BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=93659
1827 messages

BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

07 Aug 06 - 06:51 PM (#1803936)
Subject: RE: Review: National Folk Festival, Canberra, 2006
From: GUEST,Porn

Hi, man! Your rock! look for my site - porn for free, http://porn-station.blogspot.com - porn, [url="http://porn-station.blogspot.com"]porn[/url], and last, but not least - [url]http://porn-station.blogspot.com[/url]. Best Porn Links - every day.
    Sample of a typical deleted message, moved here for demonstration purposes. I moved all of the messages from August 10-12 into this thread, so people can see just what we've been deleting.
    -Joe Offer-


09 Aug 06 - 05:04 AM (#1805091)
Subject: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Shambles still here and why?

Deleted posts & closed threads

The above two threads have been subject to imposed closure and the following explanation provided in an inserted editing comment.

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-


Perhaps those posters who are interested in this subject can be permitted to continue the debate on this new thread - without such flimsy excuses needing to be found - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - to close this thread too?

How exactly was this 'popular request' determined? For such action is certainly not popular with me. And as the originator of one of these threads and the subject of the other. Perhaps I could have been consulted before any form of action was imposed?

If any posters make request to our 'modertaors' for any threads be closed - cannot they just be told not to open them? As both of these threads were (originally at least) clearly titled.


09 Aug 06 - 05:43 AM (#1805110)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: gnu


09 Aug 06 - 05:55 AM (#1805115)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Nope.
didn't take long....


09 Aug 06 - 09:12 AM (#1805183)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.


09 Aug 06 - 10:49 AM (#1805241)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

So LOCK this one too!!!

D'uh

Why won't you mods do your jobs???


09 Aug 06 - 10:56 AM (#1805246)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

Oh no .... sorta like one of those annoying neighbours who come over to chat and complain endlessly about nothing you are interested in everytime you go out to cut the lawn or just want to sit on your porch alone and enjoy life.

sIx


09 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM (#1805257)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn

Shambles-you piss me off.

A third of the worlds population dosn't know where there next meal is coming from, there is homelessness, child neglect etc, half the middle east is killing each other, and loads of other real problems, yet you witter on all day every day about cencorship on a folk music website!

get a fucking life, if you feel the need to campaign, at least choose a worthwhile cause, its just a website.

anyway= max said if you dont like it leave=
"shambles you are a big moany, shut up moaning or leave"

(Max, ages ago)


anyway=you never post nothing nice, or funny, or intersting or helpfull, you just moan, and make everybody fed up, loads of people left mudcat, i bet some of them left becase of you moaning.

you wont answer me, becase you havent got a good anser.

john


09 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM (#1805258)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Please delete him permanently.


09 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM (#1805259)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Ya... I have a bb gun for neighbours like that....


09 Aug 06 - 11:36 AM (#1805285)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

"imposed closure" is redundant.


09 Aug 06 - 11:43 AM (#1805291)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-


Is this thread judged to have gone on long enough or to be 'Nasty enought to close yet?

Or is there not enough of a 'popular request' for it yet (how is this determined BTW)?


Is there no chance now of any joined-up thinking being undertaken on the part of our 'moderators' - before their knee-jerk reactions plunge our forum into yet more chaos?

For of course the message is now clearly being given here, as to how any poster who wishes a thread to be closed, can go about this. And our 'moderators' can place rather big hints which threads on what subjects they would prefer were not publicly discussed.

For of course this action is in fact telling posters and encouraging some of them (intentionally or otherwise) that the posting to any thread - of offensive language, abusive personal attacks and anything that could be judged as 'Nasty' - will not result in any action on the offending posts or against the offending posters - but will result in the threads closure and the prevention of the discussion contained in it.   

Now if our 'moderators' are really interested in the prevention of abusive personal attacks and general 'Nastyness' - the latest message given-out by this action - is just about certain to increase such things.

As this action is claimed and justified by being a response to a popular request - it will also ensure that mean-spirited posts judging the worth of fellow posters and calling for censorship action to be imposed on them - will also only increase as a result. Rather than these posters being told to concentrate on their own posts and to mind their own business.

Most witch-hunts, burnings and lynchings are said to be undertaken due to what is claimed to be by 'popular request'. Another term for this would be mob-rule.

When some accurate means of obtaining and demonstrating the wishes of the majority is undertaken before any action is taken - this is called democracy.

We are now told that our forum is not a democracy and that is fine. But perhaps from now on - any pretence that action is imposed due to 'popular request' can end - unless some real attempt is seen to be made to ascertain what the majority actually do wish - as opposed to acting on the wishes of noisy and unrepresentitive mob (only when these are the same wishes as our 'moderators') and claiming this is due to 'popular request'.


09 Aug 06 - 11:50 AM (#1805293)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn

See, you havent got a good anser!


09 Aug 06 - 11:56 AM (#1805300)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

What was the question?


09 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM (#1805304)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Georgiansilver

The question has to be "WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE"? I have known some thick skinned people in my life. I have known some stupid people in my life. I have known some pathetic people in my life. I have seen many people and known of many people (in that I include myself) being ignorant of protocol in certain situations and behaving thoughtlessly as a result. You(The Shambles) are by far the first person I have come across who does not know when to give up! I have nothing against you personally but have seen what your postings and indeed your threads consist of. I have also seen many others comments which you do not seem to take on board. You are engineering some sort of personal crusade against the very people who actually have some authority on mudcat (as you certainly have none, but for the grace of those who tolerate you).
I stick mainly to the music threads now as I have been fed up with seeing your attacks!
Please Shambles, either settle down and find a place you can be happy with on the mudcat...without trying to change it to suit your own requirements...or if you cannot settle to it, please depart and allow the others the joy and peace that can be found for the most part in BS.
Best wishes, Mike.


09 Aug 06 - 12:17 PM (#1805318)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

He owns the site and asked you to leave......shouldn't be anymore justification needed. But I gues you're just "special" aren't you Roger?.....LOL........

You really ARE mental Dude!

Spa


It does look as if the thought processes of one of us are more than a little confused..

For when the reports of my death had been greatly exaggerated or rather when you wrongly assumed that Max had actually stopped me from posting – you made this (rather touching) plea for my re-instatement…..

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.


09 Aug 06 - 12:21 PM (#1805323)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Art Thieme

Seems it shouldn't be so hard to understand. The folks that run and keep the site going have the right and duty to moderate the threads. This is a matter of what is and ought to be, and those that don't like it have no grounds to stand on.

And it is no threat to anything on any level whatsoever.

Art Thieme


09 Aug 06 - 12:37 PM (#1805335)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: katlaughing

PLEASE CLOSE THIS ONE, TOO!!
    Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
    But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
    -Joe Offer-


09 Aug 06 - 12:41 PM (#1805338)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

PLEASE!


09 Aug 06 - 12:47 PM (#1805341)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn

QUICKLY!


09 Aug 06 - 12:50 PM (#1805344)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Lepus Rex

Or, maybe, you fucking whiners could just quit feeding him? "WAAAAAHHHH! MAKE HIM STOP, MOMMY!!!!" You're shrieking louder than he is. You knew what this was before you opened it, and yet you opened it anyways. Why? Just to whine? To demand it be closed? Ignore it. Or can't you resist opening it, and reading it? Because, like Shambles, you just have to have some idiotic cause to bitch about?

---Lepus Rex


09 Aug 06 - 12:55 PM (#1805352)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

So you come in here and join us in whining?

Take your own advice before you try to hand it out, Lupus....


09 Aug 06 - 01:14 PM (#1805371)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Lepus Rex

But I'm not bothered by any of it, really. And I'm not asking anyone to close a thread. I saw the thread title, thought "Huh, what's Shambles complaining about today?" Not terribly interested, but so bored with reading the endless "Gaza" thread that I imagined I'd find better entertainment elsewhere, I opened the thread. Read a bit of it. "Ah, same thing, then." Shambles doing the usual Shambles thing, and his usual detractors either trying to shout him down, or to reason with him, as if this time, he'll get it. Blah, blah, blah. I cut to the end of the thread, saw there you three jackasses braying in unison, and thought I'd ask what, exactly, Shamblesphobic individuals such as yourselves are even doing on this thread. Not a good question?

---Lepus Rex


09 Aug 06 - 01:18 PM (#1805377)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Georgiansilver

And Lepus Rex..what are you feeding?


09 Aug 06 - 01:32 PM (#1805393)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: artbrooks

Well, I read Shambles threads because they're pretty funny, but I don't normally contribute. Yet, that one was closed down right after he responded to my otherwise mild comment. Perhaps I do have a purpose in this universe after all!


09 Aug 06 - 01:38 PM (#1805396)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Lepus Rex

Hopefully their little hive minds, Georgiansilver. Like artbrooks, I read these for entertainment. Shambles may be annoying, in some ways, but I hate seeing people try to shut him down. He's not hurting anyone, and, for the most part, he keeps this sort of thing in his own threads. And although Shambles seems to be beyond accepting any kind of advice, the others may bemore receptive. Or so one would hope.

---Lepus Rex


09 Aug 06 - 02:16 PM (#1805436)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The question has to be "WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE"?

If you are really interested - you will find the answer contained in the following (but now closed thread).

Shambles still here and why?

You are engineering some sort of personal crusade against the very people who actually have some authority on mudcat (as you certainly have none, but for the grace of those who tolerate you).

Mike - if anyone were doing such a strange thing - the reasoning behind why someone would just up and decide to just do such a thing would possibly be something to query. Many would agree that the idea that someone would just up and do such a thing is a stange concept to accept and be ready to condemn such a thing - so why would you or anyone accept such a strange suggestion at face value to be the truth?

The fact that some here would like you to believe such a strange concept would of course let them off of the hook and relieve them from any responsibility. So how likely is it that such a strange concept is all or even part of the truth?

But is questioning - if the purpose nature of any authority is achieving its stated aims, considering that it may in fact be counter-productive and making suggestions as to how these aims may be achieved by less intrusive displays of this authority - to question that overall authority?

I feel that any delegated authority that felt that the correct response to such suggestions should be a hostile one and make constant attempts to supress public discussion of this subject - would be one that was insecure and unsure of the ability of their authority in achieving its stated aims but determined to hang on to this authority - regardless.

It is clear that any personally motivated 'crusade', campaign or special treatment has been engineered against my contributions and justified as something far more noble. What is then being encouraged to be judged harshly - is the fairly understandable reaction to this.

Mine is a determined reaction but a fair one. I do not resort to the name-calling and abusive personal judgements that are the example of acceptable posting set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and subsequently justified, minimised and excused. And I do not respond in kind to the many that are encouraged to be posted at me and which I receive no protection from. I simply try to inform our forum of this - despite the attempts to prevent and restrict this.

I am often urged to concentrate on music related threads. If the assumption is being that my posts will be safe from the special attentions and imposed judgement of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - this assumption would be wrong.

Do you not also think it strange that whenever I produce the evidence of the examples set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, in posting the many name-calling abusive personal judgements of me - some noble sounding reason is found (by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) to close that thread?      

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-


The case for the many forms of selective and personally motivated special treatment imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - is a strong one to anyone with an open mind. And perhaps should be addressed before too many harsh judgements are made of any reaction to them?

Based on the number of threads on this subject that he has found reasons to close - the case that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team simply does not wish this subject to be discussed on our forum - is a pretty strong one also...........


09 Aug 06 - 02:23 PM (#1805440)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Blah... blah... blah... blah.....

Shambles.... your 'voice' continues to be muffled by your buttocks


09 Aug 06 - 02:57 PM (#1805474)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles. NO ONE CARES!!! There is not one other person who is constantly complaining here. Why should anything be changed because one person out of many is unhappy? You are the lone objector to the so-called editing. Why not channel these complaints and your never give-up actions to something worthwhile like fighting hunger or getting us out or Iraq. Persistence would be respected in a battle like that. It's just laughed at when you spend so much time complaining about editing meaningless threads.


09 Aug 06 - 05:33 PM (#1805589)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

SSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH.


09 Aug 06 - 05:36 PM (#1805592)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

You sprung another leak Mick?

At your size, I'm not surprized!

:-P
Heh


09 Aug 06 - 06:49 PM (#1805662)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-


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

But too much notice should not be taken of these type of assurances - grandly made for public consumption - that are provided in editing comments by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

The following will demonstrate that he is not a man who believes he needs to stand by his word.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-


The above assurance was given in   Do you need to be censored?   before the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team subjected it to imposed closure and (along with all the other threads on this subject) - it is now closed.


09 Aug 06 - 07:03 PM (#1805678)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

So as not to risk providng any excuse for any further form of imposed censorship - I will not copy and paste the evidence here, that usually results in this action - but simply provide a link to it - in the already closed thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1804754


09 Aug 06 - 07:10 PM (#1805686)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1804666


09 Aug 06 - 07:15 PM (#1805689)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: katlaughing

PLEASE CLOSE THIS USELESS THREAD!


09 Aug 06 - 07:15 PM (#1805690)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

The thread is NOT useless for Shambles.


09 Aug 06 - 07:42 PM (#1805714)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bert

Some other folks seem to be enjoying it too.


09 Aug 06 - 07:56 PM (#1805725)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Sham sez -

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

But too much notice should not be taken of these type of assurances - grandly made for public consumption - that are provided in editing comments by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team."

If Joe is grandly making these statements for public consumption then why is he inserting them into an existing post so that it does not refresh the thread?

Hmmm? Awaiting your reply Roger.


09 Aug 06 - 08:11 PM (#1805737)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John O'L

Same old posse eh?

You supply the bread & butter, Shambles supplies the bullshit, you eat the sandwich.

Carry on. You deserve each other.


09 Aug 06 - 08:22 PM (#1805749)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If Joe is grandly making these statements for public consumption then why is he inserting them into an existing post so that it does not refresh the thread?

Jolly good question. I don't know......... Why not ask him........?

Seems it shouldn't be so hard to understand. The folks that run and keep the site going have the right and duty to moderate the threads. This is a matter of what is and ought to be, and those that don't like it have no grounds to stand on.

Seems like it IS hard to understand. Would you view your Government is such an open and trusting way? For you are prepared to take on trust that this moderation is acceptable, when you currently have no way of being informed of the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. Possibly you are prepared to do this because its abuses are being inflicted on me and other posters but not on you?

The issue is not one of me questioning the right to moderate (or not) this forum.

It is one of questioning the nature of it and if what is claimed - matches up to the reality of what is actually happening. Whether the posters have protection form any personally motivated bias and whether 'moderators' have any protection from accusations of this. Whether what is lost – is worth what is gained.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team often justifies action against something simple like a post appearing in more than one thread – as being unfair. But does not seem to see that imposing 'silent deletion' as a first and only resort to such things, may be thought to be disproportionate, mean-spirited and equally unfair.   

The following indicate a number of problems that tend to get brushed aside in the rush to judge this complicated and thorny issue in simple black and white terms.

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-


If there really were grounds - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team should be prepared to take full responsibility for whatever action he felt forced to take. And be prepared to defend it on those grounds. If not – no action should be imposed.

There should be no need to hide behind the idea that his authority came from the posters - if his authority comes from Max. For it is clear that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is left to act as he wishes but is insecure enough to feel that some appeal must also be given for some public support for his actions.

The impression currently being given by this, is of a strange mixture of 'mob-rule' and carrying out the commands of a strict faceless dictator whilst at the same time maintaining some pretence that none of this was really happening.

And then there is the type of action chosen (I have detailed my views already in this thread on thread closure). This is totally ineffective. It is used mainly as a means to look as if some action was being taken when all it amounts to is, a futile display of power – which just proves how powerless those using this method are but which divides our forum, like nothing else.


09 Aug 06 - 08:48 PM (#1805777)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Oh well had typed this up earlier but decided to leave alone. Only posting now as John O L rekons (at least some of) the usual suspects were not leaving alone... This follows a comment from the why here therad. I think several of us who eventual post only post a fraction of what we feel like posting...

Perhaps as this method - by the current Chief of the Mudcat editing Team's own admission, has not suuceeded in imposing the peace he requires and is proving somewhat counter-productive

The only person making causing problems with the current system is you. If you won't leave, try taking a break for 6 months and see what happens without you. Unless Bert decides to try to prove a point on your behalf, 99% of the problems you complain about will go.

- it is time for a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and a more stylish method?

Interesting to see that you want new methods now. It was a return to the old before. Let's face it, it's not about improving Mudcat anyway - that's been obvious for years.

At least you have been a little more open in calling for Joe Offers head this time. We get closer to the truth there but I still (other that I believe you are sick) believe that drives you towards your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

It's a good job you are not doing the equivalant at the Annexe or Folkinfo btw. Pip and I were brought up in an old fashioned way whereby abusing "volunteers" would be considered a far greater crime than constantly having a go at ourselves. You would have gone a long time ago anyway as reasoning is impossible but repeats of that sort of behaviour would have hastened your departure. Fortunately for you, Mudcat seems to work the other way round.

Anyway, back to new ideas. Although the bbc moderation system is by far the most screwed up I've seen. they have one idea that I think is great for dealing with persistant pests. Such posters find themselves on "pre-mod" this means that while other posters messages appear in "real time" (and may be subjected to moderation afterwards), the trouble maker's posts have to be read by a moderator and approved before they can be read by others. The situation is only a temporary one and users are returned to "post-mod" if they post "normaly". On the other hand, if they chose to continue, they find themselves banned either temporarily or permanantly.


10 Aug 06 - 02:59 AM (#1805953)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

At least you have been a little more open in calling for Joe Offers head this time. We get closer to the truth there but I still (other that I believe you are sick) believe that drives you towards your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

It's a good job you are not doing the equivalant at the Annexe or Folkinfo btw. Pip and I were brought up in an old fashioned way whereby abusing "volunteers" would be considered a far greater crime than constantly having a go at ourselves. You would have gone a long time ago anyway as reasoning is impossible but repeats of that sort of behaviour would have hastened your departure. Fortunately for you, Mudcat seems to work the other way round.


Jon - it is unfortunate for me (and others) that it works the other way around.

For the clear facts (that you chose to ignore) that it is (some of) these 'volunteers' especially the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, who are the ones posting abusive personal judgements. And more importantly, setting the example for others to follow, that this is acceptable posting behavior.

Do you consider that 'moderators' making abusive personal judgements and name-calling is acceptable? If it is not judged as acceptable for others - then it should not have been done and continue to be done by those who should know better.

My 'crime' - if it is one - as a victim of thise - is to try and demonstrate the reality of it - rather than the 'spin'. I consider that my posting record is better than many of those who would feel themselves qualified to judge me and other posters.

And yes - I judge that the example shown by (some of) these 'moderators' should disqualify them from imposing their judgement on others but there is nothing personal in this. How can there be - our forum is not trusted to know many of their names.


10 Aug 06 - 04:44 AM (#1805994)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Am I wrong to consider the imposed censorship action detailed in the following - as a continuation of personally motivated and selective treatment by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1804627


10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM (#1806009)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM

Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index.

Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion.

His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them.

So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads.

So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted.

Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted.

So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair.

So, that's the story.


That is one side of the story - based on many groundless assumptions and pointless personal judgements. But it does demonstrate the difficulties created on our forum when the personal likes and dislikes of a fellow poster are mixed-up (by some) with the role of 'moderator'.

Surely the first requirement of any 'moderator' to be seen to be acting impartially and not to be seen to be justifying the setting of poor examples of posting behavior and of openly encouraging support for their position from the mob?

What is required is an end to division and a example set that encourages all posters to feel safe to contribute. Rather than the current example introduced - which confuses and inhibits posting by encouraging the posting only of personal judgements of the worth of fellow posters. When it is what is said that is important - not who may be saying it.

The requests made about the PEL posts are being followed - but the same punishments are still being imposed. The new and selective restrictions that apply to my posts only, which have been imposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team are being followed - but still the same assumptions and personal judgements are being encouraged to be made.......How many times should a poster be punished over and over for the same old alledged 'crime'?


10 Aug 06 - 05:31 AM (#1806020)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

We get closer to the truth there but I still (other that I believe you are sick) believe that drives you towards your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

Jon - I have provided evidence here for (only some) of the abusive personal attacks, persoanal judgements and name-calling, that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges is a good example to set to the rest of our forum as acceptable posting behaviour.

Are you not going to pass judgement on this abuse and speculate on the reasons for it?

Can you supply any similar evidence for your accusation of my 'continued abuse of him and the volunteers'? If you cannot - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise?


10 Aug 06 - 05:40 AM (#1806023)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1805977

The above link is to a post about our 'war on terrorism' - with which sentiments I entirely agree.

Some may maintain that it has little or no relevance to this debate.


10 Aug 06 - 05:43 AM (#1806025)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Shambles all the evidence I have seen points to you harrasing the admin team. I will grant you that Joe has on more than one occassion bitten back but while one could argue he shouldn't have, I'm not surprised this has happened given your daily provocation for years.

The real shame is that the whole business has been allowed to go on so long that Joe has snapped, enabling you to add to your "evidence of persecution".


10 Aug 06 - 06:24 AM (#1806037)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I will grant you that Joe has on more than one occassion bitten back but while one could argue he shouldn't have, I'm not surprised this has happened given your daily provocation for years.

Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise?

Perhaps as you excuse the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for having - on more than one occassion bitten back perhaps you credit me (and other posters) for not following his example that such biting back - was ever acceptable posting behaviour for any poster on our forum - and especially not any trusted with an edit button.

You appear to support the multi-standard of conduct which is at the very heart of this debate.

but while one could argue he shouldn't have There is no argument. No 'moderator' can afford to be seen to ever do this, even once................For the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be seen to repeatedly do this - repeatedly attempt to minimise, justfy and excuse it - is just total hypocrisy. It is now a case of do as I tell you - not as I do.

It is only going to clearly demonstrate that there is now one rule for those who feel themselves qualified to judge and another for the judged. And that any defence of this and any attempts to shift the blame, will discredit and bring into question the honest efforts of all involved.


10 Aug 06 - 06:27 AM (#1806038)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise?


Shambles, I repeat the accusation and I will point you to your posting history over the past years as evidence.


10 Aug 06 - 06:37 AM (#1806043)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Shambles, I repeat the accusation and I will point you to your posting history over the past years as evidence.

Such as?

If this so-called abuse was as you have publicly alleged - it should not be too difficult to provide as least as many examples of the abusive personal judgements and name-calling from me - as I have provided from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to me. There are many more such examples of these.................

I ask again - if you cannot provide any support for your accusations - would you please withdraw them?


10 Aug 06 - 06:42 AM (#1806046)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Shambles, I REPEAT my accusation.


10 Aug 06 - 08:01 AM (#1806082)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Grab

Also been taking a break for a bit, but this was a good one.

Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers.

If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise?


For over two years, you've said that he's not telling the truth when he gives his reasons for restricting/renaming your posts, so we have "liar" as the primary one. I have to say that if I'd been called a liar by someone every day for two years, I'd be a bit unhappy too.

For the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be seen to repeatedly do this - repeatedly attempt to minimise, justfy and excuse it - is just total hypocrisy

OK, we have "hypocrite" too.

insecure and unsure of the ability of their authority in achieving its stated aims but determined to hang on to this authority

So we have "power-mad" too.

Shambles, you seem to believe that just because you haven't actually used any swear-words, you haven't insulted anyone. Believe me, that isn't so.

You also seem to feel that you've not insulted anyone because you've not said outright "you're a hypocrite" but instead said "this is hypocrisy", or you've not said outright "you're a liar" but instead said "why should I accept that to be the truth?". Frankly that just makes you gutless, playing semantics just so that you can say "I never actually said that".

Graham.


10 Aug 06 - 08:21 AM (#1806093)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c

Roger - I would think that both Jon and Grab have too much of a life to want to sift through all your postings for the past years to provide the excat quotes. Maybe you should get a life too.

I would agree totally with Jon's premise - it is clear from your posts (and I'm not going to look for specific ones either) that you have the knives out for Joe, in particular, and the rest of the team. I also agree with Grab's last paragraph in his post 10 August 8.01. You constantly insult the intelligence of the members of the Mudcat forum.


10 Aug 06 - 08:53 AM (#1806115)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Graham before you scratch around trying to find something to judge my posting conduct as wanting (without providing and evidence and by putting your words in my mouth) - perhaps you may have more creditibilty if you will first pass the same judgement and comment on the many examples of abusive personal judgements and name-calling publicly posted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and evidenced here? And the example set that this is acceptable posting behaviour.

For if you do not - how could you then judge the posting conduct of any ordinary poster as wanting - if they were to just follow this example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

You may accept there is a difference between expressing your views as as honestly as you can in a post and posting only abusive personal judgements and name-calling or responding in kind.

I have always resisted this and have always tried to limit my posts to my views only and not make any personal judgements of the poster. A quick look back through this thread should be enough for you to verify that. I feel there is a difference between stating the reasons why you do not agree with another poster and then going on to use offensive language, calling them names and suggesting that they go away and do rude things with their hat.

For example a post saying: I think this -

Rather than a post saying: I think this and therefore you are a ''''''' [insert the offensive name of your choice].

Most of the abusive personal attacks and judgements made on me by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team and more importantly his open incitement for others to follow suit (that I have evidenced here) - were as a result of him feeling that I was treating him unfairly.

In fact I was simply judging his actions in the same way that that he considered was fair - when he was not only judging the posting actions of others but was also imposing his judgement upon their posts and threads. He felt that I had no right to even judge or question his actions. And of course I had no ability to impose my judgement on his contributions.

My view is that their should be one set of rules for those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on others and one for the rest of us. The rules and expectation of conduct of those who would wish to judge us - should be far higher. And they should remove themselves from this position - even when there is the slightest suspicion that they have may fallen from showing the very highest example of conduct.


10 Aug 06 - 09:00 AM (#1806122)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

at least 7 inconsistancies in the last post by shambles and the proof existing in threads.


10 Aug 06 - 09:13 AM (#1806135)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

For over two years, you've said that he's not telling the truth when he gives his reasons for restricting/renaming your posts, so we have "liar" as the primary one. I have to say that if I'd been called a liar by someone every day for two years, I'd be a bit unhappy too.

What then is the word to use for someone who states:

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-


And then closes not only that one - but every other thread on the subject.........

I am more than a bit unhappy that my posting conduct is now being judged wanting and singled-out for special restrictions by those whose example of posting conduct - I have demonstrated - to be far more questionable than mine.


10 Aug 06 - 09:18 AM (#1806140)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?

-Joe Offer-


10 Aug 06 - 09:27 AM (#1806149)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome

I realy don't want to get involved any more but something has been bugging me all the time here.

Roger, will you please answer a straight question with a straight answer. Why do you insist on calling Joe 'the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team'? Isn't Joe easier? Or even Mr Offer if you want to be formal? Joe always refers to you as Shambles or Roger. What is it with not mentioning his name? Is it an actor type thing? Like MacBeth. Or is there some sort of legal implication that no-one else is aware of?

I am realy interested to know. I'm sure other people are as well!

Cheers

DtG


10 Aug 06 - 09:44 AM (#1806161)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

For some time I have requested that editing comments are not inserted into my posts without my permission. My concern is that often these so-called editing-comments are nothing of the sort. They are (mis) used - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - as a way of placing his personal views on the thread's subject but without refreshing the thread. A facility that is not open to ordinary posters.

My request has not been accepted and this practice continues - (some of) our 'moderators' do seem to have plenty of time to insert editing comments and would appear to think this quite fun......

Another request has been made for all case where any form of imposed censorship action is judged to have been required - for this to always be indicated and for some (very brief) explanation of the reasons to be given in an editing comment.

This would ensure that posters would for the first time be able to see and express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of censorship on our forum.

This request has also not been accepted.   

Some of the reasons provided were that this would needlessly bring attention to the offending post or thread. And rather surprisingly, considering my difficulty in preventing editing comment from being inserted in my posts - that it would place an extra burden on our 'moderators'.

I would argue that all it would need to do is bring attention to when censorship was thought necessary and that (some of) our 'moderators' do not currently appear to find placing editing camments currently too much of a burden.
    I use editing comments to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message. I do my best to refrain from expressing personal opinion in such comments - my opinions go in separate messages. You will note that I use a line, an indent, and a specific font to separate my comments from the message. I also sign my name to such comments.
    -Joe Offer-


10 Aug 06 - 09:54 AM (#1806169)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

You are outputting a lot today shambles. But none of it will get away from your persistant abuse of the volunteers.


10 Aug 06 - 10:08 AM (#1806180)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

"Why do you insist on calling Joe 'the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team'? Isn't Joe easier?"

Because Shambles is a passive aggressive little twat that needs to be slapped the hell off this message board... The problem is, he fits in almost perfectly with the people who own/run the place.....


10 Aug 06 - 10:18 AM (#1806192)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I am realy interested to know. I'm sure other people are as well!

OK

I see the main problem and cause of much of the conflict on our forum - as one of trying to combine two roles - that of 'moderator' and fellow poster. I am not sure this is now the best approach.....

I use the name of the role for a number of reasons. To try and show when my argument is with the actions of the role itslf - rather than any personal argument with the current individual fellow poster who happens to be in that role.

however, it is well known that the current holder of that role has some very strong views on how they want our forum to look and function. And for this reason, I am not sure that it is possible for posters to always be able to tell which hat is being worn. Perhaps a lot of support is for the individual currently in the role and it is thought disloyal to be seen to disagree with this individual - rather than taking a more objective view?   

Having someone so committed as the current holder in this role, does have advantages - it also has disadvantages. I must confess that I think the disadvantages are beginning to out-number the advantages.

So I propose myself for the role. *smiles*

When I first started posting here there was no Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who so readily imposed his judgement on my posts, threatened me and called me names - just my fellow posters - one of whom was Joe Offer.


10 Aug 06 - 10:22 AM (#1806201)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You are outputting a lot today shambles. But none of it will get away from your persistant abuse of the volunteers

Jon - put-up or shut-up.


10 Aug 06 - 10:25 AM (#1806208)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Grab

if you will first pass the same judgement and comment on the many examples of abusive personal judgements and name-calling publicly posted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and evidenced here?

If you're as keen on looking back through history as you seem to be, you may find the posts in which I said I thought Joe was out of line in insulting you. However, I also said that I could understand why he did it, in light of months/years of provocation. You yourself have just said that you consider him to be a liar, an opinion which I doubt is recent, since you have been implying for months/years that he's a liar.

You certainly do, now, have evidence of people disliking you personally, Joe for one. Back in 2001 though, before the addition of Joe's "three little words" set you off, did you have any evidence of this? Your assertion is that all moderation actions on your posts have been driven by moderators' personal dislike of you (or at least that this could be the case). This would require that they (and Joe especially) disliked you *before* they did any of it. If you can find evidence of this from 2001 or earlier, I'm all ears. If not, your assertion lacks a basis in available evidence, when the alternative (that you were mass-mailing the forum and posting off-topic in the way which Joe described, in order to promote your viewpoint) has no shortage of evidence.

And they should remove themselves from this position - even when there is the slightest suspicion that they have may fallen from showing the very highest example of conduct.

This is your personal opinion, and that's fine. However you are in no position to force them to do so - Max is the only person who can, and you haven't convinced him (rather the opposite, since he has publicly requested you to shut up or leave). Peer pressure *may* be able to persuade them, but you'd need a significant number of active members who share your opinion in order to swing any influence. If you've not found these people in four years of trying, then I submit that it's never going to happen. In that case, you should be considering the possibility that your viewpoint is in the minority. You should also consider the possibility that in insulting people until they "fall" and react to the insults, you aren't in a strong position.

Graham.


10 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM (#1806219)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

" So I propose myself for the role."

Sweet merciful crap on a cake, no.......


10 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM (#1806220)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Jon - put-up or shut-up.

Interesting Shambles, after only a few hours and a handful of posts you are telling me to shut up.

Quite amzing for someone who complains so bitterly about the occasional angry comment made to him following years of daily abuse.


10 Aug 06 - 11:34 AM (#1806289)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

"When I first started posting here there was no Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who so readily imposed his judgement on my posts, threatened me and called me names - just my fellow posters - one of whom was Joe Offer."

I'm curious- Chief Carper, in your estimation, which happened first? Did Joe one day decide that he needed someone to harass? And you were a convenient target? Or were you perhaps loading the Cat as you are now? I remember the days when you admired Joe Offer.


10 Aug 06 - 11:35 AM (#1806292)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

did I glean from that message above, Roger, that you suggest that you would be an OBJECTIVE moderator?

different, I'm sure!.....objective? Well, scholars differ.


10 Aug 06 - 11:42 AM (#1806298)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I remember the days when you admired Joe Offer.

So do I. That was in those days when he set a posting example that I was more than happy to follow.

As to what happened - he seemed to think that what was once best achievable by setting a good example was better achieved by threats.

I think he is wrong.


10 Aug 06 - 11:44 AM (#1806299)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

Perhaps setting a good example was no longer working.


10 Aug 06 - 11:45 AM (#1806301)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Well setting a bad one certainly isn't.


10 Aug 06 - 11:49 AM (#1806307)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

So you're judging it to be bad?


10 Aug 06 - 11:49 AM (#1806308)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

No... it's not... so why are you doing it Shambles?


10 Aug 06 - 11:50 AM (#1806310)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

And Roger - you don't see your part in any of this? Joe just suddenly turned on you?


10 Aug 06 - 12:06 PM (#1806337)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

And Roger - you don't see your part in any of this? Joe just suddenly turned on you?

See my post here10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM

The PEL threads were too much for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made so many wrong assunption, personalised the whole thing and got his knickers so competly twisted that they have never unravelled since.


10 Aug 06 - 12:11 PM (#1806339)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?


10 Aug 06 - 12:32 PM (#1806366)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

See my post here10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM

A prime example of spamming is described here. That alone would get a user suspended or even banned at most sites.


10 Aug 06 - 12:51 PM (#1806387)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

The PEL threads were too much for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team

The PEL threads were far too much for me too! The PEL topic was of importance to anyone who cares about live music in the UK but your handling of it was obsessive.


10 Aug 06 - 12:59 PM (#1806397)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

Roger...you simply define ABUSE as what THEY do and 'reasonable' as what YOU do. And you have this distorted concept that it's not 'ABUSE' if don't call someone names!

It is abuse of the privilege (not 'right') of posting here to do what you have done for 6-7 years.

As I have noted before, you provoke response from others, then switch the issue to the responses....then to the editing that attempts to contain the complaints about the responses.

This leads to the infinite regress which we find ourselves in. If I were in charge,...........guess......


10 Aug 06 - 01:00 PM (#1806400)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

A prime example of spamming is described here. That alone would get a user suspended or even banned at most sites.

The Mudcat Cafe - despite many efforts to reduce it to the level of most sites is NOT yet like 'most sites' and assuming of course that the one side of the story stated is the truth and you take no account of any other factors and you are a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head.......And if you are - what are you doing here?

There are those 'most sites' where you would be far happier..


10 Aug 06 - 01:03 PM (#1806403)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?


10 Aug 06 - 01:05 PM (#1806410)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

I see you do not deny the spamming.

Rather you resort to childish name-calling.


10 Aug 06 - 01:27 PM (#1806447)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Grab

The Mudcat Cafe - despite many efforts to reduce it to the level of most sites is NOT yet like 'most sites'

Too right. As Jeff says, most sites you'd have been banned years ago. The very fact of your continued posting here is a pretty good clue as to how much slack they'll cut people. Which begs the question - if they're *so* power-mad and *so* determined to keep authority, why do they let you stay? This is the major inconsistency in your story. If they were really the way you've painted them, you'd be out on your ear long since.

How many times should a poster be punished over and over for the same old alledged 'crime'?

"Punished"? Hardly. But prevented from doing it until they are willing to stop doing it? Sure. If Joe removed his restrictions on you today, would you go back to posting like that? My opinion is that you probably would. The opinion of Joe, Jeff and Max was that it was harmful to the forum, and they therefore took action to stop it. Since you don't believe it was harmful to the forum, chances are pretty good that you'd go straight out and do it again.

you are a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head

Way to go with non-judgemental! ;-)

Graham.


10 Aug 06 - 01:31 PM (#1806453)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

Oh, Graham..now you will have him explaining that HE never 'called' anyone that,....that it was merely a hypothetical.


10 Aug 06 - 01:49 PM (#1806467)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

So, Roger, I'm puzzled.

I'm puzzled about your linking to my post in the London Bombs thread - was there something wrong with that? Are you saying you agree with my post in that thread?

I'm puzzled about your constant statements about my calling you names - I recall "buffoon," once.

I'm puzzled about your accusations of "abuse" - as far as I can see, all I've done is to express exasperation and disagreement with your constant repetition of the same thing. Is that it - are exasperation and disagreement "abuse"?

I'm puzzled about you accusations that I have "threatened" you. When has that happened? Is it a "threat" if I say that if you post multiples, I'm going to delete or move some of those multiples - or is that just warning you of ther consequences of your action?

I'm puzzled about your charges of censorship. You constantly stress the importance of your topics - freedom of expression at Mudcat and the Public Entertainment Licensing in the UK - and imply that we are attempting to suppress information on these important topics. Nobody here disagrees with your position on these worthy causes. But no matter how worthy the cause, is it fair to flood us with megamultiples of your opinions, so that the opinions of others are lost in the deluge of your own verbiage?

Oh, and you aren't being "punished" for anything. We don't do that - we just use very moderate measures to control problems before they get out of hand. If there is no evidence that something is getting out of control, we make no attempt to control it, which is why you'll notice that we don't delete every over-length copy-paste or nasty comment. The problem, in your case, is your compulsion to flood the Forum with the same words, over and over again - there is strong evidence of that compulsion in this very thread. Thus far in this one thread, you have copy-pasted my "This thread is closed" comment four times, and my "this thread is to be kept open" comment a number of times.

But just answer the first question - I can't figure that one out at all.

-Joe Offer-


10 Aug 06 - 02:41 PM (#1806515)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

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

I suggest that even the one such name-calling post like this would be enough to disqualify you from being able to impose judgement upon any other poster for the same offence without being lablelled a hypocrite.....Don't you? And there are more examples.

I'm puzzled about your constant statements about my calling you names - I recall "buffoon," once.

What you can and cannot recall seems to be a little selective.

It is just as well that it is all recorded or I suspect that rather than just trying to minimise and excuse it - you wold be tempted to deny it altogether.

I am glad that you can recall this at least. But you still make no apology for it - can you recall me ever calling you a buffoon?


10 Aug 06 - 02:50 PM (#1806523)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome

Sorry Roger - Still doesn't make sense. Joe Offer is both a poster and the current chief etc etc. There is no need at all to differentiate between the two. We all know by now that your issue is with both the poster and the policy. Why continue the silly naming convention?

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying stop the campaign. Even if I disagree it is your right to stand up for what you believe. Your campaign on the new licencing act was very passionate and sucessful in bringing it to everyones attention. It stirred me to action anyway. But when you insist on using politcal terms to refer to a person everyone knows people will just see you as a polititian. Like Kim Howells. Remember him?

Carry on your thread by all means but save yourself a lot of typing and just put Joe.

Cheers

DtG


10 Aug 06 - 02:55 PM (#1806529)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Some might reasonably think a pesron who makes such a big issue over being called a buffon yet considers himself quite free to call someone a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head... is practicing the sort of double standard one would expect from a hypocritical baboon.


10 Aug 06 - 03:09 PM (#1806536)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?


11 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM (#1807204)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Warning: disapearing messages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some might reasonably think a pesron who makes such a big issue over being called a buffon yet considers himself quite free to call someone a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head... is practicing the sort of double standard one would expect from a hypocritical baboon.
Jon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm puzzled about your accusations of "abuse" - as far as I can see, all I've done is to express exasperation and disagreement with your constant repetition of the same thing. Is that it - are exasperation and disagreement "abuse"?
Joe Offer


Yes you are perfect correct Jon. I apologise unreservedly to jeffp and our forum, if it looked as I was calling him a foolish, pedantic and judgemental dick-head.

However - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing who has set the example that the posting of such things is acceptable and who attempts to minimise this and provides many excuses and justifications - rather than ever simply provide an apology and not doing it.....

Perhaps Jon - this will prompt him to apologise to me for calling me a bufoon? Perhaps you could ask him to? As you are fully aware - my concern is NOT with the nature of particular name that I am being called - but the big issue is with who is doing the name-calling and setting the example that this is acceptable posting behaviour.


You may have missed the following editing commemt as it was inserted into an exsisting post and did not refresh the thread. This was inserted into my post - despite my request that this does not happen without my permission.

I use editing comments to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message. I do my best to refrain from expressing personal opinion in such comments - my opinions go in separate messages. You will note that I use a line, an indent, and a specific font to separate my comments from the message. I also sign my name to such comments.
-Joe Offer-


If so - any assurance given in an inserted editing comment should perhaps always be honoured?

Perhaps if what appears in a post or any assurance contained in an editing comment is untrue - an apology can be provided.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-


It remains a fact that the perfectly clear assurance given above - was not honoured. As that thread was closed - as has every other thread on the subject (exept this one, so far).

liar: A person who has lied or lies repeatedly.

Many poster here could be accused of being liars - however, most of those do not claim any authority. But many (if they did claim some authority) would not simply post but ignore a situation when they were shown to be liars - and then still feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on this or similar indiscretions of their fellow posters and still expect their integrity to be unquestioned.


It is now my turn to be puzzled. Why is it, when the suggestion is made that editing comments be provided to indicate where any form of imposed censorship has been judged to be neccesary - this is thought to provide a burden and not accepted? But when I request that editing comments not be inseted into my posts - this does not appear to present a burden at all?

I use editing comments to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message.

If so - it should logically follow that where a particular message has been deleted - an editing comment to furnish direct, factual answers to a question about Mudcat policy and practice that is posed in that particular message? So why is this double standard supported?


11 Aug 06 - 10:41 AM (#1807217)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sttaw Legend

Moving swiftly on A Musical Interlude


11 Aug 06 - 11:02 AM (#1807233)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

We all know by now that your issue is with both the poster and the policy. Why continue the silly naming convention?

When the assumption is made that 'we all know by now' is made - you then get the accusations - from the usual pedantic but noisy few, who seem to think their purpose in life is to judge and mind everyone else's business.

This is the case here - as it was with the PELs. But with a floating 'readership' everyone does not know - it is the same with TV news programmes. If you watch the morning news from 6 to 9 you will find it irritating to have to watch the same items again and again. But you do accept the reasons for this.

It is the same here. If by informing a new poster, this irritates the regulars - one hope that they will accept the reasons. And as threads on this subject are so readily closed - an attempt to include all the information has to be made.

If the other threads were not closed and we were allowed to have threads on different aspects of the same subject - accusations of duplication would be less of an issue. For it is only repetition to those who have been informed (and who can switch-off). The same thing will be 'news' to those who have not.

[What is folk music?]

Some new posters assume that what they of our forum now - is the way it has always been. Some assume that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is the site's owner. Some still assume that there is no censorship or anonymous censors.

Often it appears that this is the impression that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would quite like new posters to our forum to assume.......


11 Aug 06 - 11:21 AM (#1807248)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome

OK, Roger - I accept that. Disagree but at least accept your reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I must say that I think you are fighting a lost cause but if that is your wish who am I to stop you.

Good luck.

DtG


11 Aug 06 - 11:29 AM (#1807255)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

However - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing who has set the example that the posting of such things is acceptable and who attempts to minimise this and provides many excuses and justifications - rather than ever simply provide an apology and not doing it.....

Perhaps Jon - this will prompt him to apologise to me for calling me a bufoon? Perhaps you could ask him to? As you are fully aware - my concern is NOT with the nature of particular name that I am being called - but the big issue is with who is doing the name-calling and setting the example that this is acceptable posting behaviour.


OK, shambles, I have looked into this business of calling people a baboon and at one other eample you quoted at me. I find you have recently supplied:

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Max
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM

GUEST,Jon is right, there are many differing opinions here at the Mudcat. For instance, Jon's opinion is that his site is a "rival" to Mudcat. My opinion is that Jon is flattering himself with such status, and that he's an asshole.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM

Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

From that, it seems clear to me that Joe's calling you a buffon comes sometime after Max calling me an asshole.

As a result, I will consider asking Joe but only if you ask Max to apologise, not to me, but to Joe Offer and all of his volunteers for setting them such a poor example for them to follow. I mean if the boss does that, how can you expect Joe to behave any better?

















(On the other hand we could just accept that people do get angry once in a while, etc. and it's really not worth getting over excited about)


11 Aug 06 - 01:34 PM (#1807355)
Subject: RE: Review: National Folk Festival, Canberra, 2006
From: GUEST,Cartoon Porn

Hi! Cartoon Porn presents the new Cartoon Porn Free Site. Visit our free cartoon porn site - http://cartoon-porn-blog.blogspot.com , to gain GB's of hot Cartoon Porn for free. [url="http://cartoon-porn-blog.blogspot.com"]Cartoon Porn[/url]. Your [url]http://cartoon-porn-blog.blogspot.com[/url] Site.

Have a great Day! Visit my site - Xanax and Porn

Good Luck!


11 Aug 06 - 02:04 PM (#1807379)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

(On the other hand we could just accept that people do get angry once in a while, etc. and it's really not worth getting over excited about)

Jon- I would agree that there are many things on our forum that are not worth getting excited about.

Sadly others do not appear to share this view now.

They would appear to get exited enough about them - to post only personal judgements of the poster.

Some attempt to justify their anonymous imposition of 'silent deletion', closing of threads and the the recent introduction of special posting restrictions that apply to only one individual poster.

Perhaps the reasons given for all this would indicate are not really things to get excited about and the reaction is not really proportionate?


11 Aug 06 - 02:42 PM (#1807417)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Well shambles, I'm afraid I consider your actions to be the least proportionate but perhaps if you can agree that some things are not really worth getting this excited about, perhaps you can drop things at least for now and give things another chance?


11 Aug 06 - 03:24 PM (#1807449)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?


11 Aug 06 - 06:02 PM (#1807638)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Well shambles, I'm afraid I consider your actions to be the least proportionate but perhaps if you can agree that some things are not really worth getting this excited about, perhaps you can drop things at least for now and give things another chance?

Jon - will how you judge my actions or how I may judge yours be of any real interest to anyone or change anything.

No judgement by one poster of another's worth will change anything. And simply judging any reaction - without judging its cause - is just as futile. But having one's posts censored remains a big deal and something to get excited about. Even if (some of) those currently imposing their judgement seem to have little understanding of this. Tending to only expect to be treated fairly by those they appear to show little fairness to......

Perhaps it is those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on the rest of us who perhaps should be considering whether the sort of things that have been getting them excited enough to impose the rather drastic 'silent deletion' on - are really proportionate.

Should posters be able to expect any assurance given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - especially one given in an editing comment - to be honoured? It is is not honoured - should they expect an explanation why and some form of apology?

Rather than for it to be simply ignored?


11 Aug 06 - 06:13 PM (#1807651)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?


11 Aug 06 - 06:24 PM (#1807664)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

In other words you intend to go round in circles again shambles...

Re:

No judgement by one poster of another's worth will change anything. And simply judging any reaction - without judging its cause - is just as futile.

shambles, I've read your comments, Joe Offer's, have my own eperience as a Joe Clone as well as as a poster here to go on, etc. The bottom line is how ever I try to look at things, what you say in trying to make "your case" makes no sense.

It points to other things but not what you seem to want to convince others about.


11 Aug 06 - 06:58 PM (#1807705)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome

100!


11 Aug 06 - 07:06 PM (#1807712)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy

&1
Skipy


11 Aug 06 - 08:13 PM (#1807767)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,FIELDVOLE

Shambles.

Unfortunately I would say give it up, you aren't going to get through
to this lot here! Even if you are correct, or it is a good idea.

I do think we should at least have a marker of some description on
a deleted post so that the thread has continuity, it's hard enough
at times to read a thread given that the posts are quite often out of
chronological order these days. And why not anyway?


NOTE!!!! THE SECTION BELOW WAS WRITTEN BY ME BEFORE THE FIRST TWO
          THREADS WERE CLOSED, I DECIDED NOT TO POST IT AT THE
          TIME, BUT **** IT. YOU MAY AS WELL HAVE MY $1 AS WELL.

Snip.........................................................

When I first arrived here, (probably whilst looking for lyrics as a
lot of us do), I was so pleased that I had found you all, it was my
kind of place! And, as I have said before on other threads,
thank you ever so much to Max, Joe and the other people who run
the 'Cat, and the great people who post here with all their opinions
and knowledge.

At that time, the way I saw it was that the threads were pretty
much wide open, people said more or less what they thought and
gave their opinions freely.......nearly anything went.

It had a good atmosphere, the trolls and others were there, but the
main point was IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE THREADS, YOU DIDN'T READ THEM!
It was MY choice, to do so or not. I would open a thread, read a
few posts, then decide whether I wanted to read on or not.
I assumed at the time that the mod's were taking care of the real
crap and spam that came on to the board.

THEN THE WHINGERS AND WAILERS, MOANERS AND PC PEOPLE ARRIVED!!!!

Slowly it started......

I didn't like what you said about......

I don't like the comment xxxx made, can we have it deleted.....

This thread should be below the line, (this being the second post in
a thread started by a nice guest asking for help, by the way).

You mispelled this word.

Etc, Etc, Etc. Until you got used to opening a thread
and finding a good discussion peppered with posts objecting to this
that and the other or someone beefing about what someone else had said,
and in the process forcing the moderators to take actions that they
possibly might not have done.

And slowly all the good posters drifted off to lurk, and the 'Cat
became what it is today.

I agree with The Shambles that I too have read through threads only
to come upon a post which is objecting to an earlier (DATED) post,
I go back up the thread to find out what they have been talking about,
only to find nothing, I go up and down again, nothing again, I carry on
but feel a bit annoyed that I don't know what had been going on, even
if it was bad or flaming. if a "deleted" message had been left I would
not have looked further and assumed that the post was so bad that
the moderators felt that they had to protect me from it.

I remind myself. I AM AN ADULT, I *CAN* MAKE UP MY OWN MIND.

The same applies to threads. I have gone back to look for threads,
refreshed on three days, not there. Refresh on seven days, not there!
Refresh on fourteen and above days, not there! But nothing to say
that xyz thread has been deleted.

I really don't see why a simple "Post deleted" or "Thread xyz deleted"
cannot be put in it's place. No reasons given if you don't want.

If the people who keep objecting to things keep it up then the board
will continue to deteriate. If you don't like something, don't read it!
If you have read it and didn't like it, skip past it to the rest of the thread!
And if you don't like the rest of the thread....DON'T READ IT!!!

LEAVE THE MODERATORS TO DO THEIR JOB:

BUT......I repeat. I AM AN ADULT, I *CAN* MAKE UP MY OWN MIND.

We are mostly adults here, we can make up our own minds. thank you.
And please remember, I like the music that you don't....YOU like the
music that I don't. And the same applies to the threads.

I personaly think that the threads like "Are hamsters rubbish".......
"Are turtles rubbish"....... and all the "clone" threads should be
deleted. BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY SO, because it is not my place to
do so....and somebody else may like them. I just don't bother
opening them,

Why are we pandering to the moaners, pedants and PC people anyway?
we didn't seem to before and the board ran well. Now if you post you
have to nit-pick in case you upset someone. I would suggest that
Dave the Gnome, in an earlier post,
(23 July, if it hasn't been deleted without trace) is correct!

I too feel that the board has deteriated over the past few years,
but feel that this has more to do with people moaning about things
instead of just accepting that this is somebody elses POV and passing
over the post. Now they start a war over the item instead of just
ignoring it.

I can understand what you are trying to say Shambles, you tried
another thread on the help section where I was in agreement with
what you were trying to say, and I think that a lot of the time you
make sense, but as I said earlier, you won't get through, you'll
get shouted down by the very people who are making a mess of the board
with their disagreements.

I can now see why Shambles has to keep on posting the same thing
over again in a different way....because he's not getting through,
if all that he wants is a marker on a deleted post...WHY NOT?
Why all the hoo-ha for a simple request? It's not difficult to do.

And if he wants to alert the board to what he suspects is over
enthusiasm on deleting post/threads then surely he should be able to
voice his opinion on that as he would on any other subject.


FINALLY:

WILL ALL THE WHINGERS, WHINERS, MOANERS AND PC PERSONS LEAVE THE
MODERATORS TO DO THEIR JOB AND SEE HOW IT WORKS OUT!

HOPEFULLY THE MODERATORS, IN TURN WILL NOT DELETE REASONABLE POSTS
EVEN IF THEY ARE LONG, COPY/PASTE OR NOT PC.

Snip.............................................................

Best wishes

Fieldvole


11 Aug 06 - 08:21 PM (#1807772)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

"if all that he wants is a marker on a deleted post...WHY NOT?..."
1) That's NOT all he wants. His list of wishes is unending.

"Why all the hoo-ha for a simple request? It's not difficult to do."

2)You are not doing it...you have NO idea what it would take to both follow & edit and sort and explain.


11 Aug 06 - 08:33 PM (#1807778)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?


11 Aug 06 - 08:35 PM (#1807779)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

"Why all the hoo-ha for a simple request? It's not difficult to do."

2)You are not doing it...you have NO idea what it would take to both follow & edit and sort and explain.


Well I know what is would mean.

"This post was marked deleted as spam but are we to accept the word the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that it was spam or might it have been deleted for some other reason? And how do we know who deleted it? Perhaps one of our unknown anonymous volunteer posters who consider themselves qualified to judge us on our made a mistake, or...."


11 Aug 06 - 08:55 PM (#1807788)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

OK, Fieldvole, I'll tell you why there are no markers for deleted posts.

When we delete problem posts, we're usually dealing with people posting large quantities of problem messages. For many months, I spent an hour a night reading every single message Martin Gibson posted, deleting every one that had even a hint of combativeness. I read them off a list of messages from Martin's IP - I just don't have time to read them in context. If they need deletion, I delete them by clicking the "delete" button - I don't have the time to go to the thread and see if people have responded and if the missing message is going to cause a problem.

We have other situations where we get a troll who will come in and post a dozen messages and then leave. I handle those the same way. I work off a list of messages from the IP, read them, and decide.
Another thing - if I delete a message, it stays on a record I can see, but it's not visible to other Mudcatters - there's no way to put a marker in to document the deletion, unless I go to the previous message and add a comment.

That being said, I DO insert editorial comments where there is a good reason to - but I don't often see a good reason when it's just deleting nastygrams from BS threads. It's just too tedious a process for the benefit it would provide.

People make far too much a deal of this deletion stuff. Most of we delete is obviously suitable for deletion - leering sexual comments, overt racism, crude and repeated name-calling, outright gibberish, repeated messages, and non-music advertising/Spam. The people who post this stuff know darn well that their stuff will be deleted - they post lots of this stuff. Most Mudcatters never have a message deleted - and if they do, they're usually contacted and given a private explanation. But for the repeat offenders who post large quantities of objectionable messages, it's just not worth the effort.

And yes, there's another reason for not posting explanations of deletions - if we delete something, we don't want to bother arguing about it. We have our own internal system of review of editorial actions, and it's a pretty good system. Sometimes, we're not at liberty to publicly discuss the reason for a deletion. Most Mudcatters trust us to do an honest job, but there are a very few who make a lot of noise about a lot of nothing. They say that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but we're not here to serve those few "wheels" that do nothing but squeak.

Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.

-Joe Offer-


11 Aug 06 - 08:59 PM (#1807790)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,FIELDVOLE

Jon.

Yes, point very much taken, as I said, my thoughts were written when
the first thread was only about a third of what it ended up as.

I do see your POV and know that this is how it COULD end up, but
on the other hand.....maybe not.

Incidentally I have been on another site this evening where I came
upon a post simply marked "deleted", looked good to me, and no, I don't know how much it would take to mark a deleted post, but if you are going to the trouble of deleting it it wouldn't be too much trouble to just replace the text. maybe I'm wrong in which case I
apologise.

I must admit that it still makes sense to me to mark a deleted post.

Best wishes

Fieldvole


11 Aug 06 - 09:07 PM (#1807792)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Fieldvole, the way this forum is set up, it takes a lot of work to mark a deleted post, and it destroys our record of the post that was deleted. Max, Jeff, and I review those deletions to ensure that they are justified.
The only way around that is to post an explanatory remark in the message previous to the deleted one, and it gets complicated.
-Joe Offer-


11 Aug 06 - 09:10 PM (#1807794)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,fieldvole

Thanks for that Joe, I cross posted with you there, I apologise for that.
I/we do appreciated what you do for us! I realise that you spend a great deal of (unpaid) time deleting the stuff that none of us wants
to see and am very gratefull for that, but as I said, if it is at all
possible I think that a post should be marked to give a continuity
path if you know what I mean. If it isn't possible then fair enough.

