful, well-reasoned response on more than one occasion. Now, can you find other people who will give thoughtful, well-reasoned responses in support of your proposal?

    No, we have nothing to hide. What makes you think we have any reason to hide anything? Why would any of us bother to hide the editorial work we do? On the other hand, since we operate under a general atmosphere of trust and respect, why should we be required to document our every action as if we were under suspicion of committing a felony? Our editorial actions are tracked by Mudcat software and reviewed and controlled by Max, Jeff, and Joe - isn't that enough? Should I be compelled to post a lengthy public explanation of every HTML correction I make, every line break I add? Must I be required to post full details and defense of every personal attack, spam message, and racist post deletion I make? And if I were to do that, would it make sense? If you do not trust and respect the people who do the administrative work here, why in the world do you spend your time here?

    I have to admit that there's something addictive here - something that drives me to respond to Shambles, against my better judgment. To me, my counter-arguments always seem to compelling, so logical, so satisfying, so polite... I feel so sure I'm going to win this game of chess, sooner or later. I'm just sure that one day Shambles is going to admit that I am absolutely brilliant. And then Shambles short-circuits the laws of logic and starts everything all over again.
    Oh, well.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 04:09 AM

Well deduced Shambles,I am after the 7ooth post.
    Yeah, but I got 650, fair and square.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 11:55 AM

It was looking as if we may get there Ted - but sadly Joe has decided to use his 'special powers' to continue to post but not refresh the thread.

Yes, I did consider your proposal, Shambles - and I gave a thoughtful, well-reasoned response on more than one occasion. Now, can you find other people who will give thoughtful, well-reasoned responses in support of your proposal?

I suspect not publicly - for they may not wish to expose themselves to the following sort of public thoughtful, well-reasoned response from you.

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-


On the other hand, since we operate under a general atmosphere of trust and respect, why should we be required to document our every action as if we were under suspicion of committing a felony?

Joe it is clear that although you feel qualified to sit in often heavy judgement upon your fellow posters - you do not feel that you should be judged youself. It has become clear over time that you do not like to be judged - so why would you think that any of your fellow posters like to have your judgement - and the judgement of anonymous volunteers - imposed upon them any more than you would?

Yes I do think that you and your band of volunteers should be expected to be accountable to the rest of this community - just as the rest of the community are expected (by you) to be accountable.

For the main and simple reason that when public defence of all this judgement and secret measures are given by you on our forum - to a poster who may not have the best interests of our community at heart - I would like to be able to honestly and fully support this defence.........Sadly I find myself in agreement with the many logical arguments that these "trouble-makers" express and I find myself embarrassed at the bullying and strange reasoning that forms to corner stone of this defence.

Joe what is so very complicated about ensuring that an editing comment is always present - to indicate when and why editing action was imposed upon the invited contributions of a fellow contributor to our coumminity?

Posters do post defend the current system and state that the levels of censorship are 'about right'. However, I am not sure how this can be stated with much basis in reality - if these posters are not aware of what the true level of censorship is.

So I have tried here to demonstrate and evidence what the true level is. When ALL the community can see when ALL editing action has been imposed - they will be a better position to judge - whether this is acceptable or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 01:33 PM

You know, Shambles, Editorial comments ARE posted for most of the significant editorial actions. If you want evidence, do a search for "attempt to avoid splitting" or "multiple threads combined." We don't bother to document minor, obvious corrections or the deletion of duplicate messages - but we do document those that might cause confusion. We don't document thread title changes because the first two messages usually show what the original thread title was, if it has been changed. You have to look at the first TWO messages - not just one, like you did in an earlier message in this thread.

No, we're not going to document and explain and defend the deletion of offensive messages and the closing of combative threads, as you seem to imply we should. We wish to remove racism, personal attacks, and Spam from the Forum when we do that (judiciously). Documenting those removals would simply amplify and advertise the very problems we wish to eliminate or contain.

You know, this is like teaching my kid Algebra. I keep thinking if I keep explaining things clearly and calmly and logically, that the kid and Shambles will finally get it - but they never do. They keep going back to the same twisted logic, every time.

And I still have another whole year of Algebra to teach.