Fieldvole


11 Aug 06 - 09:15 PM (#1807796)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Fieldvole

As I said Joe, fair enough, that explanation covers it admirably.
If it had been explained like that in the beginning...well maybe
these threads wouldn't have come to this.

Thanks

Fieldvole


11 Aug 06 - 09:20 PM (#1807800)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Fieldvole, as far as I know, this marking the threads one is a recent one in the years this business has been running.


11 Aug 06 - 09:29 PM (#1807807)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

I'm usually quite open about what we do - but what I say gets lost in the huge volume of the discussion of Mudcat editing policy. The entire discussion centers on one individual who posts the same thing over and over again, ignoring the answers given to his questions.
It's like trying to have a reasonable, adult conversation in the presence of a child who's having a tantrum.
-Joe Offer-


12 Aug 06 - 09:29 AM (#1808067)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I'm puzzled about your charges of censorship. You constantly stress the importance of your topics - freedom of expression at Mudcat and the Public Entertainment Licensing in the UK - and imply that we are attempting to suppress information on these important topics. Nobody here disagrees with your position on these worthy causes. But no matter how worthy the cause, is it fair to flood us with megamultiples of your opinions, so that the opinions of others are lost in the deluge of your own verbiage?
Joe Offer


The above sounds all very noble but again - we see this concept of what is judged to be fair - being used to justify mean-sprited and selective editing actions that are not in the least bit fair.

Is it 'fair' for the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be making assurances to our forum in editing comments - that are not honoured and still expect their words and actions to be thought credible?

And we have yet more examples of appeals from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, for support from the mob, for what are simply personally motivated judgements. For there is not and there has never been the slightest chance that simply by posting, that the opinions of others are lost is there? But it is a very emotive sounding call for yet more more personally motivated judgements to be made from the 'usual suspects' and sound justified.

When the only sure-fire way to ensure that the opinions of others are lost on our forum - is for our 'moderators' to get excited and subject them to anonymously imposed censorship for the slightest of reasons..... The same loss by this method, does not seem to be much of a concern to (some of) our 'moderators'. I wonder why?

The main concern for all this appears to be to ensure that our forum looks tidy. Are there not more important concerns and other more proprotionate ways to achieve this - without automatic 'silent deletion'?

Actions, they say speak louder than words. So as this is the only thread on the subject that is allowed to be open - it is clear that the subject of freedom of expression at Mudcat (which is further limited by him to the BS section) is not one that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is really very keen to see discussed openly on our forum.

As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has also recently closed a long-running thread on the subject of Public Entertainment Licensing in the UK is also clear that tidyness is now thought - by him - to be far the most important. consideration.......Perhaps our forum does not share this view?
    I am unaware of any such thread that is closed. If such is the case, please direct me to the thread and I will review the action.
    -Joe Offer-


12 Aug 06 - 09:45 AM (#1808074)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

See how it goes, Fieldvole. An explaination for one thing is given so shambles picks on something else, in this case a comment made on 10th of August. We are supposed to forget everything else and carry on with whichever direction he chooses.

Shambles has only one consistancy with all of his requests and arguments and that is to find fault with Joe Offer and to a lesser degree the other volunteers. There is no desire whatsoever for any resolution (except maybe Joe resigns or Max sacks him).


12 Aug 06 - 09:53 AM (#1808077)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Alba

Well Joe I will hand it to you, explaination after explaination when none is even required. My Hat is off to you. How many years is it now 7 or 8!! Holy Crap!

I have watched this fiasco unfold for, oh quite a long time now and in my opinion. I think that the anon poster known as Shambles can have a WHOLE thread all to him/herself to whine, moan, talk shite...for whatever and I mean quite literally A whole thread

For myself however, this is without a doubt the final time I will look into this or any other thread of this nature started by the above mentioned poster.
There comes a point where I realise that I am not helping this person, I am only enabling this person and by enabling causing the Administration of this Forum a moderating hassle.

You, Joe, and many of the Admin Volunteers, have supplied the answers to just about every question that has been asked and more. I caught a drift a looooooooooooooooong time ago.

So it's TaTa from Alba to "Closed Threads and Deleted posts"
Which is truly a waste of bandwith and without a doubt a futile waste of precious, creative energy too!


Remember Folks Shambolitice is catching and carries a health warning.....!!!!!!


Roger, all I have to say to you from now on regarding this topic is.. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


12 Aug 06 - 10:00 AM (#1808082)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

There are very few (if any) people I would consider myself qualified to imposed my judgement upon.

You may judge that my expectations of those who would feel qualified to impose their judgement on me - are high.

When their actions are shown in any way to bring question to the integrity of all in such positions - I would expect the individuals concerned to accept that they had become a liabilty and remove themselves from any position of privilege and responsibilty.


12 Aug 06 - 10:08 AM (#1808087)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

There are very few (if any) people I would consider myself qualified to imposed my judgement upon.

You never cease to impose your judgement on the volunteers here. ~It is part of your perpetual abuuse.


12 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM (#1808088)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

You also ask people to judge from your "evidence" and then accuse them of jusdging when they do not find in your favour.


12 Aug 06 - 11:01 AM (#1808110)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c

Roger. Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me.


12 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM (#1808114)
Subject: RE: Review: The Dubliners - What's the big deal?
From: Big Al Whittle

Yes I remember that one:

Im a free porn man of the travelling nation-

one of their best.


12 Aug 06 - 11:12 AM (#1808115)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I think that a post should be marked to give a continuity
path if you know what I mean. If it isn't possible then fair enough.
Fieldvole


The only way around that is to post an explanatory remark in the message previous to the deleted one, and it gets complicated.
-Joe Offer-


So what is requested IS currently possible.

And what exactly gets complicated is not explained. But the reason why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not want to do as requested - is as follows.

That being said, I DO insert editorial comments where there is a good reason to - but I don't often see a good reason when it's just deleting nastygrams from BS threads. It's just too tedious a process for the benefit it would provide.
Joe Offer


The main benefit it would provide is to a poster not knowing where their contribution had gone. They would then know if it had or had not been deleted.

Secondly, our forum would be able to see the true nature and current level of imposed censorship. They could then judge the judgement made in their name and be able to express an informed opinion on its proportionality - for the first time..........   

Frankly I do not now care how tedious the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would find this - as this not a concern that should be very high on the list of concerns for our forum. There may be others willing to take his place - who may not judge that finding something tedious was
good enough reason to refuse a simple and basic request, such as this one...........

What all this boils down to is that: The current Chief of the Mudcat cat Editing Team can be seen to set the example of posting abusive personal judgements, call posters offensive names and incite others to follow suit. That he can be seen to place assurances in editing comments that he does not honour, impose special posting restrictions on selected individual posters. And insert editing comments where and when he chooses but refuse to do this when requested.

In fact the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges that he can do now exactly as he wants to with the contributons of others and despite personalising and blaming the whole issue on one individual - still expects to retain some credibilty and for posters to accept that there is no personal bias on his part in any of these actions.   

What it boils down to is that despite what is still politely requested - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team simply does not WANT to do it. Good enough?

You judge. And perhaps by the same harsh standards that other posters are expected to subjected to.


12 Aug 06 - 11:21 AM (#1808120)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

You judge

Here we go again. You want us to judge but call us judgemental when judgements do not agree with yours.


12 Aug 06 - 11:48 AM (#1808124)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sorcha

If you'd all just ignore him and let Joe deal with it........he's just another troll.


12 Aug 06 - 12:35 PM (#1808146)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?


12 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM (#1808167)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

"What it boils down to is that despite what is still politely requested - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team simply does not WANT to do it. Good enough?" Shambles

Yep. That's good enough.


12 Aug 06 - 01:54 PM (#1808184)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Fieldvole

Shambles, when I asked Joe why we couldn't put a message in place of
the deletion, he gave me a perfectly good answer. That it is more
awkward for the admin team to do that, on this particular type of
message board, than it is to just delete the post.

It also bu**ers up THEIR record of events, and that is more
important than OUR knowing where a post has gone to.

Now, much as I agree in a way with a lot of what you are saying,
that is the answer that is given and we will just have to leave it
at that and live with it.

PLEASE!!

Fieldvole


12 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM (#1808191)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I am unaware of any such thread that is closed. If such is the case, please direct me to the thread and I will review the action.
-Joe Offer-


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

Joe - are you serious trying to inform our forum that you did NOT close the thread that I am referring to?

Or that you are going to continue to maintain a pretence to our forum that you are not fully aware of which thread I am referring to?

Which having closed it - you are of course perfectly aware.


12 Aug 06 - 02:19 PM (#1808193)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?


12 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM (#1808195)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Shambles, when I asked Joe why we couldn't put a message in place of the deletion, he gave me a perfectly good answer.

I agree with much of what you say also.

And I am glad to see that you are satisfied with your answer.

I note your request, but as I consider what you may choose to post is a matter for you - perhaps you will accept that what I choose to post is a matter for me?

However the question is less why this could not be done as why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not WANT to do it.

For I am quite sure that IF he did want to do this - or indeed anything else - it would be done - whatever its effect and whether you or I liked it or not.


12 Aug 06 - 02:25 PM (#1808197)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?


12 Aug 06 - 02:43 PM (#1808212)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

For I am quite sure that IF he did want to do this - or indeed anything else - it would be done - whatever its effect and whether you or I liked it or not.

And that he would do this - even after assuring our forum (in an editing comment) that it would not be done.

A fact evidenced in this thread by me - and still ignored by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.....

And who still expects his words to be given some credit.......

The problem, in your case, is your compulsion to flood the Forum with the same words, over and over again - there is strong evidence of that compulsion in this very thread. Thus far in this one thread, you have copy-pasted my "This thread is closed" comment four times, and my "this thread is to be kept open" comment a number of times.
-Joe Offer-

Instead of just using this as an excuse for more groundless personal judgements - perhaps it can be explained to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team why this assurance given by him to our forum in an editing comment - was not honoured?
And why no apology is provided for not doing so?
And why our forum should expect any other assurance given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team to be honoured?


Or instead of this - will some urgent excuse be found by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to close this thread also?


12 Aug 06 - 02:57 PM (#1808216)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The problem, in your case, is your compulsion to flood the Forum with the same words, over and over again - there is strong evidence of that compulsion in this very thread.

So shambles demonstrates his compulsion again.


12 Aug 06 - 03:13 PM (#1808233)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

OK, Roger. You judge. I have undeleted every message the volunteers and I deleted in the last three days, and I have moved them all into this thread. Please tell the nice people why I should have to post an explanation for all of these deletions. These are normal examples of the messages we delete.

You will note that they are ALL porn or Spam messages from anonymous posters, except for one message from weelittledrummer that doesn't make sense without the porn present. I'm sure weelittledrummer won't mind.

As for a Licensing Act thread being closed, the only one I can think of, is Affected by the Licensing Act 2003. It was closed (with explanation and crosslink posted) for a few days in April or May, 2006, because somebody had started a newer thread with the same title. We do this occasionally when there are two threads on the same subject, to avoid splitting and confusing the discussion. Upon request from Shambles, I reopened the thread. I also combined the newer thread with the older one. Shambles, if this is the thread you are referring to, please be sure not to mislead the nice people. Be sure to tell them that this took place in April or May, that it was closed because there was another thread active on the same subject, and that the thread was reopened at your request within a few days. You might even provide a link to the threads you're talking about, so people will understand. But what's the sense in continuing to argue about the closing of a thread when that action was reversed three months ago?

Oh, you have continually challenged my "This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say" statement, and have even pointed it out to be a lie. Well, Roger, you are allowed one "complaint" thread at a time. As long as you kept your complaints in that one thread, that thread was kept open. Once you started posting your complaints in another thread, the earlier thread was closed. That's the breaks. Most people naturally confine their remarks on a subject to the current discussion on that topic. Over a period of a number of years, you continually posted the same information over a number of threads, all at the same time - so very moderate measures were taken to compel you to act as others do naturally. Let me repeat: no attempt has been made to control the content of your posts, but we have had to channel your remarks into a single thread, instead of continuing to allow you to post the very same thing in a number of threads at the same time. It's your constant repetition that's the problem, Roger, not the content of your posts.

I usually try to answer all questions the first time they're asked. When the same person asks the same question over and over again, I don't bother answering. These unanswered questions do tend to make it appear that I'm withholding information, but that's not the case. It does, however, make it very difficult for the rest of us to carry on a reasonable, productive discussion of Mudcat editing. The volunteers and I would very much like to serve the needs and wishes of this community, but not the petty paranoia of one individual.

-Joe Offer-


12 Aug 06 - 06:32 PM (#1808357)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"Subject: RE: Review: The Dubliners - What's the big deal?
From: GUEST,Porn - PM
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 06:33 AM"

Hey Joe, why you leaving this crap on the 'cat? Wake up there, son. Jaysus, what the hell kinda site administrator ARE you?


LOLOLOLOLOL


12 Aug 06 - 11:32 PM (#1808510)
Subject: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: GUEST,depressed

well... who the f*** cares anyway..?

sod it!


its all a waste of time and no one gives a monkeys anyway..



bollocks..!!!!



wheres my anti depressant tablets...?


f** it must have got confused and swallowed them all in one go


teatime last night.....


thats a nice hit thatd felod ew\inh fom te..zdsjsddddddddddddd

im ok dont wh\nt to gerthospirtlized and sexcrineed

cusx inm ok realy


12 Aug 06 - 11:54 PM (#1808521)
Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: GUEST

canty remeber f i took my tablet

and i dont care if i take too

curz no no else fier cares

so why skiould i

i dont givegurt momnkeys


fudki t if i live or die


useless s pile of bolloks it is


12 Aug 06 - 11:57 PM (#1808522)
Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: Peace

This type of shit is the worst of trolling. Gets people concerned for no fucking reason. Piss off, please!


13 Aug 06 - 12:02 AM (#1808527)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?


13 Aug 06 - 12:16 AM (#1808531)
Subject: RE: BS: mudchat, why is there never anyone there
From: GUEST,depressed

because the sad fucking loser wankers who hold power over life and death..

[in their own sad loser immagination]

stifle creativity and expression here

with the pathetic little delete button they command..


sad fucks they are


13 Aug 06 - 12:17 AM (#1808532)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,depred


13 Aug 06 - 12:19 AM (#1808534)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,depressed

sad twats with delete buttons...

fuck you


you useless shite pellet


13 Aug 06 - 02:43 AM (#1808563)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Well, I think we have a tendency to respond by counterattacking large populations of people who have nothing to do with terrorism. I think that our responses to terrorism have been misdirected and ineffective, and have only served to make a bad situation worse by destroying any sympathy the world had for us.
So, yeah, I think we need to re-think things - to respond, but to respond judiciously.
-Joe Offer-


This not to make any judgement about the relative importance of two totally different issues. But I do think the criticism and the suggested approach has some relevance for this issue - if the word 'terrorism' in the above was substituted for words like ' abusive personal attacks' - 'flaming' - trolling' - spamming etc.

Generally the measures taken to try and deal with the (thankfully still rare) extreme terrorist actions - mostly affect and restrict the daily lives of ordinary people. As we can see currently, where thankfully there has been no loss of life. But the publicity and disruption caused by the new additional restrictions - on top of the ones already in place - for ordinary air-travellers, have had the effect disired by the terrorists anyway.

I have requested a few things here. Most of them have not been accepted. I did NOT request that all recently deleted threads be placed in this one. But now the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has decided to do this - no doubt the blame for this will be shifted to me. When posters complain that the inclusion of such posts have offended and corrupted them............

But their appearance unbidden in this thread does not seem to have made the the whole Mudcat world crumble.

So perhaps these posts can safely be left where they are posted and all the restrictions, secrecy and division that is justified to deal with such things - can be seen to be disproportionate and re-thought?


Part of the reason for the request that all imposed censorship actions be recorded was in the hope that this would result in less imposed censorship actions. Especially as the automatic way of dealing with any perceived problems. And that an attempt could then be made to find less drastic solutions and a return to all of our 'moderators' (and posters) setting a better example of posting behaviour and leading by this example.

And that those posters who are currently encouraged by the example set - to only post to make personal judgements about the worth of their fellow posters and complain about what others chose to post - can be told to mind their own business and to concentrate on their own posts - by our (few remaining) known and still credible 'moderators'.


13 Aug 06 - 02:54 AM (#1808565)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.
-Joe Offer-


If you can't stand the heat - no one is forcing you to stay in the kitchen and feel that when you get hot and bothered you have some right to throw pots and pans at the customers.

Give us a break - we ordinary posters don't get paid to do this either, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.


13 Aug 06 - 03:14 AM (#1808570)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Roger, most of this stuff was deleted because somebody asked us to delete it - although it all would have all been deleted sooner or later. It seems that if Internet forums allow Spam to be posted, it gets posted in increasing quantities. I don't know why, but that's what seems to happen.

I moved the deleted messages from the last few days to this thread, so that people can see that we're telling the truth - that the messages we delete are just plain garbarge, and that such deletions should require no explanation or justification.

-Joe Offer-


13 Aug 06 - 05:25 AM (#1808610)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Unfortunately Joe, while you can provide pretty convincing evidence that Mudcat gets spam, you can not prove that you have not been selective in what you are showing the forum. Also, under the current system, even if for example the previous post was edited manually, you will still not be able to proove that this has occured for every deletion.

Don't get me wrong, I don't need convincing. I'm just commenting that whatever you do, at least under the current system, you could still be just as subject to "us not knowing the true level of censorship in our forum" as you are now. The only way that should remove that sort of doubt is system that automatically took an action,

eg. assuming the "deleted messages" are hidden but remain connected to the thread, it's unlikely to be to difficult to show "message deleted" instead of the posts content for messages marked as deleted.

That type of thing though is something I know you can not do yourself.


13 Aug 06 - 06:30 AM (#1808628)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Roger, most of this stuff was deleted because somebody asked us to delete it - although it all would have all been deleted sooner or later.

So these somebodies are not going to be very happy now you have decided to place it all here for whatever reason you decided to.

Our forum does know what spam is and what other things are out there - without this demonstration. And again you use the method of demonstrating the sort of obviously questionable posts that few poster miss much and would judge harshly - to confuse this with the heavy-handed methods used to ensure it does not appear.

The point is that these as the very same methods that are automatically imposed on far less questionable posts. When the only sure-fire way to ensure that the opinions of others are lost on our forum - is for our 'moderators' to get excited and subject them to anonymously imposed censorship and often for the slightest of reasons.....

And as you know my main concern is when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Forum's excitement leads him to propose to Max that the only way that he can impose the 'peace' that he requires - is for our forum to be changed into a members only forum.


13 Aug 06 - 07:01 AM (#1808642)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM

[..]
However the question is less why this could not be done as why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not WANT to do it.

For I am quite sure that IF he did want to do this - or indeed anything else - it would be done - whatever its effect and whether you or I liked it or not.

-------
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:30 AM

[..]

And as you know my main concern is when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Forum's excitement leads him to propose to Max...


13 Aug 06 - 07:04 AM (#1808644)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Oh, you have continually challenged my "This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say" statement, and have even pointed it out to be a lie. Well, Roger, you are allowed one "complaint" thread at a time. As long as you kept your complaints in that one thread, that thread was kept open. Once you started posting your complaints in another thread, the earlier thread was closed. That's the breaks.

The above explanation (for moving the goalposts) may have been an acceptable one - had the assurance you given by the Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team, to our forum in that editing comment - This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say as long as he does not say anything in any other thread at any other time..

Perhaps you would confim that the assurance given was only? This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say. And that his assurance that that thread was not going to be closed - is perfectly clear?

For there was no mention of the word 'complaint' in this assurance or any other qualification made in it - was there?

And as you admit to responding to complaints from (some) other posters to justify some of your editing - your view on the desirabilty or otherwise of 'complaints' seems to depend on what they are about and who may making them.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team obviously does not feel that he has to honour his assurances, given in editing comments and can change his mind at any time and attempt to justify this.....

Any future assurances grandly presented for public consumption by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team must be seen in the same light - to mean very little.


13 Aug 06 - 12:59 PM (#1808832)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I did suggest that an excuse to close this thread and prevent debate on this issue would be found. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team placing in this thread of all these deleted posts - will of course provide that excuse.

Please delete spam

The above thread indicate the sort of silly games that this are now being encouraged to be played in the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. Perhaps the only posts encouraged there should be those requesting action to be taken on their own posts?


13 Aug 06 - 01:06 PM (#1808839)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12-Aug-06 - 01:48 PM

It helps if you give us both the name and the number of the thread, and preferable the specific message number. All I find at this address is another boring Shambles thread.
-Joe Offer-


13 Aug 06 - 02:00 PM (#1808872)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Well, whatever.
Anyhow, my reason for moving the deleted posts here is to show people what it is that we delete. No, I suppose I can't prove that there are others I haven't revealed. You have to take my word for it. But that's it - all our deleted posts from the days since Shambles started this thread.

I won't bother moving any more here - you get the point.

It doesn't help to argue with Shambles, because he just says what I have to say is untrue. I've done my best to be honest, but Shambles calls me a liar. So, I guess I have nothing more to say.

-Joe Offer-


13 Aug 06 - 03:01 PM (#1808931)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I won't bother moving any more here - you get the point.
Joe Offer


I still am not sure what the point was (we do already know what spam is).

It was not what I reqested you to do was it? Perhaps you will now do this?

And perhaps you will now remove from this thread all the posts you placed here?

I can't help but wonder what excitement would have been caused, judgements made and witch-hunts started - had anyone else but the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team attempted such a thing?


13 Aug 06 - 03:12 PM (#1808936)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?


14 Aug 06 - 01:31 AM (#1809268)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The concern is NOT the bathwater being thrown out.

The concern is what may be getting thrown-out with it.


14 Aug 06 - 01:52 AM (#1809277)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Shambles, for years you have been making empty and untruthful allegations about Mudcat editors basing message deletion on favoritism and personal likes and dislikes. I thought it was time to give some solid evidence, so people can see the typical messages we delete - and so they can understand why there should be no need for explanation or notation of these deletions.

I present these messages as evidence. Surely, my evidence has as much a place in this thread as unsubstantiated allegations from Shambles. There is no baby being thrown out with the bathwater, although Shambles has done his best to mislead people into suspecting that there may be something devious about our editing practices.

These are the messages that would usually be deleted in a typical three-day period at Mudcat. I think I found all of them. Shambles, if you wish to allege that there were other messages deleted during this period, prove it. I think you've slandered the Mudcat volunteers long enough.

-Joe Offer-


14 Aug 06 - 12:38 PM (#1809559)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?


14 Aug 06 - 04:14 PM (#1809736)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Raedwulf

"Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team"

Roger, stop being so goddamned childish. His name is Joe. Every knows it. What stupid point do you think you're making by referring to him third person neutral? You've been talking to him for years. What is this? Some new tactic (*gasp* after all these years, an original twist on the same lame old bad joke...) to de-humanise him & garner some sympathy for yourself? I promise you it's not working. Grow up, man!


14 Aug 06 - 04:17 PM (#1809741)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

"What stupid point do you think you're making by referring to him third person neutral?"

It's passive-aggressive baiting.... From a small minded little troll who hasn't got the grapes to come out and flame the person he's angry with, so hides behind a facade of being polite....

When he's proved over and over and over that he's anything BUT polite....

He'll now come here and claim to have been infairly attacked.... When, in fact, he's made his bed, and is now being told to lay in it


16 Aug 06 - 02:41 PM (#1811417)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

It sure doesn't take long for innocent threads to be deleted here. I started one asking the innocent question of whether Shambles has been evicted from the Mudcat. There was nothing nasty and I even praised him. Within 10 minutes at the most it was gone. Maybe Shambles has a point here. That certainly was overzealous editing. I wonder how long it will take for this to be gone forever.

I never thought that I would say it but Shambles...YOU ARE RIGHT. Continue fighting my man.
    That's right - we generally don't allow threads that are directed at individual Mudcatters, so I deleted that thread as soon as I saw it. That one was sure to become a personal attack by the fourth message.

    Here's the introductory message:
      Subject: BS: Has Shambles Been Evicted? From: GUEST
      Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM

      I hear a strange quietness across the Mudcat land. Can it be that Mr. Shambles has rambled on to bigger and better places? I hope that he finds a cause worthy of his persistence.
    Seems to me that a thread like that is sure to cause trouble.
    -Joe Offer-


16 Aug 06 - 02:45 PM (#1811420)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I applaud Mudcat for taking that post down. I read that post. People complain about Shambles and your post was not "innocent", it was an attempt to stir up crap.   Shame on you! I hope that someone will remove more message. I don't mind if this one is removed either!


16 Aug 06 - 02:50 PM (#1811426)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ron,

It really wasn't an attempt to stir up trouble. It is not like Shambles to be gone for two days. I was simply curious as to whether he was blocked from posting. Certainly nothing bad was said in the posting.

Fred


16 Aug 06 - 02:53 PM (#1811430)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Okay, that is your story.   You did note a change in the tone of this place and I read it differently then what you are claiming.


16 Aug 06 - 03:02 PM (#1811437)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

There is a change in the tone of the place much like there was when Martin Gibson left. It was just noted but not commented on. No nastiness or gloating or snide comments. Strictly factual. I did not feel that there was any cause in that for deletion.


16 Aug 06 - 03:11 PM (#1811447)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I think Mudcat did the right thing, and they do not need to justify their actions either for that matter.


16 Aug 06 - 03:16 PM (#1811449)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I am not asking for them to justify their actions. I am simply disagreeing with them and you on the necessity of it being done.


16 Aug 06 - 03:20 PM (#1811452)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Noted. I agree with their decision.


16 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM (#1811554)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

This is about to get very confusing.


16 Aug 06 - 06:16 PM (#1811621)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Yeah let's play Guess which Guest is the Guest that said "This is about to get very confusing."

Let the game begin...

Question 1:   Guest#1 who is Guest #2
Question 2:   Guest#2 who is Guest #3
Question 3:   Who was the Guest that once said "I couldn't care less what you think" ~{hint does the year 2001 ring any bells?]

There you have it folks, 'CONFUSION' the family Game where any Guest is welcome to play.


16 Aug 06 - 06:23 PM (#1811634)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

WHOGABRA?


16 Aug 06 - 08:32 PM (#1811718)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Who gives a big rat's ass.


16 Aug 06 - 10:15 PM (#1811803)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

Well played, Bruce.


16 Aug 06 - 10:18 PM (#1811808)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

I had to use the internet for that.


16 Aug 06 - 10:22 PM (#1811815)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

It's something I got from my father. A wise man, my father.


16 Aug 06 - 10:24 PM (#1811817)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Well, he's coined a thingy (acronym(sp?).


16 Aug 06 - 10:39 PM (#1811832)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

Peace (and anybody else, for that matter) please check out this
thread.

Jeff


17 Aug 06 - 11:58 AM (#1812310)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Shambles, for years you have been making empty and untruthful allegations about Mudcat editors basing message deletion on favoritism and personal likes and dislikes.

No......... I have povided evidence - mostly in the words used by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, (some of) his known and anonymous volunteers to justifiy their imposed actions. Perhaps our forum will judge who is is that has been making personally motivated allegations and assumptions - as yet more of these are being made by you in this thread to gain more support for your witch-hunt and for the special posting restrictions taht apply only to me.......

I thought it was time to give some solid evidence, so people can see the typical messages we delete - and so they can understand why there should be no need for explanation or notation of these deletions.

Your decision to litter this thread with spam has served no other purpose than to demonstrate that you will simply choose to as you wish and that the whole fabric of our forum will not crumble if posts such as these, were simply left alone.

I present these messages as evidence. Surely, my evidence has as much a place in this thread as unsubstantiated allegations from Shambles. There is no baby being thrown out with the bathwater, although Shambles has done his best to mislead people into suspecting that there may be something devious about our editing practices.

Our forum does not need any evidence provided to demonstrate what spam is. And as Jon has already pointed out - there is no evidence provided here to demonstrate your claim to our forum - that nothing is being thrown-out with this bathwater.

These are the messages that would usually be deleted in a typical three-day period at Mudcat. I think I found all of them. Shambles, if you wish to allege that there were other messages deleted during this period, prove it. I think you've slandered the Mudcat volunteers long enough.

Like any other ordinary poster- I am in no position to express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of all the forms of imposed censorship on our forum. I do know what it is for my posts and that is why the request is being made that all such impostions are recorded with the editing comments that litter my posts and for all posters to be seen to be treated equally.

Then all posters will be seen to be protected from any personally motivated and selective imposition (and from posts containing 'empty and untruthful allegations' like this one from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team).

And if their services are still required - all known and anonymous 'Mudcat volunteers' will be protected from any allegations that any of their imposed actions were personally biased.


17 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM (#1812314)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

Shambles says:
I am in no position to express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of all the forms of imposed censorship on our forum.

that has been evident for some time.


17 Aug 06 - 12:11 PM (#1812318)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?


17 Aug 06 - 12:39 PM (#1812332)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following editing comment (in bold) as in was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh this thread.

The imposed censorship action referred to occured after the period selected by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to show all of his 'silent deletions' in this thread. You may judge this thread to have been 'bathwater' and have deserved such censorship to be imposed, in your name and in order to avoid 'trouble'. Then again you may not?

But without the poster bringing this censorship to the attention of this thread - you would have never been able to make this judgement for yourself - as it has already been made for you.   

That's right - we generally don't allow threads that are directed at individual Mudcatters, so I deleted that thread as soon as I saw it. That one was sure to become a personal attack by the fourth message.

Here's the introductory message:
Subject: BS: Has Shambles Been Evicted? From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM

I hear a strange quietness across the Mudcat land. Can it be that Mr. Shambles has rambled on to bigger and better places? I hope that he finds a cause worthy of his persistence.


Seems to me that a thread like that is sure to cause trouble.
-Joe Offer-


Strange then that a thread titled   Shambles still here and why?   was not so judged and only suffered an imposed title change - before finally being subject to imposed closure by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. But then he will do as he likes and justfy it later as being 'Mudcat' policy - even when it may be the very opposite of what he judged to be 'Mudcat policy' last week.

The following examples of acceptable posting - from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are not judged (by him) to be 'trouble' or to be personally motivated.

Dunno, Roger. As I see it, I sometimes disagree with people, but I'm not combative. It's the combative stuff that causes trouble at Mudcat. and I do believe that needs to be controlled.
Joe Offer


Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
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.
------
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
------
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-



If such posting behaviour is judged as needing to be controlled (by the one posting it) - perhaps as start could be made by a change to a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing team who would be prepared to set a better example?


17 Aug 06 - 12:41 PM (#1812333)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?


17 Aug 06 - 01:06 PM (#1812353)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into a spam post that was itself inserted and which now forms the first post in this thread.

Sample of a typical deleted message, moved here for demonstration purposes. I moved all of the messages from August 10-12 into this thread, so people can see just what we've been deleting.
-Joe Offer-


Perhaps for a little bit of balance - a few examples of the sort of posts that 'we' have not been deleting? And the sort of personal judgements posts which some may consider that are actually being encouraged............

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Sorcha - PM
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM

ROGER! Shut the FUCK up and GO AWAY!



Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: katlaughing - PM
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:15 PM

PLEASE CLOSE THIS USELESS THREAD!


17 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM (#1812359)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

You're still setting a bad example...
It still isn't working....

So why continue?


18 Aug 06 - 12:49 PM (#1813066)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I've done my best to be honest, but Shambles calls me a liar. So, I guess I have nothing more to say.
-Joe Offer-


Well, despite this assurance - you did go on to say more. But perhaps this was only to be expected.

In my book - someone judged to be a liar includes one who does see any reason why they should honour their public assurances. The facts have demonstrated that you feel you can ignore any assurance given to our forum in an editing comment here by simply changing your mind. You must accept the consequences of that action and not make the usual attempt to minimise, justify and defend these actions and make this attempt under the usual double standard of behaviour. An attempt which discredits all of the honest efforts made here and makes The Mudcat Cafe look hypocritical.

Despite your groundless accusations over my reactions to your conduct, you have been shown to be a man whose word cannot be trusted.

And yet you still expect posters to trust your word when you clearly do not trust anyone else's. And you consider it unfair if you are judged when you feel qualified to impose your judgement on others and do not consider this to be at all unfair.   

You feel that you can constantly give posters cause for complaint but then have some right to insult them if they should do this. You do not seem to have noticed that in fact I have long-ago ceased to officially complain. As it is clear there is little point in such a course.

I attempt to try and post my views to inform our forum of the true nature and current level of censorship - to enable this to be discussed. And I will continue to make this attempt - despite the efforts of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to prevent and restrict this.

And yes I do expect those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on me to set a better example than the example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and will work towards ensuring that a better example will be shown in future.


18 Aug 06 - 12:57 PM (#1813075)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

??????

The Shambles says:"You do not seem to have noticed that in fact I have long-ago ceased to officially complain"

When did this occur? seems to be a few complaints in your current post, which makes that statement inaccurate.


18 Aug 06 - 01:07 PM (#1813087)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

What stupid point do you think you're making by referring to him third person neutral.

A simple one that is often overlooked. That the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is only a role that is currently occupied by the fellow poster called Joe Offer.

That when for example Joe Offer states in post that he does not like Birthday threads - (or any of the number of things that are not to his personal taste) - that this is only a personal view and just as valid as any other poster's personal view. And no more so.

But when in his role as current chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - he give an assurance to our forum in an editing comment - that he does not honour - the excuse provided for this - is not just a personal view but an official one which brings into question his suitability to continue in this role. And perhaps question the need for such a role to continue at all?


18 Aug 06 - 01:19 PM (#1813094)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

" In my book"
Your book doesn't matter squirt on Mudcat......


18 Aug 06 - 01:22 PM (#1813097)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

One difference between you and me, the Sham, is that I don't consider that I need a role model. The fact that you do may account for the aggrievement you feel.

I consider myself responsible for myself.


18 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM (#1813100)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

200 wasted posts


18 Aug 06 - 01:27 PM (#1813105)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

Do you still claim that you do not wish to tell max how to run his site? Because you do so frequently.


18 Aug 06 - 01:35 PM (#1813115)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

200

The devil made me do it.
    Damn. Mudcat (or my ISP) is so slow today that Giok beat me to it. This is post #202.
    -Joe Offer-


18 Aug 06 - 01:36 PM (#1813119)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

I would shoot that devil if I were you Joe, her can't count.
Too many birthday drinks?
Giok


18 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM (#1813128)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Joe Offer Vs Birth Day Threads

The fact that you do may account for the aggrievement you feel.

Not sure that I do need a role model but if I did - it would not the example of acceptable posting behaviour currently set for our forum to follow - of do as I say - not as I do.

I think that the setting, justifying and defending of such an example may now account for quite a lot of aggrievement on our forum.


18 Aug 06 - 02:02 PM (#1813139)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

If only self righteousness and smugness were a terminal condition. At least then we could see an end to Roger's wittering.
Giok


18 Aug 06 - 02:17 PM (#1813154)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Non sequitur alert: what does my birthday have to do with Mudcat editing?


18 Aug 06 - 02:18 PM (#1813155)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Just because it's irrelevant doesn't mean Roger won't drag it into his whinge.
G.


18 Aug 06 - 02:24 PM (#1813164)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

Actually Giok, if you could die of assholism, Shambotinkles would have croaked long ago. If sheer idiocy caused a rash, he'd be scratching himself silly all over his body instead of just his nuts as he normally does. And if hypocrisy and lies were sugar and pies he'd weigh in at about a ton.

Three months ago Max asked you to leave here Shammypammy. Plain English....No bull, very direct. You talk of other's honor Shambotubbly? You have none, nada, zilch, morally bankrupt.

Up yours and have a nice day........I just did!!!!!!!)

Spaw


18 Aug 06 - 02:27 PM (#1813167)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

well - Joe - you have publicly stated your dis-like of multitudinous b-day threads. I think that was as "Joe Offer, fellow poster"; though I seem to recall that it was also stated as that other role you fill. But b-day threads continue. Whereas, god forbid, should conditions change and anything you have said as "Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team' no longer be valid - or an exception be made...

well - obviously....err

I dunno. What does it have to do with mudcat editing?

Is this a trick question? Is it the difference between "if you have anything to say you may start new threads" and "if you have anything new to say you may start new threads". Is it about the difference between crossing the road and cross a grape?


18 Aug 06 - 04:59 PM (#1813265)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

I think that it means that supposedly, I am not allowed to have likes and dislikes. If I like something or dislike something, then I suppose the logic is that I will act according to my likes and dislikes.
I think the worst thing I ever did to a birthday thread is grumble about it. Is that so horrible?
Who makes these rules, anyhow?
-Joe-


18 Aug 06 - 05:13 PM (#1813277)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

Joe - do your likes and dislikes remain the same when you change from "Joe Offer" { mild mannered moderator for a great international website } and when you turn into the "Current Chief of the Mudcat editing team" ? And does the change require a cape? Because your secret identity has been blown.


18 Aug 06 - 06:46 PM (#1813360)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

Gee...Shambles better hope "Mild-mannered, but sometimes opinionated Joe Offer" doesn't get replaced by a "neutral" program set to delete repetitious nonsense and non-sequiturs. Joe at least TRIES to make allowances for idiosyncratic aberrations...


18 Aug 06 - 11:22 PM (#1813533)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"idiosyncratic aberrations..."

Should this kind of language be posted where children might see it?


19 Aug 06 - 06:40 AM (#1813658)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I think the worst thing I ever did to a birthday thread is grumble about it. Is that so horrible?

Probably not - if you judge the role of a 'moderator' to inhibit posting.

If you judge that the role of a 'moderator' simply to enable and encourage posting - it probably is.

If the list of things that have been inhibited by this public 'grumbling' - only consisted of birthday threads it may not be too horrible. But the list is a long and continuing one.

If you wish to be free to grumble - like any ordinary poster - please don't hesitate to become one of us again..........


19 Aug 06 - 06:47 AM (#1813661)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Non sequitur alert: what does my birthday have to do with Mudcat editing?

As it was one of your great supporters who first introduced the subject to this thread - why not ask him?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:36 PM

I would shoot that devil if I were you Joe, her can't count.
Too many birthday drinks?
Giok


And then goes on to blame me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:18 PM

Just because it's irrelevant doesn't mean Roger won't drag it into his whinge.
G.


19 Aug 06 - 06:54 AM (#1813663)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Hee hee!!!
Nice to see the old paranoia is still ruling your mind Roger.


19 Aug 06 - 06:55 AM (#1813664)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles, your persecutory delusions are worsening.


19 Aug 06 - 03:16 PM (#1813939)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Who makes these rules, anyhow?
-Joe-


Well it would appear to be the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who tells us what he will or will not allow others to post, what will or will not happen and what suggestions are accepted or not.

Or it could just be my fellow poster Joe Offer just expressing and acting on his personal likes and dislikes..............


19 Aug 06 - 08:48 PM (#1814151)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"personal likes and dislikes.............."

A personal dislike of mine is a string of periods at the end of what would have been a sentence had it had four periods. In this case, the ellipsis would be followed by the period or end punctuation point. Sorry to quibble so. Slow day.


19 Aug 06 - 10:30 PM (#1814186)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Ahh, got my 'puter back. Just in time to remind this guy that the owner invited him to leave. Just go, Sham.

Mick


19 Aug 06 - 10:50 PM (#1814193)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sorcha

Sorry Peace.
.........etc.

Oh give over and just GO Shambles.
No, nobody here loves you.


19 Aug 06 - 10:55 PM (#1814195)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

how about dashes Peace ------- would that make it easier ----------?

sIx


19 Aug 06 - 10:57 PM (#1814197)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

As long as there isn't a hundred yards of them. I never did like that either. The mile was OK, but not the sprint.


19 Aug 06 - 11:26 PM (#1814214)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

"idiosyncratic aberrations..."

yeah, like 'public gesticulation'...(The children know MUCH worse!)


19 Aug 06 - 11:28 PM (#1814216)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

My gawd!


20 Aug 06 - 05:59 AM (#1814312)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

You called my son?


20 Aug 06 - 06:11 AM (#1814317)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome

He called your son what?

:D (tG)


20 Aug 06 - 06:25 AM (#1814322)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

I hope he calls him Ewan, after all that's what I call him.
G.


20 Aug 06 - 07:53 PM (#1814702)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: Peace - PM
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:57 PM

This type of shit is the worst of trolling. Gets people concerned for no fucking reason. Piss off, please!


The above post was deleted and then copied and pasted into this thread by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (for strange reasons of his own). Anyone want to try and explain why the following post was NOT judged suitable for deletion?


    For the record: the message above was moved, not deleted and copy-pasted - but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. The message below was not deleted because "Roger" does not like to see posts deleted, and this post was about him. We really don't know what to do with posts when they're about "Roger" - he complains if we leave them, and he complains if we delete them. Attacks on "Roger" are deleted when it appears that they may disturb the peace of the entire forum. Is it actually an "attack" to tell an exceedingly verbose person to shut up?? I dunno.
    -Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Sorcha - PM
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM

ROGER! Shut the FUCK up and GO AWAY!


20 Aug 06 - 07:59 PM (#1814708)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

Oh, sure...because you haven't yet.


20 Aug 06 - 08:09 PM (#1814714)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: Peace - PM
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:57 PM

This type of shit is the worst of trolling. Gets people concerned for no fucking reason. Piss off, please!"

Roger. That post was deleted for whatever reasons the person saw fit. It was my response (I think the second post) to a troll who was saying he was depressed and implying that he was going to kill himself and shit like that. However, he'd started two or three threads (or written to two or three) and called everyone with an edit button some sort of bad person.

I think that the whole thread got deleted.

I don't doubt that there may be a clone who is trigger happy, and with regard to me I can name that person. However, piss on it. Life's too short. That person will croak before me, and that'll have to do.

Please don't use me as the example for the things you are pursuing. If I get pissed about one of my posts getting the axe, I will inform Joe myself. No offense.


20 Aug 06 - 08:30 PM (#1814736)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"Subject: ivtqgce xsvauheyc
From: GUEST,scwemjid uhqsjn - PM
Date: 20 Aug 06 - 08:25 PM

pikesqr zqcga hqbkz izsfpv psmtonihv zgrmxie chqnbayx"

I think I know what these posts are about. Does anyone recall in the old Superman comics that there was some sorta 'bad-news magical creature' that could only be sent back to its dimension by being tricked into saying its name backwards?

(NO applause necessary--it's a gift, but thanks for the thought.)


20 Aug 06 - 11:30 PM (#1814808)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO

So the guest's name was njsqhu dijmewcs then? Wow! You might be onto something.

Well it makes as much sense as anything else around here.


20 Aug 06 - 11:31 PM (#1814809)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

Mr. Mptzxtlplx...or something like that....(I think he was copied from "Joe Bzftzlpk" in Lil' Abner....who always had a rain cloud following him)

(Now, *I* will accept applause)


20 Aug 06 - 11:37 PM (#1814812)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

For YOU, Bill.


21 Aug 06 - 01:16 AM (#1814844)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

Just lost the long post I wrote. Ratsafrazzle! My fault, wrong button.

Anyway, Mxyzptlk and Btfsplk appeared in the mid'40's so they may just have been great ideas of two genius cartoonists. One was a villain from the fifth dimension who ripped Superman a new one until the Man of Steel could trick him into saying his name backwards.

Joe was the ultimate jinx and the harbinger of all the bad luck there was to be had.

Mr.Srbpjqakxw


21 Aug 06 - 05:25 AM (#1814930)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

"This type of shit is the worst of trolling. Gets people concerned for no fucking reason. Piss off, please!"

At least he said please Roger, it's nice to see good manners like that, it's so rare these days.
Giok ¦¬]


21 Aug 06 - 10:52 AM (#1815119)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Bewildered Dingo

Can some of you that continue to reply to Mr. Shambles explain why you keep doing so? You are giving him just what he is seeking; validation that his repetition is warranted.

If he is bad then you just might be worse, because you are perpetuating this nonsense and more at fault than he is. Some of you repeat the very same thing over and over and over...just as he does.

You are like a pack of wild dogs that jump a wounded pack member and tear him apart even though he is down and defenseless.

Please reassess what you are doing here. You are losing respect of some of your fellow members, if that matters to you.

Mr. Shambles, in the words of a song: "sometimes you just can't win" You have lost this argument even from those of us that might agree with some of your gripes. Please call it a day on this subject then try to regain the respect of fellow members by posting the useful type of messages you are capable of in the music section.

Dingo not hungry for blood


22 Aug 06 - 06:10 AM (#1815896)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread (in very small writing) and did not refresh the thread.

For the record: the message above was moved, not deleted and copy-pasted - but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. The message below was not deleted because "Roger" does not like to see posts deleted, and this post was about him. We really don't know what to do with posts when they're about "Roger" - he complains if we leave them, and he complains if we delete them. Attacks on "Roger" are deleted when it appears that they may disturb the peace of the entire forum. Is it actually an "attack" to tell an exceedingly verbose person to shut up?? I dunno.
-Joe Offer-


As the whole point of the introduction of the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, his known and anonymous volunteer 'moderators' is said to be to protect us from abusive personal attacks - the fact that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not seem to consider that a post addressed to an individual telling them to shut the f*** up and go away, to be an attack - suggests strongly that it is now time for a change? Especially as this post is only following the example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, that such posts are now acceptable posting behaviour on our forum?   

Few posters have the ability (or desire) to 'move' the posts of others and also cannot insert their personal opinions into the posts of others and attempt to disguise these as an 'editing comment'.

As for 'we' not knowing what to do when posts are about any individual poster - the simple answer as in all this - is the same.

What is requested is for equal treatment to be seen to be applied to all posters. When all is conducted fairly and openly - all parties are seen to be protected.


23 Aug 06 - 05:05 PM (#1817331)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Is there any chance of anyone attempting to answer the following?

Would you judge that editing comments, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts?

If censorship must take place - why do you consider that it does not then make sense to place all editing comments where they belong?

[This where any form of imposed action has been judged to be required and to enable all poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and level of censorship on our forum.]

Why would you consider one to be good idea and the other to be bad one?

Because this double standard is what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is expecting (and appears to be receiving) your support in.............


23 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM (#1817345)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

You may have missed the following comment Roger, it was inserted in a post by Max Spiegel, the guy who owns this site.

'Perhaps it's time you went Shambles'

Giok


23 Aug 06 - 06:15 PM (#1817375)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

I like the way Joe does his comments, even when they are directed at me. He writes in that neat rust-coloured red and uses excellent grammar and punctuation.


23 Aug 06 - 06:16 PM (#1817376)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

For those that may have missed it - or those that wish to put their own words into the mouth of this site's owner - this is what was said.

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.

Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.

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

Joe: Do I need to separate you two?
>snip<


23 Aug 06 - 06:20 PM (#1817379)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sorcha

Shut UP and LEAVE Shambles. Nobody cares anymore. Start your OWN site and maintain it.


23 Aug 06 - 07:49 PM (#1817434)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Apparently talcum powder is good for creaking boards.


23 Aug 06 - 08:10 PM (#1817448)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Monothematic delusions

When some one is delusional, they will interpret all imput as confirming the delusional belief.

Methinks he ain't being stubborn and he really can't help himself.

He can't give it up. Presumably those of us who repeatedly respond or react can. So why don't we. It would be a kindness.


23 Aug 06 - 10:02 PM (#1817522)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John O'L

He can't give it up. Presumably those of us who repeatedly respond or react can. So why don't we.

Interesting that I should be sufficiently bored to check this thread just after someone has said exactly what I said so long ago.

It will never happen. You all suffer from the same affliction. This thread is like a bar for inebriates only. Well I've had my shot.


24 Aug 06 - 04:29 AM (#1817675)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Well, yes, Shambles, I did refer to you as a buffoon.
Joe Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.


--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-


Not too sure what is so delusional here?

Are there not special restrictions imposed on my postings announced and defended by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team seen to pay little regard to any assurances given to our forum in editing comments?

Does the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team still insist on setting the example that posts containing only abusive personal attacks, name-calling and judgements of the worth of fellow posters is now acceptable on our forum?

Should I then ignore this?

I suggest that to do so - or to urge others to do so - would be the course that is truly delusional.


25 Aug 06 - 05:07 AM (#1818498)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Please don't use me as the example for the things you are pursuing. If I get pissed about one of my posts getting the axe, I will inform Joe myself. No offense.

It was not me who used your post as an example was it - so perhaps your request would be better addressed to those who did? No offence.

Had the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team not 'silently deleted' your post and then 'moved' it to this thread - for reasons of his own - I and our forum would not have known that your post even existed.

Had you (or any other poster) been pissed about such an action - you would not have gotten very far. First you would have had to try and prove that it (and not similar but remaining posts) was subject to imposed censorship.


25 Aug 06 - 05:12 AM (#1818504)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Of course posts are subject to imposed censorship, get used to it Roger.
Pro bono publico is the term you will find fits the situation.
G.


25 Aug 06 - 11:47 AM (#1818756)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

[PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00

Censorship will not happen. I do admit to deleting something here or there, but the ONLY two ways that will happen is if personal or delicate information is mistakenly posted and either I see it or the SUBJECT or POSTER requests that I remove it. The second way is if I feel like it (This is half a joke, the temptation as "The Man" to remove downright garbage is just too tempting sometimes, and I do reserve the ability for EXTREME situations, ex. Telling one to go ahead and do it in a suicide thread.)
Max


What is simply being requested now is that if censorship is judged to be required in order to protect us - that an editing comment is always inserted to indicate where and when it is imposed and a very brief reason provided.


25 Aug 06 - 12:09 PM (#1818769)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work

The computer says No!


25 Aug 06 - 12:21 PM (#1818775)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

What is simply being requested now is that if censorship is judged to be required in order to protect us - that an editing comment is always inserted to indicate where and when it is imposed and a very brief reason provided.

And each time, shortly after that action we would read a post by you starting

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

Wolfgang


25 Aug 06 - 12:49 PM (#1818785)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

I know what I'd like to insert, and where, and I'm absolutely sure he'd notice it; them pineapples hurt!
Giok


25 Aug 06 - 12:53 PM (#1818792)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

Sorry Giok, you can't do that. It is quite simply too much. What I mean is that with his head so far up his ass he has to take his hat off to shit, there is no room for anything else!

Spaw


25 Aug 06 - 01:44 PM (#1818816)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

You people that continue to respond to Shambles are the real fools and worse than he.


25 Aug 06 - 01:54 PM (#1818818)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Oh how smug it is to be a guest!


25 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM (#1818838)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

"Oh wad the gift the guestie gie us,
To show himself, as well as be us."

anyone want to polish that last line, be my....uhh...guest.


25 Aug 06 - 02:48 PM (#1818854)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Oh wad some powr the giftie gie us
Tae see oorsels, as ithers see us.
G


25 Aug 06 - 02:52 PM (#1818856)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

Good 'un, Bill.


25 Aug 06 - 03:30 PM (#1818878)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

no, no, Giok..I know the original *grin*...I was trying to be topical.

(why, thank you, Ebbie...you were always a discerning sort!)


25 Aug 06 - 03:31 PM (#1818880)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

on 2nd thought, Giok, the original fits too.


25 Aug 06 - 03:41 PM (#1818885)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

I thought so too Bill


25 Aug 06 - 09:00 PM (#1819081)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

And each time, shortly after that action we would read a post by you starting

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


The reason why I have requested that editing comments are not inserted into my posts (and not accepted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) is because it was a way open, to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, to express his personal likes and dislikes under the cover of it being an editing comment - and not to refresh the thread.

And in fact it could be further judged that the abuse of this whole process was the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team being also able to make a value judgement on the worth of the thread - by being seen not to refresh it.   

Perhaps when all imposed censorship actions are recorded - there is a way that a (real) editing comment can be made to refresh the thread? Or perhaps when one is inserted into a post - another post stating that an editing comment has been inserted, can be made, one that will refresh the thread?

What is so wrong with being open in this? If a comment on the threads subject is made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - why should this comment not refresh the thread, exactly like the comments of ordinary posters do?

If the current attempt to abuse the practice of editing comments and to hide them by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team were to cease - I would have no need to bring our forum's attention to them in my posts. And posters would then be able to judge for themselves if the imposed censorship action undertaken in their name, was appropriate or being abused.


25 Aug 06 - 09:26 PM (#1819096)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

If a comment on the threads subject is made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - why should this comment not refresh the thread, exactly like the comments of ordinary posters do?

Because the main forum thread list here is ordered by the date of the last post to each thread. There is no process called "refresh" that brings a thread up to the top, a thread just goes there when it contains the most recent post.
    Oh, he knows HOW it works, Jon - he just doesn't think I should be permitted to do that. There are times I feel a need to correct misinformation Shambles has presented - and I think it's best to put the correction right next to the misinformation. Besides, I certainly don't want to prolong the life of a Shamblesthread with my response. If Shambles wants his threads refreshed, he can jolly well do it himself. I'm not about to help him. If it is an answer to a question or correction of misinformation regarding Mudcat editing, I post it in editorial comments. If it's expression of opinion, I generally post it in a message.
    -Joe Offer-


26 Aug 06 - 05:22 AM (#1819268)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

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


Oh, he knows HOW it works, Jon - he just doesn't think I should be permitted to do that.

The point is that our forum may not know how it currently works. When they do, they are in a position to judge whether the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team should be permitted to this and to judge whether it is an abuse or not.

There are times I feel a need to correct misinformation Shambles has presented - and I think it's best to put the correction right next to the misinformation.

To prevent any abuse - I suggest that an editing comment should only be inserted when some form of imposed censorship action has actually taken place. And if any poster wishes to make any comment in a thread they know that a post will always refresh the thread.

Besides, I certainly don't want to prolong the life of a Shamblesthread with my response.

The advice to posters is if you do not wish to prolong the life of a thread - then do not post to it. Perhaps it is not expecting too much that this advice applies also to the posts of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

If Shambles wants his threads refreshed, he can jolly well do it himself. I'm not about to help him. If it is an answer to a question or correction of misinformation regarding Mudcat editing, I post it in editorial comments. If it's expression of opinion, I generally post it in a message.
-Joe Offer-


No comment required.


26 Aug 06 - 05:33 AM (#1819269)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

Dig it Shambolina....We all know that YOU can prolong the life of a thread all by yourself.......and you do. Several times this thread has gone dormant for almost 24 hours, especially lately, and you refresh it with bullshit.

Max asked you to leave. Get the fuck out.

Spaw


26 Aug 06 - 06:52 AM (#1819292)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

The point is that our forum may not know how it currently works. When they do, they are in a position to judge whether the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team should be permitted to this and to judge whether it is an abuse or not.

OK, it is possible that people may not know, although that is a standard way of going about things.

I did make a programming mistake with the original folkinfo code (it was modified Annexe code to work on the faster MySQL database plus a few other changes) that is relevant to what you are asking about. What I did was set the post date in the MySQL database to an "automatic time stamp" type. The effect of this was that an edit on a post updated the post's date/time.

This did not affect the order of the posts in a thread (which there is sorted in the order they got added to the database rather than the alternative, date posted) but it did change what the most recent post was, causing a "refreh".

What I can say from my experience with this error is that refreshing a thread as a result of an edit (which in many cases can be something as simple as fixing broken HTML - I think you will find it happens at MC more than you might realise BTW) is unhelpful and potentialy confusing. I would not have bothered correcting my mistake had it proved to achieve anything useful, I would instead have been pleased with my "accidental discovery".


27 Aug 06 - 07:32 AM (#1819915)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

We all know that YOU can prolong the life of a thread all by yourself.......and you do. Several times this thread has gone dormant for almost 24 hours, especially lately, and you refresh it with bullshit.

The advice to posters is if you do not wish to prolong the life of a thread - then do not post to it.

It is a simple system. But not one that appears to be much understood. Perhaps because of the example now being set by (some) of those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters - and eagely followed by some posters - that abusive personal attacks and name-calling are now acceptable posting behaviour.

Posting to a thread - only to judge the worth of your fellow posters will only refresh the thread. Unless you are one of the few privileged with an edit button and one of the few who choose to abuse this privilege by both having their cake and eating it.


27 Aug 06 - 07:57 AM (#1819922)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Shambles you are a total fraud, this thread had disappeared off the end, of the list, just look at the time on the thread before yours 24 hours and 24 minutes.
YOU are the one who renews these threads, because YOU are the attention seeker, and YOU are the one on the ego trip.
I repeat YOU are a fraud!
I also repeat as Acting Head of the Shambles Stalkers Union, that Max suggested you leave.
So why are you still here?
Because you're an egomaniac with a chip on both shoulders that's why!
Giok


27 Aug 06 - 08:09 AM (#1819925)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

with a chip on both shoulders that's why!

Nah, some would say that is well balanced.


27 Aug 06 - 08:37 AM (#1819936)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri

Giok, he refreshes it because he knows there's someone out there as compulsive as he is.