-Joe Offer-

655, Ted?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM

Thanks for conventionally posting so as the refresh the thread again. Although I suspect this was not through choice.....

No, we're not going to document and explain and defend the deletion of offensive messages and the closing of combative threads, as you seem to imply we should. We wish to remove racism, personal attacks, and Spam from the Forum when we do that (judiciously). Documenting those removals would simply amplify and advertise the very problems we wish to eliminate or contain.

There is no implication in my suggestion - it is very clear. I will leave others to judge your response and question if anyone else was consulted before you made it and spke on their behalf.

The same old rubbish is wheeled out again - about preventing racism
and protecting us from personal attacks - althought it is never explained who protects us from those that - you, your anonymous volunteers and their supporters indulge in and set the example of. Of course none of the reactive editing action does PREVENT any of this. It is the justification given for the general and now routine tinkering with and imposition on - the contributions of fellow posters without their knowledge or permission.

Perhaps if all these reactive racism and personal attack editing actions were made clear for all of the community to see - these would be seen by them to be so few - as to question if all these anonymous volunteers could really be justified?

Those who (for their own ends) would wish to rule us - have always found that the best way to stay in power - is to invent an outside enemy - for them to protact us from.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:50 PM

OLD TIME MUSIC IN THE PARK (UK)?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:53 PM

Mudcat problem   (Fun Web Products)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:58 PM

Music on the Gold Coast   (Queensland Australia)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 03:20 PM

Roger said: "Of course none of the reactive editing action does PREVENT any of this."

This is a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of what Joe said, which was: "We wish to remove racism, personal attacks, and Spam from the Forum when we do that (judiciously)." (italics Joe's)

Notice that Joe said, "remove," while Roger said, "prevent." Big difference there.

Try to be honest, Roger.

If you can.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 08:11 PM

heloo,
waht you favoiurit sort of cheese then?
i like that orange cheese [i forgot wahts called], and that other one=
that round one, like a ball, some times i eat bacon and cheese sand witches.

i dont like that spreading cheese much.


i got a ricipe=
get mash popato, 1 tin of tuna, in a dish= mix it up, put cheese on top, and pt it ubder your grill,
and you could put tomatoes on it as well,
try it its really nice, and good for you as well.

you could put black pepper as well if you want.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Speaker
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 08:54 PM

Move to censor that post.

Can't be having recipies on a censorship thread...

(.. really, what's the world coming to...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 10:30 PM

Calm down, Shambles. Now you're getting hysterical. I think you're beginning to see JoeClones descending upon your house in black U.N. helicopters, about to drag you forcibly into the One World Order by clicking their "delete" buttons at you.

You know, maybe you're right.....
    They're coming to take me away, ha-ha
    To the funny farm where life is beautiful
    And I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats
    And they're coming to take me away....
Paranoia must be lonesome, huh?

It's OK, Shambles. Just relax while we put this little jacket on you. See? Isn't it a nice jacket...


-Dr. Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM

Joe was that last post your view - or is it now official Mudcat policy to judge fellow posters of being mentally ill? For it is difficult to tell one view from the other. Are they now the same?

I am sure that if you had not been forced to post as a guest - these same comments would have been inserted as a (brown) editing comment.

Perhaps you now consider that - all the posters that you feel free to impose editing action upon - are mentally ill and that you know best what they were trying to say and can speak for them? I am suggesting that you ask these members of the community first - nothing too complicated or mentally unstable in that suggestion - is there?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:40 AM

Roger said: "Of course none of the reactive editing action does PREVENT any of this."

That is a fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:54 AM

The following was inserted into this thread on : 20 Feb 03 - 09:25 PM.

Cut and paste prohibitions

I also stated that anonymous posting has become a problem, and I am seeking a solution. I asked that our Guests solve the problem themselves by simply using a consistent name and starting no more than one non-music thread per day.

Currently, there is no policy on this. We would like people to use common sense and common courtesy, but we have a few people who don't seem to understand those concepts.

Max and Jeff and I have never had any thought of deleting old threads, BS or Non-BS. We have occasionally had problems with people refreshing contentious old threads for the purpose of opening old wounds, so I have closed (but not deleted) a number of old threads, so that new messages cannot be posted. We also reserve the right to delete threads that appear to have been started simply for the purpose of attacking individuals or causing trouble. We do delete threads occasionally, but as seldom as we can.

-Joe Offer-


Since then - things would appear to have changed (and for the worse).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 05:23 AM

I don't know about anybody else on Mudcat, but I'm f***ing fed up with this infantile sqabbling, and I'm surprised that people some of whom should know better are feeding the flames. All that is happening is people are giving each other ammunition to fire back in parenthesis and italics, what a futile waste of band width!!
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 06:57 AM

Joe....As a friend......I know what you are trying to do and I certainly understand the frustration tinged with hope that you feel when trying to discuss anything with Shambles. You just know you'll get through somehow, but it never happens. Roger takes every item, breaks it into 37 pieces, throws 22 pieces away, rephrases the rest, and then puts it back together upside down and sideways until it can fit into his world. This is a lot like trying to teach an aardvark table manners........very cool if you could do it, but a complete waste of time because it just won't happen. No one knows why the aardvark can't learn manners even after the best efforts by everyone to show him. Perhaps he's stupid or perhaps he just can't deal with his paws which lack opposable thumbs. At the end of the day the aardvark doesn't care but you are a basket case and the fault of that belongs to you. Why in the hell are you trying to teach an aardvark table manners?

Look Joe, I've been trying to say this over and over, but as a mod anywhere else, you are already giving WAY too many explanations. Stop. Do what you have to do and skip the comments. Most people won't notice and most won't care. To any but the most pigheaded, it's obvious that this place is looser than Grannie's bloomers as far as moderation or censorship goes. Most forums would never tolerate a thread like this one. Most would have zapped Shambles long ago. I'm glad we haven't and that The 'Cat is as loose as it is but everything has a limit somewhere and one thing is certain...this thread and this non-discussion discussion has gone on far too long.

QUIT FUCKIN' WITH THE AARDVARK!

It reached the point long ago where it's obvious that Roger will accept no explanation that doesn't fit in Roger's World and the more you try the more he drags up the same things over and over. He himself has refused to answer the basic questions asked of him by myself and other members, such as "What did Max tell you?" Or, "Have you ever discussed this with Max and if so when?"   After all Joe, Max is the only one he would have to listen to and you and I both know that he won't do that either. So let him be the usual Ramblin' Shambles and write his tripe to his heart's content. You are beginning to look foolish for even trying to answer his imagined concerns. Fuck him. Well, don't go that far literally, but it's time to end this now!

If you feel you must have a windmill, I suggest the aardvark and table manners. Your odds are better.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 07:24 AM

The imagery is too strong, Spaw, I can't resist a cheap ditty - To the tune of "Beware of the bite of the underdog":

Beware of the suck of the aardvark,
His snout is lethal and too dangerous by far.
Beware of the suck of the aardvark,
He'll suck your logic and he'll leave you all ga-ga.
Too late now to change him or to teach him
Or try common sense to feed him piece by piece.
For life Joe can be very capricious,
And the suck of the aardvark is vicious.
And so the time will come around when in details you will drown
And that's the time when you find against your wishes
All you've achieved is to disturb your own peace.

Ta-tarararah-boom-boom!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM

If you do not trust and respect the people who do the administrative work here, why in the world do you spend your time here?

I certainly did have that trust and respect. That is one reason why I have contributed so positively to our forum for so long and intend to try to continue to do so.

But this was when it was accepted that it was a matter for all the community to encourage but not judge the worth of the invited contributions of the public. Not for our administrators to sit in judgement on every nit-picking aspect of these contributions - from the title chosen to the spelling used - and then demand our trust and respect for this.

It now seems that posters are told by the administrators that if they don't trust the (anonymous) administrators - they should go away!

When the tail starts to wag the dog - perhaps it is time that those administrators - who so obviously do not now trust and respect (or even accept) the people who Max has invited to post here (without all these new rules) - were asked to spend their time elswhere and leave the rest of us in peace?

In truth - it may be difficult for any of us to respect and trust the occasional extreme contribution. But as their is no way to prevent such things from being posted (except by being set and following a good example and never responding in kind) - we can perhaps just leave it to Max's personal judgement - if he wishes it to remain on his site?