27 Aug 06 - 09:51 AM (#1819954)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

It's a love hate thing Jeri, Roger just loves being hated!
G


27 Aug 06 - 09:55 AM (#1819957)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Actually, Giok, he has his need for attention filled when he baits folks into posting.

I would like to try an experiment. I would like to see if everyone would just ignore him completely for a month, say til 27 September. I would like to see how often he would fish for responses. Might be fun to watch him get desperate.


27 Aug 06 - 10:47 AM (#1819978)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Big Mick said "Actually, Giok, he has his need for attention filled when he baits folks into posting."

And Giok, Big Mick, and Spaw are the fools who continue to take the bait and perpetuate this thread. Giok does it frequently and is far worse than Shambles.

Let Shambles post to himself over and over in this thread. Please do not help him keep it going.

Jeri has it right "Giok, he refreshes it because he knows there's someone out there as compulsive as he is" I would add he knows there are fools on this board that will reply to his "fools bait"


27 Aug 06 - 10:56 AM (#1819981)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

And now you, faceless one.


27 Aug 06 - 10:58 AM (#1819982)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

The smug certainty of an anonymous guest is just as predictable as Shambles monotony!
G.


28 Aug 06 - 06:58 AM (#1820578)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Actually, Giok, he has his need for attention filled when he baits folks into posting.

If that were the case - I could be sure that a few posters would always bite, refreshing the thread only to make their personal judgements, instruct others not to and blame their compulsion to do this, all on on me.

However, that is not the case and the purpose of a discussion forum remains to enable and encourage discussion.

Not, as now appears to be the case on our forum - finding (fun) ways to judge, restrict and prevent it and to make these clumsy attempts at control and interferance sound honourable.

Especially - when the most effective option open to all posters - is simply not to open, read or respond to a threads's subject that is not to their taste.


A landed and floundering fish could try and shift the blame for their predicament on the irresistible quality and quantitity of the bait. But if they were only able to resist their weakness and ignore any form of bait - there would not be a predicament for them.

Nor would there be so many (closed) threads on this subject, all with tens of hundreds of posts. Like the following.

Shambles still here and why?
Deleted posts & closed threads
Minister gone –New One - who cares
Title change discussion (moved from another thread)
Is closing threads censorship?
Music posts by Guests to be reviewed
Proposal for members only posting of BS
I may disagree with what you say-
Your favourite Shamblism
Why all the closed threads?
Non posting of judgements week
Do we need to curb the troublemakers
Do you need to be censored
Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO
I may disagree with what you say-
Your favourite Shamblism
Why all the closed threads?
Non posting of judgements week
Do we need to curb the troublemakers
Gallery of Mudcat Quotations
More Noteworthy Mudcat Quotations
Less Noteworthy Mudcat Quotations
Closing threads
In the UK
Cut and pasters creepin' back in
Politics only posters on the cat
A (true) Jelly fish story
Censorship on Mudcat
Max what about Shambles requests
In the UK
Opening threads a debate

This subject is as much a worthy subject for discussion as any other and one that obviously has no shortage of contributors. Perhaps those who post only to judge the subject or only to judge the worth of their fellow posters and feel they have some right to name-call and tell them to **** ***, can just ignore this subject and leave the threads free for those who do wish to discuss all aspects of it?


29 Aug 06 - 08:04 AM (#1821532)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

No matter how offensive you may find someone else's views - surely it is a sign only of your weakness to make or support attempts to prevent or restrict those views from being expressed?

In order only to prevent or restrict views that are not offensive but simply views some would simply prefer were not expressed and discussed on our forum - is it at all honourable to be seen to invent justification for this futile attempt to control what other posters choose to post?

If a thread's subject is judged to be 'boring' or 'repetitive' or 'duplication' - is this really enough justification for censorship to be imposed? And to the exessive and obsessional extent that we see displayed here? Surely threads that were so judged by our forum would simply die young through lack of interest?

All moderately expressed views on our forum can be responded to or ignored - why is it now judged that posters should be denied the opportunity to judge for themselves by the overuse and justification of imposed censorship and for such posting 'crimes'?


30 Aug 06 - 02:29 AM (#1822395)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Is it just sensible to limit the making of inserted editing comments to only where some form of editing action has actually taken place?

Does that in fact define what an inserted editing comment should always and only be?

Does it not follow that all cases where any form of imposed deleting action is judged to be required - supposedly for the good of our forum - that that an editing comment is always supplied in the place of the censored material?

When a change to this will for the first time enable our forum to see the true nature and current level of censorship and to be able to express an informed opinion on whether this action taken in their name - is required by them.

Why is it now judged to be fair - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - to insert editing comments into existing posts, when no form of editing action has taken place (and often against the wishes of the poster) but somehow unfair for all cases of imposed editing action to have an editing comment of explanation?

If there is nothing to hide - why does the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team prefer take a course of action that is not open and as result may lead posters to judge that there is something to hide?


30 Aug 06 - 01:20 PM (#1822813)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Not posting on a thread

Could it be that penny has finally dropped?


31 Aug 06 - 12:36 PM (#1823665)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Until our forum is made aware of all intances where 'silent deletion' has been judged to be needed to be imposed, in order to protect us - there will always be some question that current measures may be heavy-handed, personally motivated or generally unfair and open to abuse.

The simple act of limiting all editing comments to where some form of editing action has actually been imposed and always inserting editing comments where any form of censorship has been imposed - will remove any suspicion of abuse.

If such a simple measures toward a more open approach will achieve this and greatly benefit and inform our forum - the question that remain to be answered is why is such a change so strongly resisted and in the manner we see so well demonstrated in this thread?


01 Sep 06 - 09:02 PM (#1825095)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Are the mods anti-English

The lastest encouragement for the current Chief of the Mudcat editing Team's witch-hunt, is the following - which is extracted from a post in the above thread.

It doesn't do any good to discuss any of this with Shambles. He knows the names of all the moderators, and yet he continues to complain about their anonymity. In a three-day period a week or two ago, I transferred all the messages we usually delete into his "closed and deleted" thread, so he and the rest of the world could see a normal sample of what gets deleted. This demonstration didn't satisy Shambles, and he continues to assert that the Mudcat moderators are silently deleting something or another. I guess I have to expect that Shambles will continue to assert that horrible but nonspecific things are happening in secret. I can't think of how to devise a system that will provide absolute proof that these horrible nonspecific things are NOT being done by Anonymous Fellow Posters. I tried, but he didn't believe me, so it doesn't do any good to discuss anything with him. I guess it's good to just let him continue to believe in these Horrible Nonspecific Things and in his Anonymous Fellow Posters, because it gives meaning and purpose to his life. I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. I suppose that since this is "his" topic, this will become "his" thread, and I'll have to close the other one. I'll wait and see what he does.
Joe Offer


For the record - I do not know - nor could I know the 'names of all the moderators'. I do not even know how many there are. And even if it was the case that I did know this - it would not be open knowledge to our forum.


03 Sep 06 - 10:04 AM (#1825914)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions

This all sounds very noble and selfless - but can someone explain why my postings (only) should be HAVE to be restricted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for the reasons stated by him?

It is clear to me how the selective and personally motivated censorship actions, silent deletions and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum.

It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views are preventing any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum.

Perhaps this can be explained?

And if it cannot - perhaps these restrictions can be removed?


04 Sep 06 - 02:14 AM (#1826348)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Are the mods anti-English?

The above is yet another thread to add to the list of closed threads. This one was closed without an editing comment but just a conventional post. Perhaps out of a fear that someone else (who had also posted and threatened to close it) might do it first.....?

Subject: RE: BS: Are the mods Anti-English
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 12:40 AM

Keith and Divis, as my children say, "chill out!"
...I think that means you're supposed to be civil to each other.
-Joe Offer-

Yeah, I think this thread has run its course. thread closed.

    And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time.
    -Joe Offer-

    Reopened per request from Shambles.
    -Joe Offer-


05 Sep 06 - 05:23 AM (#1827242)
Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles

Closed threads and deleted posts

And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time.
-Joe Offer-


How is this one permitted Shambles Dominated thread to be defined by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?
    As stated above:
      I figure if he starts a complaint thread or posts five complaint messages to a single thread, that's the thread he's chosen to dominate - and all his other complaint posts get moved to that one thread.
    The idea is to allow you to express yourself, but to control the duplication and domination. Say what you want - once. As has been said before, the problem is not the content of your posts, but the endless repetition. This restriction on you applies only to your complaints about Mudcat editing - your messages on this subject are confined to one thread at a time. If you post complaints to one thread today, in general you may not post complaints to any other thread today - you have to wait until tomorrow to post complaints to a new thread. But at your request, I have reopened the "closed and deleted" thread.
    -Joe Offer-


05 Sep 06 - 02:36 PM (#1827651)
Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles

The only way to test 100% apathy would be to leave it open - or to re-open it.

If indeed it had fallen off the bottom through lack of interest - there would have been no need for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to so quickly subject it to imposed closure and to attempt to make it sound as if it was undertaken for some noble purpose.

Closed threads and deleted posts

And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time.
-Joe Offer-


05 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM (#1827868)
Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles

As far as I have read on this site, Mr Shambles is quite entitled to start another thread now that his last one has been shut down due to 100% apathy.

100% apathy would have just left it alone.

Someone has made a lot of effort to quickly close it to actively prevent anyone posting to it. I wonder why anyone would be so keen to do this to a thread that posters are supposed to be so apathetic to?

Perhaps the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would be kind enough to re-open Closed threads and deleted posts   and allow our forum to decide for themselves and show how apathetic they may or not be to that thread and this issue.

It is quite clear how the selective and personally motivated censorship actions, silent deletions and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum. No matter what your opinion of me may be - it should be clear how undesirable this special treatment of any single poster should be.

It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views (and mine alone) are preventing any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum. But that is the charge.

Perhaps this can be explained? And if it cannot perhaps these unfair restrictions can be lifted and all posters been seen to be treated equally by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

If the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is not prepared to do this - perhaps our forum might have a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who would be willing to be seen to treat all posters equally?
    OK, Roger, your "closed and deleted" thread has been reopened. We'll see what happens. But I'd place the same restrictions on anyone who repeatedly posted multiple copies of the same thing in multiple threads (and sometimes in the same thread). You are still subject to restriction.
    -Joe Offer-


05 Sep 06 - 06:58 PM (#1827895)
Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles

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

As stated above:
I figure if he starts a complaint thread or posts five complaint messages to a single thread, that's the thread he's chosen to dominate - and all his other complaint posts get moved to that one thread.
The idea is to allow you to express yourself, but to control the duplication and domination. Say what you want - once. As has been said before, the problem is not the content of your posts, but the endless repetition. This restriction on you applies only to your complaints about Mudcat editing - your messages on this subject are confined to one thread at a time. If you post complaints to one thread today, in general you may not post complaints to any other thread today - you have to wait until tomorrow to post complaints to a new thread.
-Joe Offer-


How exactly is a complaint about Mudcat editing to be defined and by whom? Is a complaint only a view posted that is not in agreement with the view held by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

It would appear that any view that is agreement with that of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is allowed and encouraged to be repeated many times in many threads and often combined with abusive personal attacks, judgements and name-calling.

Can all these totally unworkable and unfair restrictions now be lifted and all posters treated equally by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

For it is clear from all this foolishness that any wish to dominate - is his alone.


05 Sep 06 - 07:17 PM (#1827914)
Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles

The other Rogered thread has gone for 8 days without anyone replying to him. I hope thats the beginning of a trend instead of a one-off.

If only this were the case........Closed threads and deleted posts

You can of course find all the usual comments from the usual suspects - those that would have normally littered that thread - in the following thread instead.

Not posting on thread

Finding ways to prevent discussion on a discussion forum does not somehow seem to be the correct use of any 'moderator's efforts. There once was a time on our forum when the idea was to encourage posting - not inhibit it. Perhaps there will be again.


05 Sep 06 - 07:26 PM (#1827923)
Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles

A non political BS section please? has been closed.


06 Sep 06 - 05:53 AM (#1828229)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

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

Reopened per request from Shambles.
-Joe Offer-


Thank you. Perhaps reasonable discussion can now resume on this thread and it can be explained here exactly how starting threads and posting to them can prevent resonable discussion on our forum - as stated by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

However the following thread has been closed, effectively preventing any reasonable discussion on that thread from continuing.

Non political BS section please?

Can our forum now assume that the special restrictions imposed on my contributions have no been lifted and that all posters will now receive equal treatment - as I have also requested?
    Restrictions are still in effect on Shambles, Martin Gibson, and Gargoyle. They have been lifted from "Peace" because he has shown marked improvement. The issue with Shambles is the continued flooding of Mudcat with countless posts that contain the same information, and often multiple exact copies of the same post. This pattern continued over more than five years before any restrictions were placed on Shambles. If Shambles wishes to discuss Mudcat editing policy, he may continue to do so - in one thread at a time.
    -Joe Offer-


06 Sep 06 - 02:55 PM (#1828618)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Stilly River Sage

Too bad he can't keep his argumentative offerings over here and leave threads like the Irwin obituary thread alone. The man has no common sense when it comes to knowing when to stop talking and just leave well enough alone.


06 Sep 06 - 03:24 PM (#1828634)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri

Took 9 days, but somebody finally replied. This place is too funny sometimes. Too bad it's not supposed to be.


06 Sep 06 - 05:43 PM (#1828713)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

That's a hard question, Jeri. Would it have been better for SRS to respond in the Irwin obituary, encouraging the attempt to turn yet another thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy?

I would have moved the offending Shambles message into this thread, where if could be forgotten, but there have been responses there. It's a good example of the reason why restrictions were imposed upon him. While it might be appropriate for Shambles to make a passing comment about a Mudcat problem in a thread where there's evidence of that problem, there certainly was no sense in posting a copy of an entire message from the "Censorship on Mudcat" thread, as part of a message that had nothing at all to do with the death of Steve Irwin. If this breaking into the Steve Irwin thread were a one-time thing, it wouldn't be a problem - but it has been something that has continued over a number of years.

Shambles asks for "equal treatment." That's nice, I suppose, but there hasn't been anybody else in the history of Mudcat who has posed the sort of problem that Shambles creates. As I've said above, there are four people in the history of Mudcat who have been placed on restriction because of problematic conduct - Shambles and two others are still on restriction, and the restrictions on Shambles are lighter than the restrictions have been on the other three. If he continues to attempt to attempt to evade these restrictions, he will receive the same 100 percent review that the others have had, and all of his complaint posts will be moved into a single thread.

So, those are the restrictions, plain and simple - if Shambles wishes to complain about Mudcat and its editing policy, he may do so - but only in one thread per day. If he posts complaints in this thread today, he has to wait until tomorrow to post complaints in any other thread. Any offending messages will be moved or deleted.

-Joe Offer-


06 Sep 06 - 06:01 PM (#1828722)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri

Joe, I don't know. For the record, I knew someone was going to post here, and for all I know, SRS never noticed that it had been only Shambles posting. People avoided talking to him here, but not anywhere else, because they like playing the game with him. YOU like playing the game with him, but if you want to spend this much time and attention on him, it's your call. Until Max boots his ass out, you'll constantly be cleaning up for him.

...over and out.


06 Sep 06 - 06:35 PM (#1828743)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

" They have been lifted from "Peace" because he has shown marked improvement."

Bullshit I have. The marked improvemment is just because the Nazi bastards and racist bastards have been taking some time off. I have made NO effort to 'improve' as you put it. You are welcome to yank my membership anytime you choose. I do not respond well to threats. By anyone, whether implied or explicit.
    Well, whatever.
    I haven't noticed you flooding the Forum with messages at a one-a-minute rate for several months, and I haven't seen you going anonymous to post provocative messages or impersonating Nazis. I call that improvement. If that conduct happens again, the restrictions will be reimposed.
    If Shambles continues or increases his disruptive conduct, the restrictions on him will be increased. I hope that will be all I have to say on the matter.
    Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree.
    -Joe Offer-

Joe, you remember when Max said "Don't make me separate you two?" Shambles trolls you, you troll him, and then you take a swipe at Martin Gibson, gargoyle and Peace just for the hell of it. THAT's the 'game' I'm talking about. -Jeri, sick of this childish bullshit.


06 Sep 06 - 06:58 PM (#1828763)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

You go ahead and impose the restrictions. Here, maybe this will help: take your pomposity and shove it up where the sun don't shine.

You got a problem with Shambles, address Shambles. Leave me the fuck out of it.


06 Sep 06 - 09:20 PM (#1828841)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: artbrooks

Settle down, peoples


06 Sep 06 - 09:26 PM (#1828844)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

YES SIR!


06 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM (#1828849)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

On second thought, fuck this horseshit. You want me outta here, Joe, I am gone. Change your name to Tito and and have fun. I didn't merit your remarks. I do not need someone like you to tell me I have been a good little boy, one who has met Joe Offer's 'standards'. Judging by some of your recent posts, your standards ain't something I care to meet.

Thank you for the remark, Jeri.

Art, when you are on the receiving end I hope someone tells you to 'settle down'.
    That all happened months ago, Peace, maybe longer. I have no complaint about you and I have no reason to want you to leave. You have made a wonderful contribution to Mudcat in the last several months, and you've done extraordinary work finding song lyrics.
    -Joe Offer-


06 Sep 06 - 09:43 PM (#1828851)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Peace, can we have one clarification here? Do you or don't you dekiberateky post anonymously even if only to repsond to or address "Nazi bastards and racist bastards"?