As to the other now routine 'tinkering' with thread titles etc. It may be accepted that the reasoning behind these may be well-intentioned. But as a general rule and in order to show respect and trust - cannot it be that such changes are only undertaken with the poster's consent and never have a fellow poster's judgment imposed upon it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 09:09 AM

What I think would open a few peoples' eyes is for Joe, and other clones to publish the PMs they get complaining about threads and their contents [Minus the senders name of course]. I don't know for sure but I would guess that they amount to more than a hill of beans, so he's getting pressure from both sides. Then there's the fact that you have a name and a PM system to use as a means of contacting moderators. Many sites don't give names or contact details, and you've got to like it or lump it.
What Spaw says is spot on, remember that the best thing about banging your head off a brick wall is when you stop.
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Anastasia
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 09:17 AM

Two questions, The Shambles:

What percentage of your day is taken up on tyhis subject?
Have you not got anything better to do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:05 AM

Don't you know that it is official?

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: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:22 AM

Two questions, The Shambles:

What percentage of your day is taken up on tyhis subject?
Have you not got anything better to do?


Reasonable questions. Why are you ducking them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:34 AM

Us AARDVARKS are just really terrible like that - I guess....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:42 AM

Demonstrating that you are not really interested in dialogue, but rather monologue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:45 AM

Yes - I shouldn't waste your time on us 'Earth Pigs'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 12:02 PM

True


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 01:44 PM

Are these here monologues as tasty as termites?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2676377.stm

From the above site.

The ancient ancestor of all mammals that give birth to live young - including humans - probably had genetic similarities with the aardvark. The elusive African mammal is a close match to our early cousin in the way its DNA is packaged into distinct bundles, or chromosomes, say scientists.

The last common ancestor of all placental mammals - possibly a shrew-like creature - scurried over the planet hundreds of millions of years ago. It was probably nothing like the modern-day aardvark but could have had a similar set of chromosomes.


All mammals essentially had one common ancestor if you go back in distant time
Prof Terence Robinson


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM

Now after lovin' me late at night
When it's good for you, babe
And you're feelin' alright
Well you just roll over and turn out the light
And you don't bring me aardvarks anymore


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 06:33 PM

Aardvark never killed anybody
G


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 06:42 PM

"Those who (for their own ends) would wish to rule us - have always found that the best way to stay in power - is to invent an outside enemy - for them to protact us from." Roger/ The Shambles

Recognize the man in the mirror, Roger?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 06:58 AM

I saw no synthesis between poetry and ideology, save perchance, the dialectic between chance and reason... oh... sorry... wrong thread!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 07:14 AM

Ted - you may just make 700th yet?


Recognize the man in the mirror, Roger?

No just this bloody Arrdvark looking back at me..... [Does someone who calls himself The Shambles - really need to be called any further names?]

Ebbie - I have no wish to have any more power than any other poster. Perhaps it would be wise for you to be a little more suspicious of - and openly question - those who do wish to have more power than other posters?

The facts remain as I evidence here. As I ask is that you and others judge from this evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 07:41 AM

Poll-Stop Flaming and Abusive Posting (Closed)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 08:47 AM

The Shambles
The Shambles is a bank with several shoal heads three miles East of Portland Bill which should be avoided at all times. In response to numerous requests from the Admiralty and shipowners, Trinity House placed two navigation buoys over the bank in 1824 which were later replaced by a lightvessel in 1859. Today the Shambles Bank is marked by the red sector light from Portland Bill lighthouse and lighted buoys at the east and western extremes of the bank.

The waves go higher than I thought
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 08:54 AM

No no Shambles, I simply posted on the wrong thread. I was looking for pseuds corner. As if I would post simply to beat Leadfingers to the 700th!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM

I


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM

am


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:31 AM

sure you


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:32 AM

wouldn't,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:33 AM

Ted.
(a little help from your friends)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:39 AM

Ta El Greek type person, I will be magnanimous and leave the 700th for Lead Head.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:47 AM

But then again.......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM

go for it


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 10:55 AM

School's out again!
G


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:04 AM

Thanks for the post though, you miserable sod!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:10 AM

On your marks...........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:11 AM

Preferred you under the pseudenym George!
Giok


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 6 June 8:18 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café 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.