06 Sep 06 - 09:53 PM (#1828854)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

``````````````````..............it's catching, it seems.

One of the few things Shambles ever did that I totally approved of was, a few years ago, to make a series of posts, some in bright colors, touting **Max's Private Messages** (I tried to find it, but...)

It made the point that some communications could best be done that way rather than letting our internal bickerings hang out there in public.

When people are typing faster than they think, sometimes they phrase things in a way that lights fuses.....


06 Sep 06 - 10:00 PM (#1828859)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: artbrooks

Actually, Peace, I don't think I was referring to you, but take it as you choose.


06 Sep 06 - 10:25 PM (#1828873)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad

How to Have Better Conversations
Thursday August 31st 2006, 12:03 am
Filed under: Entertainment, Lifehacks, Knowledge

Some time back I noticed two things:

    * I enjoy good conversations
    * I want to have more good conversations

Nothing revolutionary, but because of those things, I started thinking more about conversation and how to improve it. Here's what I came up with.

These are some reasons that people converse:

    * Conversation brings back memories from your own life.

    * It validates your experiences and opinions and makes you feel understood and accepted.

    * It gives you knowledge about a subject you're interested in. For example, what it's like to live in South Africa, how it feels to be a parent etc.

    * It sparks ideas in you for improving your life, business or hobbies.
    * It gets you something you want.

    * It gives you the satisfaction that comes from convincing (or trying to convince) someone to change their opinion on some subject.

    * The feeling of satisfaction you get from helping someone feel better.

    * The power you feel for making someone feel bad. This is obviously not a good motive for conversation, but it is a real one nonetheless.

    * Conversation is a way to sort out your thoughts and feelings. By talking to someone who cares enough to listen, you often get the time and perspective needed to better understand yourself.

    * It's an escape from stress and monotony. A way to laugh and lighten things up.

While most of these are valid reasons to have conversation, they don't directly indicate what makes a good conversation. Ideally at the end of a conversation both people should leave looking forward to the next conversation. Before going on to how to have a good conversation, here are a few things that make conversation unenjoyable.

    * You didn't feel listened to. The other person either didn't stop talking long enough for you to speak, or when you were talking they were too busy thinking about the next thing they were going to say to hear what you were saying.

    * You didn't feel understood. Despite the fact that the other person was listening intently, you didn't feel like he or she actually understood what you were saying.

    * You felt manipulated. The other person tried to get you to do or say something you didn't want to do or say.

    * Gossip. While tempting, gossip generally does not lead to a good conversation. It destroys trust - how can you be sure the other person isn't gossiping about you?

    * Intellectual inequality. It's hard (but not impossible) to have a good conversation if one party perceives the other as less (or more) intelligent. While this can still lead to a valuable and interesting exchange, it often does not.

    * Lack of common views. This can go both ways. If both parties to the conversation respect each other's intelligence, differences in politics, religion, culture etc. can make for very interesting conversation and debates. On the other hand, if there is a lack of respect or extreme differences, conversation can become uncomfortable.

Knowing what makes conversation good and bad, we can draw some conclusions about what to do in order to have a good conversation. Here's the good stuff.

    * Don't be selfish. It sounds harsh, but it's not as obvious or easy as it seems. Conversation is give and take. There are times when you should listen and times to talk. Doing too much of either is not conducive to good conversation. Listen carefully to the other person then state your opinions after you understand theirs. Even if you are giving advice or teaching someone something, the listening/talking ratio should generally be around 50/50. In the end, the time you feel like you're "giving up" to listen leads to better conversation. Everyone wins.

    * Prepare for good conversation. Read widely. If you know you'll have a chance for a conversation, learn about the interests of the person you'll be talking with. Keep up with the news. Broaden your knowledge. This not only will help you have interesting subjects to bring up, but it will help you understand the context of the conversation without interrupting it to ask for a definition. It's is called cultural literacy.

    * Don't manipulate, or in other words, be honest and up-front. For the most part, people will immediately recognize when they are being manipulated. You may get away with it, but the chances that the person will look forward to their next conversation with you are slim.

    * Reciprocate. If someone shares details about their life, it is natural for them to expect for you to do the same thing. It's not good if after a conversation someone feels that they've laid their life bare before you and know nothing about you. The opposite is true as well.

    * Avoid gossip and complaining. Both of these things are extremely easy to do and both lead to negative, empty feelings afterwards.

    * Don't be afraid to differ. Conversation is boring if everyone agrees. If you don't agree, say you don't and explain why.

    * Know and use your sense of humor in moderation. Figure out what's natural for you and go with it.

I'll finish by saying that I'm by no means an expert conversationalist so take my advice with a grain of salt, but hopefully you'll find some of these tips useful. If you've got suggestions for having better conversations, by all means, comment!


06 Sep 06 - 10:37 PM (#1828879)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO

By the way - 300 - FWIW


06 Sep 06 - 11:38 PM (#1828914)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Janie

bobad,

Excellent! Absolutely excellent.

Janie


07 Sep 06 - 01:17 AM (#1828960)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Stilly River Sage

I've never read this idiotic thread before, but through reference to it I knew it was where the Shambles nonsense was parked (whether he wrote it here or not, I know not). I just made a comment here to see if I could get his sorry ass off of the Irwin obit thread. The guy has the social grace of a banana slug. I don't spend much time reading threads here, only a small fraction of them. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea of who started what--I sometimes bet myself that Little Hawk or William Shatner or Amos or Giok or one of the others started a new one. So I thought that waving this flag at Shambles might make him move off of the obit thread he's trashed with his nonsense.

Pardon me for stumbling into the booby-traped thread that everyone is apparently lurking around to see if someone trips it. Why doesn't someone just block Shambles and be done with it? You'll feel just as bad now as you would in three months when you actually do it, but the rest of us will get some relief a lot sooner.

SRS


07 Sep 06 - 01:21 AM (#1828963)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

A Banana Slug! Oh, my...those are strong words. Slugs don't get nearly as much press as they rightly deserve, either. How insensitive. Let's hear it for slugs.


07 Sep 06 - 02:20 AM (#1828983)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Gees! I wanna get out of this squabble! I think I want to talk about banana slugs. Do they respond to salt the same way regular slugs do? We have lots of banana slugs on the California Coast, but I've only seen them when I've been in the company of strong women who would do horrible things to me if I attempted to salt a banana slug...
-Joe Offer-


07 Sep 06 - 02:33 AM (#1828984)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

That's a hard question, Jeri. Would it have been better for SRS to respond in the Irwin obituary, encouraging the attempt to turn yet another thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy?
Joe Offer


For the record the post that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is getting his knickers twisted about was a response to the following and another post in that thread whach just called another poster a F******. That he sees this post as an attempt to turn that thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy - reveals more about his motives than it does about others.

Subject: RE: Obit: Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin is dead (Sep06)
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 10:18 PM

I cannot believe this thread is still running. I liked the man and believed he knew what it took to get a message across in this day and age. Stilly, Ron, Don, and many others tend to agree while a number of you don't. For those who don't I have seen some well thought out arguments and I suppose we could continue those discussions and probably agree to disagree....a well tested Mudcat scenario.

Spaw


Why are these posts in that thread (and many others) not also worrying the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

The problem is that The fuss and the semi-official witch-hunt against me that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team actively encourages - makes it impossible for me to make any post where some posters feel that it is accepatable to make some personal judgement of my worth or some reference to my views on censorship. Most of the time I ignore this.

Whereever they may be expressed - these are my honest and moderately views and the role of any 'moderator' is to simply to enable these views - not to be seen to be selectivly passing and imposing their judgement on the worth of the poster.


07 Sep 06 - 02:49 AM (#1828992)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

So, Shambles, what do you know about salting banana slugs?
Can you make escargot from slugs?
-Joe Offer-


07 Sep 06 - 04:17 AM (#1829027)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Escargot?


07 Sep 06 - 05:15 AM (#1829058)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

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

That all happened months ago, Peace, maybe longer. I have no complaint about you and I have no reason to want you to leave. You have made a wonderful contribution to Mudcat in the last several months, and you've done extraordinary work finding song lyrics.
-Joe Offer-


As for slugs - perhaps those who are not interested in this thread's subject can make their personal judgements along with the others in the thread created for this purpose? Not posting to a thread

I've never read this idiotic thread before, but through reference to it I knew it was where the Shambles nonsense was parked (whether he wrote it here or not, I know not). I just made a comment here to see if I could get his sorry ass off of the Irwin obit thread. The guy has the social grace of a banana slug. I don't spend much time reading threads here, only a small fraction of them. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea of who started what--I sometimes bet myself that Little Hawk or William Shatner or Amos or Giok or one of the others started a new one. So I thought that waving this flag at Shambles might make him move off of the obit thread he's trashed with his nonsense.

For the record, the thread referred to was a BS one. Had that been an OBIT thread - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's rules - it would have been in the music section.

Slowly the message must be coming across that all these noble sounding justifications are just posters being encouraged by the example currently set - to mind everyone elses's business and pass judgement on the worth of other posters? Which is a totally pointless exercise as the current result of all this demonstrates. Had I responded in kind to all of those personal judgements encouaged to be directed at me - the situation would be even worse. Perhaps a little credit can be given to me for this?

That the object of our forum is to encouage discussion from as many posters as possible and not finding ways to judge each other's worth and prevent discussion. And not to encourage only like-minded posting but even arguments. Not name-calling but the enabling of moderately expressed differences of opinon are part of what made our forum different. To manage to get a forum where posters can agree to disagree - was no mean feet and about as good as it gets. But it cannot be imposed, only encouraged by example.

That all the tools required to read and post what is to your taste and ignore what is not - are already provided.

That no one is being forced to read or post anything and if any one does not like this - they are free to go elswhere. Our forum is like any other place that is open to to the public. If you do not like the present company - your only option is to go - not to ask for or expect others to be removed because they may not be to your taste.

That the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has his current Public Enemy Number One - but no real crime to justify the resulting witch-hunt. That other posters feel encouraged (and safe) to join in these witch-hunts is hardly surprising but does not refect much credit on anyone.

Can the special posting restrictions on my contributions be lifted and can all posters been seen to receive equal treatment by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?


07 Sep 06 - 05:25 AM (#1829063)
Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles

Is it safe over here? That "closed and deleted" thread is too full of people who take themselves entirely too seriously. I thought I was going to get eaten alive.

Pehaps if it were your posts being 'silently delted' and your threads closed and were the victim of one of your own publicly mounted witch-hunts you may take it (and the resulting mess) more seriously than you obviously appear to?


07 Sep 06 - 05:52 AM (#1829076)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following two editing comments as they were both inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Well, whatever.
I haven't noticed you flooding the Forum with messages at a one-a-minute rate for several months, and I haven't seen you going anonymous to post provocative messages or impersonating Nazis. I call that improvement. If that conduct happens again, the restrictions will be reimposed.
If Shambles continues or increases his disruptive conduct, the restrictions on him will be increased. I hope that will be all I have to say on the matter.

Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree.
-Joe Offer-


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

Joe, you remember when Max said "Don't make me separate you two?" Shambles trolls you, you troll him, and then you take a swipe at Martin Gibson, gargoyle and Peace just for the hell of it. THAT's the 'game' I'm talking about. -
Jeri, sick of this childish bullshit.


Perhaps our 'moderators' could finally stop abusing their privileged positions (and edit buttons) and post their views like ordinary posters in conventional post that refresh the thread?

And stop abusing our trust by playing games? And concentrate on enabling discussion rather than restricting it complaining about and imposing their judgment their fellow posters?


07 Sep 06 - 06:52 AM (#1829101)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull

shambles-you are a mad person just trying to make trubble, i wish you go away.


07 Sep 06 - 12:26 PM (#1829295)
Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles

The problem is that posting complaints about what other people post (and not just limited to political subjects) is now encouraged and often appears now to be the only game in town.

When anyone making such a complaint been told (as they should have been) to mind their own business and to concentrate on their own posting - they would only have ever been one forum.

Folk don't need to be encouraged to gossip and pass judgement on each other's worth, for they will do this anyway. Once you have been seen to encourage it - it is difficult to change.

But not, I suggest - impossible.


07 Sep 06 - 12:52 PM (#1829316)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Which passages are more vital and should be given greater attention? The ones in ordinary type...or the ones in bold type...or the ones in italics?

And why do we not see some passages in bright colours instead?


07 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM (#1829325)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"The problem is that The fuss and the semi-official witch-hunt against me that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team actively encourages - makes it impossible for me to make any post where some posters feel that it is accepatable to make some personal judgement of my worth or some reference to my views on censorship. Most of the time I ignore this."

...or, perhaps you dug your own grave and your comments have been rendered useless.

You will not look into a mirror or accept personal responsibility and your are NOT ignoring the posts. You use it as justification for your paranoia and it is just not the way everyone else sees things. It is only your view, and while you are certainly entitled to one, you should try looking at the world that everyone else on Mudcat is seeing.


07 Sep 06 - 01:21 PM (#1829346)
Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles

Duplicate post, Shambles...

Well despite the anonymous link implies - I thought I posted but when I looked I could not see the post here. So I tried again

Some anonymous person with an edit buttom and too much time on their hands had moved it to Closed threads and deleted posts   but gave no indication of this action.

I assume the same person then deleted my second attempt. All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion.

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions.


07 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM (#1829371)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You will not look into a mirror or accept personal responsibility and your are NOT ignoring the posts.

I feel that if I responded with personal jusgements of all those who feel they have some right to post only personal judgements of my worth and who are encouraged to post only this - and our forum was littered up with such exchanges - you may have a point

As I don't - and I am not now responding with any personal judgements of your worth - perhaps you could at least give me some credit for this?

Perhaps when (some of) our moderators show the lead in accepting their responsibilty for this current mess (and when you also ask and expect them to) I may follow their example in accepting whatever part I may have.

But all I am trying to do is post and to enable all posters to be treated equally - I am not preventing anyone else from posting or forcing them to read my posts - am I?


07 Sep 06 - 01:56 PM (#1829380)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"But all I am trying to do is post and to enable all posters to be treated equally - I am not preventing anyone else from posting or forcing them to read my posts - am I? "

See, that proves the point that many of us have been trying to make. It isn't about "preventing" or "forcing" - it is simply the fact that we are able to read and then we comment on what you said. Don't blame the moderators, they merely came in AFTER the fire started.


"As I don't - and I am not now responding with any personal judgements of your worth - perhaps you could at least give me some credit for this?"

Again, this seems to be an example of paranoia. I am not "judging your worth", I am trying to reason with you and tell you what many of us are seeing. YOU are taking any criticism of your action personally.

I do not recall EVER seeing you admit to saying the wrong thing on Mudcat. You defend every sentence to the death. You join in the conversations and then when you are questioned, you become defensive and won't admit that you might have done the wrong thing.   

Then, when people get frustrated and lash out at you, you really enter a zone that you seem to be enjoying - martyr. Your civil rights are not violated here.   You have built up a reputation, just like Martin Gibson and others did, and then you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

I am sure you are a bright guy. I can't explain your behavior, but I can only point out how many of us are seeing it.   Your posts have become like a small child acting up at the dinner table. You can't be ignored because you are all over conversation.    Maybe spanking is the answer??


07 Sep 06 - 02:45 PM (#1829415)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

"All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion" the Shambles

hahhahahhahahhahahha


08 Sep 06 - 08:14 AM (#1829915)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Again, this seems to be an example of paranoia. I am not "judging your worth", I am trying to reason with you and tell you what many of us are seeing. YOU are taking any criticism of your action personally.

Perhaps you should try and actually read some of the personal judements of my worth, the name-calling that it is thought to be fun to be encouraged and the various and physically impossible suggestion made. Even entire threads are started for such things. Most of which I do not respond to at all and never in kind.

Are you suggesting that these are not intentional judgements of my worth? I make no claims for perfection but my posting record is certainly better that many of those who would feel themselves qualified to post only judge me. Do you consider then that all other parties are perfect?

I could respond here with a similar public judgement of what I judged your short-commings and speculate on your mental health - but what would be the point?

The point remains that all that is important is what is said - not who may be saying it, where, when or how poorly you may judge it to be expressed or its spelling and grammar. It is only important to be able to agree to disagree and it not honourable to try and find noble sounding excuses to restrict or prevent any other named poster from posting what they may wish to.


No one is being forced to read or respond to my views or the views of any other poster-are they? And is none of your or my business what we may think of another poster's worth or posting actions and so what is the point, by the example currently set, of encouraging our forum to be littered with such posts?

If you really want to make personal comments and suggestions to me or another poster - there are PMs for this purpose where they do not have to be inflicted on our forum. And in the case of non-members, where this is not available - perhaps the best option is possible to just move on?

Non posting of judgements week


08 Sep 06 - 08:35 AM (#1829925)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

hahhahahhahahhahahha

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. I suppose that since this is "his" topic, this will become "his" thread, and I'll have to close the other one. I'll wait and see what he does.
Joe Offer


I am glad that someone seems to find the concept of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team silently deleting posts and closing threads in order to enable reasonable discussion - to be as funny as I would do - if the implications of accepting such perfect nonsense did not present such a real threat to the long history of free and open discussion on our forum.

It is clear to me how the actions taken and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum.

It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views are preventing (as claimed) any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum. Can someone explain why my postings (only) should be HAVE to be restricted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for this reason?

Perhaps these restrictions can now be removed and all posters be seen to treated equally?


08 Sep 06 - 08:50 AM (#1829929)
Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles

In this case, it is hard to find any particular sin or crime to justify banning....being terminally tedious is sort of a different matter.

Does a poster being judged to be 'teminally tedious' justify any form of selective posting to be imposed? If so perhaps quite a few posters should now be concerned?

I suggest that being judged to be tedious, repetitious, or boring - no matter how irritating some may find this - is not justification for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to impose any form of imposed censorship action.

Perhaps you would agree that these restrictions should now be lifted?


08 Sep 06 - 09:39 AM (#1829961)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Don't blame the moderators, they merely came in AFTER the fire started.

If what you state were true - whether they get blamed would rather depend on what these 'moderator's' actions were after a fire started.

If their actions were not to extinguish them but only to fan the flames and encourage the fire (even unintentionally) - I suggest that the blame for the house burning house down would be all theirs.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in particular is quick to blame anyone and everyone for not being able to impose on our forum the peace he requires. But having admitted this failure does not seem to see that the example set by his double standards have played any part in this or now be prepared to take any personal responsibility for it. Doing exactly as he pleases but speaking for other 'moderators' by claiming this to be 'we'.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team now appears to see the only option open to him is to plough on with the same counter-productive imposition. At least until our forum can excude free contributions from the public and become the members only posting forum that he already treats it as.

Seemingly the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team sees 'moderation' on our forum, as some form of game - where he alone makes the rules up for others to adhere to and be judged by (referred by him to as Mudcat Policy) but which he does not think should apply to him. And where to cause totally confusion and even in the same post or editing comment - he will jump from the role of ordinary poster - expressing their views to that of 'Head Honcho' - imposing them.

Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree.
-Joe Offer-


Perhaps the one requiring restriction on our forum - is not me but those who are now activly preventing, restricting and inhibiting reasonable discussion by 'silent deletion' and thread closures?


08 Sep 06 - 10:32 AM (#1829999)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Should anyone wonder why this matters to me to the extent it does - it is because (as the following public statement from Max explains) I feel partly responsible for this current for of censorship being imposed on our forum in the first place. It certainly was not introduced at my bidding and no matter how well-intioned it may have been - the idea that members would anonymously be imposing censorship on the contributions of their fellow members is one that was guaranteed to only cause division and conflict. It is not too late to change this.

User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Max is taking action (76* d) Max is taking action 22 Jul 99

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view. For one thing, I have marveled at the comradery and love and knowledge and friendship that the Mudcat has been. I have felt safe in meeting new people here and inviting them into my home. But something is changing.

To get to the point, I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers and communication with all Mudcat members to identify people who "cross the line". Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white.
It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation. I cannot let another fine person leave, and I cannot support a community where people are not comfortable sharing who they are and what the love, and I will not continue publishing the Mudcat if we cannot find a way to control it.


08 Sep 06 - 10:44 AM (#1830009)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"I feel partly responsible for this current for of censorship being imposed on our forum in the first place."

Don't worry about it.   There is no such thing as "censorship" in a forum like this. It is privately owned, the users are subject to the discretion of managment. You could not walk into a movie theater and then start singing loudly when the feature starts - the management would throw you out. This is not censorship.   Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE.

Some people refuse to understand that and will continue to hold their breathe and stomp their feet. Sad.


08 Sep 06 - 10:59 AM (#1830020)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

If you don't wish to encourage the poster, stop responding. People repeat what others have said before then wonder why the thread keeps appearing and continuing. It's a no-brainer. Now it's become the Ron and Shambles Show.


08 Sep 06 - 11:05 AM (#1830023)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

There is a difference between a discussion and venting.


08 Sep 06 - 11:09 AM (#1830027)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The result is the same. The thread continues.

You got a window. Open it.


08 Sep 06 - 11:17 AM (#1830031)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I see nothing wrong with the thread continuing if positive discussion is taking place. My window is open, the fresh air feels good.


08 Sep 06 - 11:23 AM (#1830035)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Say that to Shambles and stop being the fortieth in on a gang rape.


08 Sep 06 - 11:30 AM (#1830039)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shame on you guest.   Everything I am saying here is read by Shambles. Why don't you use your real identity if you wish to attack someone.


08 Sep 06 - 11:50 AM (#1830048)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Why do you continue to fan the flame?


08 Sep 06 - 11:57 AM (#1830052)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

?? I am involved in a discussion. I made my point. It appears you are the one fanning flames here.

Why is it that when someone cannot logically offer rebutal or information that might change an opinion they it necessary to attack the individual, often becoming anonymous because they realize that their attack would be viewed as childish???   In that respect, Shambles is right.

I disagree with Shambles stance about Mudcat and the way he handled the situation and yes, I do think that he has taking it too personally. I tried to point out instances where I thought he was wrong. I made my case without any name calling or attack. If you wish to view it as something else in order to stir up controversy, then it becomes your problem.


08 Sep 06 - 12:00 PM (#1830055)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Nick

Perhaps a naive question but does anyone else apart from Roger get censored?

Perhaps Readers Digest could do a shorter version of the (approaching) 1/3million characters on this thread (must be hugely over that if you pull in the other threads that say exactly the same thing).

READERS DIGEST ABRIDGED VERSION

Shambles: The moderators sometimes have moderated me and I think it's wrong.
The Moderators: Sometimes we moderate the threads - we believe we do this reasonably and without bias
Shambles: I don't agree with that.
The Moderator(s): OK
Shambles: I feel the need to reassert my position.



That's about it.


08 Sep 06 - 12:07 PM (#1830059)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

"All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion"

Roger, that sentence struck me as very funny. Shall we dissect it?

"All done to prevent me" (All done in the cause of keeping me from) "from preventing" (keeping me from) "reasonable" (sensible) "discussion" (communication)

"All done in the cause of keeping me from taking part in reasonable communication"

No. That's not what you said. Let me try again.

"All done in the cause of keeping me from making reasonable communication impossible."

That's closer.

Speaking of "setting an example", does it not seem incongrous to you to be the person perceived as making reasonable discussion impossible?


08 Sep 06 - 12:17 PM (#1830063)
Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles

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

At his request, I reopened it. apparently, he likes talking to himself there.
-Joe Offer-


I think this was in reference to the following thread Closed threads and deleted posts


08 Sep 06 - 12:33 PM (#1830071)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

My dear Ebbie

Ebbie I am glad you found my sentence amusing – that was the intention.

Perhaps you can explain how reasonable discussion can now be possible? When as a result of measures designed to enable posters to carry on reasonable discussion - every other poster can post and even address posts to me – on to a thread called A return to only one section but they are denied seeing any response I may make – because some anonymous fellow poster is moving all my posts to this thread?

Perhaps you would agree that whatever your view of my worth may be - being seen to impose selective censorship measures like this - on one poster will only make the current methods of running of our forum look sillier than they already are?


08 Sep 06 - 12:40 PM (#1830074)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Especially when I appear to be able to post to a thread called Not posting to a thread without these posts being subject to any anonymous imposition.


08 Sep 06 - 12:45 PM (#1830077)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

No - I spoke too soon.


09 Sep 06 - 05:07 AM (#1830526)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You could not walk into a movie theater and then start singing loudly when the feature starts - the management would throw you out. This is not censorship.

This would not be editing either - would it? But it would be imposition. And would being judged as being boring, tedious or repetitive really be grounds for any bouncers to throw you out of a theatre and then encourage and appeal for public support for this?

Of course, where one member of the invited public IS actually preventing others from enjoying or taking part in the the activity. It makes perfect sense to introduce proportionate measures to deal with this. But here - if you find a thread, a poster or post not to be to your taste - no one is forcing anyone to even open the thread, read the post or respond to it. Posters can decide for themselves. So why is it now thought somehow noble on our forum to prevent adult posters from being able to makaing this choice for themselves?

If such measures are seen to be used sparingly, openly and fairly, for the benefit of all - such measures would certainly have my full support on our forum. As they once did. If I supported the current censorship system on our forum - no doubt I would then be perfectly free once again to post these views in as many threads as I wanted. As other posters who support these actions, currently are.

When such measures are plainly seen to be abused by (some of) these 'moderators' and seen to encourage some of the invited public just to post only to judge and complain about the worth of their fellows and get these measures anonymously imposed on others - such measures - no matter how well-intentioned - are counter-productive.

For our forum is NOT a theatre - is it? The whole purpose is to enable and encourage contributions from the public. If these contributions are moderately expressed there are no grounds for any form of imposed editing actions. The bottom line - as any poster will be able to see - is that certain views are not encouraged and threads on this subject are quickly closed, posts are silently deleted and some totally bogus but noble sounding reason is provided as justification.

There is no reason why all discussion of this issue could not have always been contained on one thread. The reason why so many are started is BECAUSE any existing ones on any aspect of this issue are quickly closed in order to prevent discussion of it. The way all posters are treated on our forum is the only thing that all posters have in common but it is the one thing that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not appear to want our form to discuss.

If the object of our forum is to enable and encourage reasonable discussion on all subjects - perhaps our forum would at least agree that this is NOT acheived by our bouncers anonymously 'silently' deleting and moving posts and by closing threads and imposing selective posting restrictions on certain posters - because of what their moderately expressed and honest views may be.   

Whatever you may think - or be encouraged to think of my worth - the opportunity is currently here to have your say on this subject.

In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualfied to impose their judgement on us?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where,why and when such action has been judged necessary?


09 Sep 06 - 05:37 AM (#1830537)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles,

Dewey is posting on another thread. Please go talk with him.


10 Sep 06 - 03:03 AM (#1831008)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

It is sad that too much notice cannot be taken of any instruction or assurance given to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in the form of editing comments. For he has shown that he is not someone who feels his assurances should be honoured. Or apologises, takes any responsibility for the resulting effects of this failure or makes any effort to correct them. Seeing this presumably as part of the 'game' he feels he can set the example of encouraging to be played with the contributions that the site's owner has invited and in the process, compromising the integrity of all concerned in the process.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-


It was not my request for any special treatment but the above assurance was publicly given to our forum in the following thread   Do you need to be censored?   which (along with nearly all the other threads on this subject) - is now closed.

Had this assurance been honoured – there would not have been any need for any subsequent threads to be started. No need for them to be subjected to imposed closure and no need to impose selective restrictions on a single poster or for noble sounding attempts to be made to justify these restrictions.

Perhaps these restrictions can now be lifted and all posters treated equally and any censorship judged to be required be seen to be undertaken openly and fairly?


10 Sep 06 - 09:11 AM (#1831102)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Zen Buddhist

If a Roger posts in a thread and there is noone there to read it does it make a point?


10 Sep 06 - 01:19 PM (#1831199)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Even if no one (but me) posts to a thread - it does not mean that it is not being read.

If the thread closed or a post 'silently deleted' - then no one is able to read it. Which is of course why this is now done on our forum and why noble sounding attempts at justification are made.

My point is to try to enable all posters to always be able to have the choice and not to have this choice made for them.


10 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM (#1831240)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

I had some free time this morning, Roger, and I looked up your posting history. As you probably recall, your first post was in August 1998 and for a total of 12000 plus in the years since. Have you ever tried to suss out the percentage of complaining ones versus posts that showed us that you are glad to be alive?


11 Sep 06 - 06:07 AM (#1831721)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I had some free time this morning, Roger, and I looked up your posting history. As you probably recall, your first post was in August 1998 and for a total of 12000 plus in the years since. Have you ever tried to suss out the percentage of complaining ones versus posts that showed us that you are glad to be alive?

No.

Is your post a complaint Ebbie? Our forum may not judge from the sound of this post (and many of your others) as if you are all that 'glad to be alive'. Especially if you consider that looking-up and posting only to make personal judgements of my posting history is really the best way of spending your free time. Do you consider that volunteering to anonymously impose your judgement on your fellow posters on our forum is showing us an example of being glad to be alive?

Perhaps you may accept that that no one is forcing you or any other poster to read my posts or respond to them? And that despite the example currently set by (some of) our 'moderators', that the posting only of personal judgements and complaints about a poster's worth is now acceptable on our forum – that however I may choose to post is really none of your business? And more importantly that my attempts to post my moderately expressed and honest views - is in no way preventing any other poster from contributing to any reasonable discussion?

That if I were not glad to be alive I could also ignore the thread's subject to respond with a post containing only a personal judgement of you? But as such a post would only litter-up our forum and totally fail to achieve anything except elicit a further response in kind - what would be the point of such a post? There are PMs for this - why not use them?

The following was posted when it was (wrongly) assumed that this site's owner, Max had prevented me from posting. Whatever the justification given for the selective restrictions imposed on my posts only, by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, this post shows that our forum's perception is different. That is only 'complaints' about one issue that are seen to be the problem to (some of) those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on the rest of our forum.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.


All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'. If we currently were 'all seen to be playing under the same rules' – there would be little need for anyone's suggestions to be labelled as complaints. And for this to be done – in order to provide some justification for imposed restrictions and thread closures, just to prevent posters from deciding for themselves whether they wished to read, respond or ignore contributions?

The penny eventually appears to dropping and even the usual suspects (after thousands of posts) have finally grasped the concept that (conventional) posting to a thread only to make personal judgements about the worth of a poster -- only refreshes the thread. Sadly – and once encouraged – the usual suspects do not appear to be quite able to prevent themselves and now start threads to enable this witch-hunt to continue in this thread. Not posting to a thread

Where their fun games continue at the expense of a single poster but ironically in a thread where – due to the selective restrictions imposed on my posts only – by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - a thread which this poster is currently unable to post to.

Such a situation could hardly be described as fair – and as fairness is something that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team states that is his concern – perhaps all posters can once again be seen be treated equally and openly?


11 Sep 06 - 11:02 AM (#1831857)
Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles

Five in a row now. Last time, it was 15. How many this time?
Joe Offer


It is hardly fair of you to try and also encourage judgement to be passed on this - especially if you are also counting the posts that you 'silently move' there from this thread (and others).

Perhaps as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team - you can concentrate on encouraging posters to contribute by being seen to treat all posters equally and openly - rather than being seen to think it amusing to set the example of encouraing other posters to indulge in games that are designed only to inhibit posting.

I speak as the only poster who really is NOT posting to this thread. Not that this is out of choice.


12 Sep 06 - 02:30 AM (#1832399)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE.

I would suggest this is the case only where such a policy was clearly stated and understood prior to anyone first entering a forum. Many long-term posters here are still under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum and they support it on that basis. And a pretence is kept up (for their benefit), that this is still the case.

Our discussion forum has always been open by the site's owner, to encourage the public's contributions and it currently remains so. Should it not follow that posters should expect to see on our forum, the public's words as posted and be able to decide for themselves what to read, respond to or ignore?

And if this not now to be the case - is it really too much to expect that they are always made aware of when, and the reason why they are not seeing the public's words as posted, and the identity of whoever is imposing their judgement on the postings of others?

In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualfied to impose their judgement on our forum?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to only where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate to our forum, where and why such action has been judged to be necessary, in our name and order to protect us?

A move to this open approach is the only way that posters can now feel safe from personally motivated editing actions and the only way 'moderators' can feel safe from any suspicion that their actions are personally motivated.

If (some of) the current holders entrusted with edit buttons are not now prepared to operate in this open manner - perhaps some new ones can be found who are?


12 Sep 06 - 06:20 PM (#1833000)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

And there's the rub Shambles.

Some are, some aren't (regarding edit buttons).

You ain't gonna change a thing here. Stop wasting your breath, fingers, thoughts, bandwidth, space. It hasn't changed, isn't changing, won't change. Let it go. What's it matter anyway?


13 Sep 06 - 01:06 PM (#1833619)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Big injustice or small injustice - the only way you can ensure that things this will continue (or get worse) - is to do nothing.

Whatever you may attempt to do - you may not succeed in, but at least you will have made the effort and often you do not have the choice.

But I consider just to have this thread open (again) and be able to have this discussion on this subject - is a move in the right direction.

It does enable all posters to decide for themselves what to read, respond to or ignore on our forum.


13 Sep 06 - 09:08 PM (#1833965)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

If it makes you happy it makes me happy.


13 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM (#1833981)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE.

I would suggest this is the case only where such a policy was clearly stated and understood prior to anyone first entering a forum. Many long-term posters here are still under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum and they support it on that basis."

Unfortunately you appear to be the only long-term poster that feels that way.

Policies can change on a whim, there is no harm in that - not for a forum like this.


"All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'."

Done. No one has proven otherwise.


14 Sep 06 - 04:24 PM (#1834633)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Unusual Person

I've just now had one post closed and another deleted! It was my own fault though.


15 Sep 06 - 10:20 AM (#1835250)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Unfortunately you appear to be the only long-term poster that feels that way.

One of the problems of our now split forum - is that many who post only on the music-related are now unware of discussions like this one - so it is difficult to state a definitive answer of what they may think - one way or the other. It is a bit like a ballot result where you don't send out a ballot paper or voting slip.

But the forum headings have not changed in any noticable way from when it was generally accepted that ours was an unmoderated forum (or at least when any imposed censorship was only a very last resort).
Perhaps you would accept that there has been no public annoucement to the effect that this policy intention has changed and that this was now a moderated site? And that it could be possible that some long-term music posters may still be unaware of the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. Especially as none of us ordinary posters who do take part in these discussions, can know this or make an informed opinion on it.

Policies can change on a whim, there is no harm in that - not for a forum like this.

Possibly not but it may be a good idea to at least inform posters of any major change - don't you think? The main policy that this is a forum open for the public's contributions has not (yet) changed. The worrying thing is that (some of) those entrusted to carry out this policy - now openly state that this attempt has failed and that they are now in favour of a change to exclude the public.

So perhaps those posters who do still beleive in, support the original policly and have always posted on that basis - do have good reason to question the will of (some of) those to use their best efforts to ensure that the original and current policy is made to work? Or of suspecting that they may not in fact be doing this?

"All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'."

Done. No one has proven otherwise.

I question how much proof you require that we curently are not?

For a start - do you accept that you (and any other posters) are able to start and freely contibute to any thread - but there are special rules and posting restrictions (including silent deltion) - that have been imposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that apply only to me? I suspect that many posters may see this as one example of us not 'all playing under the same rules'.

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-


I suggest also that had I posted only to call you such names as in the following example - that this would have been judged as an abusive personal attack and censorship action imposed. There are examples of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and (some of) his known 'moderators' setting the example that using offensive language and much worse name-calling as this - is acceptable posting behaviour.

More examples of this curent double standard set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are available - should you wish it?

I do not post only to personal judgements of named fellow poster or respond in kind to the many name-calling posts that are encourged to be posted to me. I am not protected from these (nor have I asked to be) by our 'moderators' but in fact it is (some of) these 'moderators' who openly set the example that such posts are acceptable posting behaviour. And at the same time judge themselves qualified to impose their judgement on me and other posters and also expect our forum to support this double standard.

"All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'."

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.


--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-


15 Sep 06 - 10:39 AM (#1835267)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Perhaps you would accept that there has been no public annoucement to the effect that this policy intention has changed and that this was now a moderated site? "

No. I never felt it was an unmoderated site in all the years that I have been posting here. It seemed clear to me that this was a site was owned by someone and any ownership can make the rules as they see fit.

".. but it may be a good idea to at least inform posters of any major change - don't you think?"

I agree that is a GOOD IDEA to inform posters of "major" changes (and I do think that Max & crew have), but I don't think it is mandatory.   

If I invite you in my home and two hours later you light a cigar and tell you to stop, should you be allowed to continue simply because I failed to mention the "rule" at the start or gave you warning?

"do you accept that you (and any other posters) are able to start and freely contibute to any thread - but there are special rules and posting restrictions (including silent deltion) - that have been imposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that apply only to me? "

Absolutely not! We are all working on a level playing field, and if I posted along the lines that you have I would expect a few deletions.

Frankly, even if there were a double standard - too bad! This is not a public forum, never has been, and the owners can implement whatever rules they want.


15 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM (#1835370)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Absolutely not! We are all working on a level playing field, and if I posted along the lines that you have I would expect a few deletions.

And what lines would they be exactly? And perhaps you could provide our forum with some evidence to support your claim?

Frankly, even if there were a double standard - too bad! This is not a public forum, never has been, and the owners can implement whatever rules they want.

If our forum had not been open to the public - there would not be any contributors to impose any rules upon. And had such 'rules' as you seem to find acceptable been imposed - there would not be our forum in the form that you found it.

But you would appear to want to have it both ways.

The justification given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (and not the site's owner) for his selective censorship of my posts and closing of threads - is that he judges that my posting is somehow 'unfair'. So it would seem that he does not see the application of an unfair double standard on our forum as desirable as you would appear to.

And the attempt at justification made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is that in preventing my posts from appearing by 'silent deltion', and closing threads in which they are contained - is fair - as this imposed action is somehow judged to be enabling our forum to continue with reasonable discussion.

Perhaps you can explain how the imposition of this deletion and closure works toward such an end - on what you - on one hand claim to BE a level playing field and on the other hand - claim that is also somehow acceptable to not to have the playing field level at all?


15 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM (#1835388)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

All those who see a double standard, please raise your hand.


15 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM (#1835393)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

and....................




If you're British raise the first and second fingers
If you're American raise the middle finger

Make any gesture you think suitable in the direction of anyone you think is obsessed by an imaginary ideal.


15 Sep 06 - 01:02 PM (#1835398)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

so is that a yes or a no?


15 Sep 06 - 02:01 PM (#1835435)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Why won't this thread go away?

Well that dangerous and subversive thread will - as it has now been closed.


Done. No one has proven otherwise.

Ron - so is that a yes or a no? I know you have already now moved on to plan B (i.e. the nonsense that there is now no need for a level playing field on our forum) but does that mean that you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules?


15 Sep 06 - 02:11 PM (#1835442)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Ron - so is that a yes or a no? I know you have already now moved on to plan B (i.e. the nonsense that there is now no need for a level playing field on our forum) but does that mean that you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules? "


Shambles, what are you smoking? Where did I ever say that?


15 Sep 06 - 02:28 PM (#1835448)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

That's the advantage of living in a world of your own like Shambles, nobody to argue with, and nobody to tell you you're wrong, oh so wrong!


15 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM (#1835452)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Frankly, even if there were a double standard - too bad! This is not a public forum, never has been, and the owners can implement whatever rules they want.

That this site's owners can implement whatever rules they want was never at issue. But up to now, Max has always made the effort to ensure that all posters are treated fairly and with respect. Perhaps you would accept this?

If you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules - as now implemented by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - we could continue our discussion based on some kind of reality?


15 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM (#1835453)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Again, I fail to see where I said that Mudcat is operating under a double standard.   Shall we look up the word "if" in a dictionary?

Why are you insisting that I have finally accepted anything?


15 Sep 06 - 02:48 PM (#1835456)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover

At last! The perfect symbiotic relationship! I have searched years for an example of this. Years and years, I tell you! Thank you, thank you, Ron Olesko and Shambles! My efforts have finally been exonerated. I will now retire gratefully, accept my Nobel Prize, and bask in the fruits of my labors.


15 Sep 06 - 02:53 PM (#1835460)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

great, another one.


15 Sep 06 - 03:02 PM (#1835464)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover

What do you mean... "another one"? I am the ONLY research scientist who has made truly revolutionary progress in the study of symbiosis in the last 25 years! No one can compete with my achievements in this area. That's why I am going to win the Nobel Prize.

Now would you please get on with it? Debate some more with Shambles like you are supposed to. He can't respond properly if you don't, and I need some additional prime examples to fully flesh out my thesis.

I will be satisfied if together you can raise this thread to 500 posts in the next few days...as long as your average post does not fall below a total of 25 words in your case and 150 in Shambles' case. If so, it would call my whole theory into question, and that simply doesn't bear thinking about.

So be a good fellow, now, and get on with it.


15 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM (#1835469)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

yo, Prof! How can he "debate some more" with The Shambles, when the Shambles doesn't allow debate since Shambles states false premises as fact; denies reality, contricicts himself and ignores anything that doesn't fit his strangely warped world-view?


15 Sep 06 - 03:06 PM (#1835470)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Lucullus, you are either beneath me or below me.


15 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM (#1835481)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Whatever turns you on.


15 Sep 06 - 04:25 PM (#1835558)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

Never was a harsher punishment dealt out by a moderator of a website than that by Joe to Shambles: he lets him post on on his course of self destruction to the amusement of the other posters.

Wolfgang (torn between laughter and pity)


15 Sep 06 - 04:39 PM (#1835565)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: artbrooks

Wolfgang, I thought that this thread was really funny when I could look at it every few days and see that no one except Shambles had posted...and he did so every day, or several times a day, basically talking to himself. Let's go back to that, folks.


15 Sep 06 - 04:40 PM (#1835566)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Please.


15 Sep 06 - 04:41 PM (#1835569)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

You are right Art. I guess I was poking at windmills myself trying to get him to see what the rest of us see clearly. I will move on. My apologies.


15 Sep 06 - 04:56 PM (#1835583)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,KB

Whew, it goes from nobody but Shambles to no Shambles at all. Quite a plot twist, that.
I know, I'm only feeding the beast, but it has only been about 10 minutes, I'm not really prolonging it much.

I really don't mean the following in a jerk-off way. Shambles, have you ever thought about finding a new past-time? Think of all the time you have spent on this. Might there be something more fulfilling? I am honestly not trying to be an a-hole here.


15 Sep 06 - 08:38 PM (#1835691)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Again, I fail to see where I said that Mudcat is operating under a double standard.   Shall we look up the word "if" in a dictionary?

Why are you insisting that I have finally accepted anything?


Perhaps you do need to look up the meaning of if?

What I said was IF you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules - as now implemented by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - we could continue our discussion based on some kind of reality?

For in our discussion - you have moved on from a position of trying to maintain - against the evidence - that we were all playing under the same rules to a position where even IF this were not the case - any rules at all can be implemented. To which I have agreed could be the case.

So what is it? Have you now accepted the pretty obvious fact that we are not now all playing under the same rules on our forum? Or are you still trying to maintain that we are all playing under the same rules?

Or have you now returned to good old stand-by? Mudcat plan C (the witch-hunt?

Ron- if you really are at all interested in discussing this subject on this thread - perhaps you could explain what would be the point of our forum having rules if they did not apply equally to everyone?

If you are not and just wish to play to the usual suspects perhaps you could do that on Not posting to a thread Which has not been closed.

All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were once again seen to 'all be playing under the same rules'. Not all that much a heretical concept - some of us may think?


17 Sep 06 - 08:25 AM (#1836573)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following editing comments as they were inserted into existing posts and which clearly demonstrate, that we are not now all playing under the same rules.

And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I figure if he starts a complaint thread or posts five complaint messages to a single thread, that's the thread he's chosen to dominate - and all his other complaint posts get moved to that one thread.
The idea is to allow you to express yourself, but to control the duplication and domination. Say what you want - once. As has been said before, the problem is not the content of your posts, but the endless repetition. This restriction on you applies only to your complaints about Mudcat editing - your messages on this subject are confined to one thread at a time. If you post complaints to one thread today, in general you may not post complaints to any other thread today - you have to wait until tomorrow to post complaints to a new thread.
-Joe Offer-


17 Sep 06 - 08:56 AM (#1836582)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The Shambles, I don't think anyone doubts that you are the only person this sanction is applied to. It is a situation of your creation.

What we don't know is whether this "rule" would be applied to anyone else should they persitanly have multiple threads on a topic, etc. While I hope it is never put to the test, my own feeling is that you have set a precident and that any other poster constantly behaving in the same way would receive the same treatment.


17 Sep 06 - 06:35 PM (#1836932)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

My posting record will stand up well against the posting records of those who who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters.

And who set the example that the posting of abusive personal attacks, name-calling are now acceptable posting behaviour on our forum.

And who publicly encourage other favoured posters to post only personal judgements of the worth of their fellow posters and to take part in witch-hunts - all liable to inhibit posting - rather than to encourage it.

The main point of the introduction of our 'moderators' was to protect our forum from abusive personal attacks. As (some of) these 'moderators' indulge in this themselves and make no attempts to prevent such offensive posts coming from certain favoured posters as long as these post are directed at certain easy targets - this part of our 'moderators' role is clearly not now taken very seriously.

Most of the current effort seems to be addressed at control and protecting our 'moderators' from any moderately expressed criticism about their actions appearing on our forum. Or at least inhibiting this and limiting our forum's opportunities to see it or respond to any discussion on this subject and encouraging public support for these actions.

The idea proposed to justify all this sillyness is that in someway the imposition of these selective restrictions - adds to reasonable conversation on our forum. Incredibly that for threads to be closed, and to silently delete amd move posts and encourage various other 'fun' attempts to prevent the moderately expressed views of certain posters from appearing as posted - is not our 'moderators' preventing reasonable discussion.

The fact is that all I CAN attempt to do is post. And my posts can quite easily be simply ignored.

The totally paranoid over reaction is to attempt to justify the prevention of my reasoned views appearing on our forum - as they have done since 1998 - by nonsense assumptions and accusations charged in highly emotive terms about 'flooding' and preventing others from taking part in reasonable discussions by 'crowding' them out by attempts to 'dominate'.

It is pretty clear how all these imposed restrictions will prevent resonable discussion but perhaps someone can explain how simply attempting to post views - (that others appear to wish were not posted) - in any way, shape or form can prevent other posters from taking part in reasonable discussion? For this is the charge.

Do you need to be censored

I don't - do you?


17 Sep 06 - 06:51 PM (#1836943)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The Shambles, your posting record shows why you in this position of being limited to one thread on your "pet subject". Comparison with ANY other poster's record will show why you are unique in this.


17 Sep 06 - 06:57 PM (#1836948)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

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 have asked before who protects us from the abusive personal attacks and offensive name-calling when these are publicly posted by (some of) our 'moderators' and often in editing comments.

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-


17 Sep 06 - 07:52 PM (#1836978)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: curmudgeon

Will you lot please stop picking on Roger. Get off this thread and leave The Shambles ALONE1


17 Sep 06 - 08:10 PM (#1836985)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Amen.


17 Sep 06 - 09:41 PM (#1837036)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

OK then. Bye, Shambles.


18 Sep 06 - 02:33 AM (#1837151)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Comparison with ANY other poster's record will show why you are unique in this.

Any comparisons with the posting records of anonymous guests and anonymous 'moderators' are not of course possble. For all the terrible things I am accused of - in reality all I attempt to do is post my honest views under my own name.

Even if I were totally unique in my views - that does not make honourable the many and various attempts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team to actively prevent our forum from seeing these views expressed for discussion where and in the form they were posted.

If nothing changes as a result of my views, requests and suggestion, then my views will remain the same. They are posted under my name to enable any other poster who may wish to - to convince me otherwise. I have read little reasoned discussion and argument that has convinced me but I may yet.

It should be clear by now that no amount of selective restrictions or encouragement of bullying will prevent me trying to see that at least open discussion on this issue can continue. And until Max decides to scrape around to find some reason to ban one of this forum's longer term members and greatest supporters - I will carry on trying to ensure that posting on our forum is encouraged rather than inhibited.

If posters find this tedious, boring, repetitive or judge it not to be to their taste for any reason at all - that is their right. They do have to read or respond to these posts as no one is imposing any measures to force them. My view is that posters should be left to be able to decide for themselves and not denied this choice by the imposed judgement of a fellow poster.

That you may not agree with a poster's moderately expressed views or judge them not to your taste in someway - and no matter what hysteria is generated - this is NOT grounds to censor and attempt to restrict or prevent these views.

Nor is it grounds for posters to be encouraged to support these attempts in public witch-hunts and to post only personal judgements of a fellow poster's worth - as is the example currently set by (some of) those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters.


18 Sep 06 - 03:23 AM (#1837166)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui

Seen one Shambles post, and you've seen them all.


18 Sep 06 - 05:07 AM (#1837202)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Seen one Shambles post, and you've seen them all.

That may be so and may well be your honest opinion to which you are entitled to express, having at least been able to see such posts on our forum.

I hope you are not suggesting that this would be grounds to 'silently delete such posts, to close threads and to impose selective posting restrictions - as such actions would only deny any newer poster the opportunity of being able to decide for themselves?

The only one of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's 'trumped-up' charges that would concern me was if there was any truth in the noble-sounding justification given for him 'having' to impose these selective posting restrictions - is that my posts were in any way preventing our forum from conducting reasonable discussion.

It doesn't do any good to discuss any of this with Shambles. He knows the names of all the moderators, and yet he continues to complain about their anonymity. In a three-day period a week or two ago, I transferred all the messages we usually delete into his "closed and deleted" thread, so he and the rest of the world could see a normal sample of what gets deleted. This demonstration didn't satisy Shambles, and he continues to assert that the Mudcat moderators are silently deleting something or another. I guess I have to expect that Shambles will continue to assert that horrible but nonspecific things are happening in secret.

I can't think of how to devise a system that will provide absolute proof that these horrible nonspecific things are NOT being done by Anonymous Fellow Posters. I tried, but he didn't believe me, so it doesn't do any good to discuss anything with him. I guess it's good to just let him continue to believe in these Horrible Nonspecific Things and in his Anonymous Fellow Posters, because it gives meaning and purpose to his life. I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. I suppose that since this is "his" topic, this will become "his" thread, and I'll have to close the other one. I'll wait and see what he does.


Can it be explained to our forum how simply attempting to post my views can prevent others from conducting reasonble discussion and how the imposition of 'silent deletion' moving of posts and the closing of threads by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team is somehow making reasonable discussion possible?

If it cannot - can these selective restrictions be lifted and all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly?


18 Sep 06 - 06:49 AM (#1837245)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui

(o) Yawn, I presume that is more of the same boring rubbish, never read them myself, just the name Shambles at the top of the post stops me going any further.


18 Sep 06 - 07:53 AM (#1837273)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 8

I'm Ennui the Eighth I am
Ennui the Eighth I am I am
I got posting in the thread next door
Then remade the point on seven threads more
And every one was Ennui
You couldn't see a difference worth a damn
I'm now going to post in a few threads more
Ennui the Eighth I am ...


18 Sep 06 - 08:03 AM (#1837282)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Grab

I'm prepared to refresh the thread for that - bloody marvellous, Guest! :-)


18 Sep 06 - 12:12 PM (#1837477)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I'm Graham the First I am
Graham the First I am I am
I started the thread next door
And said what I liked on seven threads more
And every personal judgement was encouraged
Not 'silently deleted, or banned
Going to thumb my nose in a few threads more
Graham the First I am ...

In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on us?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?


18 Sep 06 - 01:46 PM (#1837562)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Do you not think that there is rather of lot of fuss being encouraged to be made about posts and threads that so few posters appear to read?


18 Sep 06 - 03:26 PM (#1837645)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I admire your fortitude, Shambles.


18 Sep 06 - 06:40 PM (#1837772)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Good for what ails you.


18 Sep 06 - 06:41 PM (#1837776)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

400 Now close it quick.


18 Sep 06 - 07:59 PM (#1837833)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

You are correct, of course. Four hundred posts is a good place to stop.


18 Sep 06 - 08:29 PM (#1837858)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You are correct, of course. Four hundred posts is a good place to stop.

If you think this - and as no one is forcing you to continue - you are of course free to stop reading and posting to it - then as far as you are concerned - this thread will have stopped.

Perhaps you will accept that if others should wish to continue posting to any thread in your absence that is their choice?

Why should a thread remaining open bother you, or be subject to anyone else's judgement and why do you think you should you be encouraged to deny other posters their choice?


19 Sep 06 - 05:22 AM (#1838098)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st

What a mealy mouthed pompous parsimonious prig you are Shambles.
Try the Preparation H you pain in the ass!


19 Sep 06 - 08:28 AM (#1838201)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Grab

Oh well, since we're being musical and requesting equal treatment...

I'm just another Graham I am
Just another Graham I am I am
I read the terms of membership when I came in
It said that if I posted crap it might get binned
So I posted like I'd talk in real life
And others who took advantage got banned
That's their call when the writing's on the wall
Just another Graham I am.

I'm just another Graham I am
Just another Graham I am I am
Max told Roger "you too should head off son
If you don't like the way the Mudcat's run".
But Roger kept the same old thing up
And said in another thread he'd explain
But to my surprise, he cries "I'm victimised"
Just another Graham I am

I'm just another Graham I am
Just another Graham I am I am
When Roger asked us all just what was the score
Me and loads of others told him hundred times or more
But Roger wasn't looking for an answer
His pretence at conversation was a sham
So it's a two-finger sign to that non-stop whine
Just another Graham I am


19 Sep 06 - 11:29 AM (#1838341)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Someone will be asking for this thread to be moved to the music section if we keep this up.

[PM] Max         Explain the BS rules (52* d)         RE: Explain the BS rules         26 Oct 99

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.
Max


Graham - the object of our discussion forum is to enable and encourge discussion. That does not mean that we have to all agree - does it?

Perhaps you would accept that being seen to able to agree to disgree on our forum is a good enough thing to aim for?

Perhaps you would also accept that the 'silent deletion', selective restriction and the imposed closure of threads containing reasonable discussion are not measures likely to encourage reasonable discussion?

Perhaps you would agree that these measures can only inhibit reasonable discussion and that this is the object of these restrictions?

I am a man that is always open to pursuasion and this is best attempted by reasoned discussion. Force, name-calling and witch-hunts - perhaps you would agree, form no part of any kind of reasonable discussion?


19 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM (#1838409)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

"I am a man that is always open to pursuasion and this is best attempted by reasoned discussion."


hahhahahahhahha


19 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM (#1838421)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"pompous parsimonious prig"

Only a pompous parsimonious prig speaks that way.


19 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM (#1838449)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Ad astra per aspera


19 Sep 06 - 01:58 PM (#1838453)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

You gotta admit, Roger - that was very funny.


19 Sep 06 - 02:41 PM (#1838488)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The people who come to slag Shambles have the option of going to another thread.


19 Sep 06 - 02:46 PM (#1838493)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Tried that and he follows people around and pollutes their threads with his paranoid parrot droppings.


19 Sep 06 - 02:52 PM (#1838497)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Yes, but this place ain't what it used to be, and never was.


19 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM (#1838509)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

What is?


19 Sep 06 - 03:07 PM (#1838512)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Exactly.


19 Sep 06 - 06:17 PM (#1838665)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

This place is more like it is now than it ever was before.

besides, Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.


20 Sep 06 - 02:13 AM (#1838848)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

Well I, and many others like its is, and yes occasionally threads are deleted, but by what I have seen moderating it is good,-

I could post that from what I have seen rock chick looks like a blond, 19 year-old supermodel.....But as from what I have seen I have no way of knowing this to be the case - what would be the point of such a post?

Such opinions and judgements made about the current system of censorship on our forum by any poster may be honestly intended but are uninformed. As posters have no way of knowing what the true nature and current level of imposed censorship is.

rock chick - like most of the rest of our forum will not be aware that yesterday an entire thread was deleted. If they are going to be allowed and encouraged by our 'modertors' and are interested enough to post in support of theses measures - perhaps it is only fair that all poster are made aware of what they are, and when and where they are imposed? Which is why I suggest the following.

In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on us?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?


20 Sep 06 - 02:31 AM (#1838852)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem

You may or may not be interested to know that an entire thread was deleted yesterday.

Our forum has no idea what the justification would have been given for this action.
Or who was supposed to be protected by it.
Or who was responsible for this action.

As this action is imposed in our name and in order to protect us - perhaps we should be informed when and why any form of imposed censorship takes place?

And perhaps we should not be expected to or be seen to publicly support such actions - until we are informed?


20 Sep 06 - 04:07 AM (#1838896)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Warning Missing Messages


20 Sep 06 - 10:12 AM (#1839129)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

A BS thread (called Do you support the status quo?) was deleted yesterday, for reasons unknown and by persons unknown.

Today - the title of a clearly titled music thread Do you support the Status Quo?
   has been changed without the originator's permission for some reason to In favour of/ Do you support the Status Quo - and has now been relegated to the BS section by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread.

The following editing comment was inserted into an existing post which did not refresh the thread.

Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread.
-Joe Offer-


And who (conventionally) posted the following:

Subject: RE: BS: In favour of /Do you support the Status Qu
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 06:02 AM

The first thread was stupid, but I don't think that constitutes a reason for deleting it. I undeleted the messages from the previous deleted thread and combined them with this one.
But I think the "discussion" fits best into the "BS" category, where the original thread was located. I'll admit that's an arbitrary decision, but I had to pick one or the other.
-Joe Offer-


As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has judged (amongst other things) that there was no justification for some other anonymous 'moderator' to delete the first thread – perhaps the better option would have been to return this thread to the BS section and to leave the other one alone, to remain as posted in the music section?

But rather than feeling they 'have' to be seen to be doing something – perhaps it is better that our 'moderators' do nothing and let our forum decide? It certainly would be better if before they decide to impose any action – that they are at least seen to communicate with each other first and prefably first consult with the thread's originator.


20 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM (#1839134)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

BS In favour of/Do you support the Status Quo?


20 Sep 06 - 11:10 AM (#1839181)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok

Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles*

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals.

If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures.

If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be?


20 Sep 06 - 11:15 AM (#1839183)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home

"He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread."

Quite obviously he has seen fit to combine the deleted music thread (obviously started to deliberately cause confusion with the BS thread and not very on-topic for a blues and folk forum) with this BS thread. An entirely different matter.

Don't fuck about, Roger, you did it to deliberately provoke the moderators and I will accept to weasel words of excuse. I may not be a mind-reader but I know what you are doing.

Are you going to accept the site owner's invitation to go or stay and accept the way it is run?


20 Sep 06 - 11:26 AM (#1839195)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Quite obviously he has seen fit to combine the deleted music thread (obviously started to deliberately cause confusion with the BS thread and not very on-topic for a blues and folk forum) with this BS thread.

Paul you have obviously decided that I am the Anti-Christ and seemingly nothing I say will change that judgement. However I will make the effort.

The simple fact was that when I started the 'Status Quo' thread on the music section - the entire 'status quo' thread (with it music-related posts) had been deleted. This without any editing comment of explanation.

That thread was gone and history and there was nothing for it to be confused with - until the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team decided to overule the anonymous moderator's decision (was it you?), combine the dead thread with the Music one and send it to the BS.


20 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM (#1839296)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok


Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles*

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok


The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals.

If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures.

If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be?


20 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM (#1839318)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"Are you going to accept the site owner's invitation to go or stay and accept the way it is run?"

The site owner can block Shambles' ability to post. The site owner doesn't. If you do not like what Shambles has to say, stop reading what Shambles has to say. There are about ten people who can't let Shambles be. Get a grip.

Keep saying what you have to say, Shambles.


20 Sep 06 - 01:51 PM (#1839330)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

And those ten are conspicuous by their absence on the SERIAL BULLY thread.


20 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM (#1839335)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Why is Shambles allowed to rant in both this thread and the one on mederated groups? I thought that he was limited to one per day?


20 Sep 06 - 03:00 PM (#1839369)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Don't fuck about, Roger, you did it to deliberately provoke the moderators and I will accept to weasel words of excuse. I may not be a mind-reader but I know what you are doing.

Paul - this remains a discussion forum and it is supposed to be fun. As there is no way that one poster can ever know what another's motivation may be - it is perhaps better for us not to follow the example set by (some of) our 'moderators'. That they now to use our forum as a means to judge the worth of their fellow posters and publicly make all manner of assumpions about aspects of named individual posters that they can have no real knowledge of - does not mean that you have to follow this example. And what this sort of thing has to do with 'moderation' - is not clear.

I cannot delete posts or close threads - I can only post and I need to make no excuse to you for what I choose to post. So what is the point of you speculating publicly that I may have 'provoked' our 'moderators' by what I choose to post. The day I tell you what you can post - is the day you can tell me. What you may choose to post is none of my business.

But the you have the chronology wrong. Before that thread was closed - posters there were not provoking anyone, just having fun. Perhaps any provocation was on the part of the anonymous 'moderator' who subjected the thread to imposed closure?

Perhaps you would also like to speculate publicly and make assumptions about their motivations for this provocation? Not in just trying to post - but in taking active steps to prevent others from posting.

If it matters, I started the Status Quo thread on the music section to enable posters to continue discussion on that subject. It may well have partly been in reaction to that thread's closure - for which I am for once in perfect agreement with the views expressed by current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - if not his actions.   

If anyone is to blame for confusing anyone - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for re-opening the closed thread, combining the two threads and then relegating it to the BS section and not the music section where is clearly belongs. Perhaps you will be taking this up with him?


20 Sep 06 - 03:08 PM (#1839374)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok


Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles*

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok


The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals.

If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures.

If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be?


21 Sep 06 - 02:28 AM (#1839732)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread.
-Joe Offer-


This is the true nature and current level of what you are asked to support as 'moderation'.

One day a still anonymous 'moderator' decides to delete an entire thread. When this action is brought to the attention of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's attention the next day - this imposed action is judged to have had no justification. End of story.

But is anything learned from this? Is our forum given any apology? What happens now to prevent such sillyness from happening again?

Nothing. Such things have occured time and time again and nothing happens or changes to prevent it. When such things are pointed out and suggestions made to prevent it - the accusation is taken-up that the same questions are being asked again and again.

We have a system in the UK that is supposed to prevent speeding. Cameras are run by private companies and are self-financing - by the money obtained from speeding fines.

So it does not take a genius to work out that such companies do not have any real interest in preventing speeding - as if they ever succeeded - they would put themselves out of a job.

No - an unmoderated forum is not a silly idea.

It is at least some ideal to aim for and any 'moderation' seen only a means to this end. But to some it would appear that this form of open-ended, divisive and secret 'moderation' - is an end in itself.

Posting restrictions are publicly announced against named posters for the 'crime' only of starting threads and posting. But anonymous 'moderators' who prevent 'reasonable discussion' by deleting an entire thread with no justification - remain anonymous and a 'moderator.


21 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM (#1840000)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

As there was never anything controversial about it - perhaps the following thread can now be moved back to the music section, where it may get some more contributions? And perhaps it could be given back its original title?

Do you support the Status Quo?


21 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM (#1840122)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

There is no bad faith in evidence.

There is no evidence to enable any poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. If there is no bad faith - what is the problem in our 'moderators' being open in this?

Bad faith does not need to be a factor in our forum's judgement - for incompetence, over-zealousness can still be factors even when well-intentioned.

The question for our forum's judgement is if this imposition is really proportionate or has in in fact now become counter-productive? That perhaps if (some of) our 'moderators' were not so busy- 'waging war for peace' - peace may actually be perfectly possible without such drastic measures and their results.

If all editing comments were limited to only where some form of imposed censorship was judged to have been necessary and editing comments were always supplied on these occasions - our forum would for the first time be able to make an informed judgement about whether the true nature and current level of imposed censorship was really proportionate.

For example - currently it can be claimed that any post of mine (or yours) that is silently deleted - was not and it non-apperance was due to a mistake by the poster or due to some technical glitch. It can also be claimed (or implied) that it contained much more offensive material than it in fact did - in order justify the imposition to our forum. As the evidence will have been 'silently deleted'.

Without being open about this - no poster is ever seen to be protected from abuse and no 'moderator' is ever seen to be safe from accusations that they have imposed judgement disproportionatly and abused their privilege. There is one way to end this conflict once and for all - so why not introduce it?


21 Sep 06 - 02:24 PM (#1840199)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions.
Joe Offer


Do yuo really?

Perhaps the best way to do this is for our 'moderators' to just to allow reasonable discussion to take place on our forum?

Rather than making our forum look like a poor school-boy joke.


21 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM (#1840205)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond

I can't believe this shamblesshit is still pilling up......


21 Sep 06 - 04:53 PM (#1840281)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Perhaps a better way to do this Shambles is to block you from posting to any thread in the same way that Martin Gibson was blocked. You are just as annoying.


21 Sep 06 - 06:47 PM (#1840354)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Someone forcing you to read this thread? Gun to your head? Need a 911 or 999 call on your behalf?


22 Sep 06 - 04:32 AM (#1840607)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st

First They Came for the Jews

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.
Pastor Martin Niemφller


22 Sep 06 - 04:39 AM (#1840614)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Rather than making our forum look like a poor school-boy joke.

You have a point there. The restriction has been in place for a while and it its achieved little other than giving you something else to complain about. I think it would be better for them to decide whether to allow you to post with no restrictions or to prevent you from posting at all than carrying on with this farce.


22 Sep 06 - 06:29 AM (#1840669)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

There is no bad faith in evidence.

There is no evidence to enable any poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. If there is no bad faith - what is the problem in our 'moderators' being open in this?

Bad faith does not need to be a factor in our forum's judgement - for incompetence, over-zealousness can still be factors even when well-intentioned.

The question for our forum's judgement is if this imposition is really proportionate or has in in fact now become counter-productive? That perhaps if (some of) our 'moderators' were not so busy- 'waging war for peace' - peace may actually be perfectly possible without such drastic measures and their results.

If all editing comments were limited to only where some form of imposed censorship was judged to have been necessary and editing comments were always supplied on these occasions - our forum would for the first time be able to make an informed judgement about whether the true nature and current level of imposed censorship was really proportionate.

For example - currently it can be claimed that any post of mine (or yours) that is silently deleted - was not and it non-apperance was due to a mistake by the poster or due to some technical glitch. It can also be claimed (or implied) that it contained much more offensive material than it in fact did - in order justify the imposition to our forum. As the evidence will have been 'silently deleted'.

Without being open about this - no poster is ever seen to be protected from abuse and no 'moderator' is ever seen to be safe from accusations that they have imposed judgement disproportionatly and abused their privilege. There is one way to end this conflict once and for all - so why not introduce it?

Perhaps there can be and end to selective restrictions that are now seen to be imposed on my posts in this thread and eleswhere (and supported by many posters it would appear)? This makes reasoable discussion impossible but is imposed upon our forum on the the grounds that 'silently delteting posts and moving posts containing only reasonable discussion is somehow enabling reasonable discussion. A concept that George Orwell would recognise as 'Doublespeak'.

Whatever your personal judgement of my worth or the worth of any other poster may be encouraged to be - perhaps you will agree that an end to this witch-hunt - will enable this subject to be seen to be sensibly and openly discussed on our forum like any other subject?


22 Sep 06 - 07:28 AM (#1840694)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I think it would be better for them to decide whether to allow you to post with no restrictions or to prevent you from posting at all than carrying on with this farce.

Now that is gratitude for you.

There are no real grounds to justfy this current silliness - let alone grounds to ban me. As a long-term poster who has always used a name and only ever tried to post my honest views. Who does not post to indulge in abisive personal attacks, does not respond in kind to the many I am allowed and encouraged to be subjected to. And who despite being publicly encouraged by (some of) oue 'moderators' to be seen as public ememy number one - has done nothing but post attempts at reasonable discussion and tried my best to avoid posting any personal judgements of my fellow posters.

I hardly think it 'fair' (to use the word favoured by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) that I am to be judged by those who wish to reamain anonymous - be they anonymous guest or anonymous 'moderator'. Especially the latter - who now appear to think that reasonable discussion is achieved on our forum by them selectively closing and deleting entire threads, 'silently deleting', moving and by generally judging, interfering and restricting posts containing only reasonable discussion.

I have tirelessly supported (and still do) the continued unrestricted posting from the public on our forum - but now - one of these unnamed guests posts with the suggestion that I be banned. And with added irony that I be banned by those who judge themselves qualifed to deny others the rights that they take for granted - but who openly post their preference for them (the public, guests non-members) to be restricted.

The only 'crime' I have commited is to try to reasonably discuss a subject that (some of) our 'moderators' would rather obviously prefer not have discussed on our forum. If Max considers this to be grounds to ban a poster then he will do so. I hope that he will not feel himself pressured into such an action but will find others ways of finally resolving this conflict. One that does not attempt to prevent reasonable discussion by drastic means that CAN only inhibit reasonable discussion and make our forum look foolish.

And that he can do this in ways that do not define reasonable discussion as views only that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team agrees with - but defines it as free and open discussion, where the poster' words remain as posted (wherever this is possible).


22 Sep 06 - 07:51 AM (#1840706)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

As a long-term poster

you have been treated with more tolerance than would have been granted a "newbe".


22 Sep 06 - 10:05 AM (#1840806)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Bullshit.


22 Sep 06 - 10:37 AM (#1840825)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

you have been treated with more tolerance than would have been granted a "newbe".

[Is that you Joe?]
If that were to be the case - then it just as well for any 'newbe' that I am not just content (like far too many others) to just watch and say 'I'm alright Jack'. For then any 'newbe' and guest would have been tolerated less and treated even less well than you claim they are.

If I have been treated differently to any other posters - it is not my wish or made at my request. My request is that ALL posters are seen to be treated equally. And are able to see the true nature and current level of imposed censorship action, to enable our forum for the first time to be able to express an informed judgement on whether all this imposed in their name - is really proportiate.

Anyone trusting enough who wishes to sign blank cheques - is welcome to send them to me.........

I have done nothing but try for many years to post my moderately expressed and honest views on our forum for the purpose of reasonable discussion - but which no other poster is being forced to read or respond to.

Many completly bogus accusations have been encouraged to be made and many attempts made to justify the selective prevention, alterations, moves and restrictions on my posts and the deletions and imposed closures of many threads in which these posts appear. With various and ammusing attempts at justification, to make such closures sound noble.

All of these methods of inhibiting reasonable discussion are now attempted to be justified to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, as somehow enabling reasonable discussion to take place.

Quite how this is supposed to work - where there is room for all - has yet to be explained. But it is just the latest and inevitable result of a system of so-called 'moderation' that publicly encourages other posters to indulge in conflict and where (some) 'moderators' are seen to activly indulge in open conflict and witch-hunts mounted against named individual posters, to try to prevent their honest and moderatly expressed views from appearing or remaining (as posted) on our forum.
    Nope. Not me. I spell the word "newbie," and I sign my name. But you knew that.
    -Joe Offer-


22 Sep 06 - 12:12 PM (#1840901)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

Mudcat is structured. Nicely so, IMO

Our forum is certainly structured so that no poster is forced to read or respond to any post or open any thread that is not to their taste.

It is structured so that all threads could (and should IMO) all remain open, without any affect of the technical running of our forum.

So threads do not need to be closed or judged - as the only judgement required is for posters to lose interest when they cease to refresh them with new posts.

The simple beauty and effective nature of this structure is all that is required for peace - but only when and if this is first recognised and applied equally to all.

All posters need to be encouraged to do (in the form of moderation and by example) - is not post publicly only to make personal judgements of their fellow posters or to respond in kind.

Posters do not need to be encouraged to post only to complain about what their fellow posters chose to post (especially in the Help Forum). And any changes introduced as a result of posters complaining about what their fellow posters may choose to post can be ignored and told to mind their own business.

Such posters can be asked to concentrate on their own posts and that any editing changes will only be considered for their own contributions.

Where ever possible - all post should be seen to reamain as worded and where posted and anyone else who may not like this can be told to mind their own business.   

Yes - our forum is well structured - so why is this structure ignored in favour of measures destined only to inhibit open discussion, divide our forum and involve it in constant and seemingly endless personal conflict?


22 Sep 06 - 02:21 PM (#1840963)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella

Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run?

Sometimes in a converstaion, the following phrase is heard: Can we change the subject please?

It is usually considered impolite, once a participant in the conversation has requested this, to continue to discuss the original topic.

Numerous people have asked if the subject you seem to want to discuss might be dropped or changed.

I think people might be more willing to return to considering this topic if you demonstrated your willingness to join and discuss other threads, which weren't seen as so negative towards a situation they don't see as a problem.

...I know i'm going to regret posting this, but i felt I had to have a go... (not as in 'have a go at someone' but as in 'give it a shot')

People have often commented on my ability to show wisdom in strained situations - to pour oil on troubled waters - i can't see it working in this instance because I really don't think you want the perceived 'problem' to go away. I suspect strongly that, even if an announcement were made that From this day Forward, whenever a post is deleted or edited or a thread closed, an editing comment will be inserted etc ... you would still deny that this was being done ... I'm convinced.

I don't think either that Max or anyone should go down that line, because, as has been said many many times, it is Max's forum and it runs as he sees fit.

If you have a problem i strongly suggest that you ask Max via PM. If he doesn't respond by acquiescing to your request - I would accept that as being his answer.


22 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM (#1840967)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

No one is forcing anyone to read or respond to Shambles' thread or posts.


22 Sep 06 - 02:29 PM (#1840974)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella

No - I know - but we have also tried just ignoring threads and then he just gets cross at being ignored and starts posting off-topic on other ones!


22 Sep 06 - 02:33 PM (#1840979)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"No one is forcing anyone to read or respond to Shambles' thread or posts. "

Not a good answer. No one is forcing Shambles to keep posting either after he made his point. As shown above, Shambles has refreshed his own thread to keep it visible. I would suspect that he may be posting as "guest", something that he has also accused others of doing.   

I know I should not feed into this thread either. It is interesting to see that before Clinton posted yesterday, there was at least 24 hours when Shambles was the only one adding to this thread.   It seems telling that the only people that see any merit in this is Shambles and nameless Guest, who could very easily be one in the same.


22 Sep 06 - 02:40 PM (#1840984)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Strongly suspect Guest is a certain female person from Minneappolis MN.


22 Sep 06 - 02:54 PM (#1840992)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Pseudolus

Once you've opened a thread where there is a Shamble Ramble, it just gets under your skin. This is the same argument with the same reasonings and mostly I get annoyed at myself for reading them at all. In the end what happens is I stop opening up Mudcat at all, sometimes for months at a time. I return, just long enough to get annoyed and then off I go again. And don't tell me that I should simply not open those threads because it's not always obvious that the thread was either started by him or hijacked by him.

The complaint is the same, it never changes, and it won't. He will find a reason why he is being persecuted and that the moderators are out to get him and this post as well will be villified to be from a poster that just doesn't understand.

I personally have only one complaint about the moderation of this forum and that is the length at which this current discussion has been allowed to continue. Having said that, I have no solution to offer, just sympathies to those who have to deal with it. You see, I can just leave as I have in the past, the moderators can not....God bless 'em.

Frank


22 Sep 06 - 03:02 PM (#1840997)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Wesley S came up with the following - he does not seem to think much of it now but I have yet to see it improved on.

Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others.

I'm convinced.

Blowzabella - from reading your post I see you are so convinced that you should have some control over the postings of others that there is little point in me responding to the little you have said - as this will only confirm your already stated regret at having posted it. On top of all the other terrible things you feel I am responsible for - and I have no wish to disapoint you further.

It would have been nice if you had concentrated on some attempt to solve the problem rather than making personal judgements and rehashing the same tired assumptions. For nothing you have said will change anything. It will only continue to personalise and identfy this issue as a problem only for one poster - and the idea that it is an issue that can be solved by action against this one poster. I will not respond in kind, except to say that when I post to tell you what to post - you can do the same to me.   

The main thing that is stopping posters from discussing this topic is that they are encouraged join in the witch-hunt and post personal judgements of certain easy targets instead. Plus the fact that - as it is known that I will not respond in kind - being seen to be playing to the crowd in this manner is not only encouraged to be thought to be fun - it is also thought to be safe.

Do you need to be censored


22 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM (#1841003)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Frankly I think the Mets have a great shot at going all the way this year. I'm hoping the Yankees are eliminated in the first round of playoffs.


22 Sep 06 - 03:14 PM (#1841006)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

No one is forcing anyone to read or respond on this thread. That means you too. I happen to enjoy Shambles' posts.


22 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM (#1841007)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I know I should not feed into this thread either.

Then why do you do it? Are you forced to?

Ron you are of course welcome to discuss the thread's subject when you can't resist posting to and both refreshing and moaning about this thread and your named fellow posters.


22 Sep 06 - 03:18 PM (#1841008)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Thank you. I will have a second cup.


22 Sep 06 - 03:21 PM (#1841009)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles: there are some folks who seemingly wish to keep on your case. Ignore them. You speak for yourself, and you have done so for months in the face of people who love to gang up on others. Ignore them and keep about your task.


22 Sep 06 - 03:32 PM (#1841018)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Well you've got the underdog sympathy vote Roger!


22 Sep 06 - 03:33 PM (#1841019)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run?

Right you did ask - so I will assume that you do want an answer.

I will start off with a question for you. What do you you think started all of this?

I was trying to to do just that and I still am. It became pretty obvious that it was not going to be possible for some posters and for me especially - to continue be able to do this unless some changes were made.

Here is an example of an attempt to start a thread song.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM

Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix?

This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first?

Thank you.

Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu.

The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads.

If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section.
You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about.

-Joe Offer-


22 Sep 06 - 03:38 PM (#1841025)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"It became pretty obvious that it was not going to be possible for some posters and for me especially - to continue be able to do this unless some changes were made."

How? From what you posted, Joe offered you choices.   He even said "If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section." I thought your big complaint was that changes are made without informing anyone? Here Joe had the courtesy of telling you what would happen in public and you still find a reason to complain?

Boy, there is no pleasing some people!!


22 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM (#1841026)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella

"Blowzabella - from reading your post I see you are so convinced that you should have some control over the postings of others that there is little point in me responding to the little you have said..."


Nothing I said suggested that I should have or desire to have any control over anyone else's posts. I really do not see how anyone reading my post could interpret it in that way. I merely suggested that your present tactic is not working and that, by doing what you say you want to do - i.e. taking part in reasoned discussions - plural ie on more than one topic - you might find that you could return to this topic later in the conversation.

It is how conversations work.

Should you not wish to do so, I suggest you direct your request to the site owner.

These are suggestions which do not in any way try to controll what you post or where you post - but may help you to resolve something which clearly takes up more of your day than can be healthy, in the long term. Even the most ardent campaigners have to use more than one tactic - especially when they can see that their preferred method is having little effect.

Unless, that is, your campaign is having precisely the effect you desire - having no idea of what your true desires are, I cannot, obviously, make any comment on that.   

Howeve, God has granted me serenity to accept the things I cannot change - what a pity he hasn't done the same for you.

Oh - and by the way - no-one is forcing you to read my post - nor did I force you to read the previous ones. They might even have been posted merely to refresh the thread - who knows?


22 Sep 06 - 03:43 PM (#1841028)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

I will post to clarify one thing about this poster. Then I am back out of any discussion of him.

The only restriction on this poster is one he richly deserves. It applies to his constant attack of the moderating of this forum. Among other things, this poster would carry that selfsame argument to threads that were unrelated, and he would hijack them from their original subject. For a number of years he would use cut and paste quotes taken out of context. The problem became so severe that the decision was made that he had one thread per day to post his monotonous complaints.

I would also point out that where he is simply taking part in a discussion of other topics, there are no restrictions. There are several other threads such as this that he is currently participating in. If you participate, you are part of the problem. I don't buy into this "I can't help myself" thing at all. Of course you can.

I agree with GUEST. Those that try and reason, or even respond to his posts on this subject only encourage it to go on. I much prefer the tactic that has been used of late to just ignore him and watch him flop about trying desperately to lure someone in.

I am now back out of this other than to monitor it.

Mick


22 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM (#1841038)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I really do not see how anyone reading my post could interpret it in that way.

You can not be aware of the rules then.


22 Sep 06 - 04:00 PM (#1841040)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Well, Mick, the only moderation that will be needed is of those who attack Shambles.


22 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM (#1841048)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated. If they are responding to him, silly though I believe that to be, that will be allowed.


22 Sep 06 - 04:24 PM (#1841058)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella

Guest 22 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM

If I have broken any of the rules, I would be very much obliged if you could enlighten me, as I have not done so to my knowledge.


22 Sep 06 - 04:38 PM (#1841068)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

If I have broken any of the rules, I would be very much obliged if you could enlighten me, as I have not done so to my knowledge.

The rule you are unaware of is that Shambles is allowed to interpret and draw conclusions from threads in anway way he sees fit. Even if you stated that you believed the earth is round and Shambles drew the conclusion from that that you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, you would have no rights to question how such a conclusion could possibly be reached.

I hope that clarifies matters.


22 Sep 06 - 04:42 PM (#1841072)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella

Thank you for your explanation Guest 22 Sep 06 - 04:38 PM

That has clarified the situation and I do see how I fell foul. It was unintentional, but a blunder, nonetheless.


22 Sep 06 - 05:10 PM (#1841088)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"The rule you are unaware of is that Shambles is allowed to interpret and draw conclusions from threads in anway way he sees fit. Even if you stated that you believed the earth is round and Shambles drew the conclusion from that that you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, you would have no rights to question how such a conclusion could possibly be reached."

Don't be so thick. We all know that the world is round--like a saucer.


22 Sep 06 - 05:11 PM (#1841090)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

LOL


22 Sep 06 - 06:53 PM (#1841161)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Boy, there is no pleasing some people!!

Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run?

Another example - Where the possibility of having more than one thread on our forum one similar subjects - is thought to be justificaton for the imposed closure of a long-running thread in which the regular posters were seen to be following all the 'rules'.   

As for a Licensing Act thread being closed, the only one I can think of, is Affected by the Licensing Act 2003. It was closed (with explanation and crosslink posted) for a few days in April or May, 2006, because somebody had started a newer thread with the same title. We do this occasionally when there are two threads on the same subject, to avoid splitting and confusing the discussion. Upon request from Shambles, I reopened the thread. I also combined the newer thread with the older one. Shambles, if this is the thread you are referring to, please be sure not to mislead the nice people. Be sure to tell them that this took place in April or May, that it was closed because there was another thread active on the same subject, and that the thread was reopened at your request within a few days.
Joe Offer


Where it may be irritating for some posters to have to see the titles of two or more threads on similar subjects - it is hardly justification for such obsessive imposed deletions and thread closures. These are only guidelines. Our forum will survive such terrible things as having to see two or more threads on one subject for a few days.

I am not so sure that it will survive some of the examples now set by (some of) our 'moderators' of what they judge to be acceptable posting behaviour or proportionate 'moderation'.


22 Sep 06 - 07:20 PM (#1841173)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The only restriction on this poster is one he richly deserves. It applies to his constant attack of the moderating of this forum.

The so-called 'moderating' on our forum is not being 'attacked' by me or anyone. The attempt is only to enable open discussion on this issue (and others) without 'silent deletion', imposed thread closures and other selective restrictions.

If these selective restrictions are so richly deserved - why is any poster who constantly posts to defend the so-called 'moderation' on our forum is allowed (by our 'moderators') to post this uninformed judgement of support in as many threads and as many times as they wish. Often accompanied with abusive personal attacks and name-calling - following the example set by (some of) our 'moderators'.

But this 'moderation' does not need to be 'attacked'. For the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly announced the failure of these measures to impose on our forum the peace he requires. So why are these failed and counter-productive measures defended as if they were in any way effective - when their chief architect has now publicly admitted their failure?

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Would should now be openly encouraged to be discussed on our forum (and not restricted) are suggestions as to how the peace that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Mudcat Editing Team's measure have failed to impose - can be enabled.   

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS


22 Sep 06 - 07:25 PM (#1841179)
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles

2. Do you think it should be moderated?

A supplementary question for those who answered YES to the above -

Do you need to be censored?


22 Sep 06 - 07:37 PM (#1841186)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Here Joe had the courtesy of telling you what would happen in public and you still find a reason to complain?

Except of course that the change to the thread's title had already been imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission. The then and current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's threat was to relegate a music thread to the BS if I expressed the view that I did not agree with his imposition.

All this and his (unasked for) personal opinion of 'song challenges' were all contained in that editing comment.

It may be considered to be a courtesy had I been contacted and asked my view on the proposed title change - before the change was imposed.


22 Sep 06 - 08:07 PM (#1841192)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

If you HAD been contacted what would you have said?


22 Sep 06 - 08:22 PM (#1841197)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

He would have objected to having been contacted.


23 Sep 06 - 03:05 AM (#1841315)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If you HAD been contacted what would you have said?

The point is that I was not contacted - so our forum will never know what a more stylish approach may have achieved.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM

I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM

You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for.

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?
-Joe Offer-

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

However a less drastic approach is possible, has less danger of being counter-productive and as the following post shows - it is appreciated

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,khandu - PM
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM

I am with The Shambles on this one.

A couple of years back, I created a thread regarding a certain troll. Within moments, Pene Azul pmed me and explained that he believed this thread would probably do far more harm than good and requested permission to delete it.

Certainly, he could have deleted it without bothering to ask. But Jeff showed more class than that.

The simple act of contacting me beforehand made all the difference in the world. I told him to delete it and I felt rather good about it all.

Had he or anyone else deleted it without contact, I would have been pissed and would have posted a grumbling thread about it.

Simple decency goes a long way.

Change my thread titles? Sure, if you believe there is a good reason. But show some civility and respect to the creator of the thread by sending a simple PM.

khandu


There is nothing decent, friendly or nice about all these imposed measures like the 'silent deletion', of entire threads and posts, thread closures, title changes and the like.

These imposed judgements by one (favoured) poster on another are drastic measures and they will produce counter-productive responses. Perhaps drastic measure like this should not be used as the first and only action and should only be used on the rare occasions when such drastic measures are proportionate?

Then the impression of (anonymous) 'moderators' (or some undefined 'we) being in constant conflict with named members our forum will not be the one that is perceived and which undoubtly will now inhibit some posters from contributing.


23 Sep 06 - 04:51 AM (#1841352)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated.

Good to see this is being taken seriously and that the posters of such things are to be eliminated. About time too.

Is this to be with the services of the special Mudcat hitman who will be chosen from the ranks of favoured posters or Mick, are you also going to volunteer your services in this role?

That could well be a problem - for as one of our known 'moderators' who has constantly set the example that such posts are acceptable posting behaviour - you may have to eliminate yourself.

Thanks for the offer but it is not required that the posters of personal judgements be eliminated - just that our 'moderators' do not continue to set the example that this is now the whole object of our forum and that all posters can be seen to be treated equally. And remember:

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS


23 Sep 06 - 05:28 AM (#1841364)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st

Well you certainly missed the point there then!
Yet again


23 Sep 06 - 06:18 AM (#1841389)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I'll do the deciding
Humans only need guiding
To do want I want them to do
Justified by the means
The end - seen in my dreams
Does it seem like a nightmare to you?

The goal is elimination
Of all duplication
Can't you get this into your brain?
I'll make sure that you will
Finally swallow this pill
As I will post it again and again

I will enable debate
Like a totalitarian state
With kind and generous hosts
Peace will be imposed
Every open thread closed
And with me writing all of the posts.


23 Sep 06 - 06:21 AM (#1841395)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

And with me writing all of the posts.

At least that line figures...


23 Sep 06 - 06:23 AM (#1841398)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st

Today Mudcat, tomorrow the world!


23 Sep 06 - 07:53 AM (#1841452)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Is giok having a lie in?


23 Sep 06 - 04:52 PM (#1841605)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Or a tig er?


23 Sep 06 - 07:45 PM (#1841705)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Perhaps the Mudcat hitman has eliminated my Scottish friend?


Can someone explain to me why any poster would continue to post to support a system as being effective - when the main architect of this system has publicly admitted its failure?

There may not be any 'bad faith' involved in the current system of 'moderation' - but the posting of this support certainly appears to be an example of 'blind faith'. It is rather like continuing to place your money on a horse to win - when its trainer has already announced that the horse has died. It is very loyal and trusting on the part of these posters and punters but perhaps not really very sensible....?

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-


I am not sure, and it is not really explained why it is now thought to be OK to scare visitors away and for our forum to look even more exclusive than it currently does by changing to members-only posting.

And I for one, have certainly thought of many solutions and made lots of positive suggestions - I am sure that you can too.

In order to protect all parties and ensure that posters can for the first time express an informed opinion on whether the 'moderation' on our forum is proportionate or not - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on us?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?


THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS


24 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM (#1842275)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

You are reading too much Orwell, Shambles.


24 Sep 06 - 08:27 PM (#1842485)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella

A man in your county should be reading Thomas Hardy - definitely.


24 Sep 06 - 08:51 PM (#1842505)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If Galileo had said in verse that the world moved, the inquisition might have let him alone.
Thomas Hardy


25 Sep 06 - 01:12 PM (#1843003)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Mudcat's Birthday

Interesting that a thread where nice things are said about the Mudcat Editing Team still proudly remains on the music section.

When any other birthday thread would be quickly relegated to the BS - but perhaps not quite so quick as any thread where less than flattering comments and suggested improvements - were made about the same issue.


25 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM (#1843014)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: gnu

Jaysus, Roger. You got nothin better to do than crap and whine ALL fuckin day. (Ah, notice there was no question mark at the end of that sentence.) I read ONE of your posts for the first time in months and it's still crap and whine.


25 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM (#1843111)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Not to Roger it isn't.

Say what you wish about the Shambles, but over time he has gained my admiration for fortitude in the face of derision, scorn, slagging and bad things people have said to and about him. He has never, to my knowledge, resorted to the types of statements many of his detractors have. That says a bunch.

Ya go brass ones, Roger.


25 Sep 06 - 04:05 PM (#1843114)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Of course, even though he does not resort to the same types of statements that his detractors have used, Roger has his own style of causing problems.   I may admire his fortitude, but there comes a time when fortitude is replaced by ineptitude. Much of what he has been doing appears to be an attempt to sooth his own ego and avoid the perception that he admits he has been wrong in his actions.

Ya got brass ones Roger, but they could use a little polish


25 Sep 06 - 04:08 PM (#1843116)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

Yes, shambles posts can ramble on and on ... it's your choice, all one has to do is ignore them ... but of course there those that don't.

But, I have to agree with Guest that "He has never, to my knowledge, resorted to the types of statements many of his detractors have"... and some of them have been downright mean and ugly.

sIx


25 Sep 06 - 04:36 PM (#1843135)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles quotes out of context, distorts facts, accuses others, etc.

No he doesn't use the same tactics but it's easy enough to see why people end up saying what they do in exasperation with him.


25 Sep 06 - 04:44 PM (#1843142)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

So ..... just ignore him. Verbally attacking consistantly is no less honourable than his mumbly rambles.

BTW ... he states what he does and does not guise himself as a Guest.

sIx


25 Sep 06 - 04:45 PM (#1843144)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Simple solution for you. Do NOT read his posts. If the ingestion of salt acuses your BP to rise, you should ascribe the cause of the problem to

a) the salt?
b) the ingestion of the salt?


25 Sep 06 - 04:50 PM (#1843151)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

BTW ... he states what he does and does not guise himself as a Guest.

That does not make what he does any better.


25 Sep 06 - 04:50 PM (#1843152)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"So ..... just ignore him"
Likewise you can just ignore those of us who have issues with Shambles posting style. It is a two-way street.

"Verbally attacking consistantly is no less honourable than his mumbly rambles"
That is a judgement call. "Honour" can be interpreted in various ways.

"he states what he does and does not guise himself as a Guest."
Do you know that for a fact? Do you believe that?


25 Sep 06 - 05:01 PM (#1843160)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

Who really cares that much to keep this argument going ... certainly not me.

sIx


25 Sep 06 - 05:27 PM (#1843180)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Posters may be encourage to see this problem as only being an individual poster.

And if you do see it as this - the public witch-hunt can be carried on in Not posting to a thread

Then perhaps this thread can be left for anyone who wishes to discuss the issue?


25 Sep 06 - 05:33 PM (#1843189)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

500 NOW CLOSE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


25 Sep 06 - 05:33 PM (#1843190)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Joe Offer at the Women's Center

Am I #500?


25 Sep 06 - 05:35 PM (#1843191)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Joe Offer (at the Women's Center)

Damn. Missed it.
No, I don't plan to close the thread. This is Shambles' home.
That's NOT a promise.
Situations may force me to change my mind.
-Joe-


25 Sep 06 - 05:54 PM (#1843205)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-


You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. It is not wise to take too much notice of any assurances given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-


The above assurance was given in the following thread   Do you need to be censored?   which (along with all the other threads on this subject) - is now closed.

In future and to avoid posters being confused about which are their personal views and what are the official editing comments of our 'moderators' expressed in the course of their roles - perhaps all editing comments can be seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?

And no reference to editing actions be made - especially like any poster being able to impose their judgement on others - is ever contained in a conventional posting.


25 Sep 06 - 07:12 PM (#1843260)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Tough, Rog. You earned it. You get one thread for this. You can have it forever or until Max has had enough. You may post on other threads as long as you don't try to swing the topic to this same old tired stuff. Proof of that is found in several other threads where you are currently posting. GUEST may admire you, that is his right. I think that is misguided and ignores 7 or 8 years of your rants and taking over threads.

And yes, you can request. It has been considered. Request denied.


25 Sep 06 - 11:20 PM (#1843382)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

Aw Mick, that ain't right. Lemmee help you out here.

Shambolina you say that you need an explanation "provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?"

Okay Rog.....Here's one you can always refer to should someone zap a post.

One of your flakey posts on some thread or another was zapped the other day because it was another of your sillyass and repetitious rants built around misquotes and out of context, copy and paste, bullshit. If it had any redeeming value it was moved to this thread, otherwise it is gone into the ether and only it's smell remains.

That ought to cover all of your problems......except for the fact that you haven't left after Max asked you to go.

Have a nice day Twiddles.

Spaw


26 Sep 06 - 05:55 AM (#1843513)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Please delete personal attack?


26 Sep 06 - 06:12 AM (#1843519)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Responses to bullying

Which was closed with the following editing comment of explanation.

I think it's time to close this thread. Reason: bullying, which constitutes a gang approach to a personal attack. I'm glad you suggested it, Roger.
Joe Offer


Of course – I had suggested no such thing and if this action had been undertaken at my suggestion – it would have been the about the first only suggestion of mine that was had ever been selected for implementation by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.


26 Sep 06 - 06:37 AM (#1843530)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You will see that the thread Responses to racism has not (yet) been subjected to imposed closure.


26 Sep 06 - 07:00 AM (#1843541)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

Interesting that a thread where nice things are said about the Mudcat Editing Team still proudly remains on the music section.

When any other birthday thready would be quickly relegated to the BS
(Shambles, emphasis mine)

You are not telling the truth as everyone can easily see by searching for threads with the word "birthday" in them.

Birthday threads about known musicians remain in the music section (Martin Carthy, Phil Ochs, Bob Dylan, to name but a few).
Birthday threads about normal (or even less normal Mudcatters, like Joe O.) are usually started with the BS tag and reamin in this section. Birthday threads for normal Mudcatters without the BS tag have (mostly) been moved down. One instance: A Shambles birthday thread.

A birthday thread about a music resource (for instance: Mudcat) belongs in the music section in my opinion.

The reasons you allude to why threads are moved or not cannot be substantiated by looking at the pattern which birthday threads are moved and which are not moved. The pattern you see, wexists only in your head.

And the any other thread is an outright lie.

Wolfgang


26 Sep 06 - 07:04 AM (#1843546)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,jOhn

Shambles-you just are bloody moan too much and make trubble!


26 Sep 06 - 07:14 AM (#1843551)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

A birthday thread about a music resource (for instance: Mudcat) belongs in the music section in my opinion.

It would have in Shambles' opinion too had it been moved to the BS section...

Shambles' judgement on what is right or wrongis dependant on what the moderators do or don't do. They must be wrong - simple as that.


26 Sep 06 - 08:04 AM (#1843577)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Any one care to try and explain and justify why the BS thread Do you support the status quo? was first deleted anonymously with no editing comment of explanation. Then was later combined with the musical thread Do You support the Status Quo, renamed and relegated to the BS?

And why 'any other thread' started (certainly by me) with the same general interest to ALL posters as this Mudcat birthday thread would do - if it were allowed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to remain on our forum at all - would undoubtably and quickly be relgated to the BS section?

Perhaps the sensible answer - to avoid the wrong judgement call being made and to enable all posters on our now divided forum to equally contribute to these discussions - would be to have all such threads on both sections?


26 Sep 06 - 08:19 AM (#1843583)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17-Sep-06 - 03:21 AM

Sorry, but I can't sift out all the Guest posts from the others, without messing with a thread more than I feel comfortable doing. I agree that the conspiracy-theory posts add nothing to the thread, and tend to stifle real discussion. guess that's a good reason for blocking Guest posts in the non-music section.
-Joe Offer-


Are posts from guests ('i.e' non members) going to be blocked?

If this is Max's intention can this be stated? If this is NOT Max's intention - can our 'moderators' be instructed to stop publicly 'pitching' for this? To work under the current set-up or to leave and set-up their own forum where they can block who they wish?


26 Sep 06 - 08:53 AM (#1843609)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I notice that KREX's birthday has not been relegated to the BS section.

So perhaps with our forum's 10th birthday coming up - there is to be a more common sense approach to such things for posters to look forward to in the next ten years?


26 Sep 06 - 09:31 AM (#1843635)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Very few people would expect a regular football match - with an open invitation for all to take part - to be thought or seen to be a fair contest, when the referee judged it to be acceptable for them to also play in the game as a participant.

Perhaps in order for this to be seen to be a fair game - they may expect this referee to make a choice to either be a referee or to be a player? Especially when they started sending other players off for what they judged to be unfair play.

Even without the referee wishing to play both roles - most people would be surprised that such a game of football would ever get completed - if this referee kept trying to change the rules, in order turn it into a game of rugby. And tried to exclude some players from the pitch altogether, whilst trying to pursuade the rest of players that this change was a far better idea than the original concept.

It would not be too much of a surprise if this referee was not asked or expected to play whatever game they wanted and by whatever rules - but to do this elsewhere and to leave everyone else to get on with their football match.


26 Sep 06 - 09:41 AM (#1843638)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

That really is a gem, Shambles.


26 Sep 06 - 10:59 AM (#1843691)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"Shambles-you just are bloody moan too much and make trubble!"

Shambles does moan at times. However, it's others who make the trouble.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? Answer that and you'll know the difficulties don't come from Shambles.


26 Sep 06 - 01:06 PM (#1843826)
Subject: RE: Just found Mudcat too
From: The Shambles

Is this not BS material?

Apparently not - but the following thread is judged to be

When was Mudcat lost?
26 Sep 06 - 01:09 PM (#1843829)
Subject: RE: Just found Mudcat too
From: The Shambles

But if this thread is so judged and relegated to the BS - then so must the following.

Just found Mudcat


26 Sep 06 - 01:47 PM (#1843874)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st

Judging by your non stop perusal of this site, I would think you'd make an ideal moderator. Only thing is, that if you were one, the rest would probably all leave. Except of course the mysterious Guest that has materialised in you support. Odd that isn't it, you've had more support from one anonymous poster in the last few weeks, than you've had from named Mudcatters in the last 8 years?
How convenient too.


27 Sep 06 - 06:27 PM (#1844531)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Things may change - but only when posters once again feel free to express their views, whatever they may be - free from the fear of the special restrictions, intimidation and bullying we see encouraged here - being addressed towards them.

It would not be surprising if the regular guest posters on this thread turn-out to one and the same. But I am not surprised that many those who post their views now choose do so anonymously - been this be seen as 'support' or the very opposite. . Including those who would feel themselves qualified to anonymously impose their judgement on me and their other fellow posters.

The whole point is to try and enable open discussion to take place on this issue as on any other subject on our forum - the fact that various attempts are made to prevent this and posters are openly encouraged to take part in this, is regretable and reflects very little credit on our forum.

But things may change - let us all hope they will improve.


28 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM (#1845165)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Birthday threads

For some reason it is now judged that having obit threads on the music related section is OK - even when whoever the unfortunate person is has no musical connection at all. There is even a prefix for such threads.

To my mind when someone has died it is really a little late to post nice things about them or to say how they may have influenced your life etc. As they certainly will not be able to read it.

And it is not considered good form (by some posters) to post anything in such threads that may be seen as any way critcal or to be too silly.

Wolfgang's attempt (in this thread) to provide some reasoning behind our 'modertaors' erratic treatment of 'birthday threads' gave me an idea.

As this would remain on the music section, where all contributors would see it. I thought that starting a thread there on some musically related persons birthday (whether they were still alive or not) - would give our forum a chance to say what they wished to about that person, without feeling that they were expected to be reverential. Or posters could decide for themselves whether they wished to post to it at all.

If the featured person were still lucky enough to be alive - there is a chance that they may even read and appriciate it. It seemed to me to be a bit more positive and less depressing to keep reading on our forum the names of all those who had died.

But such is the nature of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's witch-hunt - that the regular's on 'snitchers corner' [The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum] have already suspected and found some terrible motive for such threads and have alerted 'Big Brother'.

Perhaps encouraging all this paranoid silliness can now be ended and all posters be seen to be treated equally?
    Note: non-music birthday and obituary threads are routinely moved into the non-music section. If it's a thread about a musician that ends up being just congratulations and condolences without music information, it will also eventually get moved. But you knew that already. It has been said many times before.
    Yes, it is a matter of judgment and it's not always a clear-cut matter. But that's what we get paid the big bucks for.
    -Joe Offer-


28 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM (#1845185)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

Obits were originally in the upper section. As were all other headings EXCEPT BS:
After a time Obits may (in fact usually) get tagged as non music and drop below the line

that has been procedure and custom since the heading tage were instituted.

nothing new.

nothing strange.


28 Sep 06 - 06:49 PM (#1845477)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: Obit: Steve Irwin is dead
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 01:33 AM

Sorry, this has nothing to do with music, should be in the BS section

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

No need for this notice. Obituaries should be started with the "Obituary" tag, whether or not they deal with music. The Clones and I will eventually move the thread to non-music if that's where it belongs. That process seems easier than having two "obit" tags, one for music and one not.
-Joe Offer-


28 Sep 06 - 07:05 PM (#1845493)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy

Shambles, this may piss you off! I have stayed off this thread for ages, I have not asked for you to be removed, I have said that you need some help and / or some space, but the bit that will piss you off is that there is someone else that is more of a pain in the arse than you are (no names, no pack drill!) so you are not number 1 anymore, how does that feel? There is another that pisses me off more than you do! Time to regroup & lick your wounds, time to reflect, time to accept, time to grow up, time to be humble & let this thread die.
Skipy, who will read whatever you write in the future when you let this crap drop.


28 Sep 06 - 07:25 PM (#1845522)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Skipy, who will read whatever you write in the future when you let this crap drop.

Unlike you - I only have this thread to express my views on.

The only way I will be permitted to post my views elsewhere will be if I am prepared to change them.

I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............


28 Sep 06 - 07:47 PM (#1845541)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

"I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............"

I guess widdle Shamby Pamby can't see too well. Try this:


Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.

Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.


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



There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<))

Spaw


28 Sep 06 - 07:49 PM (#1845546)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

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

Note: non-music birthday and obituary threads are routinely moved into the non-music section. If it's a thread about a musician that ends up being just congratulations and condolences without music information, it will also eventually get moved. But you knew that already. It has been said many times before.
Yes, it is a matter of judgment and it's not always a clear-cut matter. But that's what we get paid the big bucks for.
-Joe Offer-


Perhaps - as it is not clear-cut - our forum can be left to decide a threads fate? If it is of interest - it will be posted to - if it is not - it will fall off the page.


28 Sep 06 - 07:54 PM (#1845553)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

And then again, YOU, SHAMBOLINA, may have missed the following post:


*********************************************************************
"I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............"

I guess widdle Shamby Pamby can't see too well. Try this:



Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address

From: Max - PM

Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM



I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.



Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.



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





There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<))



Spaw


29 Sep 06 - 08:45 AM (#1845913)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated. If they are responding to him, silly though I believe that to be, that will be allowed.


I am not sure if our forum can expect Catspaw to be eliminated by Big Mick or not?


29 Sep 06 - 08:50 AM (#1845914)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work

"If they are responding to him"

seems to be the operative phrase.


29 Sep 06 - 09:12 AM (#1845932)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

"If they are responding to him"

seems to be the operative phrase.


Who else would a personal attack be responding too but the one being attacked?

As I do not post personal attacks on Catspaw or anyone else and do not respond in kind to the many that are encouraged to be made to me and that I am not protected from - any personal attack posted about me - will be unprovoked.

So even using Mick's strange logic - these personal attacks cannot be justified - by our 'moderators' just because they may share the sentiments.

In some of Mick's earlier posts he encourages posters not to use this thread for discussion - but by this later comment - he is actively encouraging the posting of abusive personal attacks to be made about certain posters in this thread.


29 Sep 06 - 09:33 AM (#1845940)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st

No the roundabout and underhand, not to mention indirect attack is more your style isn't it Shambles Sweetie?
Agent provocateur is the correct term I think, you are like a little mosquito, anybody within reach will do, but with a preference for clones.
I bet as a little boy,(maybe you still do it), you stamped your feet and said "Shan't" when your Mommy told you to do things. Maybe she should have whupped your ass a bit more often to break you of the habit of being truculent, which is how you come over on here. As a sulking truculent baby.


29 Sep 06 - 10:36 AM (#1845981)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

"I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............"


PLEASE TRY AND RESPOND TO THE OBVIOUS POST REQUEST BELOW....PERHAPS YOU CAN SEE THAT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK FROM MAX, IN WHICH CASE YOU NEED TO GO!!!!

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address


From: Max - PM

Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM



I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.


Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.


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







There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<))





Spaw


29 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM (#1846075)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I have no control over the posting of others and have no wish to. All that I have ever tried to do on our forum is to post my honest views.

That others may judge posting these honest views to be seen in emotive and combative terms like: Attacking, Hijacking, Duplication, Domination, Crowding-out, Controlling, Manipulating, Trolling, Flaming, Spamming Etc Etc - is their problem. The reality is that these are simply views posted to our forum for discussion - which is its purpose.

Why are those who perhaps should know better, now seen to encourage the simple act of of posting to a forum set-up for public discussion to be seen and judged in such terms?      

I suggest it is because they do wish to have control over the posting of others, assume that others are similarly motivated and see any poster trying to express a different view to be a direct threat to their ability to continue impose their judgement on the posting of others.

I suggest that it is time for a change to an open less combative approach - where 'moderators' are not seen to be in open conflict with our forum's contributors and all are seen to be treated equally and not encouraged to subjected to bullying public witch-hunts.


29 Sep 06 - 12:48 PM (#1846085)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

The thing about public discussion fora, is that they involve give and take on the part of the contributors. Your self centred mania, and refusal to respond to legitimate queries, or discuss your overhyped grievances places you outwith those parameters.
The habit of keeping on asking the same question over and over again hoping to get the answer you want, is a form of bullying, a thing you often complain about others doing to you.
Just because your bullying follows a different format from others who may adopt a more direct line, it doesn't make it any less oppressive to those at whom it is aimed.
JGM


29 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM (#1846090)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

"I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............"



PLEASE TRY AND RESPOND TO THE OBVIOUS POST REQUEST BELOW....PERHAPS YOU CAN SEE THAT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK FROM MAX, IN WHICH CASE YOU NEED TO GO!!!!


Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address



From: Max - PM


Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM





I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.




Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.



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









There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<))







Spaw


29 Sep 06 - 12:57 PM (#1846098)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"I suggest that it is time for a change to an open less combative approach - where 'moderators' are not seen to be in open conflict with our forum's contributors and all are seen to be treated equally and not encouraged to subjected to bullying public witch-hunts."

Putting all of Shambles past history aside, I think he makes a point. However, is there any evidence to Shambles claims? Yes, I know there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of postings that Shambles have made - but everything I've read seem to be open to interpretation

I would ask this of the forum -

1. Has anyone felt that they have been involved in any conflict with the forum moderators?

2. Do you feel that YOU (I don't mean Shambles, but you the reader) have not been treated equally?

I would love to see anyone who answers "yes" to those questions to please post here - and not as an anoymous "guest". Let us hear from members of this forum to see if anyone besides Shambles truly has this issue.


29 Sep 06 - 01:04 PM (#1846108)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

I've had some posts modified and deleted and some other changes as well. No problem from me. The Mods all do a pretty good job!

Spaw

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


29 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM (#1846113)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

Oh sure, Ron...I have had conflicts! I was at a Getaway, and there was some VERY good beer in a bag ...and Mick & Max & Jeff and Joe Offer were ALL there, impeding my access to it! (Jeri was there, but she didn't get in my way...*grin*)

Why, I was almost ready to mop up on the lot! Then they noticed I wanted a beer, and they not only made way, they opened the bag!

And late at night, we were singing, and I could barely get a song in edgewise for all those folks singing! Why, it's enough to make a feller invent a new identity on the Mudcat in order to harass 'em!

I'm sure Shambles would have let me sing & have a beer!


29 Sep 06 - 01:15 PM (#1846117)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

What Spaw said! I've had posts deleted, and had arguments with the "Management", I don't intend to keep pissing and moaning about it to anyone who will listen, for the foreseeable future either!
G.


29 Sep 06 - 01:26 PM (#1846128)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"As a sulking truculent baby."

Ennui is a twit.


29 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM (#1846129)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

I don't think anyone is likely to agree with every moderation decision that has been made here, or at ANY other web site. I would also expect that there are a number of people here who at some time or other have had a dispute regarding some moderation decision - given the number of posts made, it would be almost absurd to think such things have never happened.

What is more to the point is whether I believe that the attempt is made to apply what ever moderation there is (at whatever level there is) on a site is done consistanly and fairly. In terms of that overall picture, it is my belief that the moderators here do a good job.


29 Sep 06 - 01:38 PM (#1846134)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Of course when Max's public statement is posted - what it says before is ignored and what it goes on to say - is omitted. Such as:

Joe: Do I need to separate you two?

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

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.


Ron - It must be quite clear from the special restrictions imposed on my posting only by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that our forum is not all playing under the same rules - or being expected to. Until we are all seen to be playing under the same rules and posters can feel safe from having the same treatment imposed on them as they see imposed on me - it is hardly likely that any poster will be prepared to take the risk of posting anything that may result in this.

Our current 'moderation' IS well-intentioned. That is why it so supported and why it is so dangerous. But the bottom line is that it simply does not work. Which is even now admitted by its chief achitect. But not only this - it is counter-productive and only encourages (directly and indirectly) the very conflict it is supposed to be dealing with whilst encouraging posters to mind everyone's business but their own.

Very few people would expect a regular football match - with an open invitation for all to take part - to be thought or seen to be a fair contest, when the referee judged it to be acceptable for them to also play in the game as a participant.

Perhaps in order for this to be seen to be a fair game - they may expect this referee to make a choice to either be a referee or to be a player? Especially when they started sending other players off for what they judged to be unfair play.

Even without the referee wishing to play both roles - most people would be surprised that such a game of football would ever get completed - if this referee kept trying to change the rules, in order turn it into a game of rugby. And tried to exclude some players from the pitch altogether, whilst trying to pursuade the rest of players that this change was a far better idea than the original concept.

It would not be too much of a surprise if this referee was not asked or expected to play whatever game they wanted and by whatever rules - but to do this elsewhere and to leave everyone else to get on with their football match.


29 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM (#1846140)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

oh, piffle, Roger! YOU are a moderator at a singing session, but I assume you also get your turn! It is absurd to expect that we could FIND mods who are willing to just be moderators and not participate in the discussions!


29 Sep 06 - 01:48 PM (#1846144)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shambles - can you simply bullet point your gripe? That last note just rambled. You would be more effective if you could present your case in a clear and concise manner. I have re-read that last post three times and I am still unclear as to the point you are trying to make in regards to my post.


29 Sep 06 - 01:56 PM (#1846155)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Did your post make sense, Ron? (Some of them don't.)


29 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM (#1846173)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

oh, piffle, Roger! YOU are a moderator at a singing session, but I assume you also get your turn! It is absurd to expect that we could FIND mods who are willing to just be moderators and not participate in the discussions!

Piffle indeed. I am not a moderator at a singing session.

I am a participant in tune sessions and the 'leader' of a regular weekly pub session - where the object is to involve as many musicians as possible to participate in playing sets of tunes at the same time. It is not without its difficulties but the approach taken is that everyone has as much 'right' to be in that public place as everyone else - no matter whatever their musical abilities may be. It does not make things easy but on many nights than not, the end result often rewards and justifies the attempt.

I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable. And if this is not thought possible the down-side and counter-productive results of having referees who also wish to be players cannot just be ignored. Especially after the main architect of the current 'system' has admitted its failure.

Other optiona are to have any 'moderators' at all or to give the choice to our current 'moderators' of just being a referee.


29 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM (#1846175)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

good comeback


29 Sep 06 - 02:11 PM (#1846178)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable. And if this is not thought possible the down-side and counter-productive results of having referees who also wish to be players cannot just be ignored. Especially after the main architect of the current 'system' has admitted its failure.

Other optiona are to have any 'moderators' at all or to give the choice to our current 'moderators' of just being a referee. "


... or the other option, leave things the way they are.   The majority of posters seem to have no problem with that.


29 Sep 06 - 02:28 PM (#1846201)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

or the other option, leave things the way they are.   The majority of posters seem to have no problem with that.

If this were the case - would this 'I'm alright Jack' attitude really mean that the current 'system' was seen to be impartial and all poster were equally treated?

If this were the case - would it mean that its main architect's admission of the current systems failure can be safely ignored?

As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. Not until every such action is indicated and explained with an editing comment and all editing comments are limited to where this has been judged to be necessary.


29 Sep 06 - 02:30 PM (#1846203)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

Well, tune session or singing session...moderator or leader, I have no doubt that if there were a real problem you WOULD have to find a way to deal with disruptions. Here, there are many thousands who come in at times, and the law of averages says that there is more opportunity for disruption than at a music session where you can look the offender in the eye!



"I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial ..."

I can well imagine how difficult it would be. PAID mods would be unlikely to understand the issues here, and if they did, they would be unlikely to tolerate your brand of incessant complaining.

"...but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable."

for whom? for youm? YOU are harping on some impossible model of complete impartiality.

You, it seems, will never get the point that YOU are not the arbitor of whether moderators are needed and how the job is delegated, and to whom.

The only way to keep things flowing on a site like this is to have some way to police ourselves....Max decided how and who, and he 'seems' to be ok with how they are doing it. The amazing part is how how much he and his appointees tolerate criticism OF his system and its rules.

That 'could' change.


29 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM (#1846212)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form.

nor is there any need for it. The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED.

It is not "our" forum" - it is Max's.


29 Sep 06 - 02:46 PM (#1846216)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. "

So then you agree to stop posting these notes Shambles? Perhaps you would agree that you have no way of knowing and that your posts are fruitless?

Don't forget - The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED.


29 Sep 06 - 02:55 PM (#1846229)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Can someone explain to me why any poster would continue to post to support a system as being effective - when the main architect of this system has publicly admitted its failure?


29 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM (#1846240)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. (Shambles)

It has been ignored for a long time as a favour to you, because the argument is utterly wrong. Look to the other threads where you multipost that nonsense for a refutation.

Wolfgang


29 Sep 06 - 03:17 PM (#1846247)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Because it is not a "failure" as you are trying to read into the comment. That is YOUR opinion.


29 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM (#1846262)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

Joe Offer, as the sham very well knows, implied that peace on the forum has failed as typified by the sham's incessant whining attacks.


29 Sep 06 - 04:19 PM (#1846293)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home

"As I do not post personal attacks on Catspaw or anyone else and do not respond in kind to the many that are encouraged to be made to me and that I am not protected from - any personal attack posted about me - will be unprovoked."

There's more than one way to provoke a response as you well know. BTW, what makes you think these responses are encouraged by anyone other than you? Another uninformed judgement?


29 Sep 06 - 05:00 PM (#1846321)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Because it is not a "failure" as you are trying to read into the comment. That is YOUR opinion.

That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum. Others can judge from the actual words and perhaps explain why posters support what they assume to be the status quo - when it is obviously nothing of the sort.

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-


29 Sep 06 - 05:08 PM (#1846326)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home

"That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum."

Seems to me you've been expressing your uninformed opinions in other threads of late - including an uninformed judgement about the moderators.


29 Sep 06 - 05:15 PM (#1846333)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

'The habit of keeping on asking the same question over and over again hoping to get the answer you want, is a form of bullying'

And to rephrase that sentence so that it has equal validity, assuming it had validity to begin with:

'The habit of keeping on giving the same answer over and over again hoping to get the result you want, is a form of bullying'


How many of you folks continue to gang up on Shambles and why? Is he touching your nerves? Bothering you? If so, why do you read his posts? Hell, I have seen at least half of you say at one time or another that the best way to avoid it is to AVOID IT. Fu#k's sake, take your own advice. You have begun to look like a collection of horses' arses.


29 Sep 06 - 05:24 PM (#1846338)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home

'The habit of keeping on giving the same answer over and over again hoping to get the result you want, is a form of bullying'

You expect the answer to change? The answer is the answer. If you ask the question you must expect the answer. If you don't like it - tough - perhaps you shouldn't have asked.


29 Sep 06 - 05:29 PM (#1846344)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum."

That is not true. If I abused my postings and began similar posts to yours in non-related topics, I am sure that I would be reprimanded.

As for that lengthly clip from Joe that you posted - what does that have to do with anything? Again, give us bullet points. IF that post was meant to show that someone admited failure, I think you failed in your attempt.


29 Sep 06 - 05:31 PM (#1846347)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Don't forget - The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED.

As if anyone would ever be allowed to forget this.

But I am not sure that this right is in question.

All that is being politely suggested is where and when this is judged to be necessary that it is always indicated and explained to our forum with an editing comment and that all editing comments are limited to only occasions when some form of imposed action has been imposed.

Can some of the witch-hunt explain to our forum what is so devilish about this?


29 Sep 06 - 05:33 PM (#1846348)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I didn't. I was rewriting a quote by Giok who was addressing Shambles. Get your head out, will you? Into the light. BTW, I am not Shambles. I am someone who thinks the ten of you who don't like what he has to say should stop reading his posts.

Shambles, you begin to look better than the lot of them.


29 Sep 06 - 05:34 PM (#1846350)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Request considered. Denied.


29 Sep 06 - 05:35 PM (#1846352)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home

Same answer. Nothing, it's just that they don't want the bother. They have enough to do as they have explained before.


29 Sep 06 - 05:42 PM (#1846357)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home

And I was pointing out that your rewrite was a stupid statement. The answer is repeated in the hope that it will actually be read and understood this time.


29 Sep 06 - 05:49 PM (#1846363)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

You are no better than Shambles. YOU do exactly the same thing you say he does. I tend to think most statements from you on this thread have been stupid. Piss off.


29 Sep 06 - 05:51 PM (#1846366)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Just so you know that your seemingly lily-white approach is so fuckin' transparent. Don't insult people and you won't get the insults back.


29 Sep 06 - 05:58 PM (#1846370)
Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles

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

Actually, the moderators are here to help primarily with technical problems, not to be babysitters or a police force. Most "offensive language" is ignored, and we expect Mudcatters to ignore minor squabbling.
Stick to the topic, Shambles. If you go off topic and post your usual repetitive propaganda, your message will be moved to the current Shambles garbage thread. As long as you actually discuss with people and address the issues they're talking about, your posts are likely to be left alone.
-Joe Offer-


As your moderators are clearly still under the impression that their purpose is to protect posters from the abusive personal attacks referred to - [which was the topic introduced into this thread by its orignator and to which I was responding on-topic to] – perhaps this latest version of their role should be passed to them? Although the object of this imposed 'moderation' does seem to change......As do your determined attempts to try and prevent this poster from posting my views on the same basis as other posters.

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

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-


29 Sep 06 - 06:03 PM (#1846374)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home

Deja vu?


29 Sep 06 - 06:06 PM (#1846376)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

All over again.


29 Sep 06 - 06:07 PM (#1846377)
Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles

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

Actually, the moderators are here to help primarily with technical problems, not to be babysitters or a police force. Most "offensive language" is ignored, and we expect Mudcatters to ignore minor squabbling.
Stick to the topic, Shambles. If you go off topic and post your usual repetitive propaganda, your message will be moved to the current Shambles garbage thread. As long as you actually discuss with people and address the issues they're talking about, your posts are likely to be left alone.
-Joe Offer-


As your moderators are clearly still under the impression that their purpose is to protect posters from the abusive personal attacks referred to - [which was plainly the topic introduced into this thread by its orignator and to which I was responding on-topic to] – perhaps this latest version of their role should be passed to them? Although the object of this imposed 'moderation' does seem to change......As do your determined attempts to try and prevent this poster from posting my views on the same basis as other posters.

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

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-


29 Sep 06 - 06:16 PM (#1846383)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home

Deja vu?


29 Sep 06 - 06:31 PM (#1846390)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

I...I....hear....hear....an...an....echo....echo....


29 Sep 06 - 06:50 PM (#1846398)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush . . . .


29 Sep 06 - 07:16 PM (#1846410)
Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles

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

OK, Shambles, this is the third time you've posted this message - and it's more-or-less the same thing you've said hundreds of times. Does your ability to copy and paste make you feel like a real man, or what? Can't you carry on a discussion like a real human being? What IS your problem?
-Joe Offer-


Perhaps my problem is partly that I have only just discovered you have twice 'silently deleted' my post containing subjects for discussion from our forum?

A post that was perfectly on topic as it was responding to the topic of abusive messages introduced into the thread by its originator.

Is now OK for a thread to remain on the music related section as long as it contains only uncritcal praise for the efforts of our 'moderators'? But for it to be swiftly relegated to the BS at the first sign of anything other than uncritcal praise for the efforts of our 'moderators'?

Can you please stop all this macho nonsense and be seen to treat all posters equally as your actions to prevent posters from saying what you do not want to see - is making our forum look foolish.


29 Sep 06 - 07:40 PM (#1846422)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"All that is being politely suggested is where and when this is judged to be necessary that it is always indicated and explained to our forum with an editing comment and that all editing comments are limited to only occasions when some form of imposed action has been imposed.

Can some of the witch-hunt explain to our forum what is so devilish about this?"

You did make a polite suggestion, and it was ignored.   Time to move on. If this were a business and you made a suggestion to the boss that he or she did not like, would you keep bringing it up like this? You would have been fired long ago.

Granted this is not a business. But it is also NOT a public forum. It is a privately owned website that the public is allowed to post in. There is no need for anyone to justify anything that they do.   The FACT they have given you explanations (which you ignore) and ALLOW you to continue posting is evidence of just how open and fair they really are. No other reasonable website owner would allow lengthy and fruitless bickering to continue on their site. Consider yourself privalaged.


29 Sep 06 - 08:01 PM (#1846430)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

. . .or to have those against Shambles repeat themselves ad fuckin' nauseum.


29 Sep 06 - 08:31 PM (#1846442)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

or trolls


29 Sep 06 - 08:41 PM (#1846448)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Troll with a name, troll without a name: same same.


29 Sep 06 - 09:20 PM (#1846472)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

not the same at all. You choose to be a guest so you can say things that you would not have the courage to say to a persons face.


29 Sep 06 - 09:29 PM (#1846483)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

No, Ron. Wrong again as usual. I choose to be a guest just because. I owe neither you nor anyone else an explanation. As to telling you to your face--if we ever meet I will be happy to. Now why don't you and your fuckin' gang give it a rest. Your cheap shots at Shambles do none of you any honour.


29 Sep 06 - 09:33 PM (#1846487)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I look forward to it.


29 Sep 06 - 09:37 PM (#1846490)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

LOL


29 Sep 06 - 09:38 PM (#1846494)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

LOL


29 Sep 06 - 10:18 PM (#1846514)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

Good job outing yourself, Bruce.


29 Sep 06 - 10:19 PM (#1846516)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

No problem, jeffp.


30 Sep 06 - 07:34 AM (#1846721)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Actually, the moderators are here to help primarily with technical problems, not to be babysitters or a police force. Most "offensive language" is ignored, and we expect Mudcatters to ignore minor squabbling.

Stick to the topic, Shambles. If you go off topic and post your usual repetitive propaganda, your message will be moved to the current Shambles garbage thread. As long as you actually discuss with people and address the issues they're talking about, your posts are likely to be left alone.
-Joe Offer-


After years of telling our forum that the object of our 'moderators' was to protect posters on our forum from abusive personal attacks - this and the use of offensive language - is now given the green light in an editing comment from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

Mainly it appears because (some of) our 'moderators' wish to indulge in this along with certain favoured posters who have done little else but post only such things and have been encouraged to do so for years.

Now our forum is told that the main point of our 'moderators' and the focus of their efforts and resources will be focused on trying to prevent me (and me only) from committing the truly terrible Mudcat posting 'crime' of going off topic.......................No matter how petty and foolish this makes our forum appear.

So now we know. Or do we?

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.
Max Explain the BS rules (52* d) RE: Explain the BS rules         26 Oct 99


30 Sep 06 - 12:09 PM (#1846912)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Posting as a guest etc

The above post has now been closed – with the following editing comment.

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting as Guest: Can Joe/Clones ID You
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 10:38 AM

I respectfully request, as this threads originator, that it be completely deleted and not just closed.


Not too sure there is anything respectful about any poster requesting that the posts of others in a thread are all deleted.

I think the thread originator is correct in this case. The subject has been discussed, and now it's time to shut it down. Shambles, if you don't want threads like this to be shut down, don't take them over.
-Joe Offer-


If the thread's originator is judged to be corrected in requesting that the entire thread be deleted – perhaps it can be explained why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is only closing the thread?

I can only post my views.

I would like to add two more to the emotive list of terms that are used to judge the simple act of posting– taking-over and abusing.

All these terms really mean - is that someone does not agree with what you have posted.


30 Sep 06 - 03:20 PM (#1847036)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River

You flipheads who keep comin' back on this endless FLIPPIN' thread oughta be put outta yer flippin' misery with a blunt objeck to the flippin' head, that's what I say! Flippin' SHUT THE FLIP UP!!! Jeezus. I ain't never seen nothin' stupider than this. Not even in the bars in Sudbury, eh? Not even in the joint! This is the flippin' END. This is the ultamate stu;pidity maxed out to the flippin' last flippin' degree POSSIBLE! If I was any of you what posted more than 10 times on this moron thread in the last month I would throw myself in front of a flippin' bus and end it all right NOW!

- Shane


30 Sep 06 - 03:25 PM (#1847040)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shane! Come back!


30 Sep 06 - 03:54 PM (#1847057)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River

You oughta be so flippin' lucky, Ron! This is my last flippin' post on this useless flippin' thread, eh? I got beter things to do, like watch the grass grow, sleep or go out to the pastuer and milk the flippin' bull, know'm sayin'?

- Shane


30 Sep 06 - 04:07 PM (#1847065)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I got beter things to do, like watch the grass grow, sleep or go out to the pastuer and milk the flippin' bull, know'm sayin'?

No - can you use bullet points?


30 Sep 06 - 04:57 PM (#1847103)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st

I wish I had a bullet to use, I could rid the world of a real anal retentive twit called Shambles.

Over to you Guest/Bruce!


30 Sep 06 - 05:34 PM (#1847138)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

LOL! Good one, Roger... (about using the bullet points)


30 Sep 06 - 05:52 PM (#1847151)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River

Waht the FLIP! Whaddya mean, bullet points? I don't carry a flippin' gun, you bolthead! Guns are for cops and guys with really tiny little tools who think they can be big men by wavin' a gun in someone's face. Tehy don't flippin' fool me, eh? I know theer probliem. They can't get no sex anywhere cos of their tiny little tools. That is there problem. I dont' need no flippin' bulltet points to make my flippin' POINT. Got that, looser?

And know I am outta here. I mean it. This is my last flippin' post on this thread EVER. You are gettin' no more help from Shane. No way. If you don't like it, too flippin' BAD!~

- Shane


30 Sep 06 - 05:52 PM (#1847152)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp

600!!!!!

Bananas and drinks all around.


30 Sep 06 - 06:09 PM (#1847158)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: gnu

What happens in Blind River, stays in Blind River... unless Shane finds out.


30 Sep 06 - 07:27 PM (#1847189)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Grab

Joe: I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time

Shambles: It must be quite clear from the special restrictions imposed on my posting only by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team...

These two statements cannot both be true (emphasis mine to clarify)...

Graham.


30 Sep 06 - 07:44 PM (#1847203)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shane: Do you mind putting down that gun? Then I'll leave.
Joe Starrett: What difference does it make, you're leaving anyway?
Shane: I'd like it to be my idea.

Shane! Come back!


30 Sep 06 - 07:57 PM (#1847215)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

After 600 posts it's a little like watching a cross between "Groundhog Day" and a train wreck.You feel compelled to look at it over and over again to see if something different it going to happen this time.


30 Sep 06 - 08:01 PM (#1847220)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River

Flip.

What is your rpoblem, Ron? Look, man, if you wanna, like, join my fan club...and it's a big one, eh?....if you do, well, you gotta do a coupla things, okay?

First, I need a 2-4 of Molson Canadian and some smokes. Send 'em by bus to Shane McBride in Blind River. I'll pick 'em up at the bus station.

Next, do the "I'm not worthy!" thing five times. This is: you get down on your knees and say, "I'm not worthy!" and wave yer hands in the air and bow down yer head to the ground and come back up again. Five times. This will show, like, that you mean what you say and you respect me proper, eh?

And get somebody to film it, and send me pictures.

If you do these things, I will consider comin' back, okay?

Good enough.

- Shane


30 Sep 06 - 08:04 PM (#1847223)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shane: You speaking to me?
Chris Calloway: I don't see nobody else standing there.


30 Sep 06 - 08:25 PM (#1847238)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"I wish I had a bullet to use, I could rid the world of a real anal retentive twit called Shambles."

Dear Ennui 1st: Pardon me for saying, but you have used what is commonly called a comma splice in the above sentence. A comma splice joins two independent clauses with a comma when it should use either a semicolon or be split into two distinct sentences with a period. FYI.

Also, it's not nice of you to talk about killing people in that manner. If you don't mean it, it is just mouth. If you do, it is a felony. I have no idea what Shambles could have done to so enrage you, but it can't really be all that bad. If his posts piss you off so much, don't read them.


30 Sep 06 - 10:40 PM (#1847302)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

I shouldn't do this, but every now & then a slightly different point strike me.

"·... stop all this macho nonsense and be seen to treat all posters equally..."

But, they're NOT all equal. They start equal; that is, with equal privileges- just like citizens of a country. Then, if they do things that violate the standards (rules, laws, etc.), they 'may' be be treated as special cases and have some of those privileges restricted or revoked.

In a country or state, even if they don't break rules, they are not always treated 'equally', nor should they be...people with handicaps or special problems should receive extra help and understanding...etc.

This 'equality' thing is kinda of a slippery concept, Roger, and I have hinted at the point before. You post stuff that wears on the members & administrators alike, until you get someone to take a poke at you, then complain about the poke!
Equal treatment? You know my standard remark...you have even borrowed it...PIFFLE! If your posts go beyond general standards, your treatment "will not be seen to be equal".

Yep, I know, I have wasted my time, and I don't expect you to suddenly see the light...but, gee....I like seeing my brilliant analyses in print!


30 Sep 06 - 10:45 PM (#1847304)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Piffle

In One Man's Meat, E. B. White wrote the single line: "Remind me to discuss the necessity for reviving the word piffle."

I've found no further reference to the word in his writing. Perhaps we failed to remind him.

Because his words were always carefully chosen, we can trust that his request has much meaning. He wanted to discuss, not command. A distinct event must have triggered his thought, because a necessity is created when something has happened, not merely when someone ruminates. I suspect he wrote that line after he had endured so much piffle – among his acquaintances? in journalism? among politicians? – that he felt he must speak out.

Reviving a word suggests that it has no equal in our common discourse today. Why? Often a word goes out of use when it is presumed to offend. We no longer refer to a man as a scoundrel or describe a child as crippled. Bombast is now labeled debate-leading-to-compromise. It's now kinder to describe a liar as someone who is a little economical with the truth. Truth, which offends both as a word and by its very existence, has been sanitized and is now admitted into discourse only so long as it is understood to be subjective.


30 Sep 06 - 10:46 PM (#1847305)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

PART DEUX

Walker's Dictionary of 1821, which sits on my own book shelf, doesn't include the word. But a 1936 collegiate dictionary at my disposal, suitably innocent of the corruption of our speech by the modern indignation over our insensitive language – (too many precise words like piffle in the dictionary, too few useless but shockingly profane words, both errors in our lexicon corrected since the 1960s) – defines piffle as: trifling talk or action; stuff and nonsense; noun or intransitive verb.

Gossip, then? Sensational reporting and celebrity-worship? Political speech and correctness? What annoyed E. B. White that he would revive the word, no doubt in order to use it?

Among my treasures I have "a card," apparently one of a mass mailing sent in 1864, not handwritten but printed at my ancestors' local print shop in Farmington, Maine. For printing in their newspaper "false and libelous statements and innuendoes" about him, the author succinctly, scathingly denounces, to one and all receiving the card, that the editors of the Farmington Chronicle are slanderers and liars. There, he said it. I'll never know whether the accused fought back, through the mail or in the courts. But the scoundrels sufficiently annoyed the card-writer to occasion an eloquent outburst.

I don't imagine that E. B. White, certainly being aware how genteel folks of the past used punishing words with such effect, himself intended to disseminate that sort of an accusation, for which he needed the perfect word, piffle. I suspect instead that, due to some annoyance, the word came to mind, and he wished only to encourage its use that people once again might know there was a word for it, might identify stuff and nonsense, pomposity, perhaps, or gossip and call it by name; that, by knowing the word, people might use it, and by using it, might effect a shift in our culture away from tolerance of so much trifling talk or action.

(Just as it is widely held in some cultures that to know someone's name is to have power over him, to know the name for trifling talk or action, stuff and nonsense is to have power over it. Who hasn't had a vague, subconscious sense about something of which he didn't become aware and over which gain control until he could put a word to the sensation?)

I wish E. B. White were here in order that we might remind him. I'd be fascinated to know where he intended to go with it. To his memory as the all-time supreme keeper of words, I humbly pledge to revive the word, piffle.


From the www.


30 Sep 06 - 11:41 PM (#1847317)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

well! It never needed to be revived for me...it was never dead. I have used piffle & balderdash as long as I can remember...but only when warrented. A sterling word, piffle! Encompassing myriads of etymological nuances within two innocuous syllables; elegantly explicating instances of gratuitous pomposity with one flourish of dismissive disdain!

But, I do thank you, oh unnamed one, for finding such erudite explanations of the history of the ever so useful term!+


30 Sep 06 - 11:53 PM (#1847324)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

"I like seeing my brilliant analyses in print!"

Ha! Wonderful statement, Bill. It is my belief that that might be the single most compelling reason driving most of us to post on this forum. That, and the fact that we just can't help ourselves.


01 Oct 06 - 12:09 AM (#1847329)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"well! It never needed to be revived for me...it was never dead. I have used piffle & balderdash as long as I can remember...but only when warrented. A sterling word, piffle! Encompassing myriads of etymological nuances within two innocuous syllables; elegantly explicating instances of gratuitous pomposity with one flourish of dismissive disdain!"

I had to see that post again. Bill, it's beautiful.

It also showed me that piffle doesn't rhyme with Tripoli.


01 Oct 06 - 05:49 AM (#1847424)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO

The Piffle and the Pish-Tosh fought,
But neither was the winner.
The Ugly Stubble settled things
By having them for dinner.


from Beastly Rhymes
by Jack Hanrahan and Phil Hahn


01 Oct 06 - 07:39 AM (#1847476)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The following thread has been relegated to the BS section of our forum and then closed by persons unknown and for reasons unknown - as there was no editing comment of explanation provided.

TECH Longer thread titles please

Partly because a fellow poster - having seen it - then decided for some reason to refresh this earlier one.

Tech Problems with thread titles

I may well have refreshed the earier thread had I not made what I thought was the safe assumption that it would have been closed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, along with all the others.


01 Oct 06 - 08:19 AM (#1847486)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I shouldn't do this, but every now & then a slightly different point strike me.

If you really fell you shouldn't do something - you wouldn't do it. But just like I am trying to do - all you are doing is posting your views to a discussion forum set-up by Max for that purpose. Who do you feel you have to excuse yourself to for doing this? The baying mob?

I am not claiming that by this simple act you are: Attacking, Crowding-out, Abusing, Dominating, Violating, Hijacking or any of the emotive judgements that are encouraged to be made to describe the simple act of me posting my views to our forum.

But, they're NOT all equal. They start equal; that is, with equal privileges- just like citizens of a country. Then, if they do things that violate the standards (rules, laws, etc.), they 'may' be be treated as special cases and have some of those privileges restricted or revoked.

Piffle

Bill - although it may not work all that well in practice - you are lucky enough to live in country that is founded on the princple of equality.

When the behaviour of all is expected to follow whatever 'rules' are in place - then there can be some jusfication for imposing some sanctions upon those who are seen (and usually proved in court) to have broken those 'rules'.

Those who would feel qualified to impose their judgement upon me and other posters must be always seen to be acting impartially.

It is quite simple - if anyone is seen to indulge in and encourge by example the posting of abusive personal judgements and to be seen to ignore this when it is aimed at certain easy targets - their judgements will have no credibilty.

Bill - I suspect you will tell us that we can have a fair sporting contest of football when the referees are seen to not only to choose to partipate as players, but to send some players off for bad conduct, ignore others, and indulge themselves in this bad conduct? And who halfway through, then decide to change the rules in order to get all the participants to play rugby instead. And to do this with a bag over their heads in order to protect their identity?

All I have tried to do is to post and point out that you cannot keep on pretending that such a thing is a fair sporting contest.


01 Oct 06 - 09:19 AM (#1847506)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

I dunno' ShambyPamby..........Doesn't seem fair huh? You may be right. The League Owner/Head Referee/Big Kahuna himself gave you a Red Card and yet you're still playing.

Nope, you're right.........That ain't fair.

Spaw


01 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM (#1847545)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Not so, Spaw. If the head kahuna had wanted to enforce that, Shambles' address would have been blocked.


01 Oct 06 - 12:14 PM (#1847576)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

I see I was right...he didn't get my point.

I don't suppose a long post explaining to Shambles where his 'sports' metaphors break down would help much..........

but, just to show that *I* know, here's a brief synopsis.

"ahem": In the Mudcat, the 'referees' are by definition, part of the game. We are not on a field playing a game...we are not trying to win any prizes...'fair & equal' means something different when prizes are involved.

that's enough.


01 Oct 06 - 01:35 PM (#1847623)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Consider the rights of others before your own feelings, and the feelings of others before your own rights.

John Wooden


01 Oct 06 - 01:59 PM (#1847633)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"You have the right to remain silent"

Miranda warning.


01 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM (#1847637)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Or in the case of government and military personnel: "You have the duty to remain silent (or else!)"


01 Oct 06 - 02:38 PM (#1847674)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

That's not funny! -;)


01 Oct 06 - 03:16 PM (#1847704)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Things turn out the best for people who make the best of the way things turn out.

John Wooden


01 Oct 06 - 03:19 PM (#1847706)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

The following thread has been relegated to the BS section of our forum and then closed by persons unknown and for reasons unknown - as there was no editing comment of explanation provided.

TECH Longer thread titles please

Partly because a fellow poster - having seen it - then decided for some reason to refresh this earlier one.
(Shambles)

Nonsense, Shambles. If "for reasons unknown" in the first line is correct the use of "because" in the third line makes no sense. However, if you want to use the "because" in the third line you may not say "for reasons unknown" in the first line.

Make up your mind, think, and then try to post coherent thoughts.

Wolfgang


01 Oct 06 - 03:28 PM (#1847711)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

"ahem": In the Mudcat, the 'referees' are by definition, part of the game. We are not on a field playing a game...we are not trying to win any prizes...'fair & equal' means something different when prizes are involved.

Double piffle.

Bill - It explains a lot - when you only judge that people 'get it' when they agree with what you say.

Most of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's deletions, and selective restriction - which you defend - are justified by him on the grounds that what he is trying to prevent is somehow 'unfair'.

Anything other than blind support and admiration for his efforts at imposing this 'fairness' is described by him as 'unfair'. Mainly because he sees them as well-intentioned. And so they are.

Many sporting activities are undertaken only for fun but even the most good-natured of these would swiftly degenerate into bad-tempered shouting matches if referees wished to participate as players. Perhaps you would accept that this would be thought as unfair?

The chief architect of all the counter-productive imposition and the main supporter of all the division amomg posters on our forum - has publicly admitted that these measures have failed to impose the peace he requires. So why are so many people still posting to support these measures as the status quo - when he has given up on these rules and wishes to impose a new set and play a different game? A game in which our non-members would be excluded.


01 Oct 06 - 03:33 PM (#1847713)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Many sporting activities are undertaken only for fun but even the most good-natured of these would swiftly degenerate into bad-tempered shouting matches if referees wished to participate as players."

Triple piffle. (Be careful not to step in it.)

Firt of all, the comparision makes no sense whatsoever. The situation that Shambles is creating does not happen in sports and Mudcat is not a sport. The arguement does not have any logic behind it and is a red herring.

Last but not least, no one has "give up on these rules" that Shambles alludes to. It isn't a game, the rules can be changed at any time.

IT IS NOT A GAME!! ILLOGICAL COMPARISON!!


01 Oct 06 - 03:36 PM (#1847716)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

It would be interesting to see shambles take up computer programming. I'd love to see what he would make of AND, OR, NOT, IF, ELSE, etc.


01 Oct 06 - 03:48 PM (#1847721)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

thanks, Ron...I couldn't have said it better myself...


01 Oct 06 - 04:08 PM (#1847734)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles IS the pied piper of mudcat. They're biting good today.


01 Oct 06 - 04:15 PM (#1847737)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

It isn't a game, the rules can be changed at any time.

Of course - and if you take no responsibilty for the resulting chaos and confusion you can do this as often and for as many illogical reasons as you can dream up. But why pretend to our forum that this is all being undertaken and can be justified in the name of supporting some concept of 'fairness and reasonable discussion?

And why then publicly inform our forum that these best efforts have failed and that the only way to impose the 'peace' you require - is to exclude the free and open access for the public contributions that has made our form what it is?

All this sillyness can be supported - but only if you forget what the object of an open discussion forum actually is and sell all this so-called 'moderation' as an object in itself - which has no purpose but to be served and to which everything else can safely be sacrificed?

It appears now as if many posters have forgotten what the object is.

You cannot enable and support free discussion by introducing and supporting selective and unfair measures and restrictions designed only to prevent it.


01 Oct 06 - 04:24 PM (#1847739)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The piffle skiffle, what's the diffle?


01 Oct 06 - 04:29 PM (#1847745)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"And why then publicly inform our forum that these best efforts have failed and that the only way to impose the 'peace' you require - is to exclude the free and open access for the public contributions that has made our form what it is?"

a. I don't think they ever actually said that. Your cut and pastes have never shown that was what they said.

b. Even if they did say it, what is wrong with changing the rules? They own the "playing field" to use your errant analogy once again. If they do not care for the way their forum runs, they can make changes. They pay the bills (with help of course) and we are free to use the site if we wish.

c. If you don't like the rules, no one forces you to "play the game". It is obvious that it won't change, you won't get your way, so why keep kicking your feet and holding your breath?


01 Oct 06 - 04:37 PM (#1847752)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

What I do not understand is this: If so many of you don't like what Shambles posts or says, why do you continue to read what he writes? Then post piffle--assuming piffle can be a noun or adjective instead of just an interjection--to what, get even with him? You folks try to portray yourselves as smarter than that, but few of you are coming across that way.


01 Oct 06 - 04:42 PM (#1847757)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

What I do not understand is this: If so many of you don't like what Shambles posts or says, why do you continue to read what he writes?

A similar question could be asked of you but, in any case, I like some of what shambles writes. It is unintentionally hilarious.


01 Oct 06 - 04:48 PM (#1847762)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I enjoy Shambles writing. So, no, the same could not be said of me you presumptuous dink.


01 Oct 06 - 04:57 PM (#1847767)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"If so many of you don't like what Shambles posts or says, why do you continue to read what he writes? Then post piffle--assuming piffle can be a noun or adjective instead of just an interjection--to what, get even with him? You folks try to portray yourselves as smarter than that, but few of you are coming across that way."

So why do you post if you do not care what we are saying?   Sounds hypocritical to me.


01 Oct 06 - 05:05 PM (#1847772)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I like to read Shambles' posts. YHow many times you need to have that said to you?

You are the one who doesn't like his posts. Why do you add to it all if you don't like his posts? You so enraptured with the mission of 'talking sense' to Shambles that you can't go post philosophy on a thread where it will be appreciated? You guys love walls, because you argue with so many of them. Shambles has done you all one better. And many of you seem too myopic to grasp that as fact.


01 Oct 06 - 05:32 PM (#1847790)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

oh, lovely! We've got the guests bickering and calling each other names! Trolls maybe worth something after all....at least for passing entertainment.


01 Oct 06 - 05:43 PM (#1847797)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri

I don't like guest. It's an idiot who disagrees with someone just because they can't stand him.

He's right about all of you. This keeps on happening because you deserve it.


01 Oct 06 - 05:49 PM (#1847798)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Meanwhile, the slow descent of North American parakeets and budgies into moral depravity continues, and no one does anything about it!


01 Oct 06 - 05:53 PM (#1847801)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

If Shambles' posts bother you, don't read them.


01 Oct 06 - 05:55 PM (#1847803)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B

stop this NOW


01 Oct 06 - 06:01 PM (#1847807)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I enjoy Shambles writing. So, no, the same could not be said of me you presumptuous dink.

I said a similar question could be asked of you.

The similar question is "if you don't like what we are saying, why bother reading"? Why don't you take your own advice and ignore us?


01 Oct 06 - 06:04 PM (#1847809)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Because I don't like to see one person ganged up on by lots of others. It's cheap.


01 Oct 06 - 06:04 PM (#1847810)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Yes, Emma! That's what I mean!!!! Shocking, isn't it? Note how they are wide-eyed in shock themselves, realizing that they have been caught by the camera engaging in an illicit act of avian adultery!


01 Oct 06 - 06:07 PM (#1847812)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Because I don't like to see one person ganged up on by lots of others.

He is not being ganged up on. He keeps post wishing for replies. If you don't like the replies, tell shambles to shut up and then he will not get replies you don't like to read.


01 Oct 06 - 06:09 PM (#1847814)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Tell it to the marines.


01 Oct 06 - 06:11 PM (#1847816)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I don't mind reading your replies. I just don't understand why you make those replies.


01 Oct 06 - 06:11 PM (#1847817)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B

Those are b****y big budgies!


01 Oct 06 - 06:13 PM (#1847819)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ain't THAT the truth. Cook at 350 degrees and they'll be done in four days and three hours, give or take.


01 Oct 06 - 06:14 PM (#1847820)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B

celebrated in folk song too


01 Oct 06 - 06:16 PM (#1847821)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I don't mind reading your replies.

Stop complaining about them then.


01 Oct 06 - 06:21 PM (#1847823)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I'm not. You are full of piffle.


01 Oct 06 - 06:24 PM (#1847825)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Time for a recipe methinks
G☺☻


01 Oct 06 - 06:26 PM (#1847826)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

There was a lioness in this picture, but he scared her away.


01 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM (#1847831)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

8 ounces lump crab meat
1/4 cup finely chopped celery
1/4 cup finely chopped onion
1/2 small clove garlic, finely minced, or dash garlic powder
1 tablespoon finely chopped red bell pepper
1 egg
2 tablespoons mayonnaise
1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce
1 cup soft bread crumbs
1 1/2 teaspoons Creole seasoning
4 tablespoons butter


As you have surmised, that is a recipe for crab cake.


01 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM (#1847832)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Great Chieftain O' the Pudden Race.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



   * 1 sheep's lung (illegal in the U.S.; may be omitted if not available)
    * 1 sheep's stomach
    * 1 sheep heart
    * 1 sheep liver
    * 1/2 lb fresh suet (kidney leaf fat is preferred)
    * 3/4 cup oatmeal (the ground type, NOT the Quaker Oats type!)
    * 3 onions, finely chopped
    * 1 teaspoon salt
    * 1 teaspoon freshly ground pepper
    * 1/2 teaspoon cayenne
    * 1/2 teaspoon nutmeg
    * 3/4 cup stock

Wash lungs and stomach well, rub with salt and rinse. Remove membranes and excess fat. Soak in cold salted water for several hours. Turn stomach inside out for stuffing.

Cover heart and liver with cold water. Bring to a boil, reduce heat, cover and simmer for 30 minutes. Chop heart and coarsely grate liver. Toast oatmeal in a skillet on top of the stove, stirring frequently, until golden. Combine all ingredients and mix well. Loosely pack mixture into stomach, about two-thirds full. Remember, oatmeal expands in cooking.

Press any air out of stomach and truss securely. Put into boiling water to cover. Simmer for 3 hours, uncovered, adding more water as needed to maintain water level. Prick stomach several times with a sharp needle when it begins to swell; this keeps the bag from bursting. Place on a hot platter, removing trussing strings. Serve with a spoon. Ceremoniously served with "neeps, tatties and nips" -- mashed turnips, mashed potatoes, nips of whiskey.

Yummy !

G.


01 Oct 06 - 06:32 PM (#1847833)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B

ok - favourite recipe for mudcake for mudcatters everywhere


01 Oct 06 - 06:33 PM (#1847835)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B

*****'s Favourite Mud Cake

Ingredients:
1 car - fuelled up and ready to go
car keys
1 purse
money
1 Cheesecake Shop

Method:

1. Place money in purse
2. Grab car keys and hop into car
3. Drive car to nearest Cheesecake Shop
4. Stop car, hop out and take purse with you into Cheesecake Shop
5. Ask lady for a Mud Cake
6. Open purse and hand over money
7. Take mud cake home and enjoy.

Her cooking skills may not be that good, but she makes GREAT lace!

Collected by Bert Christensen
Toronto, Ontario

web site: http://bertc.com


01 Oct 06 - 06:34 PM (#1847836)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

And to lighten the mood:

Fellow walks by a restaurant where the sign says

Lobster tail and pizza for $9.99

He says to his friend, "Wonderful. Three of my favorite things for under ten dollars."


01 Oct 06 - 06:50 PM (#1847851)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Azizi

THE GRAY GOOSE

Well, las' Monday mornin',
Lawd, Lawd, Lawd,
Well, las' Monday mornin',
Lawd, Lawd, Lawd.

My daddy went a-huntin'.

Well, he carried along his zulu.

Well, along come a grey goose.

Well, he throwed it to his shoulder,

An' he ram his hammer' way back.

Well, he pulled on de trigger.

Well, down he come a-windin'.

He was six weeks a-fallin'.

He was six weeks a-findin'.

An' he put him on de wagon,

An'he taken him to de white house.

He was six weeks a-pickin'.

Lordy, your wife an'my wife,

Oh, dey give a feather pickin'.

An' dey put him on to parboil.

He was six months a-parboil',

An' dey put him on de table,

Now, de fork couldn' stick him,

An' de knife couldn't cut him.

An' dey throwed him in de hog-pen,

An' he broke de ol'sow's jaw-bone.

An' dey taken him to de saw-mill,

An' he broke de saw's teeth out.

An' de las' time I seed him,

Well, he's flyin' across de ocean,

Wid a long string o' goslin's,

An' dey all goin': Quank Quink-Quank

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/leadbelly-the-grey-goose-lyrics.html

Also in the DigiTrad


01 Oct 06 - 06:54 PM (#1847854)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ol' Shambles may never come back to this thread. We can all just carry on without him. Shambles, come home. We, well, I MISS YOU!


01 Oct 06 - 07:26 PM (#1847872)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

We can all just carry on without him

No. We need shambles for the entertainment.


01 Oct 06 - 07:28 PM (#1847875)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Oh.


01 Oct 06 - 09:45 PM (#1847947)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

So many people with so little to do on a lovely Sunday.


02 Oct 06 - 02:09 AM (#1848001)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

"And why then publicly inform our forum that these best efforts have failed and that the only way to impose the 'peace' you require - is to exclude the free and open access for the public contributions that has made our form what it is?"

a. I don't think they ever actually said that. Your cut and pastes have never shown that was what they said.

That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum. Others can judge from the actual words and perhaps explain why posters support what they assume to be the status quo - when it is obviously nothing of the sort.

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-


02 Oct 06 - 02:26 AM (#1848012)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Tech Problem with thread titles after being refreshed and then relgated to the BS section has now been closed.


02 Oct 06 - 05:14 AM (#1848083)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: Tech: Longer thread titles please?
From: GUEST,Jon - PM
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 10:01 AM

In wanting to prevent the mods from assisting (as they currently do) by using the extra characters (which he agrees are useful) until he can use them too. He only wants that to happen to score a little point over them...


The word assistance can be used for example: if a policeman established where a shopper wished to go then helped them cross a road to enable them to get to their destination.

It would not be a suitable word if the policeman did not speak to them and just decided push them across the road because they judged that the shopper would look better on that side.

There are other words for this.


02 Oct 06 - 06:08 AM (#1848095)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Morning shambles. Perhaps the "incident" with the policeman took place after a football match and the person crossing was the referree who had tried to change the game into the game of rugby and the policeman had been playing for the other side and was unhappy at being sent off?


02 Oct 06 - 06:25 AM (#1848101)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Oh and shambles, I've been trying to express some of your logic in simple computer terms. Here are a couple.

if X <> 2
   print "X could be any number"

if ThreadIsMoved = true
    print "The mods are wrong"
else
    print "The mods are wrong"


02 Oct 06 - 06:26 AM (#1848102)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Whatever side of the road the majority of the people are on, there is one person you can be absolutely certain, who will be on the other side.


02 Oct 06 - 09:17 AM (#1848205)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Thanks Shambles, you proved my point "A" - they never admitted to failure.


02 Oct 06 - 10:01 AM (#1848234)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Look at the posters on this thread. The same predictable ten or so. Are they so deluded they think they are the majority? Yep they sure are.


02 Oct 06 - 10:06 AM (#1848238)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad

"Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects."


02 Oct 06 - 10:21 AM (#1848244)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I am a "usual suspect" as well since I keep posting too. I am way too predictable and deluded just like the rest of you.


02 Oct 06 - 10:26 AM (#1848264)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad

Help is available, don't despair.


02 Oct 06 - 10:33 AM (#1848269)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Thanks Shambles, you proved my point "A" - they never admitted to failure.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-


I know that there are no bullet points being used here but even you should be able to understand.

Are you asking our forum to accept that the words And despite our best efforts, AND what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one. - are actually words claiming success of these measures?

Perhaps in an attempt to be more positive - you could make a stab at answering the question posed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place?


02 Oct 06 - 11:14 AM (#1848307)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Forgive me if I am wrong Shambles, but I am not reading any admission to failure in that statement from Joe, nor have I seen any from Max - who is the ultimate voice. What you have posted is Joe's description of what has happened as Mudcat has evolved and a comment that their "best efforts" have not made improvement to bring peace. That is far from an "admission of failure".

Change is constant and necessary.   Some of us accept change and welcome it. Others rebel at the mere thought. There will always be someone who gripes over what they have no possibility of changing.

My suggestion on how we can bring peace to this place - more frequent deletions of posts like mine and others on this thread. Drop the BS and keep it a site based on folk music.   Mudcat has become an excuse for people to state their opinions on ANYTHING. This is not the corner bar. When the site operated more as a music site, there was more joy to be found.   Rambling discourses on how the site should be run should be trashed.   I would have no problem seeing this thread closed, or my own statements deleted.   The owners of this site have the perogative to do that.   The fact that they have not shows how open they actually are.


02 Oct 06 - 11:38 AM (#1848325)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

My suggestion on how we can bring peace to this place - more frequent deletions of posts like mine and others on this thread. Drop the BS and keep it a site based on folk music.   Mudcat has become an excuse for people to state their opinions on ANYTHING. This is not the corner bar. When the site operated more as a music site, there was more joy to be found.   Rambling discourses on how the site should be run should be trashed.   I would have no problem seeing this thread closed, or my own statements deleted.   The owners of this site have the perogative to do that.   The fact that they have not shows how open they actually are.

The owners of this site had a number of choices available to them - as our forum became more popular. But its main aim was to become more popular and encourage the public's contributions. They could have chosen a strict - keep on topic - take it or leave approach but that was not the choice made. The choice made was a brave one and it was not to (try to) limit discussion to music.

If you don't like a site with rambling discourses on how the site should be run - then find another or take this up with Max. That is way our forum has always been encouraged to work - at least by Max.

The problem is that rather than being encouraged to tolerate different views poster are now encouraged to publicly pass their personal judgements upon the worth of fellow posters and feel that all but the like-minded can now be bullied away.


02 Oct 06 - 11:40 AM (#1848329)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ron, I am the guest with whom you had the run-in. I agree with you 100%. You are a good man, Charlie Brown. Pax.


02 Oct 06 - 11:50 AM (#1848346)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"If you don't like a site with rambling discourses on how the site should be run - then find another or take this up with Max. That is way our forum has always been encouraged to work - at least by Max."

Shambles, you left out a third option.   Enjoy it the way it is. Everything is not simply a yes or no, black or white, Ayn Rand run world.

My worth is questioned, your worth is questioned, everyones worth is questioned. Life goes on. If you feel that you are being bullied, well I am sorry for you. We make our own beds.


02 Oct 06 - 11:54 AM (#1848354)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

"If you don't like a site with rambling discourses on how the site should be run - then find another or take this up with Max. That is way our forum has always been encouraged to work - at least by Max."

Ron - the above was specific advice to you. For it was you who said:

My suggestion on how we can bring peace to this place - more frequent deletions of posts like mine and others on this thread. Drop the BS and keep it a site based on folk music.   Mudcat has become an excuse for people to state their opinions on ANYTHING. This is not the corner bar. When the site operated more as a music site, there was more joy to be found.   Rambling discourses on how the site should be run should be trashed.   I would have no problem seeing this thread closed, or my own statements deleted.   The owners of this site have the perogative to do that.   The fact that they have not shows how open they actually are.


02 Oct 06 - 11:59 AM (#1848357)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Yes, I know your "advice" was directed at me. As I pointed out, you only offered two suggestions. There are other alternatives, which was the point I was trying to make.

You don't get it - you keep looking at situations with only two options.


02 Oct 06 - 12:14 PM (#1848370)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You don't get it - you keep looking at situations with only two options.

Perhaps because you show no signs of following your own third option?


02 Oct 06 - 12:17 PM (#1848376)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I do follow my logic. I do accept Mudcat for what is is. I do post messages here because I had thought there was some dialogue and discussion. I am not attacking you and I am sorry if you perceive it. I am responding to your points.

Clearly I do understand that this issue will not disappear.   I am really not adding anything to this discussion.   You will see, think and act the way you choose.


02 Oct 06 - 12:53 PM (#1848421)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Sorry Ron - I see very little logic in what you say.

Change is constant and necessary.   Some of us accept change and welcome it. Others rebel at the mere thought. There will always be someone who gripes over what they have no possibility of changing.

Shambles, you left out a third option.   Enjoy it the way it is. Everything is not simply a yes or no, black or white, Ayn Rand run world.

What is it to be? Change or the status quo or are you supporting both?

Ron - I like the way things are. I do not complain about there being any lack of peace. Nor do I wish or suggest a change to a music only forum (as you do). When the public are invited to our forum by Max to discuss anything - there is bound to be some excitement. That in inherrent in the whole concept. All that is required is being seen to be able agree to disagree. that is as good as it gets - and our forum still currently has this. Just........

My problem is with those who take on the role of 'moderators' in the full knowledge that this is their remit but do not really in their hearts endorse it. Who constantly complain publicly about everything and encourage personal judgements to be posted about other named posters. And who then publicly post that:

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-


Our forum remains a very pleasant place to hang-out and it is pretty obviously still a place to goof off or have a good discussion. It would be even better if those very few posters who publicly post to a differently effect - were to form the members only site that they already treat our forum as and leave the rest of us in peace.


02 Oct 06 - 01:15 PM (#1848432)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

You know what, I think I sincerely owe you an apology Shambles.   

While reading your last post a light bulb went off. If I am interpreting your last explanation the way I think you intended, it makes more sense than all the other posts you've made over the years. Maybe all we had was a failure to communicate.

I agree with you - this forum is a good place to goof off or have a good discussion. All that is required is to agree to disagree.

My failure to understand your posts is clear in my bringing up the "staus quo". Change is constant. My interpretation of staus quo is that is a current reflection of evolution and tinkering to find the right formula that will make the most happy.   You can't remain steadfast to old rules when change has occured.

If I understood your last post, I think you are in agreement with that. While I still do not agree with your perception that you are being singled out and "censored", I do think I understand the point you have been trying to make a little clearer.   

In order to achieve a pleasant experience for everyone, I think that moderators should make every effort to be fair and interpret the rules in everyones best interest. Perhaps it is the language barrier from both sides of the pond, but I don't think anyone really singled you out - you just came across in a combative stance and it built up to this. If I am reading your last post correctly, that was not your intention.   I am sure the moderators did not wish to cause conflict either, it just grew.

So, in all honesty, if my "new" interpretations of your posts are the points you were trying to make, I apologize for adding fuel to the fire.   Then again, I've always enoyed fanning the flames of discontent!


02 Oct 06 - 01:42 PM (#1848455)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If I understood your last post, I think you are in agreement with that. While I still do not agree with your perception that you are being singled out and "censored", I do think I understand the point you have been trying to make a little clearer.

It really matters little that I am treated unfairly - it matters if any poster is singled-out or seen to be treated unfairly and posters are encouraged to take part in witch-hunts. Especially as it is supposed to being undertaken in the name of 'fairness'.

You will get a better idea from the discussions and attitudes shown in what I refer to as 'Snitchers Corner' or the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. Which is aptly named as it is the source of much trouble. Posters are encouraged there to post anonymous complaints about and requests for editing action to be imposed on their fellow posters.

http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3310&messages=25

The anonymous complaint was that this thread was spam. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team coments that is was just another boring 'Shambles' thread.

But later proudly states that there will be spam there now - as he has just placed it there.


02 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM (#1848467)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

it really matters little that I am treated unfairly - it matters if any poster is singled-out or seen to be treated unfairly and posters are encouraged to take part in witch-hunts.

The only witch hunt is the one you lead shambles.


02 Oct 06 - 02:04 PM (#1848475)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"The only witch hunt is the one you lead shambles."

No, I'm beginning to see Shambles points. I do think he has onnly hmiself to blame in most cases, but he does have some basis in reality.

Check out the last link he gave. You will see Joe make some comments about Shambles.   Were the comments necessary in public?   No.   Does Shambles deserve it - the jury is out on that one.

Shambles, you joked back at me when I mentioned "bullet points". I was dead serious. You have done your own case more harm then good by the approach you have taken.   I am not dumb, but your comments have become exceedingly hard to comprehend. Maybe it is me, but judging by the reaction you get I'm not so sure.   I think your message has been clouded by your delivery.

Frankly, as I've said previously, the owners of the website can do what they wish with this site. But when you see all the wonderful people who have stopped posting here, it does get you thinking. Some of the U.S. folkies who were the reason I joined Mudcat have stopped posting here. Maybe there is a reason why the music section is 99% British these days. Perhaps those of us in the U.S. have lower thresholds for putting up with B.S. and rudeness.   

If you don't like the service at Macy's, you can always take your business elsewhere.

The inmates are only partially responsible for the riot.


02 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM (#1848485)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

No, I'm beginning to see Shambles points. I do think he has onnly hmiself to blame in most cases, but he does have some basis in reality.

shambles makes a list of points, some of which even contradict other points he makes. I too can find some things I can agree with out of the total. One can even get to the point of rationality with shampbles and watch things turn round via having ones words twisted, etc. to the point we are back to everything being the mods fault. Shambles has only one goal and you are mistaken if you believe that goal is peace and harmony (with the mods doing thier job).

Check out the last link he gave. You will see Joe make some comments about Shambles.   Were the comments necessary in public?   No.   Does Shambles deserve it - the jury is out on that one.

As for does shambles deserve what he gets, my answer is, Yes .


02 Oct 06 - 02:34 PM (#1848500)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Jon - 24 hours ago I would have agreed with you 100%. I still think Shambles is his own worst enemy.

However, something about his post suddenly made sense. I started looking at some of the posts in the help section that he pointed to.

Yes, the mods are doing their job - and I think they are doing a good one. That does not mean they are perfect - Mudcat will always be a work in progress. I think the frustration that we all felt has boiled over and can be seen in some of the postings that they have made.   

I do feel that ANY forum such as this needs to take their members into consideration and deal with them accordingly. For most of us, they do. There is a difference between laying down the law and becoming abusive - even borderline abusive.

If I were in their shoes I would have probably said a lot worse. Shambles is the extra starch in the shorts, the grain of sand in the shoe, the gnat that won't leave the picnic. I do not have the patience that the moderaters have shown. Still, there is evidence in those threads that there is indeed a witch-hunt for Shambles.   

Maybe it is time that the moderators reflect on how they dealt and will deal with Shambles. Get rid of Shambles or treat him without prejudice based on his past actions. The alternative is to go on "as is" and all the sniping, grumbling and whining will continue to where it hurts Mudcat even further.

I would also say the same goes for Martin Gibson - they got rid of him or her and things seemed "comfortable" for awhile. Now, Shambles is the new Martin Gibson.   Perhaps it is time to deal with the situation honestly and openly?


02 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM (#1848509)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Well Ron, I think you will find "honest and open" has been tried before.

I disagree with you but good luck.


02 Oct 06 - 02:42 PM (#1848511)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Sorry, Ron, I am 100% with you on.

Get rid of Shambles or treat him without prejudice based on his past actions. The alternative is to go on "as is" and all the sniping, grumbling and whining will continue to where it hurts Mudcat even further.

I've felt that decision should have been made one way or other for a long time.


02 Oct 06 - 02:47 PM (#1848515)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

And I hope the decision would be to treat him without prejudice. Forget the editorial comments - answer his questions directly. The answers might not be what he is looking for, but if the responder is direct and to the point and leaves out the personal comments, the action is much more effective.   Bullet point answers as well - "no, we will not be moving this thread because of X Y & Z". Done. Then when it is questioned again, the answer is there.


02 Oct 06 - 02:49 PM (#1848517)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

and what do you do when four years after the answers he still hasn't accepted them?


02 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM (#1848521)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

If the answer to the question has been repeated, perhaps it is time for someone like Max to make a decision. Is he happy with the response to the question?   A note to the individual stating that the policy will not change. If it keeps up, a warning is issued. If it continues, the person is blocked.

Mudcat has the right to make changes.   That is not even a point of discussion.   The problem is that Mudcat has danced around the problem and not been effective. They stooped to a level of name calling that should not be part of the vocabulary of a moderator. If they believe in what they are doing, they need to have the balls to make decisions, issue ultimatums, and stand by them. That has not been fair to Shambles, or to the rest of us who have witnessed this in numerous threads.

I remember something that Harry Chapin always said - "when in doubt, do something".   It is time to do something or to continue to let the fish flounder until it starts to really stink.


02 Oct 06 - 02:59 PM (#1848526)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

They stooped to a level of name calling that should not be part of the vocabulary of a moderator. If they believe in what they are doing, they need to have the balls to make decisions, issue ultimatums, and stand by them.

They don't have the power to issuse the "or you are gone" ultimatum, Ron.


02 Oct 06 - 03:01 PM (#1848528)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"They don't have the power to issuse the "or you are gone" ultimatum"

No, but somebody does.


02 Oct 06 - 03:04 PM (#1848530)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

I know...


02 Oct 06 - 04:31 PM (#1848605)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

A neighbour throws a party and invites a,b,c,d and e.

a,b,c,and e have had a long standing gripe going with d.

They spend all evening bitching at him and about him.

The neighbour has chosen for d to be invited to the party and has no intention of asking him to leave to suit a,b,c and e.

Everyone else at this party has to listen and watch a,b,c and e whinge all night. None of them have a problem with d either.

Who is ruining the party?


02 Oct 06 - 04:36 PM (#1848609)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Of what relavence is that, GUEST?


02 Oct 06 - 04:37 PM (#1848611)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

You call that a "party"?

The question should be not who is ruining the party, the questino should be what the host is going to do to make the next party more successful. If the hosts parties keep turning into a bickering match, the reputation has been cast and it will be tough getting f, g, h, and i to attend.


02 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM (#1848619)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

But the hosts parties are very well attended... by hundreds or more. Comprising of many nationalities, religious persuasions and politicial leanings.

Only a.b,c and e bicker.

f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y and z are quite happy with the party and don't feel the need to bicker with another invited guest.

Who should not turn up at the next party?


02 Oct 06 - 04:49 PM (#1848626)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

abcd goldfish? L, mno goldfish! OSAR goldfish!

see...bickering is a natural part of the alphabet.


02 Oct 06 - 04:49 PM (#1848630)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

So then why the worry?   Everyone should shut up and go on about their merry way. If they aren't bothering anyone they can stay. If there is a problem, the host needs to do something to fix it.


02 Oct 06 - 04:51 PM (#1848636)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Guest. The person complaining about the party is d.


02 Oct 06 - 06:42 PM (#1848726)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,perty host

It's my party and I like d otherwise I wouldn't have invited him. If he offended me I would lock the door so he couldn't get in.

If I invite guests to my party it is bad manners for a very small minority of those guests to spend all night berating somebody in my home.

It isn't their place to tell me who I should throw out.


02 Oct 06 - 06:43 PM (#1848727)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Guest. The person complaining about the party is d.

d is just trying to party.

But is pretty pissed at a,b,and c keep trying to get them thrown out and trying to turn the party into something else.


02 Oct 06 - 07:18 PM (#1848756)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I still think Shambles is his own worst enemy.

This view is understandable really - When the 'crime' I am accused of is posting - every time I post to our forum, I can only be seen to be confirming the accusation.

Especially by those who are encourged to make a fuss about and mock my posts appearing but proudly state they do not ever read them or claim they are unable to understand them.

Every time a post of mine is seen to be moved, 'silently deleted' and another thread closed - this only confirms to many posters, that there must be some reason and justification for our 'moderators' to do this.

When of course there is none.


02 Oct 06 - 08:01 PM (#1848799)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"But is pretty pissed at a,b,and c keep trying to get them thrown out and trying to turn the party into something else."

You are not alone in that, Shambles.


02 Oct 06 - 08:10 PM (#1848808)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"But is pretty pissed at a,b,and c keep trying to get them thrown out and trying to turn the party into something else.

LOL Shambles, you are the one wanting things changed from how they are.


02 Oct 06 - 08:17 PM (#1848813)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Yes, he is. And it's about time.


02 Oct 06 - 08:17 PM (#1848814)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host


02 Oct 06 - 08:26 PM (#1848821)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host

Excuse me for that. I got distracted by some bickering in the corner.

OK slowly this time - it's my home. It's my party. I have invited shambles to my soiree. He is a guest of mine and no other guest of mine has the right to tell me who should or shouldn't wear out my carpet.

Anyone not happy with my choice of guest has a number of exits to choose from. My patience is wearing thin and I can't hear the music over the cat calling.

Pass the Pringles please.


02 Oct 06 - 08:30 PM (#1848825)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

You are right Party Host. However, the next time you throw a party you might receive a number of "declines" from people who stopped having a good time. You may have a lot of leftover Pringles. It is entirely your call.


02 Oct 06 - 08:33 PM (#1848830)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

By the way - I am not saying that the host should NOT invite the guest. The host should be laying some ground rules and putting a stop to the fights so that everyone enjoys the chips and dip.


02 Oct 06 - 10:41 PM (#1848898)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: wysiwyg

That's IT, Ron O: Mudcat is definitely suffering from an excess of superfluous Pringles. It was a situation waiting for the perfect metaphor, and you nailed it.

No, I don't wish to judge a fellow poster's worth, but I see WAY too many stale Pringles around here. Place is choking with 'em, and they attract vermin, too.

~S~


02 Oct 06 - 10:47 PM (#1848904)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Smart vermin will not eat Pringles, because they are utterly lacking in any real nutrient value and they also give you a tremendous salt overdose.


02 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM (#1848908)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Yep. No one here but us self-righteous folks.


02 Oct 06 - 10:57 PM (#1848914)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Come on, spread a little Cheez Whiz (from the spray can, not the jar) on those Pringles along with a can of Fresca, maybe a Slimjim or two and you have a party!


02 Oct 06 - 11:08 PM (#1848919)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I am heavy into health foods. That works for me.


02 Oct 06 - 11:14 PM (#1848925)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Fresh water is good, too.


03 Oct 06 - 02:24 AM (#1848972)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

To extend the analogy a little. As it has been complicated further.

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

The host wants one form of party with an open invitation to all to attend.

Some of the bouncers, like each other's company and feel that it would be a far better party if there was not an open invitation for all to attend (and if they were now allowed to screen every guest before permitting entry). [When it was accepted that should this suggestion be implemented that any Mudcat non-members excluded from posting to the BS section would only post on the music section - the suggestion was then made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that he first screened every post before it appeared]

One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation...............

So what should these bouncers now do? Just carry on - when all the other guest now know these bouncer's wishes and as a result - that any attempts by these bouncers to preserve the host's open invitation - will be seen to be half-hearted ones?


03 Oct 06 - 04:33 AM (#1849021)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

Geez......This is getting complex. Let's get back to the real heart of the matter. Shambles......Bite me.

Spaw


03 Oct 06 - 04:49 AM (#1849035)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

I disagree with the word bouncer but at least you have got one important word in there, "appointed". What you fail to add is that the appointments were made by the host.


03 Oct 06 - 05:20 AM (#1849052)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If the answer to the question has been repeated, perhaps it is time for someone like Max to make a decision. Is he happy with the response to the question?   A note to the individual stating that the policy will not change. If it keeps up, a warning is issued. If it continues, the person is blocked.

We agree that Max certainly can block who he wishes. Perhaps you will accept that he can also un-appoint any 'moderator' he wishes? Or perhaps he feels that he can't?

But why would posing a question for discussion on a discussion forum ever be judged grounds for blocking a poster – when such posts can be so easily just be ignored? It may be judged to be boring, irritating or whatever, for some posters to see the same or similar questions - but if being boring or irritating were judged grounds for blocking a poster - would there be any posters left?

But seeing a question on the many different aspects of this subject which may be judged to be boring or irritating to some regular posters - will be news to others. Who may well be able to bring and add a fresh view to the issue. If they can find a thread on the subject that has not be closed, littered with posts containing spam, recipes, personal judgements and many other 'fun' things designed and encouraged to divert and prevent discussion of the thread's subject.

They will have no such difficulty in finding a thread open in which to place uncritical praise for the efforts of our 'moderators'. Which you will NOT find to be intentionally littered with spam - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Nor containing recipes, personal judgements and many other 'fun' things designed and encouraged to divert and prevent reasonable discussion of that thread's subject.

For example: Mudcat's tenth birthday You will even find that such threads are allowed to remain on the music-related section of our forum.

That said – the so-called 'moderation' of our forum IS largely well-intentioned. I suggest that should it continue - it needs to be seen to undertaken fairly and openly by those who are seen to share Max's commitment to the open invitation for the public's contributions.


03 Oct 06 - 06:26 AM (#1849093)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Another voice in the wilderness.

"We agree that Max certainly can block who he wishes. Perhaps you will accept that he can also un-appoint any 'moderator' he wishes? Or perhaps he feels that he can't?"

So it IS a war against the moderators, or is it perhaps just one in particular? Because if you're trying to get rid of Brother Joe, you're wasting your time. It's because of him that Max doesn't have to deal directly with a pain in the ass like you, so he performs a useful service for Max, and for us all, by confining your burblings in one place.

If a bouncer throws d out of the party, and then he comes back in the rear entrance and starts taking the piss out of the bouncers, they're bound to get a bit annoyed don't you think?


03 Oct 06 - 06:35 AM (#1849098)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy

LH fresh water is only any good after it has been through a brewery.
Skipy


03 Oct 06 - 09:34 AM (#1849184)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

This whole party analogy is starting to make sense... and that is frightening me!

I have been to parties where guests have been asked by the host to work as "bouncers" - helping to keep the peace and keep the party flowing. While they have been given a role to play, they are also going to enjoy the party to the fullest. The host is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the event, and he or she will make adjustments as the evening progresses to make sure everyone has a good time and a safe time.

The rules have to bend.   The spinach dip may start on the coffeetable in the living room and and be moved to an end table in the end before someone picks it up and moves it back again. No one will get upset, except for the one guest who was sitting on the couch in the living room expecting to be in front of the dip. You can't please everyone.

Some guests may get out of line, start fights, needlessly pick on another guest, or talk about their grandchildren or try to sell insurance. It is hard to get away from the latter.   Does the host tell offensive guest to pack up their snapshots and hit the road? Of course not. The host MIGHT explain that people are bored with the endless shots of grandson Jimmy getting his diaper changed, or the host might choose to ignore it. Let the part flow as it needs to and let the guests work it out for themselves.

You might also have a guest who thinks that the party belongs to them and that they are the owners of the house. They start tending bar, take over the grill duties, or decide that it is time for the limbo contest. The host may have had other plans, and they will either put a stop to the actions or just let the party flow.

At the end of the evening, everyone who is still able to grabs their carkeys and drives home.   The ride home might consist of the spouse berating their partner for the actions that they indulged in at the party, or a lot of gossiping about what went on. Usually, they will keep their opinions to themselves.   Sometimes they will start to tell others what they thought - and that is when the trouble begins.

So what is my boring description of the local get together proving? Absolutely nothing. The host might tweak the invitation list next time they throw a shindig so that more people have a good time, or they might keep inviting the same guests that set others on edge.   

For those of us who receive an invitation, we have a choice to make. Do we go and start a fight? Do we go knowing that someone is going to pick a fight with us? Do we go and try to have the party run according to our schedule and plans? Do we ignore the invitation and sit at home and lope the mule?   Whatever our decision is, there is a reason we do the things we do.   We all have to decide for ourselves.


03 Oct 06 - 10:17 AM (#1849219)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

lope the mule--never heard that before.


03 Oct 06 - 11:29 AM (#1849271)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

It's a typo, he meant to say love!
G.


03 Oct 06 - 11:32 AM (#1849276)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Nope, it is an expression - lope the mule.

I guess you could say it means "love".


03 Oct 06 - 11:33 AM (#1849277)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Gotta hand it to ya, ron . . . .


03 Oct 06 - 11:39 AM (#1849287)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

ouch!!   good one guest!!


03 Oct 06 - 11:54 AM (#1849295)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

It's great so see someone who's managed to keep his sense of humor, Ron. I admire that you acknowledged some of Shambles' points. I don't agree with 100% of what Shambles says either, but by da good laird he has the right to say it.

Joe has done and continues to do one helluva job, and I don't doubt that much of the crap he has to deal with on a day-to-day basis does eat into his first love with this site: MUSIC. Frankly, I have found that the music part of Mudcat has within it

1) more worth
2) more value
3) more satisfaction

than 99% of the BS section in its entire history rolled up in one big ball. I get tired of the line: 'It was SOOO much better in the old days' because that is bullshit, but it's the type of bullshit people cling to when their world changes. People never see themselves as being exclusive or hurtful--but many people on Mudcat are that way. They have been for years. Some even have edit buttons. And some folks with the edit buttons should have them taken away. But that won't happen, either.

Yes, Shambles can be a pain, but he is not filled with malice. The same cannot be said of some other folks. With that, I am off this thread.

PS I am the guest who got into the pissin' contest with you. Reading your subsequent posts, I apologize for that. And I'd tell that to your face also.

Keep well, Ron.


03 Oct 06 - 12:33 PM (#1849332)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:24 AM

To extend the analogy a little. As it has been complicated further.

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

The host wants one form of party with an open invitation to all to attend.

Some of the bouncers, like each other's company and feel that it would be a far better party if there was not an open invitation for all to attend (and if they were now allowed to screen every guest before permitting entry). [When it was accepted that should this suggestion be implemented that any Mudcat non-members excluded from posting to the BS section would only post on the music section - the suggestion was then made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that he first screened every post before it appeared]

One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation...............

So what should these bouncers now do? Just carry on - when all the other guest now know these bouncer's wishes and as a result - that any attempts by these bouncers to preserve the host's open invitation - will be seen to be half-hearted ones?


Yes, but then the host asks one of the guests to leave. What do you do when he hangs on, and starts having a go at those appointed to help run the party?


03 Oct 06 - 01:26 PM (#1849373)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Yes, but then the host asks one of the guests to leave. What do you do when he hangs on, and starts having a go at those appointed to help run the party? "

It depends on what kind of time I am having at the party. The question is really one that the host should be answering, not me if I am just a guest. If he isn't having a go at me, I would probably sit back and watch the fireworks. If he is annoying me, I would speak up.

The host has to make the call, not the guest, not the bouncers, not me.


03 Oct 06 - 01:30 PM (#1849378)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

in what I refer to as 'Snitchers Corner' or the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. ... Posters are encouraged there to post anonymous complaints about and requests for editing action to be imposed on their fellow posters. (Shambles)

Having these lines by Shambles in mind I had a good laugh when I saw that shortly after in that 'Snitchers Corner' an anonymous poster asked for a separate BS thread for cookery enthusiasts Shambles started exactly that thread.

Wolfgang


03 Oct 06 - 01:55 PM (#1849402)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

by the way... thank you for the kind words Guest, I do appreciate that.


03 Oct 06 - 01:56 PM (#1849403)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Glad to see you have not lost that famous sense of humour. Thanks for letting us know Wolfgang - I had not seen that request - when I started Jolly good recipes Not that there is any shortage of threads with recipes....

It is a good idea to try to and avoid looking in Snitchers Corner too often.


03 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM (#1849405)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

So it IS a war against the moderators.

Yep. Try any thread with shambles and you will find that even if he starts off with a seemly well inteligent suggestion that might have some merit, it soon swings round to the moderators.


03 Oct 06 - 02:00 PM (#1849407)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Shambolic

"One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation..............."

A self elected and unrepresentative one of their number! Who gave you the stripes? I didn't ask you to speak on my behalf, and not only that but hundreds other Mudcatters also didn't authorise you to speak on their behalf. You are a self appointed trouble maker Shambles.


03 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM (#1849417)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host

I like you Ron. As the party host I did once think that I should ask d to leave the soiree. But then I thought about it and realised that hundreds turn up to my parties and it's always the same few, and I do mean VERY FEW who complain about d.

They are the 'not so silent minority'. But just because they speak loudest does not mean they have the most to say. So logic told me that d is accepted and liked by the majority of my guests. And the grudge that the 'not so silent minority' hold is an all consuming obsession that they should redress themselves.

I am not helping them by removing the object of their obsession. They would wait for the next guest to come into my house who they think differently to and it would start all over again.

So I decided to not only let d stay, but hope he stays, because he is doing a grand job. He is presenting his opinion in a non confrontational way and despite being met with insults and ridicule by the 'not so silent minority', he maintains his decorum and good naturedness.

I choose my bouncers carefully. Some are level headed and objective. They can be relied on to do the housekeeping without rancour. Others are more like pit bulls. They smell blood and go for the jugular. I keep them for comedy value. Because the majority of my guests see them as very humorous and slightly lacking in social skills.

But in the event that my booked cabaret doesn't turn up one night, I live happy in the knowledge that some of my appointed bouncers unwittingly provide the entertainment.

They don't hold that much power outside their head. If they did they would have ousted d a long time ago. I hold the power and the door keys and that is a situation that works. I have not pandered to the 'not so silent minority' and have no intention of doing so. That would be wrong.

It would be sending a message that those who shout loudest get their own way and my parties don't run like that.

One criticism of your scenario is the spinach dip. It isn't something I serve but I will stock up just for you because I like you.


03 Oct 06 - 02:27 PM (#1849435)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Sounds like a plan! As long as you have a plan, and as long as it is one that you will bend with the circumstances and not be afraid to enforce. Then it sounds like most of us will have a good time.

Simply opening up the doors to your house and letting us run amok would not make for a very good evening - except for maybe a few of my friends from Jersey. They could have fun anywhere and anytime.

Oh, don't bother with the spinach dip on my account. I only serve it because others like it.   Cheese in a can is enough to keep me happy. Don't bother with fancy crackers either. Nothing beats a Ritz.


03 Oct 06 - 02:48 PM (#1849450)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

If that's the case, can shambles please be allowed to post on equal terms with the rest of us and have his restrictions removed. It's only fair if he is a useful part of the party.


03 Oct 06 - 03:07 PM (#1849465)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"If that's the case, can shambles please be allowed to post on equal terms with the rest of us and have his restrictions removed. It's only fair if he is a useful part of the party."

I would suggest that the answer to the above question should be between the moderators and Shambles in private. It should be a private matter and really should not involve public discussion.

If someone has been accused of getting drunk and peeing in the punchbowl, the host and the accused need to work it out. Did it actually happen? What was said? In essence the party will keep going on with none the wiser if the host takes the necessary steps to make sure everyone is happy.    I would hate to see anyone accused of something and being banned from the party, especially if they have a lot to contribute.    When it is turned into a group decision, no one will be happy.


03 Oct 06 - 03:23 PM (#1849476)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Well Ron, in that case, all I can say is I hope the host and d do manage to work things out.


03 Oct 06 - 03:30 PM (#1849481)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Same here. The guest could have a lot to offer to the party. It is going to take both parties to find a comfortable middle ground.    Respect is a two-way street to quote a cliche.


03 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM (#1849499)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

It's a shame the host is so busy hosting the party. Hanging up coats, replenishing the ice buckets, dry roasting the nuts etc...

Maybe he leaves some discretion in the hands of the bouncers. And would the bouncers wish to appear to be back tracking by removing the restrictions?

Because after all these restrictions are only in place to suit the VERY FEW who have a problem with d.

Did the host request the restrictions? Were they suggested to him? Does he realise the problem has been blown up out of all proportion by the vocal few?


03 Oct 06 - 05:01 PM (#1849544)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c

GUEST 03.49

This problem has been going on for many tears with Shambles opening multiple threads to make the same point, going onto non-related threads to spread his own gospel and generally making a nuisance of himself over the forum. Granted he may have a lot to offer but he also causes a lot of aggravation, mostly, it seems, down to the fact that a thread title was given a minor change without his approval.

Have a look at his posting history - you may understand then why there is a problem.


03 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM (#1849553)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

jacqui VERY FEW of you take pains to point out your percieved problem. The vast majority of people on this site do not respond negatively to him. What, when and how shambles chooses to post does not upset the majority of people here.

You have every right to continue berating him. But please realise you belong to a very small club. Can you really not ignore him?


03 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM (#1849554)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Problems, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder - good to see the "silent majority" having a say for a change.


03 Oct 06 - 05:11 PM (#1849555)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

I wouldn't worry about it Jacqui, regardless of any of our feelings and beliefs, Ron IMO, is right with:

Get rid of Shambles or treat him without prejudice based on his past actions. The alternative is to go on "as is" and all the sniping, grumbling and whining will continue to where it hurts Mudcat even further."

It seems things are moving one way and that has to be better than indecision and we "vocal few" arguing. I'd say try to move on.


03 Oct 06 - 05:20 PM (#1849561)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Have a look at his posting history - you may understand then why there is a problem"

I did exactly that, and you know what, there is some merit to what he says.   I would add something else - take a look at the posting history of the people who have complained about him (myself included). If you read it, the focus has been on the annoyance factor of Shambles personality, his lengthy and repitive posts, and his nearly verbose-way of stating his issues.   He has become the person that would cause you to cross the street to avoid having to say hello. You would not ask him how he is feeling because he just might tell you.

Still, his "problem" may not have been handled in the most professional of manner - probably brought on by his own "nuisance factor". Yet, I think most of us are simply dismissing his complaints because it is Shambles.   I will be the first to admit that.

It may be true that only a small portion of Mudcatters have a problem with Shambles, but the reality is that only a small portion of Mudcatters are reading the threads he posts to.

Frankly, I wish the host and the guest would simply take the issue outside and deal with it. Whether it is 1 person or 100 people affected by it, there is something that is disrupting the party that does not need to be dealt with in such a fashion by either side.


03 Oct 06 - 05:29 PM (#1849570)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad

Ron, peeing in the punch bowl, doing the limbo, SPINACH DIP - now that's what I call a party!


03 Oct 06 - 05:32 PM (#1849576)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Did you get the invite for the Halloween party????


03 Oct 06 - 07:25 PM (#1849683)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host

Ron I don't have an issue with d. If I did I would have took him outside and left him there. I have realised that it is a very small handful of other guests of mine who have an issue with him.

And I am not here to be the bouncer's bouncer. I am here to make superflous quantities of spinach dip and throw a party for my many hundreds of guests who do not spend time in my house sniping.

The snipers can stop or carry on. They won't win because this is a party not a war.


03 Oct 06 - 07:43 PM (#1849696)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Party host - I would hope that you would not think your party is a war. That doesn't sound like a fun theme.

I could care less who you like and who you don't like. If I received an invitation, I am going to have a good time.   I expect that if you invited me, you would want me to enjoy myself.

You make the decisions and you deal with what happens. When you open the doors, the image you create will determine how many people enjoy it. Perhaps you only want a party for a handful of friends. That is your call to make.   You might have an open house that you hpe will attract a wide and diverse group of attendees.   Hopefully your goal is to let your guests have a good time.

Hopefully it will be a party that most people will enjoy and hope to come back for the next one.


03 Oct 06 - 08:19 PM (#1849720)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host

What do you mean 'if' you recieve an invitation. You're top of the list. I like everyone I invite to my parties. But they don't all like each other alas. But I figure they are grown up enough to bury the hatchet or go into different rooms. Either way they are welcome to partake of my nibbles.

But as soon as they start drowning out the music by telling me who I should kick out - well then they ruin the atmosphere for everyone. My party becomes pooped.


03 Oct 06 - 09:41 PM (#1849755)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Then you aren't taking control of your own party and you have no one else to blame if the party becomes pooped. You own the house, you paid for the booze and eats, you chose the music that is playing - you make the decisions.   Don't cop out and say it is your guests fault. If you focus on the people who are telling you that you should kick out so and so, you will miss the bigger picture. You are the key, but from your last post it sounds like you don't want the responsibility that comes with throwing a party. Maybe you should never host one.


04 Oct 06 - 02:34 AM (#1849841)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Frankly, I wish the host and the guest would simply take the issue outside and deal with it. Whether it is 1 person or 100 people affected by it, there is something that is disrupting the party that does not need to be dealt with in such a fashion by either side.

Ron - my 'crime' is to try and post my views, others do not like these views and are currently encouraged to feel, by the example set that is in some way noble or 'fun' to be seen to try and prevent my posts (and my posts only) from appearing as posted.

That I may be generally perceived as public enemy number one and have clumsy special posting restrictions imposed on my posting is in reality seen to adversly affect our forum far more than the posts of any single contributor. That these accusations about named posters are made publicly by our 'moderators' is the way they have always operated. This dog has been given a very bad name indeed.

But I am not THE problem - all this is only the most visible and inevitable symptom of the real problem. To which any judgement of my posting - (to which these restrictions are themselves a reaction) - must be seen only as a confused reaction. They are mainly to air the following concern.

Can any poster who sees the value of our host Max's continuing in our forum's commitment to open public access now feel sure that this principle will be given a fair shot - when (some of) our 'moderators' are publicly seen not to wish this to continue?

And why would anyone wish to continue in such a role when they have publicly stated that they have no longer any interest in the host's concept or of ensuring that it succeeds? Could they not been seen to have a vested interest in ensuring that it does not succeed?


04 Oct 06 - 03:34 AM (#1849864)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host

No Ron the bigger picture (with time) has come very clear into view. The only problem I have are a VERY FEW guests who have a problem. But as time goes by they are becoming laughable and not to be feared as they pose no threat, but some comedic value.

Their problem is for them to sort out. The majority of my guests do not take offence at d. The 'not so silent' minority can continue to whine in a little group huddled in the corner near the dried flower decoration or they can grow up.

Either way I am not responsible for THEIR problem and neither is anyone else. And far from the number of guests dwindling in numbers because of the VERY FEW, they are in fact growing and seeing through the VERY FEW.

That to me is a much better result than kicking d out because I only listen to the loudest. The silent ones have said so much more without even opening their mouths.


04 Oct 06 - 04:01 AM (#1849882)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Which one was 'd' again?
G.


04 Oct 06 - 05:07 AM (#1849914)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Well if the problem if only a "vocal few", set shambles free fron his restrictions. He should not be restricted because of what others are doing which is what you are saying amounts to.


04 Oct 06 - 05:25 AM (#1849917)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The situation where the host would knowingly have his bouncers lock a guest in a room for not being a problem is unusual to say the least.


04 Oct 06 - 05:56 AM (#1849926)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,alternative party host

Does the party host know he has been locked in the room? Did the party host suggest it? Did the bouncers shout and scream and throw trifle around and exaggerate the problem to get their own way? Is the party host labouring under the misconception that the 'not so silent minority' in some way represent the 'silent majority?'

Is the bouncer who suggested the lock in big enough to find the key and do something more constructive such as the washing up, which by now is teetering in the kitchen?


04 Oct 06 - 05:59 AM (#1849928)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The party host most certainly knows now.


04 Oct 06 - 06:44 AM (#1849946)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

At the risk of introducing yet another analogy to our parties etc - it would be difficult for anyone not to notice if whole buidings were knocked about and demolished with heavy machinery in order to swat an irritating fly.

That that is pretty much the case on our forum with entire music threads being 'silently deleted - undeleted - combined and then relgated to the BS section, other posts moved and threads like TECH Longer thread titles please being closed.

All this - along with posters being encouraged to publicly join in the witch-hunt - is indeed very distracting and also unfair. And for it all to be attempted to be justified by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in the name of fairness and enabling reasonable discussion - there is more than the sense of a ludicrous French Farce about it.

Does anyone here really think that all this is really being seen as proportionate to what the original problem is supposed to be?


04 Oct 06 - 06:50 AM (#1849949)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

What was the original problem again?
G.


04 Oct 06 - 07:13 AM (#1849960)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Well it all gets very confusing. As far as I understand it at so far. The party host had decided that d was a problem but later came to realise that a.b.c were the only people who have a problem with d and that the problem is there's and that d in fact isn't a problem.

In the meanwhile, d who we now know is not a problem remians locked in a room and is held by bouncers, some of whom we have learned are like pit bulls.


04 Oct 06 - 07:46 AM (#1849981)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Wasn't d's invitation withdrawn, and wasn't this on the basis that while he may have been publicly chastised in an inapoproprite way, the fact remains that he still commited a dismissable offence?
The bouncer/s may have over reacted, but the person who's party it is did back their original decision that d should be suspended sine die. Ergo whatever anonymous supporters may say the management's decision is final.
Unfortunately there is a tendency for d, and his supporters to assume that this party is a democratic, which of course it isn't.
As Lesley Gore almost said.
"It's his party, and he'll sine die if he wants to"
Giok


04 Oct 06 - 08:13 AM (#1849995)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Please don't suppose that being totally fed up of the equally boring and repetitive, offensive and whining pack of hounds that follow Shambles into even the music threads is necessarily a demonsration of support for him or his posts; although, if anyone actually bothered to wade through the verbal diarrhoea, they may see he makes some interesting points.


04 Oct 06 - 08:17 AM (#1849998)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Unfortunately there is a tendency for d, and his supporters to assume that this party is a democratic, which of course it isn't.

The only thing that is unfortunate is that needless divisions are now being created on our forum and posters are being encouraged not only to see our forum split into different sides - but that they are expected to be seen to publicly support one side or the other.

There is no WAR - no CAMPAIGN - just different views trying to be expressed for discussion on a forum set up for this.

Perhaps posters can just be permitted to do this - without being restricted or drowned in well-intentioned recipes?


04 Oct 06 - 08:18 AM (#1849999)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

But Shambles - you have publicly posted multiple times that you desire neither to tell Max how to run his site; nor what other posters should post. So how do you justify doing both?


04 Oct 06 - 08:32 AM (#1850009)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles does indeed make some interesting points amidst his other points. A problem is that shambles does for example reach exactly the same conclusion from sets of contradictory evidence.


04 Oct 06 - 09:08 AM (#1850035)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host

Wasn't d's invitation withdrawn, and wasn't this on the basis that while he may have been publicly chastised in an inapoproprite way, the fact remains that he still commited a dismissable offence?
The bouncer/s may have over reacted, but the person who's party it is did back their original decision that d should be suspended sine die. Ergo whatever anonymous supporters may say the management's decision is final.


In the heat of the moment yes it was. In the ensuing aftermath it is no longer shambles who is the problem.It is the baying pack who chortle and slather.

If I asked d to leave and he didn't I would eject him forcibly. However as a human I can reflect and decide my initial response was the wrong one. I can sit back and watch the unsavoury mob whip themselves up into a very embarrassing frenzy.

Their numbers are dwindling as the more tuned in ones recognise what they have become. The hard nosed among them are clinging onto non existent straws. I don't have a problem with d. The majority of my guests don't have a problem with d. The VERY FEW who do have a problem with d are going to either implode ( which adds some kind of perverse entertainment) or skulk away.

But either way d is my guest in my house by my choice.


04 Oct 06 - 09:16 AM (#1850043)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

'our forum split into different sides'

The forum has been split into different sides for years.


04 Oct 06 - 09:30 AM (#1850062)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Was this party B.Y.O.B.???

Shambles is absolutely right, he is NOT the problem here. He has an invitation, he has not been thrown out of the house, and he can continue to have fun.   We may not care for the way he gets his point across, we may not agree with his stance, but he is following the rules that have been laid down by the host.

If this WERE a party, many of us might walk into another room because we do not want to hear his stories again. There may be some people at the party who have such a grudge against Shambles, that they will go up to him and pick a fight. It might even go past name calling and get physical. At that point, the rest of the partygoers drop what they are doing to watch this fight take place.   The whole ambiance of the party has changed.

The party host can follow the philosophy that he or she said earlier - "Either way I am not responsible for THEIR problem and neither is anyone else", but that could be their downfall.   Perhaps the word "responsibility" is too much, but maybe not. If I let person D have too much to drink and he throws up in the fishbowl, oh well - we have a story to share at future parties. However, if person D has too much to drink and wraps his car around a tree after running down Sister Mary's 2nd grade class, then I am going to be sued as host for allowing him to drink so much. The host IS responsible in some ways for the actions of his guests and the actions they in turn inflict on others.

If one of my guests takes offense at Shambles sharing pictures of his summer vacation and takes a swing at him, I(as host) could find myself getting sued since the action to place on my property.   I may not take the swing, but I am in a position of responsibility for the party.

No matter what, the host is the ultimate reflection on how people look at the party.   You never remember a party by the name of the guest, it is always the host's party that you will refer to.   What action or inaction the host takes determines how people will view the party, and who will return for the next one.


04 Oct 06 - 09:30 AM (#1850063)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

A return to only one section


04 Oct 06 - 09:39 AM (#1850071)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

In the correct order here


04 Oct 06 - 09:43 AM (#1850073)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

In the meanwile, the wronged d is still in the custody of pit bull like bouncers.


04 Oct 06 - 09:47 AM (#1850075)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Wronged, my goodness there's a weasel word if ever I heard one, is it complete absolution you're looking for now?
G.


04 Oct 06 - 09:54 AM (#1850082)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

No. I am following what party host said. Really, if you think about it from there, as d is not a problem, we should all be trying to see him allowed in all of the rooms and participating in everything, shouldn't we.


04 Oct 06 - 09:58 AM (#1850084)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Well, we should give D his or her space, but that does not mean that the rest of the guests have to open their arms to draw that person in. Life doesn't work that way.   I do agree that it would be unfair of the host to allow others to block the doors if that is not the hosts wish.   It all goes back to the person in charge and what they allow or disallow. This party is being held in a private home, not a public venue. If it were in a public venue, there are other authorities who would be in charge anyway.


04 Oct 06 - 10:03 AM (#1850089)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

d is not barred from participating in all the party rooms, merely from spreading gloom and despondency there, by sowing disaffection, and repeating complaints already voiced in other rooms.
d is quite humourous and intelligent when dismounted from his hobby-horse.
Giok


04 Oct 06 - 10:06 AM (#1850094)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

But would you not agree, Ron, that it is somwhat unusual to have or allow one geust to be placed under special conditions for not being a problem?


04 Oct 06 - 10:08 AM (#1850096)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"d is not barred from participating in all the party rooms, merely from spreading gloom and despondency there, by sowing disaffection, and repeating complaints already voiced in other rooms."

How is that accomplished?   Has D been told they can't enter certain rooms and to stay away from the shrimp bowl?

If D has been given restrictions, then everyone would expect D to honor them. If D continues to fight them, then it is up to the host to make a decision - and the rest of the party goers to abide by it.

IF the hosts decides D needs to leave, he should call him or her a cab.

IF D is allowed to stay, with restrictions, then everyone should shut up and allow him or her to particpate as the host allows.

IF D is allowed to stay with no restricitons, then the remaining guests need to assess whether they want to stay and follow the rules that host allows.


04 Oct 06 - 10:10 AM (#1850099)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Taxi for Mr D !
G ☺☻


04 Oct 06 - 10:15 AM (#1850105)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"But would you not agree, Ron, that it is somwhat unusual to have or allow one geust to be placed under special conditions for not being a problem? "

Not at all unusual.   The guest may be put off by the request, but as host is is my call. If I have a guest that I know drinks too much, I would tell them to stay away from the beer. If there is a guest who has a habit of attending parties and then eating all the pigs in a blanket, I might tell that person that they are off limits just to him or her.

Is it fair? It doesn't really matter what is fair since it is my house and my party. If I want the rest of the guests to have an opportunity to snack, I might restrict one person. You might not like me as a host, but that is something I have to live with. It is my responsibility and my decision.   If you don't like it, you don't attend.


04 Oct 06 - 10:16 AM (#1850107)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

By the way... be sure to try the cheese puffs.


04 Oct 06 - 10:26 AM (#1850119)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Fair comment, Ron. I just hope that d is aware that this is the party host's decision and not the random act of performed by the pit bull like bouncers.


04 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM (#1850127)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Although of course, Ron, getting too drunk or eating all the food are problems to you.


04 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM (#1850129)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

You better believe they are problems to me!   As I pointed out, if my guests becomes sick or gets in an accident, I am responsible.


04 Oct 06 - 11:13 AM (#1850169)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Only if you forced them to partake of your food and drink, or it was contaminated, apart from that they came and consumed of their own free will.
G.


04 Oct 06 - 11:22 AM (#1850180)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ron I like the way d's status has elevated to D. Good move.

I think it is time the pitbulls were muzzled for everyones well being and the doors were opened to D.

I don't for one minute believe that the party host decided to restrict D. I believe over zealous pitbulls enjoy the sport, suggested the move (or not) and watch with tongues lolling and spittle drooling on the sidelines.

The only change is the pitbulls are now being watched very carefully and the viewing ain't pretty.


04 Oct 06 - 11:28 AM (#1850185)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

I am very confused - because the "party analogy" that everyone seems to be using recently is a concept that was rejected by shambles as having no pertinence to the situation when this whole mess started.


04 Oct 06 - 11:45 AM (#1850193)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I am very confused - because the "party analogy" that everyone seems to be using recently is a concept that was rejected by shambles as having no pertinence to the situation when this whole mess started.

Don't worry MMario -I shouldn't take too much notice of my views.

You don't usually.

But perhaps you could tell our forum where do you stand on the members only proposal? Are you in favour of such a change or do you support Max' continued commitment to our forum being open for the public's contributions?


04 Oct 06 - 11:48 AM (#1850197)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

I am vehemently oppossed to members only posting.

and BTW - "Don't worry MMario -I shouldn't take too much notice of my views.

You don't usually" is a totally false statement.


04 Oct 06 - 12:11 PM (#1850226)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I am vehemently oppossed to members only posting.

I am glad to read this. I am only surprised that I know this only because I asked you and you answered. Or have I missed you saying this before - in previous discussions on the subject?


04 Oct 06 - 12:12 PM (#1850228)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

"I think it is time the pitbulls were muzzled for everyones well being and the doors were opened to D."


"Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 10:03 AM

d is not barred from participating in all the party rooms, merely from spreading gloom and despondency there, by sowing disaffection, and repeating complaints already voiced in other rooms.
d is quite humourous and intelligent when dismounted from his hobby-horse.
Giok"

I repeat it is only on one topic that d is prohibited from swamping the other rooms at the party [sic]
Or don't you read the sudden rash of birthday threads ?
Giok


04 Oct 06 - 12:16 PM (#1850233)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

yes - you have missed it.


04 Oct 06 - 12:16 PM (#1850235)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Chubby Checker's Birthday

Pitbull wasn't my term BTW.


04 Oct 06 - 12:24 PM (#1850245)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Not that it really matters what any of us think or suggest, but my opinion is that we should restrict to members only posting.   I know there is another thread on that topic so I won't sidetrack this discussion any further.


04 Oct 06 - 12:27 PM (#1850248)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Hear hear Ron.
G


04 Oct 06 - 12:35 PM (#1850259)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Not that it really matters what any of us think or suggest, but my opinion is that we should restrict to members only posting.   I know there is another thread on that topic so I won't sidetrack this discussion any further.

Ron - the subject matter on this thread now ranges from spam for porn sites to rice pudding recipes and all point between - so I this subect can be safely covered here.

I also think you will find that the thread you refer to has been closed long ago.

I note your preference and your provisos - but a change to this does not appear to be our host's intention for the party does it?


04 Oct 06 - 12:52 PM (#1850279)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

No, it does not appear to be our hosts intention. While I wish it were different, I can accept the decision and it won't bother me. My feeling is that SOME people might think twice before making a rude post. I don't buy the arguement that it would restrict discussion, most sites that I visit have similar arrangements and it works quite well.

Again, it really doesn't bother me either way, but if I had a preference and a vote (which I don't), I would opt for members only.


04 Oct 06 - 02:53 PM (#1850389)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Again, it really doesn't bother me either way, but if I had a preference and a vote (which I don't), I would opt for members only.

Ron - You are entitled to express your preference but as you are not (as far as I am aware) one of our moderators - those of us who have always been strongly in favour of our host's open invitation for the public's contribution to our forum to continue - do not have to worry that you may not be using your best efforts to make our host's open house party work or worry that you may have a vested interest in ensuring that his party does not work?


04 Oct 06 - 03:03 PM (#1850396)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I think you asked me 12 questions in that run-on sentence, and I apologize but I am not sure what you are actually asking me.


04 Oct 06 - 03:32 PM (#1850415)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Ron - You are entitled to express your preference but as you are not (as far as I am aware) one of our moderators - those of us who have always been strongly in favour of our host's open invitation for the public's contribution to our forum to continue - do not have to worry that you may not be using your best efforts to make our host's open house party work or worry that you may have a vested interest in ensuring that his party does not work.

Is that better?


04 Oct 06 - 03:41 PM (#1850425)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

What is a sesh?


04 Oct 06 - 03:42 PM (#1850427)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Well, at least it doesn't end as a question!! :)

I am still a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.

a. I am not a moderator
b. I have no "vested" interest in Mudcat, other than as a research tool, discussion forum, and a fun place to visit.
c. My opinions have no impact on the hosts decision making process - nor does your opinion, Mmario's, Giok, etc. We are all just speaking our minds and the host has the ultimate calls to make.


04 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM (#1850433)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Ron - As you have now publicly expressed the preference you have - perhaps you may accept that IF you were a 'moderator' - those of us who have always been strongly in favour of our host's open invitation for the public's contribution to our forum to continue - WOULD have to worry that you may not be using your best efforts to make our host's open house party work or worry that you may have a vested interest in ensuring that his party does not work?


04 Oct 06 - 03:53 PM (#1850438)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

I think an assumption that a moderator has a vested interest in this becoming a member only site (if I am reading the Shambles' hypothesis correctly) is a fallacy. my opinion, of course.


04 Oct 06 - 04:01 PM (#1850448)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover

I note that my theory has proven absolutely correct! The symbiotic relationship between Shambles and Ron Olesko has resumed after only the briefest hiatus and has in fact exceeded the probability rates I predicted and is stabilizing at a level of 15.378219773502M, a truly stunning statistic. This is excellent. My life's work has been vindicated and the Nobel Prize will soon be mine.


04 Oct 06 - 04:02 PM (#1850449)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I see your point now. I had thought you were accusing me of something by the way your posts read.

IF I were a moderator (and I can guarantee you that I am not - nor would I want to be one), I am not sure if I would make my opinion known in that fashion.

However, lets assume that I am a moderator and that I did express my preference publicly.    Sure, you probably should worry if your opinion was different from mine.   Sure, I could try to make it easier to implement my policy.   And before you ask the question - no, I would not stop posting and no, I the owner would not prevent me from keeping on with business as usual.

What are your options? You can continue to post and hope that others will understand your points (such as what happened with me this week).   However, getting back to the "party" analogy - our opinions do not matter.   The host and his appointed bouncers are running the show.


04 Oct 06 - 05:25 PM (#1850525)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ve haf ways uf making you comply!


04 Oct 06 - 05:59 PM (#1850549)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

Shambles,

since you have mentioned the idea to start birthday threads in this thread, may I ask you here to include the respective date in the title. That would make these threads more user friendly. Look how much more informative one of your birthday threads is now with the addition of the date by an unknown volunteer fellow poster for unknown reasons.

This is not a judgement of your worth it is just a suggestion how the worth of the birthday threads could be increased.

Wolfgang


05 Oct 06 - 02:29 AM (#1850745)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

What is a sesh? has now been relegated to the BS.

This is not a judgement of your worth it is just a suggestion how the worth of the birthday threads could be increased.

Then rather that post here only to judge - please by all means place there anything that you judge would make those threads (and any other threads) more interesting and informative. I place only the little information I do to encourage others to post their contributions. I also learn a lot form this and also from surfing to find the information.

That used to be the postive way things used to work on our forum - before posters were encouraged by the negative example given ONLY to pass judgements on the worth of a thread or post or of the worth of the poster and to call them names. And encouraged to simply swoon with horror at the thought of seing the titles of more than one thread at a time.

If it is a thread with little information - why not encourage other posters to provide it?

If a thread is questionably music related - then add it and attempt to keep it there - rather only judge it and than ask that it be relegated to the BS.

These birthday threads were an idea to try and return some of the old spirit of shared fun and joint discovery that makes our forum different to those sites obbsessed only with order.   

To encourage the act of posting - not to find ways that CAN only inhibit the posting of reasonable discussion.

It is very telling what the reaction (from some) to these threads have been.


05 Oct 06 - 03:54 AM (#1850774)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the main object of your scorn, has stated on this forum that he's not too keen on birthday threads of course, does it?
I suggest that all birthday threads regarding non-Mudcatters be allowed in BS only.
Giok


05 Oct 06 - 04:36 AM (#1850788)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the main object of your scorn, has stated on this forum that he's not too keen on birthday threads of course, does it?

In a rather small way perhaps it partly does. But it is no secret that on this issue the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and I will always have very different views.

It was Wolfgang's earlier post on the subject of birthday threads that gave me the idea. He suggested that birthday threads of musical worthies stayed on the music section. I thought this was partly a way of bridging the chasm that now seems to developed and is now firmly enforced by our 'moderators' - between music related subjects and friendly banter. To the detriment of both sections of our forum.

But the bigger picture is that in my view 'moderating' is simply enabling posters to post what they wish to to on our forum. It is not inhibiting posts which may not be to a 'modrators' personal taste.

But what you have again highlighted is the problem caused when 'moderators' are seen by our forum to have personal likes and dislikes. As Ron has stated here, in the following.

IF I were a moderator (and I can guarantee you that I am not - nor would I want to be one), I am not sure if I would make my opinion known in that fashion.


05 Oct 06 - 05:10 AM (#1850806)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Big Stick's messages were deleted. They were just weird.
-Joe Offer-


The above editing was inserted into the following thread.

Amish shooting. Where will it all end?


05 Oct 06 - 05:40 AM (#1850823)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Birthday Threads   From the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum (otherwise known as Snitchers Corner).


05 Oct 06 - 05:57 AM (#1850830)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Joe Offer - Hijacker alert

The above thread has been closed.

Does anyone wish to have a stab at what the difference is between what is referred to as 'thread-drift' and that charged term 'hijacking'?

All they both describe is someone posting to a thread.

Perhaps hi-jacking a thread is a term best reserved for when some anonymous 'moderator' judges and imposes the various actions that move, alter, delete, close threads and prevent posting?

In the sense that these imposed judgements and actions prevent posters fron judging for themselves - and all ordinary posters CAN do is (try to) post - perhaps our 'moderators' are the only true thread hijackers on our forum?


05 Oct 06 - 06:11 AM (#1850834)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Well Roger if anybody should know what the definition of hijacking a thread is, you should.
It is when you ignore the subject of said thread, and post one of your complaints/attacks, usually a repeat posting from several other threads, in order to bring your pet peeve to the notice of people you think just might have managed to avoid it!
Giok


05 Oct 06 - 06:38 AM (#1850843)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Well Roger if anybody should know what the definition of hijacking a thread is, you should.
It is when you ignore the subject of said thread, and post one of your complaints/attacks, usually a repeat posting from several other threads, in order to bring your pet peeve to the notice of people you think just might have managed to avoid it!


Ah- it is as I thought. Hijacking is an intentionally emotive term to describe a post in a thread saying what you don't want a poster to say - but which no is forcing you to read or respond to and which you can easily ignore.

So by the same logic - thread drift is where a whole gang of posters are encouraged that filling a thread on this subject full of recipes or an any other subject - is great fun.

And hijacking is not of course to be thought as imposed action by some anonymous fellow poster who decides to silently delete an entire thread - complete with every poster's contribution to it?


05 Oct 06 - 10:10 AM (#1850987)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

Shambles,

was your 05 Oct 06 - 02:29 AM post meant to be a response to my suggestions that you may add dates to the birthday threads?

Wolfgang


05 Oct 06 - 11:58 AM (#1851104)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

was your 05 Oct 06 - 02:29 AM post meant to be a response to my suggestions that you may add dates to the birthday threads?

No.

It very clearly was a response to your suggestion that I may add dates to the (titles of) birthday threads.

http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=1848983


05 Oct 06 - 12:48 PM (#1851154)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

Interesting. I have read nothing in that post which I could interpret as a reaction to my suggestion.

Wolfgang


05 Oct 06 - 12:55 PM (#1851158)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men. '

Strother Martin in "Cool Hand Luke"


05 Oct 06 - 06:41 PM (#1851486)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You deliberately avoid any real discussion, Wolfgang.


06 Oct 06 - 08:09 AM (#1851904)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Another gem from The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum.

Please delete personal attack

You can see from (some of) our 'moderators' current comments on that thread - that as far as they are concerned - the move to members-only posting is not a question of if - but of when.

When we see this changed being publicly pushed like this - is there any reason for those of us who have always supported Max's policy of the public's access to our forum - to feel that our host's vision is currently 'safe' in the hands of our current 'moderators'?

As far as I can see their best efforts are just to demonstrate how this change is the only solution to the many problems that our forum has had to deal with since its inception.

Perhaps Max would be kind enough to finally inform our forum and our 'moderators' what his intentions are in this regard?


06 Oct 06 - 08:15 AM (#1851906)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

Shambles,

that echolalic language does not fit into a discussion between adults. The last time I could enjoy such a discussion was roughly 45 years ago.

If you know you're wrong in this particular point and just want to avoid admitting it I don't mind. I too have my weaknesses. Maybe next time I ask you something you choose to respond.

If you really think you are right here you have a problem that is not my business to care about.

Wolfgang


06 Oct 06 - 08:25 AM (#1851912)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Perhaps suggestions as the following from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - with such drastic potential consequences for all posters - should be placed for open discussion by them - on the music section of our forum - rather than for the benefit of the conspiratorial and 'faithful few' in Snitchers Corner?

Then our forum can be informed what such a change is thought to be the only way to deal with the very same problems that the our current set-up has dealt with for 10 years? Has there been any real change to warrant such a move?


Subject: RE: Please delete personal attack
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05-Oct-06 - 04:25 PM

I know, it's a tossup about deleting nasty posts. If we delete such stuff while they're here and watching, they just post it again. I've seen Shambles do it eight times in a row, and then post a dozen messages complaining about the deletions.
If we don't delete the nasty stuff right away, then a dozen Mudcatters respond to it. Seems like a losing battle. I'm beginning to think that the only way we can bring it under control is to have members-only posting in BS, and a way to screen non-member posting in the music section before it becomes visible to the public.
-Joe-


06 Oct 06 - 08:36 AM (#1851916)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

In time Max will of course let us know, in the meantime it is wrong of you to assume what he feels regarding members only posting either way. As far as I can remember the only clue available is in a post from Joe Offer saying that AT THAT TIME Max was not convinced of the need for this.
It's my guess however, that during the course of the many ensueing rubbish threads started by Guests, along with the nasty comments contained in other threads by them, he may just have changed his mind.
Members only also means that controlling the ingress of undesirable posters is a more exact science.
Giok


06 Oct 06 - 08:39 AM (#1851918)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If you know you're wrong in this particular point and just want to avoid admitting it I don't mind. I too have my weaknesses. Maybe next time I ask you something you choose to respond.

Wolfgang you have played so many childish games in posts to me - for the benefit only of the watching crowd and your own brand of humour - that such high-sounding allegations from you can be safely dismissed.

You posted with a suggestion as to how you judged I should post - and explained your reasons. Feeling perhaps that you had some right to do this.

I could have responded by telling you that you had no such right and that how and what I choose to post was none of your business, But:

I responded with a suggestion as to how I judged you should post - and I explained my reasons. Feeling that as you felt you had the right to do this to me - that perhaps I had as much right to do this to you.

Hopefully the end result will be that those threads will be as interesting as posters wish to make them.


06 Oct 06 - 09:23 AM (#1851941)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

What crowd?


06 Oct 06 - 09:45 AM (#1851958)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The In Crowd!

I'm in with the in crowd;
I go where the in crowd goes.
I'm in with the in crowd;
And I know what the in crowd knows.
Any time of the year, don't you hear?
Dressin? fine; makin? time.
We breeze up and down the street;
We get respect from the people we meet.
They make way day or night;
They know the in crowd is out of sight.

I'm in with the in crowd;
I know every latest dance.
When you'e in with the in crowd,
It's so easy to find romance!
Any time of the year, don't you hear?
If it's square, we ain't there.
We make every minute count;
Our share is always the biggest amount.
Other guys imitate us, but the original is still the greatest.
In crowd!
In crowd!


06 Oct 06 - 09:55 AM (#1851968)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Gosh you are deluded aren't you?


06 Oct 06 - 07:37 PM (#1852373)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

In time Max will of course let us know, in the meantime it is wrong of you to assume what he feels regarding members only posting either way.

It does tend to be the case that what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wants and rattles on about publicly on our forum - usually does happen.

What I have done for a good few years now is post to our forum on the basis that Max, our host - has been happy with the open invitation he has extended for the public's contributions. If that is an assumption on my part - then perhaps it is a reasonable one?

As Max has not changed it - he and many other posters still appear to be happy with posting on this basis and with our forum as it is. But this does not seem to prevent many of those who are not - from publicly groaning on about members only posting being the answer to all of 'their' problems.

As I have suggested before - those who think that members only posting is such a good idea - are welcome to go and start one on that basis. They are not welcome to keep publicly pushing in an attempt to turn our forum into the private members club that many already treat our forum as (to its detriment).

If our current 'moderators' are finding they cannot cope or control the posting of others to their statisfaction - (without asking Max to change the whole posting principle of our forum) - then perhaps there are others who can be asked and who would be willing to try?

ANALOGY WARNING..................

It is rather like the employees of a brewery - after many years of making beer - telling the owner that they can't manage to make beer anymore but would be able to manage to make lemonade.


06 Oct 06 - 07:51 PM (#1852383)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Wesley S

"They are not welcome to keep publicly pushing in an attempt to turn our forum into the private members club that many already treat our forum as (to its detriment)."

Not welcome by whom Shambles? Got a mouse in your pocket?

I for one am all for members only posting. The best forums I go to are all run that way. And I'll express my opinion whenever I want to on the subject.


06 Oct 06 - 09:10 PM (#1852424)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

SHAMBLES SAYS: "What I have done for a good few years now is post to our forum on the basis that Max, our host - has been happy with the open invitation he has extended for the public's contributions. If that is an assumption on my part - then perhaps it is a reasonable one?"

No Piss&Moanmeister, it is NOT a reasonable assumption that YOU should post to this forum on ANY basis. LOL....Are you mental? Can you not read? Try again:

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

Farewell to you. Don't let the door hitcha' in the ass on the way out!

Spaw


06 Oct 06 - 09:18 PM (#1852429)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jerry Craymore

I find the tone of that last post offensive, and I demand an immediate apology from the insensitive clod who posted it! Have you no respect for your peers, sir? Fie! For shame! If you were in range I'd smack you in the face with my glove, you impudent swine. How dare you stoop to such divisive invective?


06 Oct 06 - 10:00 PM (#1852445)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"No Piss&Moanmeister, it is NOT a reasonable assumption that YOU should post to this forum on ANY basis. LOL....Are you mental? Can you not read? Try again:

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

Farewell to you. Don't let the door hitcha' in the ass on the way out!"

And as I said once before, if Max really wanted Shambles gone, he would have blocked his ability to post.


07 Oct 06 - 02:51 AM (#1852518)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I for one am all for members only posting. The best forums I go to are all run that way. And I'll express my opinion whenever I want to on the subject.

Wesley S - due to Max's wishes, and as you are not to my knowledge a 'moderator' of this forum - you can express any view you wish and that view in particular without compromising our hosts current wishes to continue to keep our forum open to the public's contributions or confusing the many posters who have supported our forum on that basis for many years.

But why would you be supporting a change that has not even been proposed by our host? Is this not a little disloyal to Max? Is the fact that we are expressing different views on this issue needlessly divisive to our forum? Who has publicly proposed it - and who is constantly pushing the change?

And like others that express this view - do you not like our forum currently? Is this forum not thought by you THE best or even one of the best forums you visit?

If not - why do you visit. Why do you not stick with your other members only posting sites or form one of your own?

Our forum is the fine and well-supported forum it is now BECAUSE Max has encouraged the public's contributions over many years and despite the problems inherrent in this. He, our forum and that principle needs your support.

Most of the problems that (some of) our 'moderators' constantly moan on publicly about, blame posters and take no responsibility for - have actually been caused by their failed attempts to control and shape our forum to their wishes.


07 Oct 06 - 12:23 PM (#1852792)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Hey Shambles,

You accused Wesley S of being disloyal to Max. Aren't you being disloyal to Max by constantly asking for the removal of the moderators that Max chose to monitor the site. I'm sure that Max reads what is on the site and knows what the moderators are doing. I'm also sure that he has read some of your postings and knows how you feel. If Max wanted to replace a moderator then he would have done it. Constantly asking for their removal is just as disloyal to Max as requesting that this be a members only site. Any comments?


07 Oct 06 - 12:45 PM (#1852800)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

"the many posters who have supported our forum on that basis for many years."

"Our forum is the fine and well-supported forum it is now"


Roger because it is not a Members Only posting site, you and MG and others, have been allowed to post drivel, and filth and downright rudeness on this forum mostly un censored .
Due to that this site is neither as well supported as it was, nor frequented by as many of the posters who used to support it over the years.


07 Oct 06 - 01:48 PM (#1852839)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Shambles, I visit here mainly because I have become accustomed to doing so. It's a habit. It's an addiction. My experience of Internet forums is very limited, so I don't really know if this one is better or worse than the average, but I'd say it's pretty good as far as I can tell. It certainly has a lot of interesting characters.

I agree that there are various people here who try to control other people's activities here, and it sometimes gets out of hand. I think that happens in any club or group of people after awhile. Those who have been members longer feel that they have more "pull" than newcomers, and they favour their friends and sometimes pick on certain people they don't like so much. That is the case in any organization.

More fun for some people than for others...

You've got to put in time and effort to gain (or lose) respect among a group of people who gather on a regular basis.

When a group fragments into several battling interest groups...well, then you have a mess on your hands! Like the American political system. ;-) Or any political system, for that matter.


07 Oct 06 - 03:54 PM (#1852900)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I know, it's a tossup about deleting nasty posts. If we delete such stuff while they're here and watching, they just post it again. I've seen Shambles do it eight times in a row, and then post a dozen messages complaining about the deletions.
If we don't delete the nasty stuff right away, then a dozen Mudcatters respond to it. Seems like a losing battle. I'm beginning to think that the only way we can bring it under control is to have members-only posting in BS, and a way to screen non-member posting in the music section before it becomes visible to the public.
-Joe


Apart from the fact that it mentions me by name and those bits are totally misleading - am I really the only poster who reads posts like the above with concern? Especially with concern about the ability and will of those 'moderators' publicly expressing such views, to really been seen to do their best to continue to make work - Max's long-running and current open invitation for the public's contribution to our forum?

Does the use of words on our forum like 'we', 'they', 'losing battle', and 'control' - sound out-of-place, combative and devisive only to me? If our 'moderators' see their role to battle against posters to our forum in such terms - is it any real surprise if they then get this battle in return?

The object of having moderators is not surely to been seen to in conflict with posters and to attempt to control and inhibit their posting - but to enable and encourage posting? And for them to accept the current posting policy of the site's owner - rather than to be seen to find constantly find fault and be seen to keep trying to change this policy into something else?


07 Oct 06 - 04:22 PM (#1852914)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You've got to put in time and effort to gain (or lose) respect among a group of people who gather on a regular basis.

Do you? Perhaps on a members only forum this would be the case but our forum has always been different (or perhaps a better word is special). There are those regular members you refer to - but because our forum has never been limited to those regular members - many of the 'intersting characters' you refer to have found our forum.

Many have left (for many reasons) but as long as Max's open invitation continues - others can find it and hopefully stay and refresh the mix. This has always been our forum's strength. It is only seen as a weakness by those who do not really accept the reality of what our forum is and who wish to limit it and already treat it as a private members club.

It may be the 'intersting characters' that attract you - for other posters it will be other things. I tend to be more interested in what people have to say - rather than who may be saying it.

But sadly perhaps very few seem to see Max's open invitation for the public's contributions as the main reason they like our forum. Perhaps this is taken for granted too much and not really valued as it should? It certainly has a down side but I suggest the trick is to encourage posters to accept these aspects - rather than to be seen to constantly fight them.

Poster will see things (at least in the thread titles) they would rather not - but rather than being encouraged to complain about this - perhaps they can be informed that it is the price they pay for being able to post what they wish.


07 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM (#1852933)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Well, clearly my statement which you quote referred to members, not Guests. Only members in a club normally have the investment of time to gain or lose other members' respect.

But perhaps you can find an exception to that? I suppose a persistent enough Guest who always posts under the same name can do what a member can do in that respect...only...how do we know it really IS that person when they post?

We don't.

I could easily, for example, log out and pretend to be Gargoyle or Martin Gibson and post something to embarass them (assuming it's possible to do that...). Heh!

I'm not going to, but I could. ;-) So could anyone else.

This is one reason why it's a much better idea to post as a member than a (named) Guest. As for anonymous Guests, well, that's a different matter again. They take no risks and present no known face, real or imaginary.


07 Oct 06 - 05:53 PM (#1852975)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

This is one reason why it's a much better idea to post as a member than a (named) Guest. As for anonymous Guests, well, that's a different matter again. They take no risks and present no known face, real or imaginary.

Very possibly this judgement may be the case but posters do currently have these choices. And currently anyone who finds our forum can contribute there and then. Plus you can send a link to someone and they can respond directly the the thread - without becoming a member.   

If the only way you could contribute to our forum was to become a member first - there would not be the same ease as there has been, in obtaining new blood. And many who do not now wish to have cookies or reveal their details etc (for many reasons) would be then excluded.

But as most the problems our 'moderators' seem to have IS with the posting of members - there would appear much more to be lost by their proposed change than there is to be gained.


07 Oct 06 - 06:54 PM (#1853008)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Hey Shambles,

You accused Wesley S of being disloyal to Max. Aren't you being disloyal to Max by constantly asking for the removal of the moderators that Max chose to monitor the site. I'm sure that Max reads what is on the site and knows what the moderators are doing. I'm also sure that he has read some of your postings and knows how you feel. If Max wanted to replace a moderator then he would have done it. Constantly asking for their removal is just as disloyal to Max as requesting that this be a members only site. Any comments?


07 Oct 06 - 08:29 PM (#1853058)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

"Plus you can send a link to someone and they can respond directly the the thread - without becoming a member." Shambles

Unless I am misunderstanding, that statement isn't factual. A Guest (someone who is not a member)has no address that a member can reach, therefore said Guest cannot receive a link. Other than in the thread itself.

Am I mistaken?


07 Oct 06 - 08:43 PM (#1853065)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Constantly asking for their removal is just as disloyal to Max as requesting that this be a members only site. Any comments?

Perhaps - if I had done this. But I simply do not understand why any 'moderator' would wish to continue carrying our the owner's policy - if they did not agree with it. Or why any poster can be expected to see their constant complaints about and their wish to change the status quo on our forum - as these 'moderators' best efforts to support the status quo.

So it is hardly my actions that are currently confusing our forum's loyalties - is it?

But (some of) our 'moderators' are constantly asking for my removal - perhaps that could also be judged as also being disloyal?

The answer to our divided loyalties would seem simple.

Those 'moderators' who do not like our forum being open for the public's contributions - as Max has wished it from the very beginning - can form their own private members club and leave the rest of us in peace. On their own new forum - if they cannot stand the heat of working in their own kitchen - they can moan about and throw pots and pans at and exclude whoever they wish.


07 Oct 06 - 08:51 PM (#1853076)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Am I mistaken?

Yes.

You do of course need the e mail address. I have often sent a thread's URL in an email to enable friends and others who I think may be interested or who may be able to help - to directly respond to a thread or to a specific point in a thread.

If this proposal is implemented - they would not be able to continue to do this without first becoming a member.


07 Oct 06 - 09:39 PM (#1853092)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

If Max monitors the site, which we assume to be the case, then he knows what the moderators are doing. If he din't approve then he would replace them. Therefore, if you question the moderators that Max has approved and keeps track of then you are being as disloyal as Wesley S.

The moderators are asking for your removal because Max has previously stated that maybe you should leave. That is Max's policy and not the moderators.


08 Oct 06 - 03:57 AM (#1853159)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The moderators are asking for your removal because Max has previously stated that maybe you should leave. That is Max's policy and not the moderators.

Although our 'moderators' and their supporters would like to give our forum that impression - the issue here is never one single poster i.e currently me. The situation is exactly the reverse of what you suggest.

Because of all the fuss made and encouraged publicly by (some of) our 'moderators' and their attempts to prevent our forum from discussing this issue and my attempts to ensure that our forum could discuss the true nature and current level of censorship on our forum, Max made the public statement he did. I suggest you read all of it - rather that just the piece that my detractors refer to.

Just like I have done Max made a number of suggestions but his policy since then towards me has clearly been not to be seen to block my postings after all these years. But that does not prevent (some of) our 'moderators' from still publicly encouraging this course of action as some form of solution to their problems.

In exactly the same way and for the same reasons that since the public admission of failure and the proposals made to improve our forum on their behalf - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - (some of) our 'moderators' continue to push for this - despite there having been no sign of this change since then or no public statement by Max confirming such a change.


08 Oct 06 - 06:13 AM (#1853185)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The good ship Mudcat currently has (some of) its volunteer crew sailing off - (Fletcher Christian like) in one direction whilst the ship stall attemps to maintain the original course under its Captain.

Perhaps it is only sensible for any current and potential passengers, to be informed of any change of destination - rather than to be seen and expected to take sides in open conflict on deck.

That such a situation would and is dividing loyalties on our forum is pretty obvious - and it is a situation not caused by any attempts to bring attention to this situation, discuss it and to end this division of posters loyalties on our forum.   

So that when the word 'we' is used - it will once again mean ALL posters to our forum.


08 Oct 06 - 06:30 AM (#1853193)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Only members in a club normally have the investment of time to gain or lose other members' respect.

The only respect that needs to be encouraged to be shown on a discussion forum such as this one, which continues to be open for all the public's contributions - is respect from all contributors to all contributors.

All that has ever been required is the recognition of what our forum is and for all contributors to be able to accept that being seen openly to be able to agree to disagree - is about as good as such a forum can get.

If anyone wants a private club - they can find or start one. Our forum has not been that place - is not now that place and Max has given no public indication of implementing the change that would make our forum such a place.


08 Oct 06 - 06:57 AM (#1853198)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Partridge

Shambles,
What are you like in person? I ask this because having read this thread and some of your other postings you sound like a human terrier - once you get hold of something you never let go, you are very persistant. Can you understand that just repeating something doesn't make it true?
I can't work out what it is you really want. If the forum was run the way you wanted it to be would you become a regular poster?

I know you don't write in capitals but I can't help reading some of your posts like you were shouting!

What you are trying to do clearly is not working and you seem to have caused a lot of ill feeling. I hope that you manage to sort out your grievances soon, because alot of us are very fed up with the constant moaning. C'mon, life is for living - get yourself a secret santa for gods sake!

Pat x


08 Oct 06 - 09:02 AM (#1853233)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

What are you like in person? I ask this because having read this thread and some of your other postings you sound like a human terrier - once you get hold of something you never let go, you are very persistant. Can you understand that just repeating something doesn't make it true?
I can't work out what it is you really want. If the forum was run the way you wanted it to be would you become a regular poster?


For the purposes of contributing to our forum does it really matter what any of us are like as a person? I am just a fellow poster. All you have to do is read or not read - respond or not respond to my posts. It is as simple as that.

I will try to respond to your views and questions - even if they are just repeating those that have been asked and asnswered many times before. But I have no wish to make personal judgements of your worth - based only on what you post? What point is there in encouraging one poster to post only personal judgements of another named poster? Or in your case an un-named one.

Why do you not also ask your other questions of those who have just as terrier-like, pedanticly and persistently tried for many years to prevent my posts from appearing on our forum as posted? And who impose all these means to inhibit, restrict and prevent posts containing only reasonable discussion - and attempt to justify this as somehow enabling reasonable discussion?

When you have your answers from them - ask me again about my reaction to this. In the meantime perhaps you could actually address the real issue and answer some of the questions that have been posed on this issue in this thread?

As I have had a whole pack of terriers constantly nipping at my arse - you may not see the very best of me displayed. And to judge my worth from my attempts only to deal with these terrier's attempts to chase me away - without also judging the worth of the chasing pack - is perhaps a little unfair?

I have found that those terriers who use such tactics as a first and only resort - do not appreciate themselves being on the receiving end of the same sort judgement and treatment that they freely dish out. They then consdider this to be unfair.


08 Oct 06 - 01:01 PM (#1853343)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

"Am I mistaken? " Eb

"Yes." The Sham

Huh? In what way was my assumption mistaken? You had not mentioned emailing.

"You do of course need the e mail address. I have often sent a thread's URL in an email to enable friends and others who I think may be interested or who may be able to help - to directly respond to a thread or to a specific point in a thread.

"If this proposal is implemented - they would not be able to continue to do this without first becoming a member. "

"They would not be able to continue to do this without first becoming a member" And how difficult is that, Roger? And if the subject is so interesting what would stop you from copy and pasting pertinent parts and sending it to friends through email?

I am in favor of members only.


08 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM (#1853353)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

"They would not be able to continue to do this without first becoming a member" And how difficult is that, Roger? And if the subject is so interesting what would stop you from copy and pasting pertinent parts and sending it to friends through email?

The point of course is not that you can copy & post interesting bits to one's non-member friends - but that they can click directly on the to the thread's URL and contribute directly to the discussion. They may not have the time or wish to become a memeber to do this and may not make any contribution if they were forced to. After this easy way - they may even choose to become a member. It is a good way of our forum to get new blood - but this does not appear to be a concern to many posters. Who perhaps do not really want any new blood?

I am in favor of members only.

Then what are you doing posting on our forum and pushing to change it?
Why do you just go and form one where you can exclude who you wish - rather than feel you have some right to change our forum to your requirements and force these limitations on other posters?

Our forum is so much more that what many posters tend to see it as. The way Max has set it up - it is a way that you can see the whole world's views and it can see yours. The opportunities for all of us to learn are endless by this - so why limit it to the like-minded only?


08 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM (#1853363)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover

Where is Ron Olesko? His absence is throwing doubt on my theory of symbiosis, as demonstrated by the back and forth postings between him and Shambles. Is this a deliberate attempt to discredit my work and deny me the Nobel Prize? If so, I shall take legal action, be assured. This is not a trivial matter.

Ron, I know what you're up to. You don't fool me. Your failure to post in the last many posts is deliberate on your part and is aimed at me in a most malicious manner. You will pay for that, sir.


08 Oct 06 - 02:05 PM (#1853375)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Coerbeill

Shambles, I am pleased to see that you are in favor of Guest postings such as mine. That speaks well for your general level of tolerance and compassion.

You say to a member, "Then what are you doing posting on our forum and pushing to change it? Why do(n't) you just go and form one where you can exclude who you wish..."

Oh my, yes! What a brilliant notion. Let's ALL immediately go and FORM an internet forum all of our own where we can each have everything just as we want it. Oh boy! Well, how does one do that? I wonder? How many people here even have the slightest notion of how to form an internet forum? Precious few, I would guess.

Forming a forum is a lot of work. You have to know all the software routines and be able to build a website. It's more work than most people can be bothered with and most people don't know a thing about it. If one did form a forum where everything was exactly as one wanted, I submit that its membership would necessarily have to be restricted to an enrollment of ONE! (meaning, the person who formed it) That could get deadly boring rather soon, couldn't it?

Is that what you are suggesting?

If so, I think you are a nincompoop who says things he hasn't thought out properly. You just don't like it when other people disagree with you, that's all. In that respect you are no different from the other people here whom you are telling to leave and form a forum of their own. I bet they tell you to leave too, don't they? Wouldn't it be funny if you ALL left simultaneously and joined some other forum under new names...and after about 6 months of arguing suddenly reached the awful realization one day that it was all happening all over again?

Ah...ha! ha! ha! What a farce.


08 Oct 06 - 02:54 PM (#1853405)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

Roger, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you bemoan what the 'Cat has become and on the other you shout: Don't change it! Which is your true feeling?


08 Oct 06 - 03:12 PM (#1853411)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

No Ebbie, shambles is reasonably consistant on that. He would like things back to older times. I think many would...

Where we part on that particular issue is:

I believe the slightly increased levels of moderations are a reaction to a higher number of "bad" posters.

Shambles appears to believe that the removal of such moderation would improve the "general standard" of posters.


08 Oct 06 - 03:20 PM (#1853414)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

It depends on who has the edit button. Some people deserve to have it. Some don't. Those with agendas of their own should pack it in.


08 Oct 06 - 03:25 PM (#1853418)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

re: Members only. Shambles suggests that it would be somehow a problem...unfair, cliquish, restrictive, exclusive....etc.
But, membership is NOT restrictive. Anyone may join. All "members only" would do is require one to show their card at the door in order to post. It would simply be a way to keep track of which members were posting when. It would **NOT** even require real names, or even identify where one lives....all it would do is reduce the confusion that occurs when 23 'guests' are all posting at once...(or is it one guest with 23 agendas?) It would also allow private responses to some issues when it would better if everyone were not reading the details. I suspect THAT is one of the major reasons many folks who take contentious positions don't join. I don't know what to say to those who just have a phobia against being recognized, even by a pseudonym!

Note again the point..***ANYONE*** may join and participate....the only rule would be that NO ONE may do absolutely anything they wish. Management of a site like this always has the right to exclude anyone who is deemed disruptive, dangerous, or generally offensive.
   There have been only 2-3 of these in 10 years.....that is a pretty 'open' attitude by internet standards. (Martin Gibson was banned for repeated offenses, and even he was given the benefit of the doubt and warned many times first!)

As guest 'Partridge' indicates above, it has become really difficult to discern exactly what Shambles wants. He doesn't want "judgments imposed", but even the oft repeated phrase "impose their judgments" has lost any clear meaning when he uses it to refer to ANY editing done. He certainly doesn't like having moderators, but he particularly doesn't like having any of them being unknown to Shambles....despite the fact that Joe has explained that 1) There WILL be moderators, and 2)that it may be best if some of them remain anonymous. This policy is approved by Max!

In short, The Shambles crusade to have some idealistic "totally free & open" forum where everyone is responsible for their own posts and everyone respects everyone else is inviting anarchy. When 95% of all posts were music related, it was close to the ideal, but once we got 'found' by the general public, it was just no longer workable to be without moderation.

One suggestion is to allow 'guest' posting in the MUSIC threads, and require ID to kibitz 'below the line'....I don't know how technically feasible that is, but it might be worth testing. In the meantime, we can either keep debating Shambles, just for the humor and practice, or we can ignore him, like he suggests. Would that it were possible!


08 Oct 06 - 03:52 PM (#1853440)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

We tried it about a month or two ago, Bill. It was quite humorous to watch. Every morning Shambles would cast around trying to bait someone. He got more desperate as time went on. He was limited in his ability to troll to just this thread. He was not limited in others as long as he wasn't trolling for his campaign. He got quite panicky. I thought that experiment proved what many have said all along. He is a troll, and has a need for attention.

Unfortunately, there are those that just can't ignore. It makes a very strong case for members only posting, and controls. Of course, my opinion is Shambles should leave, as he is the one so disenchanted. But he invites everyone else to leave. Shows how he has it all backwards in the convoluted way of thinking of his.

Shambles, the mod's will continue to do the job they do, the way they do it. You are unhappy with that, then leave. Max suggested that you do that. I concur.


08 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM (#1853446)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Roger, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you bemoan what the 'Cat has become and on the other you shout: Don't change it! Which is your true feeling?

If it is not broke - stop keep trying to fix it and avoiding taking any responsibility for the results of this constant tinkering.

This latest proposed change is a major one bur it is only the latest one - in a never-ending list of changes required by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and (some of) his team and those who seem to blindly support them. And whatever changes they impose on our forum to judge and shape our contributions to their requirements - these still do not satisify them.

My only reservations are about the need for these constant changes and the reasons behind them. Our forum remains a simple concept but one that (some of) our 'moderators' - by their constant need to publicly express their reservations and judgements and propose changes, have clearly never accepted or really understood.

All these changes have unforseen complications but no responsibilty for these is ever taken by our 'moderators' - who continue to moan about and to judge and blame other posters. An example of posting set, that is not surprisingly followed. To the extent that now some posters are encouraged to think they have some right to post only personal judgements about the worth of fellow named posters, seems to be seen to be our forum's main purpose.

My true feeling is that our forum is currently a reflection of the example of posting behaviour shown by (some of) our 'moderators'. And if they do not like our forum in this form - they must first take some responsibility for this. And be prepared to change this example before any more changes are proposed. Any 'moderator' should be required to be seen, by the example they set, to be committed to making Max's current posting policy work.


08 Oct 06 - 04:09 PM (#1853451)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

There was a time I cared. That time is past. I will be a member when it's convenient to me and a guest when it's convenient to me. Both are allowed to post, so it's not an issue. Remember, two legs good, four legs bad.


08 Oct 06 - 08:08 PM (#1853630)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

As guest 'Partridge' indicates above, it has become really difficult to discern exactly what Shambles wants.

That is clear, it is Joe Offer out of "office" and probably the heads of a few mods.

While he is reasonably consistant with his return to old times. Even those arguments will return to that point.
    Whatever you say is probably true, except that I don't understand what you said.
    -Joe Offer-


09 Oct 06 - 02:27 AM (#1853779)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

As guest 'Partridge' indicates above, it has become really difficult to discern exactly what Shambles wants.

Not if you read it - and not what other posters say that I want.

Bill D - But what do you want?

You appear to support anonymous 'moderators' - however ineffective and counter-productive this may be to our forum and no matter how much (some of) our 'moderators' then moan about the results - as part of the Max approved status quo.

But you then point our the advantages of a change to members only posting - and ingnore that this is NOT the Max approved status quo.

If you don't like Max's basic posting policy that our forum has always operated on - why have you stayed posting (and moaning) for so long and why do you not form your own private club? Why do you think you have some right after all this time, to impose your requirements on other posters on our forum?


09 Oct 06 - 04:06 AM (#1853826)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

The moderators are NOT, as far as I can see, ineffective.
They sweep the crud out of this site as soon as they see it, or it is brought to their attention. They give people enough rope, and then let them hang themselves; sometimes I think they give them too much rope, but that's my personal opinion.
Giok


09 Oct 06 - 04:23 AM (#1853839)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Please delete spam

The above is another gem from The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum.

In which the latest thinking behind the now hysterical and brave fight against spam on our forum is well demonstrated.

Posters are now being encouraged to get spam deleted – by copy and pasting it all on to Snitchers Corner instead. In addition to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team dumping it in this thread. But never fear – you will see that he has finally found the solution.

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07-Oct-06 - 03:24 PM
We get Spam in the Dubliners thread almost every day, so I finally decided to close the thread. It appears the Spam is being sent automatically.
-Joe-


The next step of course, following on from such logic – to solve all the problems our 'moderators' get their knickers twisted about – is to close the entire forum.

Give me spots on my apples but leave me the birds and the bees
PLEASE.


09 Oct 06 - 05:14 AM (#1853864)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

You really are weird aren't you?


09 Oct 06 - 05:48 AM (#1853874)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The stalker's up early chaps.


09 Oct 06 - 06:10 AM (#1853883)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Thanks T.


09 Oct 06 - 08:48 AM (#1853993)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Partridge

I'll give you spots on your apples, and hopefully a big yellow taxi will turn up!

cheers

Pat


09 Oct 06 - 09:16 AM (#1854014)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Where is Ron Olesko?"

I'm right here Prof. Lucy, watching with great amusement.

I know we all love analogies, and the latest one that I can come up with is that this forum is starting to remind me of all the Star Wars and Star Trek fans.   Ever watch these group of fanatics picking apart the minutae and telling the powers that be how things should be run?

It seems that is what we have here. NONE of you have any impact because the management of this operation obviously enjoys sitting back and watching.   If they aren't going to do anything to bring about change, then the die is cast. Whatever will become of Mudcat is due to their decision to either make change or do nothing. It is not Shambles or any of us.   The host of the party has chosen to open his doors and let everyone run amok.

It is really time to find a new party - the company in this one is starting to become very boring.


09 Oct 06 - 09:32 AM (#1854023)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

It is really time to find a new party - the company in this one is starting to become very boring.

No matter how much care they put into the preparation - the host tends to get the blame for the worst parties. Often unfairly as they can only do so much and making the party go well is really up to the guests.

For the very worst parties are those where none of the guests make any effort and just moan about their fellow guests. When these moaners have gone home - the party often comes to life.


09 Oct 06 - 09:46 AM (#1854035)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

You make a good point about the moaners going home and letting the rest of the guests have a good time, but ultimately it is the host who makes the guest list and keeps the party going.   

You do make the mistake of assuming that the moaners are the one with the problem.   Often a host will let an obnoxious guest run herd over the festivities. The ones that you are calling "moaners" may have a legitimate gripe and would certainly do themselves a favor by finding another shindig. It would be no loss to them for leaving such an awful affair.

True, the host can't be blamed for having the party turning dismal, but they are the ones footing the bill as well as have the authority to make changes.


09 Oct 06 - 11:16 AM (#1854120)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The fact that my bouncers are too keen on moaning and sniping is WHY they are my bouncers. Pleasant, good natured, sociable people have a life to be getting on with and lots of parties to attend and wouldn't want to spend all their time picking crumbs up off my shag pile.

Swings and rounabouts. But we just turn the music up and drown them out. Nobody takes them too seriously. And they keep the carpet clean.


09 Oct 06 - 12:07 PM (#1854163)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The ones that you are calling "moaners" may have a legitimate gripe and would certainly do themselves a favor by finding another shindig. It would be no loss to them for leaving such an awful affair.

If only that were the case. When the bouncers are the main ones setting the example of constantly moaning about and judging the worth of the host's invited guest - that rather sets the moaning tone and some of the guest think it OK to follow it.....

But when everyone has been invited equally - everyone has a equal right to be there and enjoy themselves. If you find your fellow guests to be a pain - and the host is not seen to wish to throw them out - the only option open to you is to find another party.

A 'moaners only' affair.


09 Oct 06 - 12:25 PM (#1854169)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shambles, I agree with you that perhaps the bouncers may be doing some moaning, but if that is the case there seems to be an overwhelming number of bouncers present!

No one has an "equal right".   The host can decide who stays and who goes.   If the host doesn't like the way someone (anyone) is behaving, he or she can make a decision. There are no grey areas here - it is the hosts call to do something or to do nothing.   No matter what happens at the party, the reflection goes back to the host. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts" - it is the hosts party.

When you get down to it, it really doesn't matter who is doing the moaning. The dessert tray has been left out in the sun too long - somebody is going to get an upset stomach. Either remove the tray, get new cream puffs, or watch where you step.


09 Oct 06 - 01:34 PM (#1854209)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Far from there being an 'overwhelming number' the opposite is true. Many, many more are enjoying the ambience and partaking of the hospitality.

Just because the FEW seem to think that incessant moaning is a good night out please do not think their number is overwhelming. There are ten hard core moaners here. Click your fingers and they come running every time.


09 Oct 06 - 01:47 PM (#1854217)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Shambles, I agree with you that perhaps the bouncers may be doing some moaning, but if that is the case there seems to be an overwhelming number of bouncers present!

Yes it sometimes appears that way. Posters tend to do this anyway - unless it is discouraged, so a forum like ours does not need to be seen to encourage posters to moan about what others choose to post. But as it is (some of) our 'moderators' who set this example, it should really be no surprise that usual easy targets - once named - will have no shortage of those willing to follow this example.   

The same few moaning posters can make their number appear a lot larger and once you give a dog a bad name - others will join in who have no real idea what all the moaning and personal judgements are all about and whether there is really any justification for them.

It is clear that the example set by our 'moderators' and their supporters will be followed as acceptable posting behaviour. And it is this behaviour that our 'moderators' then moan about and blame posters for.


09 Oct 06 - 02:05 PM (#1854231)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Don't you think you might be one of the moaners shambles?


09 Oct 06 - 02:08 PM (#1854234)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

Guest, my thought exactly.


09 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM (#1854243)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Far from there being an 'overwhelming number' the opposite is true."

Guest, I do agree with you. That was the point I was trying to make. The number of "moaners" seems to be significantly higher than the number of bouncers/moderators.

There are "moaners" on both sides of the arguement too. It is not a one way street.

Screw examples! That is a red herring here. Very few people live up to the standards that they themselves set, and when it comes to our "party" the happy medium is always the best solution. I've been to parties where the host has too much to drink, but he is also taking car keys away from others before they can drive off. Leading by example is always a goal, but we are all human (thank god.)

People make mistakes and will go to the party and give the hosts rug a cigarette burn, and the host may spill the coffee over a guest as well - but we move on. Mistakes happen, no big deal. Apologies, if needed, are said. The ground rules might be repeated, and the party continues on.   If you dwell on the fact that someone threw up on the cat, then the fun stops. If someone has to leave, so be it. If the host has to tighten up the list, so be it.   Clean up the cat and party on.


09 Oct 06 - 03:03 PM (#1854283)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles will never admit that he is a moaner, part of the problem, unrealistic or wrong. He is a total ostrich when it comes to seeing where he stands in relationship to the rest of Mudcat. It is obvious from the fact that few people support him that his views are not what the remainder of Mudcat wishes for. It is his belief that everything should change for the benefit of only one...Shambles. It ain't gonnna happen brother.


09 Oct 06 - 03:43 PM (#1854305)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"The dessert tray has been left out in the sun too long - somebody is going to get an upset stomach. Either remove the tray, get new cream puffs, or watch where you step."

For a second there I thought you were going to break into

"Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!"

Thank you for NOT doing that.


09 Oct 06 - 03:52 PM (#1854316)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I try to express my views.

A look through my posting history will show that I rarely moan about or post only personal judgements about my fellow named posters or respond in kind to the many I am subjected to and not protected from.

An example that if followed would solve many of the things that our 'moderators' constantly moan about and encourage other posters to moan about.


09 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM (#1854328)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I think "moan" is probably open to interpretation - as are the rules.

As I've said earlier, I do think Shambles has been attacked far too often here.   Unfortunately, everyone will post personal judgements - as Shambles himself does when he says the "moderators" constantly moan and encourage other posters to moan.   I know that last sentence may cause Shambles to start cutting and pasting supposed examples, but this lengthy thread already has them and I encourage Shambles to save his energy - we've seen the examples.

"Moaning" could be interpreted as the attacks made on Shambles, or they could be interpreted as Shambles seemingly endless postings that seem to be making the same point over and over.   Moaning could also be interpreted as my interjections in this discussion.

Moaning could also be interpreted by my repition of the the following sentence - it really doesn't matter what any of us think or post, it all boils back to how the management deals or does not deal with it.   Let the forum speak for itself.   We are all shithouse lawyers with time on our hands and our "moaning" about either side of the supposed issue means diddly squat.


09 Oct 06 - 04:05 PM (#1854329)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Wolfy Dan

Owooooooooooooo....! Owooooooooooooooooo...!


09 Oct 06 - 04:40 PM (#1854354)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Non posting of judgements week

If all these post containing only judgements of my worth have proved anything - is that posting only such judgements about named fellow posters in these witch-hunts are a complete waste of poster's time and effort.

Perhaps it is better to just discuss the issue and views posted or just ignore it - if you find any aspect of a post annoying or irritating?

The concept that any poster has the right to try (in any way) to prevent another from expressing their honest views on our forum (as often as they wish to) is at the heart of this.

It is quite clear that all of the justifications given for the current Chief of the Mudcat Mudcat Editing Team' imposing special restrictions on my posting only - are bogus. Whatever your personal judgement of me may be - this abuse should concern you and you should request that these restrictions are lifted.

For it is obvious I and any other poster could endlessly post warm uncritical praise of our 'moderators' efforts many times and in as many threads as they wished (and some do) - and there would not be any action imposed.


09 Oct 06 - 04:43 PM (#1854358)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp

Nine HUNDRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bananas, mangos, and drinks all around!


09 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM (#1854361)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

'For it is obvious I and any other poster could endlessly post warm uncritical praise of our 'moderators' efforts many times and in as many threads as they wished (and some do) - and there would not be any action imposed.'

That's true. But say something they don't like and it will be deleted relentlessly, and often. They look out for their own, that's for sure.


09 Oct 06 - 05:07 PM (#1854389)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp

"They look out for their own, that's for sure."

This is also true of the Chicago police, the North Side Gorillas, the South Side Baboons, and every other organization I'm familiar with...

So what other pearls of wisdom ya got for us today?


09 Oct 06 - 05:17 PM (#1854400)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Peel the banana so it will insert more easily. Howzat?


09 Oct 06 - 05:25 PM (#1854409)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp

I always peel the banana before I eat it. I'm not stupid. How about I grease up a nice cold iron rod for you, pal? Sounds like you need one right about now.


09 Oct 06 - 05:47 PM (#1854432)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Does he have to take his finger out first?


09 Oct 06 - 05:50 PM (#1854434)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

"Bill D - But what do you want?

You appear to support anonymous 'moderators' - however ineffective and counter-productive this may be to our forum..."

I would not support them if **I** considered them ineffective! I consider moderators essential...anonymity is almost irrelevant in my opinion...if something needs edited of deleted, I don't really care whether I know who did it. YOU are the one who seems to care.

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

"But you then point our the advantages of a change to members only posting - and ingnore that this is NOT the Max approved status quo."

Totally different issue! I am aware that Max has not seen fit to institute this...I am merely noting my view of how it might help. I am not campaigning for this change, I am discussing it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you don't like Max's basic posting policy that our forum has always operated on - why have you stayed posting (and moaning) for so long and why do you not form your own private club? Why do you think you have some right after all this time, to impose your requirements on other posters on our forum?"

THAT is utter balderdash! You have taken my simple comments and twisted and re-stated what I said until it no longer resembles my opinion, my attitude or my intent! I don't WANT a private club..THIS is not a private club- anyone may be here. I would rather they be identified, but as you see, I live with the fact they are not.....and just where do you get off suggesting that I am even TRYING to **impose** anything on other posters?

   You, Shambles, are trying harder than anyone to impose one viewpoint on others. Insisting that no editing be done, that no anonymous moderators be allowed, that YOU are the judge of what language is appropriate, that nothing be changed without 'advanced permission' from a poster..etc..etc...is just as much an attempt to "IMPOSE" as any of the things you complain about! You are so wrapped up in your personal cloak of righteous indignation about imagined problems, that you can't see that most of the censure you receive is only BECAUSE of your own behavior.

It IS hopeless to talk to you. I now retire once more to the shadows. I don't like it when I catch myself beginning to tilt at windmills!


09 Oct 06 - 05:57 PM (#1854447)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

'How about I grease up a nice cold iron rod for you, pal? Sounds like you need one right about now.'

You perverted friggin' monkey. COLD IRON? Sheesh. Anyway, who's gonna learn shit from some guy that had Fay Wray in his hands and proceeded to let her get away? Eat yer banana. You need the potassium.


09 Oct 06 - 06:05 PM (#1854458)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad

I agree with Wolfy Dan.


09 Oct 06 - 07:32 PM (#1854526)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I would not support them if **I** considered them ineffective! I consider moderators essential...anonymity is almost irrelevant in my opinion...if something needs edited of deleted, I don't really care whether I know who did it. YOU are the one who seems to care.

But of course you do care very much about posters being anonymous - you have been moaning on and on about it for years and you still are.

all it would do is reduce the confusion that occurs when 23 'guests' are all posting at once...(or is it one guest with 23 agendas?)

But whether you or my Scottish friend consider our 'moderators' efforts to be effective - the fact is that THEY have admitted that they do not consider their best efforts to be effective. Which is why they now push MAX to change our forum into members only posting. Perhaps you should take this point up with them?

Their best efforts are either currently effective or they are not - which is it? If they are effective as you claim - why do they see the need for a further change to members only posting?


10 Oct 06 - 04:45 AM (#1854696)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Totally different issue! I am aware that Max has not seen fit to institute this...I am merely noting my view of how it might help. I am not campaigning for this change, I am discussing it.

As indeed I am trying to do - when you refer to this as a campaign (or tilting at windmills). But you are seen to be publicly supporting the 'best efforts' of those who are publicly still pushing Max for this change - even though they have admitted the failure of their 'best efforts'. Could you expain to our forum why?

Subject: RE: Please delete personal attack
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05-Oct-06 - 04:25 PM

I know, it's a tossup about deleting nasty posts. If we delete such stuff while they're here and watching, they just post it again. I've seen Shambles do it eight times in a row, and then post a dozen messages complaining about the deletions.
If we don't delete the nasty stuff right away, then a dozen Mudcatters respond to it. Seems like a losing battle. I'm beginning to think that the only way we can bring it under control is to have members-only posting in BS, and a way to screen non-member posting in the music section before it becomes visible to the public.
-Joe-


You are so wrapped up in your personal cloak of righteous indignation about imagined problems, that you can't see that most of the censure you receive is only BECAUSE of your own behavior.

Am I also imagining the problem of these selective restrictions on my posting only? The record will show that my posting record is setting a far better example than the one shown by many of those who would judge me. It must now be clear to aall posters that my contributions are only restricted by (some of) our 'moderators' only because they do not like my views and do not wish to see them discussed.

But you can see from the above someone is certainly 'imagining that I post 'nasty posts' and for their own reasons is now publicly mis-imforming our forum of this fabrication. However, when when our anonymous 'moderators' find bogus reasons to 'silently delete' my posts - I have no way of knowing this has occured - as no editing comment of explanation of this action is given. So quite reasonably I try to post it again. Is it really any surprise that a poster may not be happy with such treatment of their posts on our forum?

Quite how the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges he can further control what he sees as a problem by the introduction of members only posting is unclear. What is clear is that he now wishes to first personally vet and aprove every single post to the music section. And following his recent example - if some post does manage to slip him by - he will have no hesitation in closing the entire thread.

Perhaps he will be finally happy when he can prevent everything he does not agree with from appearing or until he has managed to prevent ALL posting - to finally ensure that our forum is shaped to his requirements only.

I am sure BIll D - you will also been seen to support this? Or perhaps you may support it - but no one will then be able to see you support it.


10 Oct 06 - 05:05 AM (#1854704)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Please delete spam

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04-Oct-06 - 02:04 AM
I think we're going to have to live with Spam in that Dubliners thread. It's a long thread, so moving all the "good" messages would be difficult.
We've had maybe 25 Spam messages in that one thread. We delete them as we see them.
-Joe-


Then a bit later.

Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07-Oct-06 - 03:24 PM
We get Spam in the Dubliners thread almost every day, so I finally decided to close the thread. It appears the Spam is being sent automatically.
-Joe-


Poor old Dubliners – it certainly isn't their fault- or mine. Or is it?


10 Oct 06 - 05:45 AM (#1854729)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Poor old Dubliners – it certainly isn't their fault- or mine. Or is it?

No but I doubt whether than anyone other than you would complain about taking an action because of the ongoing problem of spam. It is difficult to know how to deal with it, there does seem to be automated "spam bots" around and the problem seems to be getting worse.

Here is a blacklist file for domains from MediaWiki (the software used by Wikipedia).


10 Oct 06 - 05:57 AM (#1854735)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

(I'd doubt that MC has a fraction of those "problem domians" btw. I think the Wiki list is more an indication of how things can go).


10 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM (#1854940)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

No but I doubt whether than anyone other than you would complain about taking an action because of the ongoing problem of spam.

Jon - it surely depends on what that action and its effect is. I suggest that closing threads and deleting things is not the cure-all answer to every problem on our forum. If indeed it is the answer to any?

Sometimes we become so intent on solving a problem that we may not notice that the so-called cure is in fact doing more harm that the original problem is supposed to cure. This I would suggest is the situation here.

I would prefer to read and contribute to the Dubliners thread - and ignore any spam - than not to be able to read, contribute or refresh the thread at all. Which is now the case - what next?

We got used to static on the radio - most of us tend to treat spam in the same way, do our best to ignore it but not allow it to spoil our enjoyment. Few of us would have thought that throwing the radio away or not making any programmes - would be a sensible reaction to deal with static.


10 Oct 06 - 12:50 PM (#1854980)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Please forgive the cut and paste but below is a Shambles post from the summer of 2000!!! It might easily fit into this thread. It's the same story folks and he's been making people post and respond for all that time. He'll never stop as long as we keep feeding him reasons to. I also apologize for THIS post but I wanted you all to see that if you think you're going to change anything by responding to him, well, it hasn't worked in over SIX years!!!

***************************************************************


Music threads are routinely retitled and consolidated and cross-indexed as part of our indexing process, to help make it easier for people to find songs by song title or songwriter name. If space permits, the original thread title is retained, with clarifying words added. Non-music threads are occasionally retitled for clarity, but the need to retitle non-music threads does not arise as frequently because non-music threads are not used for reference.
-Joe Offer-

Yes it is mostly well-intention but perhaps it is as well to forget the fancy words and the 'spin'? Routine censorship imposed by anonymous volunteer posters - upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without their prior knowledge or permission is what we are talking about here.

My main point is that "our" indexing process does not seem to involve obtaining the agreement of the contributors. When the issues here - like whether a thread is combined into one - left as the poster made it - or have a link to others - are largely a question of personal taste - as Jon's post indicates.

The question is - whose personal taste? Why not mine, Jon's or your's?

As you can't please all of the people all of the time - perhaps it is better that the personal tastes of each contributor are respected and any changes to their contribution are only made with their agreement?   

We could all argue forever about the merits of each imposed change - (that is why it is better not to impose one's personal taste and judgement upon others). But Jon mentioned the Cyril Tawney thread so I will express my personal view on that imposed change.

A link to the two threads would have been better as one was started when he was alive (if very ill) and the others was started after his death. The originator of the later thread - did have the option of refreshing an existing one - but chose to start a new one.

Perhaps poster's freely made choices like this - can be respected by all our volunteers (especially the anonymous ones) - from now on?


10 Oct 06 - 01:15 PM (#1855009)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I think Shambles made some good points in his last post and the 2000 note.

Can I ask one question Shambles? (no, that was not the one question!) After repeatedly making your point well known, and realizing that you are powerless to change the minds of the "hosts" of this party - what drives you to keep making your point?    The silence of the host, and the repeated examples that continue to occur serve to make your point. Why bother to continue making the same suggestion when it appears that it is falling on deaf ears, and you end up becoming the victim of scorn because of your persistence?

Again, I am not knocking your opinion nor do am I attacking you - I do see your points more clearly, but it is obvious that the powers that be aren't going to change.   Could you expain to our forum why you continue?


10 Oct 06 - 01:33 PM (#1855027)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ron,

Shambles just enjoys being argumentative. He knows that he won't change anything but he likes the attention that he is getting. The fact that so many people respond to him both postively and negatively charges his battery. If everyone would just stop responding, like we did about a month ago, there wouldn't be much left for him to say. Read 10 posts from Shambles. They are all basicly the same.

Perhaps it is time to end this thread once and for all and, if Max so desires, finally send Shambles into cyberspace with Martin Gibson. He really is annoying the hell out of too many people. There isn't any site that I know of that is unmoderated and that doesn't do selective editing. Moderators have the right to do WHATEVER THEY WANT. If the site owner, Max, doesn't like what they do he can replace them. If a poster doesn't like what they do he can go post somewhere else.

Sambles, stop making everyone miserable with your constant bellyaching. You said you piece, no one cares to do it your way so stop!!!!!


10 Oct 06 - 01:48 PM (#1855049)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

Guest - the ONLY way that Shambles can make you { or anyone else } miserable is if you give him the power to do so by reading his posts. So.........


10 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM (#1855050)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Jon - it surely depends on what that action and its effect is. I suggest that closing threads and deleting things is not the cure-all answer to every problem on our forum

shambles, the idea that is considered to be a "cure all" is aomething that I believe only exists in your mind.

While deletions may still be needed, the answer (if there really is one) to spam in the longer term is likely to focus more on improving defences in order to prevent as much as practical getting as far as appearing on the forum. In the meanwhile, the mods just have to do thier best with the limited tools they have.


10 Oct 06 - 01:53 PM (#1855053)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

" He knows that he won't change anything but he likes the attention that he is getting. The fact that so many people respond to him both postively and negatively charges his battery"

Guest - I think the two sentence that I copied above speak volumes. Are all of us being a bit hypocritical?   The "anti-Shambles" posts are doing the exact same thing that they are accusing Shambles of - you won't change anything but you like the attention. The fact that he responds charges the batteries of the posters. We are all the same when you get right down to it. There is no difference.

I honestly would love to hear Shambles response to my question instead of everyone else putting their words in first.


10 Oct 06 - 02:03 PM (#1855063)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

I would prefer to read and contribute to the Dubliners thread - and ignore any spam - than not to be able to read, contribute or refresh the thread at all. Which is now the case - what next?

What we do know is this:


Subject: RE: Tech: Error 503 Service Unavailable
From: Max
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 09:26 PM
[snip]

2. Spam is increasing. We get hammered every day with thousands upon thousands of attacks from people and worms and spiders trying to use our site for nothing we want. We usually have more manpower to deal with it, but:

3. We're down a very key member of our staff due to an ongoing family emergency. Our planned upgrade for the 10th anniversary includes a great deal of behind the scenes defense systems, but is delayed due to this issue that I will talk more about pretty soon.
[...]


10 Oct 06 - 03:17 PM (#1855125)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I think Shambles made some good points in his last post

Not really, Ron. His points were based

a) on the false premise that closures and deletions are believed to be a "cure all". This is something that has been pointed out to him on numerous occasions but he continues to use it to make his points.

b) apparently under the belief that user prefererence is the only factor.

I know of no site owner who would willingly, at his own expense, advertise irrelevant material which is often dubious in content for an unknown 3rd party. I also know of no site owner who would wish to encourage such "advertisers" by allowing the material to remain.


10 Oct 06 - 03:38 PM (#1855170)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Guest, I was referring more to Shambles suggestion that deletions and closures are often based on personal choice, and I do think that is fair to say.   I also agree with you that no site owner would willingly leave certain posts up, which is where there seems to be some issues.

No one is going to agree with every reason. No one is going to like every posting. My take is that everyone should make their point and then get on with life. If the powers that be have not shown an indication to change, it won't happen. It is no longer a question of right or wrong, because the only person that has the "right" answer is the host - who will do as they please.


10 Oct 06 - 04:08 PM (#1855210)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Guest, I was referring more to Shambles suggestion that deletions and closures are often based on personal choice, and I do think that is fair to say.

Again Ron, this is something that has been hammered out time and time again...

I wouldn't use the wording "personal choice" but I don't think anyone disputes that many decisions are based on "personal judgement" and can not be taken by rules that are written in stone. I also would doubt you will find many who at least in thier own opinion believe that on occasions a wrong decision has been made.

I do not know exactly how things work now but when I was a clone here, there was a structure and the clones only used powers of deletion in very limited circumstances (eg. a duplicated post, perhaps blatant spam , etc. - things where there was no question).

Anything further was dealt by Joe and Jeff, and "in consultation" with Max.

There also was, and I believe still is, a clear complaints procedure where one takes a matter to Joe Offer first and then onto Max.

Things might have changed a little from there but is my belief that a structure and chain of command still exists and that ultimately the "judgement calls" are in fact done under what I will call "Max's editorial guidelines".

By contrast, shambles' "mudcat view" appears to be based on Joe Offer sort of taking control and not acting in accordance with any "editorial guidelines". It is a situation that I do not believe exits.


10 Oct 06 - 05:00 PM (#1855261)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If the powers that be have not shown an indication to change, it won't happen. It is no longer a question of right or wrong, because the only person that has the "right" answer is the host - who will do as they please.

Ron - your view is a reasonable one for a poster who has found our forum in the state of evolution that you have. But if you look back at Max's public statements - you will not see the 'take-it-or-leave attitude to the wishes of our forum's posters - that you quite reasonably express.

Again it must be pretty obvious that our 'moderators' next step - of members only posters - being allowed to post only what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has first personally vetted and approved of, before he allows it on to our forum - is not very much to my liking. And that I (and others posters) would have been very unlikely to be attracted by a forum containing all this anonymous interference, restriction and judgement. So it must be pretty obvious that our forum - that I and others posters found on Max's site - was a rather different one to the one posters see now (and largely accept as it always being).

What you refer to as the 'powers that be' were then only my fellow posters - not as you now see - my judge, jury and lynching party.

Again, I am not knocking your opinion nor do am I attacking you - I do see your points more clearly, but it is obvious that the powers that be aren't going to change.   Could you expain to our forum why you continue?

Things change - and it is right that they do - but my view is that there is never any need to be seen to carelessly throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I just try post my views to encourage and take part in discussion - as I always have and I will always try to. In the process of this debate, there is the hope that a little bit more of our precious freedoms - will not be as thoughtlessly curtailed as they might have been. There is some evidence to support this view.

Ron - that is the simple answer to your question. Perhaps the question you need to be asking is why it is thought necessary to make such a fuss in order to try to encourage so many different ways to prevent me and other posters from continuing?

With all due respect - perhaps you will accept that 'the problem' is not me or any other individual poster - no matter what posters may be currently encouraged to accept. Perhaps we can now go back to discussing the issue of closed threads and deleted posts?


10 Oct 06 - 06:06 PM (#1855294)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy

Back off children, back off now! His objective is to take this through the "K". Don't help him, he can post and post and post but let him do this alone.
He can come back to the fold when he wishes to, but don't help him to do this. He is running rings around you for his pleasure. He repeats, you repeat, stop now.
Skipy (his next target)


10 Oct 06 - 06:14 PM (#1855296)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Azizi

"...the ONLY way that Shambles can make you { or anyone else } miserable is if you give him the power to do so by reading his posts. So........."
-Wesley S


Just because a person reads a post by Shambles, he or she becomes miserable??!

In my opinion, if a person becomes miserable after reading a post of this forum [or any other forum] that is written by Shambles [or any other person], then the problem is that person's and not the person who wrote the text.


10 Oct 06 - 06:18 PM (#1855298)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

Yep, skipy. I will try to go back to just reading yet again...


10 Oct 06 - 06:24 PM (#1855304)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Azizi

I've been delighted after reading some posts on this forum.

I've felt energized after reading some posts on this forum.

I've been angry after reading posts on this forum.

I've been sad after reading post on this forum.

But miserable? Naw.

Of course, different strokes for different folks.

I guess some people could say that when I felt happy, energized, angry, sad etc after reading certain post on this forum, I gave people the power to influence my mood. But even when I felt sad at some of the Mudcat goings on, I didn't feel miserable.

But-on second thought-there have been some name calling posts that may have made some individuals feel miserable.

I don't count Shamble's posts among those miserable posts.


10 Oct 06 - 06:35 PM (#1855319)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

But-on second thought-there have been some name calling posts that may have made some individuals feel miserable.

I don't count Shamble's posts among those miserable posts.


Well one hopefully final comment from me for a while. We all vary but personally I find polite round about methods like".

"which others might consider not to be truthful"

can be more offensive than

"I believe he's a fu**ing liar".


10 Oct 06 - 10:07 PM (#1855491)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"With all due respect - perhaps you will accept that 'the problem' is not me or any other individual poster - no matter what posters may be currently encouraged to accept. Perhaps we can now go back to discussing the issue of closed threads and deleted posts?"

I agree with you 100% on that!! Shambles, I think you have eloquently stated your case and as I said earlier in this discussion, it took me awhile to understand your points.   While I don't agree with everything you say, I do think you have the right to say it (unless the host shuts down the party!). Others (including myself at times, and I apologize) have either goaded you into needless argueing or taken an opportunity to swipe at you, and it has sidetracked and clouded the whole discussion.

However, because the owners of this site seem to condone the behavior of the guests and bouncers, this argument will never reach a conclusion. We are just using this thread as an excuse to spout off whatever we wish, seemingly without reprecussion.   None of us have anything to complain about as we are doing what we wish.

I wish you success in your endeavour.


10 Oct 06 - 10:21 PM (#1855497)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Just don't say anything at all that is not ass-kissing about the queen bee or your posts will be deleted.


11 Oct 06 - 04:04 AM (#1855585)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Others (including myself at times, and I apologize) have either goaded you into needless argueing or taken an opportunity to swipe at you, and it has sidetracked and clouded the whole discussion.

Bollocks.


11 Oct 06 - 05:25 AM (#1855627)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The silence of the host, and the repeated examples that continue to occur serve to make your point. Why bother to continue making the same suggestion when it appears that it is falling on deaf ears, and you end up becoming the victim of scorn because of your persistence?

When you are encouraged by the example currently set - to post publicly ONLY to judge the worth of and to call other posters names - this will always say far more about you and your shortcomings than it does about the object of your scorn.

But it has always appeared to me that our forum's host has provided just about everything that all of their invited guests could require. For those who think that a good party is making personal judgements about and jokes at the expense of certain of their fellow guests - to other guests - Max has even provided personal messages where this can be done without inflicting it on our forum as an example of public posting behaviour to be followed.

The bottom line is - would any host who effectivly invites the whole world to their party - really expect everyone to be of a like-mind?

I strongly feel that it is up to any guest who appreciates Max's invitation to freely express their views - NOT to be seen to support (even by their silence) any unfair attempts to deny to other posters - what they themselves accept as a right. No matter how these attempts may be disguised and justified.

That does not of course mean that our host has to have to live with any old shit posted up on their walls. Our host has every right to throw away the foul-smelling bath water by all means - but please take care to leave the babies behind?


11 Oct 06 - 05:27 AM (#1855628)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

And the walls...


11 Oct 06 - 05:31 AM (#1855630)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work

perhaps the host is silent because he wants to spare himself "making the same suggestion when it appears that it is falling on deaf ears"?

Does your remark about the bathwater mean you accept it's ok for moderators to delete spam?


11 Oct 06 - 05:48 AM (#1855635)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Does your remark about the bathwater mean you accept it's ok for moderators to delete spam?

If you actually read my posts - you will see that my problem is NOT with our moderators deleting spam or with spam being deleted from our forum automatically.

I do have a problem when having removed the spam - entire threads are then closed by our 'moderators - because of the possiblity some more spam MAY appear in it. To me that does not seem to be very sensible, proportionate nor to be showing much respect to the poster's invited contributions to that thread.....Does it to you?

If any should appear - then delete JUST the spam - do allow our 'moderators' to be seen to use it as yet another excuse to close yet another thread.


11 Oct 06 - 06:09 AM (#1855644)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

... allow our 'moderators' to be seen to use it as yet another excuse to close yet another thread.

Nonsense shambles. The idea that the mods go round looking for an excuse to close threads exists only in your mind.


11 Oct 06 - 07:58 AM (#1855697)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Nonsense shambles. The idea that the mods go round looking for an excuse to close threads exists only in your mind.

Is it only in my mind that (for his own purposes) the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has intentionally littered this thread with the very same type of spam which its appearence there - he has used as an excuse to closed the Dubliners thread?

I expect any minute that he will use its presence in this thread as a excuse to close this one down too................Even though it was the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who placed the spam here, unbidden in response to an anonymous 'compalint'.. Please delete spam

Not of course an act that would be described as 'hijacking' a thread. As those sort terms are now reserved for a poster simply posting any views that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not agree with and wishes to prevent our forum from seeing.

Rather like the use of the term 'complaint' and the restrictions now seen to be imposed on any post so judged and described by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team as any view that he may not agree with. When any poster is seen to be permitted to express any flattering views about our 'moderators' efforts as often and in as many threads as they wish without getting relgated to the BS section.

But where 'complaints' in posts, from one poster about the posting of another are not restricted or discouraged at all, but actively encouraged on our forum and where there is now even a special Snitchers Corner set-up for this - called The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum.


11 Oct 06 - 08:06 AM (#1855704)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Nonsense shambles. The idea that the mods go round looking for an excuse to close threads exists only in your mind.


11 Oct 06 - 08:24 AM (#1855713)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

not to be able to read, contribute or refresh the thread at all. (Shambles)

You may not know it, Shambles, but you can read that thread.
click
So one part of what you say is simply not true.

As for posting and refreshing, you are invited by Joe to post to other Dubliners' threads and I'm sure he'd be pleased if you just start a follow up thread with a link to the old thread in the first post. That would be a constructive act instead of headbanging.

Wolfgang


11 Oct 06 - 09:15 AM (#1855754)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Nonsense shambles. The idea that the mods go round looking for an excuse to close threads exists only in your mind.

No - the idea exists alright - in Snitchers Corner


11 Oct 06 - 08:24 PM (#1856359)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The suggestion that our forum be a place where all threads remain open to be refreshed by any poster - may seem totally idealistic to many posters - when it is of course nothing of the sort.

So routine has thread closure now become that it may be news to some posters that our forum managed perfectly well for many years without any threads being closed at all. It was only fairly recently that our 'moderators' were armed with this weapon.

I see that as a sad day for our forum. For now our 'moderators' scratch around to find an excuse to close a thread and encourage other posters to suggests candidates for closure - and give the impression that this has always been the case and that it achieves something.

The reason I refer to it as finding an excuse - is that although the act of imposing closure on threads has now become routine it makes no difference to the running of our forum nor improved the level of posting behaviour on our forum.

The hysteria now generated on our forum by the concept of imposing closure on threads has become nothing but a counter-productive distraction. an end in itself. Playing about with posters invited contributions now appears to have become a bit of a fun game for our 'moderators'.

Posters are now encouraged to take part in this game by finding threads to be closed - (along with other imposed actions on the post of others) - rather than be encouraged to simply concentrate on their own posting. It would be nice to see a return on our forum to where all threads remained open.


11 Oct 06 - 08:28 PM (#1856364)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Go slag a mod. The post will disappear within 12 hours. Especially posts about the queen-bee mod.

Rip the shit out of a regular member and the shit will stick around. Shambles is right about much he says.


11 Oct 06 - 08:29 PM (#1856365)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The power of the private edit button.


11 Oct 06 - 11:22 PM (#1856471)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

And here I don't even know who the 'queen-bee mod' is. The sham is SO right; there is real hysteria about.


12 Oct 06 - 02:44 AM (#1856520)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You may not know it, Shambles, but you can read that thread.
click
So one part of what you say is simply not true.


Thank you Wolfgang - You have a backward way of saying it - but I am glad you accept the rest of what I say is being perfectly true.

A poster cannot refresh a closed thread as they cannot post to it. The only way any poster can read a closed thread (once it falls of the bottom is if they search for a thread they will not know even exists, or if there is the link to the thread provided.

Perhaps - IF THESE ROUTINE THREAD CLOSURES ARE TO CONTINUE - Our 'moderators' can always ensure that there is a record of the thread kept for posters to see and a permanent link provided to enable posters to read the clossed thread?


12 Oct 06 - 03:18 AM (#1856527)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella

The only way any poster can read a closed thread (once it falls of the bottom is if they search for a thread they will not know even exists, or if there is the link to the thread provided.

Surely that applies to any thread - closed or not? Once it's gone off the bottom, you've got to take some action to find it.


12 Oct 06 - 04:28 AM (#1856556)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Surely that applies to any thread - closed or not? Once it's gone off the bottom, you've got to take some action to find it.

Yes of course. But having taken this action and the time and trouble to find it, being able to read a thread is only one part of the inter-active experience that is our forum.

For having taken this time and trouble to find a thread - you may then wish to contribute to it. Which you not be able to do - if the thread has been subject to closure for some unspecified reason by some anonymous 'moderator'.

And of course you will only know - after you have read (or scrolled down) the entire thread - if you do wish to add something. And only at this point will you see a little note by the box you are about to make your contribution in, telling you that you cannot do this - as the thread is closed..........

Then when you have started a new thread on the subject - you will find a post from some helpful poster (often a 'moderator') who will inform you and our forum - that we have already discussed this subject in an earlier thread (perhaps not being aware that it was not possible to refresh this earlier thread.

Even when you find that the in question thread is not closed and it is possible to refresh it - posters are not sure if this is judged to be the best course of action. As after you have done this - you will find a post fron some helpful poster (often a 'moderator' telling you and our forum that this is not the right thing to do and suggesting that starting a new thread would be the correct course of action.

I have seen both actions to be publicly judged right and be judged wrong by our 'moderators'. No wonder posters are confused.

So in addition to the direct inhibition cause by our 'moderators' intentionally making it impossible for a poster to refreash a closed thread - there is indirect inhibition cause by this uncertainty about whether either of these actions will be seen to be judged wrong by our 'moderators'.

I would have thought that the role of any 'moderation, would be to be seen to enable and encourage posting and would not wish to be seen in any way to inhibit any poster from contributing. That does not now appear to be the case on our forum.


12 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM (#1856808)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,He Who Shall Not be Named

I support Shambles for his bravery here, and for his ability to expose Corporate Mudcat for what it is.

This place is a cesspool of much anti-American activity.

Mudcat and al-Qaida, arm in arm against America.


12 Oct 06 - 10:42 AM (#1856818)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

approximately 50 closed threads out of over 95 thousand threads. yes, horribly oppressive.


12 Oct 06 - 11:13 AM (#1856870)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Blah, blah, blah...

Worse than CNN.


12 Oct 06 - 11:18 AM (#1856875)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Maybe. But Shambles tells more truth than CNN.


12 Oct 06 - 11:24 AM (#1856882)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Has Art Blakey's birthday been 'hijacked'?


12 Oct 06 - 11:27 AM (#1856890)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

approximately 50 closed threads out of over 95 thousand threads. yes, horribly oppressive.

When all 50 of them were started by you - perhaps you may think it so?


12 Oct 06 - 11:39 AM (#1856917)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: manitas_at_work

The closed threads were not all started by one person unless that person is posting under multiple identities.


12 Oct 06 - 11:52 AM (#1856930)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

I recall 2 threads I started that were deleted (well, "closed", actually)...

In both cases it was due to what I regardes as harmless humour but that someone else deemed offensive to some particular group of people (but not the same group, by the way). (in one case I was making fun of really obnoxious rappers, most of whom are assumed to be black, generally speaking) (in the other case I was posting in a ridiculous quasi-Japanese accent...but the person who deleted the thread has no way of knowing that I respect and like the Japanese far more than most other westerners do...but so what?)

I was surprised to have my threads terminated. Both times. I didn't expect that. I momentarily was a bit irritated about it. Then I accepted the fact that (1) I don't control the rest of the world and I never shall; and (2) it didn't matter much anyway.

And I moved on. I suggest you do the same. Think of the time and energy you will save which can be put to good use doing something constructive.

Think of the time I have just wasted typing out this piece of advice which you will surely not follow. ;-) LOL! We are all big time wasters when it comes right down to it.


12 Oct 06 - 11:53 AM (#1856933)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

Has Art Blakey's birthday been 'hijacked'?

Yes, Shambles, it has, and you've been the one to start that with your response to a simple suggestion, a response that had nearly nothing to do with my request but all with your crusade.

Wolfgang


12 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM (#1856935)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

SO if you don't like the behavior you adopt it?   Hmmmm.


12 Oct 06 - 12:02 PM (#1856948)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

And I moved on. I suggest you do the same.

Thank you for your suggestion.

But it was only the fact that that I have carried on that enabled you to make your suggestion in this thread.

And as a result of this thread remaining open for free and open discussion of this subject (so far) - perhaps the next time your humour and intentions are misunderstood - your threads containing this - will also be allowed to remain open?


12 Oct 06 - 12:04 PM (#1856951)
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestions for Mudcatter-made SS gifts
From: The Shambles

SS gifts - the mind boggles..........


12 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM (#1856959)
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestions for Mudcatter-made SS gifts
From: Clinton Hammond

Only yours Shambles... or what passes for yours.

Damn good idea Kat!!


12 Oct 06 - 12:17 PM (#1856971)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

SO if you don't like the behavior you adopt it?

No, I address it, so that next time Shambles may respond to a simple suggestion with a simple response and not try to make his response part of his obsession.

Wolfgang


12 Oct 06 - 12:19 PM (#1856974)
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestions: Mudcatter-made SecretSanta gifts
From: The Shambles

My point is made and and at least partly taken.

For my Mudcat Secret Santa - I would like all posters to be able to make nice long thread titles - like this one now is.


12 Oct 06 - 12:32 PM (#1856982)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

You address it by adopting it?


12 Oct 06 - 12:33 PM (#1856984)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

O wad some Power the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,

(from Robert Burns: To a louse)


12 Oct 06 - 12:58 PM (#1857011)
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestions: Mudcatter-made SecretSanta gi
From: Clinton Hammond

Can we please not have to endure this moron cluttering up this thread too....


12 Oct 06 - 01:03 PM (#1857018)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

Amen..


12 Oct 06 - 01:18 PM (#1857030)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Art Blakey's birthday squabble


12 Oct 06 - 01:21 PM (#1857032)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Art Blakey's birthday (11 October 1919)


12 Oct 06 - 01:33 PM (#1857038)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Well, I think the moderators should be applauded for doing their job. Adding "squabble" to the one thread makes perfect sense and the other thread remains to contain on target conversation about the topic.


12 Oct 06 - 02:01 PM (#1857053)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Another gem from Snitchers Corner.

Please remove Shambles


12 Oct 06 - 02:30 PM (#1857077)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Adding "squabble" to the one thread makes perfect sense and the other thread remains to contain on target conversation about the topic.

That is your view - which unlike me - you are welcome to express on any thread you wish.

But as all the hysteria and restrictions on my posting is justified as protecting our forum from 'duplicate posts' - and the 'hi-jacking' of threads - my view is that all of this anonymous imposition, suspicion, paranoia and fuss over creating two of these birthday threads on our forum - makes very little logical sense to me.....

What would make sense is to enable all posters to make longer thread titles. See this (now closed) thread.

TECH Longer thread titles please


12 Oct 06 - 02:38 PM (#1857084)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"my view is that all of this anonymous imposition, suspicion, paranoia and fuss over creating two of these birthday threads on our forum - makes very little logical sense to me..... "

I do agree,the fuss over the two threads make very little sense to me. The moderator resolved it, like it or not, and it becomes time to move on to bigger things.

And I do agree with you Shambles, some of your threads are hijacked by posters (such as what occured in Art Blakely)without any reason.   The topic is started, let it alone. There is no need for ANYONE to drift or attack.


13 Oct 06 - 03:09 AM (#1857544)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Well, I think the moderators should be applauded for doing their job. Adding "squabble" to the one thread makes perfect sense and the other thread remains to contain on target conversation about the topic.

Perhaps? I suggest that any applause be reserved for such time as there is any evidence that such actions are seen to be entirely free from any suspicion of being part of selective and personally motivated witch-hunt on our forum.

For until other poster are seen to be able to post abusive personal judgements only and be safe from any censure and the 'hi-jacking of other threads by them containing this are NOT encouraged to be subjected to such a public frenzy - which seems to be reserved for selective posters only - perhaps any applause is rather hollow? For example.

2,600 Iraq civilians killed in September

But the bottom line is always - is this action actually having any positive affect for our forum - or is it counter-productive? I think there is much evidence that this continuing patchy and unequal treatment of posters by our 'moderators' is counter-productive and very little evidence that it is at all effective. Nor what its aims are.

Whatever these aims may be - they do not appear to include ensuring that our forum can continue to be open for the public's contributions - as it always has.

There could be some suspicion that in fact (some of) our current 'moderators' are actually set on creating a situation where their favoured concept of a change to members only posting is considered by Max more favourable than it currently appears to be.
    Crap deleted and discussion moved here (click) to another thread on the same subject. Thanks for pointing that out, Shambles.
    -Joe Offer-


13 Oct 06 - 04:57 AM (#1857588)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

C'mon, Ron,

when I make the same suggestion for the second time I'm already adpting Shambles? You must have read all that nonsense. But I'm repeating it once more:

my first request:
may I ask you here to include the respective date in the title. That would make these threads more user friendly.

Shambles' response:
Then rather that post here only to judge - please by all means place there anything that you judge would make those threads (and any other threads) more interesting and informative. I place only the little information I do to encourage others to post their contributions. I also learn a lot form this and also from surfing to find the information.

That used to be the postive way things used to work on our forum - before posters were encouraged by the negative example given ONLY to pass judgements on the worth of a thread or post or of the worth of the poster and to call them names. And encouraged to simply swoon with horror at the thought of seing the titles of more than one thread at a time.

If it is a thread with little information - why not encourage other posters to provide it?

If a thread is questionably music related - then add it and attempt to keep it there - rather only judge it and than ask that it be relegated to the BS.

These birthday threads were an idea to try and return some of the old spirit of shared fun and joint discovery that makes our forum different to those sites obbsessed only with order.   

To encourage the act of posting - not to find ways that CAN only inhibit the posting of reasonable discussion.


Was that a normal response to a simple question? Something like "good idea" or "No, I'm not going to do that"? Nearly all of the "response" was completely unrelated to my question and made no sense in that context. As for the place there anything that you judge would make those threads (and any other threads) more interesting and informative that did miss my point. Whatever I add will not be in the title and therefore not show in the forum search which I prefer as long as the super search is not updated. I may want to look in a year or two who had birthday on a certain day and was mentioned already in MC. With the super search not updated this will be a time consuming and tedious task.

When I asked him in this thread once more he reacted not like a more than 50 years old adult. Had he said anything clearly here and not acted like a child I would never have asked the same request in a music thread. I do not think that repeating the same question again and again and again after a clear response is a valid way of arguing. But if I have not read a serious response I may ask again. That's what I did.

And I did include his first response so he could see why I was asking again. I did hope that outside of this Shamblecentric thread he would act a bit more reasonable than he does in here. I care about MC as a music resource and therefore I try to make it more useful whenever possible. I still think my suggestion to include the birth date in the title is a good one. Shambles was reading in(to) that request another attack upon his holy right to post in whatever way he likes.

Since more than two years he does not react to simple suggestions or corrections of fact or questions how he has meant a post in any remotely reasonable way.

He did choose in the music thread not to give me a clear response but to mention his crusade against the moderators:
The problem - as you well know is that - with the longer names - ordinary posters like me - do not always have enough characters available to them to place the birthdate in the title.
That had again no meaningful relation to my request so I did ask on for the simple reason that I did not understand the reasoning behind the words. (Same as you do when you ask him something)


Finally then, for the first time Shambles gave a reason why he is not willing (he says "able") to follow my suggestion:

I have already explained to you that with the number of characters available to ordinary posters - it is not always possible to include the birthdate in the title. When that problem is addressed and solved - I will then be able to do what you keep on requesting me to do.

My God, if he had written something like that as the first response he could have saved a lot of typing and would not have ruined a music thread he had started.

I clear English he says:
I won't include dates in birthday threads even if it is possible as long as the moderators can use more characters in titles than I can.

The reasoning behind this argumentation makes not much sense to me and once more reminds me rather of a stubborn boy than of a grown up person but it finally a clear statement.

There is no need now any longer to repeat my suggestion more often than perhaps once a year.

Wolfgang


13 Oct 06 - 07:37 AM (#1857686)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I clear English he says:

I won't include dates in birthday threads even if it is possible as long as the moderators can use more characters in titles than I can.

Wolgang: The way you have post this indicates that it is a quote. Perhaps you would confirm that it is not.

In any discussion about what another poster should or should not place in a threads title - the fact that our 'moderators' still have more characters available to them for this purpose than ordinary posters is of course perfectly relevant.

Especially when our 'moderators' are seen to judge our efforts to try and make thread titles informative as wanting - when they impose their judgement and use the additional characters available to them - to create a longer title. And to do this without the originators knowledge or permission.

Ron - please make Wolfgang happy and tell him what he wants to hear. Please tell him that you agree that I am acting like a child and that he (and a few others) are not. The important point is that this situation is seen to place very little credit at all on any of us on our forum.


13 Oct 06 - 08:13 AM (#1857713)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following editing comment, as it was inserted into an existing post (even though no editing action was imposed) and did not refresh this thread.

Crap deleted and discussion moved here (click) to another thread on the same subject. Thanks for pointing that out, Shambles.
-Joe Offer-


[Sound of deafening applause]

Thank goodness for all these tireless and selfless efforts - as a result of which - we can all sleep soundly in our beds all night.

Or some of us can. Some of us wake up to find that we have judged, our posts are no longer there, no longer as posted or the the entire thread has been anonymously deleted, moved, combined or closed.


13 Oct 06 - 08:51 AM (#1857760)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Wolfgang asks:

Was that a normal response to a simple question?

Perhaps you would have preferred a response like the following?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:34 PM

Request considered. Denied.


13 Oct 06 - 09:27 AM (#1857786)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

So Wolfgang, if I am reading your posts correctly, you admit that you are acting just like Shambles? And that solves what exactly?


13 Oct 06 - 11:05 AM (#1857871)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

There are numerous 'silent deletions' on threads. The queen is at it. Loves that edit button.


13 Oct 06 - 11:49 AM (#1857908)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

An offer not to be refused

I have no idea what this thread was about and I don't expect that our forum will ever know.

Some things are just none of your business, Shambles. Threads and posts that are spam, or sales gimmicks, do not require your input. It is neither sought nor desired. Mudelf


13 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM (#1857918)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Life goes on.

Again, I don't see this as a problem. It is nothing to lose sleep over, and I do not consider this censorship because of the way the site has ALWAYS been designed.

The moderators (assigned by the owner of this site) can edit as they see fit. You have the right to complain, but understand they have the right to do what they do.

Of course that is my opinion, and I realize that you have a different one Shambles. The fact will always remain, it is not our show.


13 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM (#1857927)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

You have been told by an official editor, Shambles. TOLD, do you hear?

Of course he has. Discussing it with him has been tried for years. Doesn't work, mainly because he doesn't want it too. No discussion. This is how it is. Mudelf


13 Oct 06 - 12:18 PM (#1857939)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The fact will always remain, it is not our show.

The fact is that it does remain our show.

It is not our anonymous Mudfelf's show? He, she or it is just a bouncer.


13 Oct 06 - 01:19 PM (#1857990)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"The fact is that it does remain our show. "

No it is not. We are guests at their show.   

Bouncers rules, like it or not, is what we are required to live by. If you can't convince the host to make changes after all this time - it probably won't happen.


13 Oct 06 - 01:43 PM (#1858006)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Bouncers love KARMA.


13 Oct 06 - 01:51 PM (#1858012)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

Actually, they are not the bouncers' rules. They are the owner's rules. The bouncers just enforce them.


13 Oct 06 - 02:12 PM (#1858036)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Ron - Our bouncers are simply posters like you and I (except the masked ones) who were encouraged to have a say in the way our forum appears. All posters to our forum were encouraged to see and support our forum in a similar way – even if they were not all favoured with edit buttons..

Rather like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm - posession of this edit button seems to lead them to now consider themselves to be more equal than others.

It is not a question of our host making changes or not. I question why any 'moderator' who is not seen to be committed to supporting our host's continuing open invitation for the public's contributions and making this work - would now wish to continue.

For there must be some question if they can be seen by our forum to be making their best efforts for our forum. It may be thought that those who openly call for a change to memebers only posting may have an agenda of their own.

I suspect that if our host considers this to be a minority concern on our forum - he may well see no good reason to make any changes. But it is difficult for anyone to tell if this is really the case. As any poster who is seen to post anything but uncritical support of our 'moderators' - is considered to making a personal judgement of the individuals concerned (even the anonymous ones).

Again you tend to support the principle of 'moderation' as an immovable 'done-deal' - whatever its effects - when my concern is more with measuring the effectiveness or the counter-productive results of this particular brand of 'moderation'.

It seems that where there may be choice between obtain the same result through its imposition and other methods - the former will always be the preferred option – whatever the reaction. As think the following example demonstrates.

Please combine threads?.


13 Oct 06 - 02:26 PM (#1858048)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

No sense covering the same old ground, so I won't repeat myself. I've already addressed your points.   

The bottom line is - you have repeated your case numerous times and the host is not budging. You are either being played for a fool by the powers that be, or they just aren't understanding you.

I guess there is also a third possiblity, the host doesn't care - yet.


13 Oct 06 - 02:29 PM (#1858050)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Two legs good, four legs bad.


13 Oct 06 - 02:38 PM (#1858063)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Didn't Orwell write that the other way around?


13 Oct 06 - 02:59 PM (#1858087)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

The host clearly doesn't care enough to do anything about it...and I believe that would accurately describe the attitude of most of the membership as well. ;-)

I mean, bitching about it all the time is one thing...but actually DOING something about it?????????????????????

You GOTTA be kidding, right?


13 Oct 06 - 03:01 PM (#1858089)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

That would require exercising some force of will! It would also take up a bit of time and EFFORT. And...and...being organized enough to make that effort effective too, eh? Geez. Whaddya want?

Like I said, you gotta be kidding.


13 Oct 06 - 03:04 PM (#1858093)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Here's a heady idea. While we're at it, let's all put together a project to land on Venus! Yeah. I think that the membership and management of this here forum needs an objective they can really sink their teeth into, and this thread just doesn't do it. Not a big enough deal. We need a whole new and compelling reason to turn on the computer in the morning.


13 Oct 06 - 03:21 PM (#1858102)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

See, Little Hawk, that's just the kind of defeatist thinking I deplore. Mudcat's owner has not appeared to change his mind on the matter so it might behoove us to carry on toward the goal? (OK, everybody, on your feet. On to Venus!)


13 Oct 06 - 03:25 PM (#1858104)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

YES!!!! ON TO VENUS! By God, I feel new energy pouring into my veins...


13 Oct 06 - 03:25 PM (#1858105)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

And what's wrong with Mars ??


13 Oct 06 - 03:50 PM (#1858116)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

On to Venus


13 Oct 06 - 04:01 PM (#1858122)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

[PM] Max Max's Thought for the Day - Aug 7, 2000 (43) A Rant (Pondering Aloud) 07 Aug 00

Max's Mudcat Job Description: To make sure the Mudcat works, technically. To continue to upgrade and enhance to compensate for increased volume. To add and edit features to make the Mudcat more usable and just plain better. To work with those who support the Mudcat and provide a resource to Mudcat users and the folk world in general such as Folk Legacy and Camsco Records. To help users with technical problems and login issues.

Do you see what is missing? Well it's not missing at all.
I AM NOT A THERAPIST. I AM NOT A BABYSITTER. I AM NOT A PROFESIONAL MODERATOR. I DON'T SETTLE ARGUMENTS. I DON'T CARE.

I created a Web site, a discussion forum, a community about and for music. This is what I do care about. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy and am proud of the personal nature of our little forum here. I don't mean to discourage such activity, I hope it continues. However, I am not Dad in the front seat of the car trying to settle a dispute between the children in the back seat.

I remember during the Congressional hearings about Clinton and Lewinski each Congress Person had a chance to address the Congress with a statement. One of our Congress Women used her allotted time to talk about her grandchildren. You see, everything said in the Congress is a permanent historical record. So in protest of the insane and pointless use of our powerful government's resources, she used the time, she used her reserved little spot in American History, to say Hi to her grandchildren and their grandchildren and so on.
I also believe that the Mudcat is a historical record, and I am equally certain that it will last forever. A record of Song and Story and Life. A record of me, a record of us. A record that will exist forever. One that our grandchildren will see, and their grandchildren.

My thoughts and feelings and silliness and actions are all on display here. for good. When I post a message, I might stop and think that about that. Good ol' Tom Jefferson always believed that you should judge your every action as if the whole world was watching. Well they are folks. and they will be forever.
The first reason for everything I do is always the same.
THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS
If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.

Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy.


13 Oct 06 - 04:04 PM (#1858125)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS
If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.
Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy."

Good words. I have not noticed those last two sentences before. They speak volumes.


13 Oct 06 - 04:12 PM (#1858132)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Good words. I have not noticed those last two sentences before. They speak volumes.

Yes good words indeed - there are many more such good words from Max.
Sadly not everyone now seems to see it that way.

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-


13 Oct 06 - 04:21 PM (#1858139)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

Okay - I am still trying to understand this:

You have said you do not wish to tell Max how to run his site.

You have said that you understand that the forum is part of Max's site.

The moderators are delegated by Max to do the day to day running of the site; (which you have said you don't want to tell Max how to do)

So why do you want to discuss changing things if you don't want to tell Max how to run things, when they are doing what Max has requested of them?


13 Oct 06 - 04:23 PM (#1858141)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.
Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy."

Sometimes you can't fight City Hall. Sometimes you need to pick your battles. It doesn't make you wrong, it just makes you smart.


13 Oct 06 - 04:42 PM (#1858157)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

It's karma, man, karma.


13 Oct 06 - 05:22 PM (#1858190)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Please note that the quote from Max that Shambles uses is from the year 2000. Here is a more current quote:

    Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
    From: Max - PM
    Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

    I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.........

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


13 Oct 06 - 05:33 PM (#1858199)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

And here is a bit more of that same quote that my friend Mick left out.

Joe: Do I need to separate you two?


13 Oct 06 - 05:37 PM (#1858204)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

998


13 Oct 06 - 05:37 PM (#1858205)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

999


13 Oct 06 - 05:37 PM (#1858206)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

1000!!!


13 Oct 06 - 05:41 PM (#1858208)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

You piss me off, Offer. I have never claimed one of the 100 or 1000 posts. After all these years, you just couldn't let me have one, could you? LOL.

Got any good recipes?

Mick


13 Oct 06 - 05:42 PM (#1858209)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Sometimes you can't fight City Hall. Sometimes you need to pick your battles. It doesn't make you wrong, it just makes you smart.

And when it is obvious that it is a case of City Hall picking their battles - and choosing you?


13 Oct 06 - 05:47 PM (#1858213)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

I know, Mick. It was cheap and tawdry, and I'm ashamed of myself.
[grin]
-Joe Offer-


13 Oct 06 - 05:48 PM (#1858215)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

I KNEW we'd reach one thousand before I left the office today. But truth be known I've got my eyes set on 5,000.


13 Oct 06 - 05:50 PM (#1858219)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

Oh no, you volunteered. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.


13 Oct 06 - 05:55 PM (#1858221)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS
If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.

Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy.
Max



It used to make some posters happy to post only to claim 100th posts.

It used to make (some of) our 'moderators' happy to delete these posts.

And it used to make the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team happy, to let them.

It did not tend to make those who were happy to post them - very happy to see their claims deleted.

Happily this has now changed.

Now it seems to make him happy to post such claims himself.

I am happy to have played some part in bringing about this welcome change on our forum and to enable all this happiness. It is small thing - but an encouraging start.


13 Oct 06 - 06:01 PM (#1858224)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

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-


13 Oct 06 - 06:04 PM (#1858226)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"I am happy to have played some part in bringing about this welcome change on our forum"

That would have sounded better if you'd said 'some SMALL part'. Keriste, Shambles, in the confluence of issues and problems, do you seriously think this is all that important? I have been one of your ardent supporters with regard to some aspects of your complaints. Getting Joe Offer to post 1000 in big letters didn't rank right up there if you catch my drift. Look up the term 'Pyrrhic victory'.


13 Oct 06 - 06:16 PM (#1858239)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If you can't convince the host to make changes after all this time - it probably won't happen.

This may have been a small change - but it shows that posters making the attempt is not the totally futile exercise that many on our forum may have come to think it is.

Perhaps it may encourage other posters to try - and give the lie to the idea that any changes on our forum are now confined to only those that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is in favour of.


13 Oct 06 - 06:20 PM (#1858241)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.........

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


13 Oct 06 - 06:23 PM (#1858244)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The goal is elimination
Of all duplication
Can't you get this into your brain?
I'll make sure that you will
Finally swallow this pill
As I will say it again and again


13 Oct 06 - 06:28 PM (#1858250)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.........

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


13 Oct 06 - 06:36 PM (#1858259)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella

Now Mick - you've told us off often enough - don't fall into the same trap. Just put the keyboard down and walk away....good man


13 Oct 06 - 06:57 PM (#1858269)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

It's his karma. The queen will be along to delete this really soon.


13 Oct 06 - 09:04 PM (#1858376)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

"And here is a bit more of that same quote that my friend Mick left out.

Joe: Do I need to separate you two? " the sham

I knew a guy who couldn't be blackmailed because the kinds of things that embarrassed other people, he bragged about.


13 Oct 06 - 09:51 PM (#1858396)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.........

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


14 Oct 06 - 12:07 AM (#1858437)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

" And when it is obvious that it is a case of City Hall picking their battles - and choosing you? "

It means that you won't win! Pretty simple to figure that one out.

Choose your battles carefully, before it is too late.


14 Oct 06 - 01:40 AM (#1858472)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO

Shambles, just to quote Joe again, with my emphasis in bold:

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-


Which just goes to show that this is not considered to be a serious discussion. I suspect that many here view this thread merely as a form of entertainment - I know I do.


14 Oct 06 - 06:53 AM (#1858544)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Which just goes to show that this is not considered to be a serious discussion. I suspect that many here view this thread merely as a form of entertainment - I know I do.

I am glad it makes you happy. You are of course welcome to make that judgement (as long as you always accepted that others may not agree with it) and unlike me, in anyt thread you wish to. But perhaps posting to this thread only to express it, to talk about recipes or as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has done - to claim the 1000th post - could be descibed a 'hi-jacking' the thread.

Or it would be if - if our 'moderators' were scratching around for some excuse to justify some form of imposed censorship - in order to prevent our forum from reading views and taking part in discussions that they would rather perfer our forum didn't.

This is certainly a thread containing a serious discussion on this subject as far as I am concerned - as it it the ONLY THREAD I AM PERMITTED TO DO SO. That is serious enough as far as I am concerned. And I remain very concerned.

Perhaps you could at least respect that, when making your judgement of whether this is is a thread containing a serious discussion?


14 Oct 06 - 07:05 AM (#1858552)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Choose your battles carefully, before it is too late.

Two words to take issue with - 'Choose' and 'battles'. And I am also not sure what you mean by 'too late'?

It has never been my choice to battle at all.

All I try and do is post my views. Others appear be encouraged to see it as a battle to be joined in order prevent this (in many and ingenious fun ways).

Are you suggesting that I must change my views as a result?

And change them not because I have seen any argument that has persuaded me to change my views - but simply because of attempts to bully?


14 Oct 06 - 07:29 AM (#1858559)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I knew a guy who couldn't be blackmailed because the kinds of things that embarrassed other people, he bragged about.

Thanks for that gem Ebbie. The fact that you would not see the irony and humour of you posting such a thing at this point - does explain a lot. But why would you wish to blackmail the guy you refer to or anyone else?

Just where is the moral-high ground supposed to in this example? And do you see yourself as one of the attempted blackmailers - or the potential victim? It seems to me that there is little credit to be had for either side in your senario.

Do you judge that the attempted blackmail of someone - really something for the would-be criminals involved in the attempted blackmail to bragg about then? Or that this attempt then entitles the criminals to pass judgement on their victim?

My only 'crime' on our forum is to try and post my honest views when many others try to find noble-sounding reasons to justify their various attempts to prevent this. Where as I don't see this as anything for me to bragg about - I certainly don't see it as anything I could be blackmailed for. Or anything that I should be intimidated for.


14 Oct 06 - 08:03 AM (#1858573)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS
If I can't get it or deliver it, there is no point, and POOF it's gone.

Keep it light, take it easy, relax, enjoy your stay, and just be happy.
Max


I would like to suggest that the above words of Max be copied as an automatic response from our 'moderators' to any complaint or judgement made by one poster about the posting of another?

And that The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum is confined to dealing only with requests for corrections to a posters own contributions?


14 Oct 06 - 09:19 AM (#1858616)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.........

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


14 Oct 06 - 10:38 AM (#1858672)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

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

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-


14 Oct 06 - 11:10 AM (#1858695)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO

I am glad it makes you happy

And I'm glad that you're glad that it makes me happy. After all, as you have pointed out many times -

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS.


14 Oct 06 - 11:35 AM (#1858708)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.........

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


14 Oct 06 - 11:52 AM (#1858723)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

This is getting good. I reckon if we stick around someone not a million miles away from here is going to implode.

How is it shambles can post with wit and eloquence, while his detractors have to shout in capslock and spew bile?

The bouncers are in need of a battery cahnge.


14 Oct 06 - 02:42 PM (#1858858)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Two words to take issue with - 'Choose' and 'battles'. And I am also not sure what you mean by 'too late'?"

Choose - figure out what is really important to take a stand on.
Battles - simply another word for taking an alternate position
too late - before it reaches a point where you suffer the same fate as Martin Gibson

"It has never been my choice to battle at all."
It depends on how you define "battle".

"All I try and do is post my views."
You do, and you keep repeating it and repeating it. That is your tactic in battle, and I understand that.

"Are you suggesting that I must change my views as a result?"
Hell no!   I have actually come around to see your points and I do agree with some of the things you say.

"And change them
There is nothing wrong with changing a view, if you see another side. I changed my view about you and what you are fighting for. My "suggestion" that you inquired about would be that your point has been made, anything else you are adding to it is not helping your cause even though you may think so. There is no proof that you are getting any closer to your goals and merely proving points over and over is tedious and a poor reflection on what you have to offer. You can do better than this.


14 Oct 06 - 06:27 PM (#1858963)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

'How is it shambles can post with wit and eloquence, while his detractors have to shout in capslock and spew bile?'

Many of the people who keep slagging Shambles have edit buttons. Think about THAT for fuck sake!


14 Oct 06 - 07:02 PM (#1858978)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

Wit & eloquence? Wit and eloquence???????

There does seem to be some confusion over whether simply abstaining from capital letters and naughty words equates to sense, reason & eloquence.


14 Oct 06 - 07:08 PM (#1858983)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

No confusion here. I wonder if like humour, Shambles doesn't 'travel well.'

There is a definite pond divide on who does and doesn't 'get' Shambles. With a couple of exceptions. Hi Ron.


14 Oct 06 - 09:57 PM (#1859096)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: Some buggars died.
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 12:54 PM

Sometimes, when one is driven by self serving, and neurosis driven, goals, they fail to see the 2x4 in their own eye.


There is nothing wrong with changing a view, if you see another side. I changed my view about you and what you are fighting for. My "suggestion" that you inquired about would be that your point has been made, anything else you are adding to it is not helping your cause even though you may think so. There is no proof that you are getting any closer to your goals and merely proving points over and over is tedious and a poor reflection on what you have to offer. You can do better than this.

Ron - I have struggled with your post. You keep referring to fighting and battles - when I am simply trying to post my views. And in most conflicts - isn't any appeal for peace and calm - usually isssued to both sides?

Surely for any assumed battle on our forum to cease - it only requires those few posters and 'moderators' intent on trying to prevent discussion, to cease this attempt (and to be seen to lift the special restrictions on my posting)?

You refer to - my point being made and that adding to it is not helping 'my cause'. When I have no cause - and being able to continue to post in free, open and informed discussion on this issue and others - I see as an end in itself. One that is currently being denied to me.

Would you have been able to change your view - had I not (no matter how tediously) continued to try and post to discuss the issue and those trying to (equally tediously) to prevent this - had succeeded in their self serving, and neurosis driven, goals?

I can only hope that - like you - other posters may be prepared to change their mind or at least to give the issue some serious thought and be able to freely discuss all aspect of our forum.

I suspect those few who wish to prevent this discussion - would hope that that posters will not. Perhaps you could advise or make some suggested course of action to them also?


14 Oct 06 - 10:01 PM (#1859098)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

There does seem to be some confusion over whether simply abstaining from capital letters and naughty words equates to sense, reason & eloquence.

It is probably a good start.


14 Oct 06 - 10:30 PM (#1859112)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"Ron - I have struggled with your post. You keep referring to fighting and battles - when I am simply trying to post my views. "
I have to disagree with you, at least the way it appears to me and perhaps others. Posting views is one thing, but the repeative nature turns it into a "battle". I will grant you that you end up taking most of the "hits", but you are also wearing a target for a t-shirt.

"And in most conflicts - isn't any appeal for peace and calm - usually isssued to both sides?"
Very true.


"Would you have been able to change your view - had I not (no matter how tediously) continued to try and post to discuss the issue and those trying to (equally tediously) to prevent this - had succeeded in their self serving, and neurosis driven, goals?"
I might have changed my mind if you got to the point earlier (remember my bullet point comments?). I think you have clouded the issues and made it difficult to understand what you are trying to accomplish.   

"I can only hope that - like you - other posters may be prepared to change their mind or at least to give the issue some serious thought and be able to freely discuss all aspect of our forum."
I think we do. I think you have become a special case for a variety of reasons that have been previously discussed. Sometimes a change is tactics is not a bad idea. These are not issues that can't be solved without compromise.

"I suspect those few who wish to prevent this discussion - would hope that that posters will not. Perhaps you could advise or make some suggested course of action to them also?"
Sure. Ignore this entire thread is one way - if you can't add anything constructive to the conversation, stay out. Simply knocking Shambles or any poster does not help - it merely shows that the poster has run out of ideas and can only attack the person.

What I did was to actually look at some of the threads you posted and I could see SOME of the issues in a different light.

Once again, we are subject to the whims of the owner and the designates of this site. If change is made, or if no change is made, it is the reflection of the "host". You and I can speak our minds, but we are not going to make the change. It would have happened already.


15 Oct 06 - 12:09 AM (#1859148)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

I agree with Ron. Change ain't gonna happen. However, you have every right to keep posting Shambles. I agree with about half you say, and thank you for keeping on saying it. Part of the reason I drop in to this thread either as a 'guest' or as me is to see which of the crew is slagging you yet again. You have received much vitriol from people and it's interesting to see that many offensive posts to or about you are allowed to remain. C'est la vie I s'pose. I admire your guts, and I'll say this: you have a pair of brass ones, because basically you have been mostly alone in your fight with all kinds of folks here, and in the final analysis you have acquitted yourself in a more dignified manner than many of your adversaries.


15 Oct 06 - 07:00 AM (#1859245)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Once again, we are subject to the whims of the owner and the designates of this site. If change is made, or if no change is made, it is the reflection of the "host". You and I can speak our minds, but we are not going to make the change. It would have happened already.

Some of us may be able to freely speak their minds.

Our forum may well be subject to the whims of the owner but I do not see that our forum is also to be subject to the whims of their designates - for are they not very much part of our forum? And is it not claimed, that they are only there to carrying out Max's 'rules'.

Though as they do know what actions each other are imposing - quite how Max is supposed to know what they are - let alone approve - is unclear. This latest gem from Snitchers Corner will demonstrate the on-going level of confusion.

Misleading title changes

My concern, posted now for many years follwing many similar 'cock-ops' is that no measures appear to be implemented as a result of them, in order to prevent these sort of 'cock-ups from happening in the future. It all appears to be a bit of a game that is played, with our forum's contributions as the football, combined with some elements of Ground Hog day.

Many posters support our 'moderators' efforts - largely as they believe them to be well-intention - and they are. But most posters do not have the information to express an informed opinion as to the effectiveness or counter-productive nature of these efforts.

To address this, I have made the suggestion for editing comments to be inserted where any form of imposed action is judged to be necessary and for editing comments to be limited to only where some form has actually taken place.

Then, not only would posters be able to judge the true nature and current level of these actions and for the first time express an informed opinion on them - our 'moderators' would also know what action each other were taking.


15 Oct 06 - 07:02 AM (#1859247)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Our forum may well be subject to the whims of the owner but I do not see that our forum is also to be subject to the whims of their designates

It isn't. Your whole case is based on a nonsensical idea that the mods regularly act against the wishes of the site owner.


15 Oct 06 - 07:06 AM (#1859250)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Face the fact Shambles. If what you say is true and the mods could act according to thier own agendas, you would have been banned by a few of them from this site.


15 Oct 06 - 07:06 AM (#1859251)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp - PM
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:51 PM

Actually, they are not the bouncers' rules. They are the owner's rules. The bouncers just enforce them.


15 Oct 06 - 09:40 AM (#1859314)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO

Shambles, you just proved GUEST's point with your quote :-)


15 Oct 06 - 10:04 AM (#1859329)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

" Some of us may be able to freely speak their minds. "

What you say perfectly illustrates the fact that this forum is subject to the whims of the owner and the designates.   I'm with Peace, I think you have every right to voice your opinion (even though I feel that you are being too repititive) and your points and suggestions have merit.

Lets face facts. The sanctions that have been imposed on you appear to be arbitrary and by reading the threads appear to have been introduced in an attempt to keep you quiet. People (moderators and other posters) have taken offense to your posts on various threads and single you out for thread-drift and other infractions (although it occurs daily by so many others)and you have been practicly rendered useless.

You have become that party guest that most people try to avoid. They don't want to look at your vacation pictures or have you try to sell them insurance. The really sad part is, they won't try to have a legitimate conversation with you either. When you enter, they leave the room or pick a fight - as if a fight were a way to justify their own egos and shortcomings. The atmosphere at the party changes and people move to other rooms. Meanwhile, the owners sit back and have a good laugh.

For change to be truly implemented, a voice of reason is required. You will have a very difficult time being that voice of reason, even though many of your posts are well-thought out and valid.   Perception becomes reality and you are perceived in a negative light by many people who have influenced this website.   I'm not saying that is right, far from it actually - it is just the way things are.


15 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM (#1859361)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I'm not saying that is right, far from it actually - it is just the way things are.

It certainly would appear to be the way things are or the way a few now wish them to be. But in reality the majority of posters (if they are allowed to) still tend to respond to my posts as they would any other poster. Without knowing that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has fingerered this one individual poster as our forum's current public enemy number one - why would they not?

It would be nice to get these restrictions on my posting lifted but apart from that - my own treatment is less of an issue for me. I have always realised that trying to continue expressing my honset views was hardly going to make things easy.

The concern is the way posters are now generally treated and he attitude now shown to them by those few who have always ignored the reality of our host's open invitation for the public's contributions and have always treated our forum as if it were their own private club, to be shaped to their reqirements.

If I were Max - I would consider the attitudes, actions and wishes of these few posters to be the main problem now to enabling and encouraging new blood and to continuing free and open discussion on our forum. As these few do not really appear to see this (or every poster's happiness) as our forum's main purpose.

The difficulty is that many do have (or now feel they) have a personal relationship with Max. And many do have regular contact together outside of our forum and as a result of this, tend now to look inward in posts on our forum rather than outward.

What is referred (wrongly in my view) as the Mudcat Community is both our forum's biggest strength and its biggest weakness. This aspect is fine but in reality it tends to limit what is an open invitation from Max to the whole world - to the level of an exclusive (rather intolerant and bitchy) private club.   

Actions to reinforce this concept are counter-productive and most of the conflict is with and from those posters who feel intentionally excluded by these actions from this cosy club or have no wish to join any club that would have them as a member. But mostly because common sense tells us that an open invitation for the world's views - will NEVER produce a cosy like-minded group. Again, this is both a strength and a weakness for our forum. I see it mainly as our forum's strength and what makes it special.

I really think that the answer IS for a private online members only forum to be created to accomodate those who publicly express their wish only for this.

Our forum could then continue for those who can still see the value in Max's open invitation for everyone to join the party and for new posters who may wish to. And for every poster to largely be left to decide for themselves what to read, respond to or ignore.


15 Oct 06 - 11:21 AM (#1859363)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

His points are invalid.

If his points had anything to do with concrn of the Mudcat policy of... , he might have some validty.

While he centers everything around a belief that everything wrong centeres around the Chief of Editing and has nothing to do with policy set by the site owner, he is talking nonsense.


15 Oct 06 - 11:25 AM (#1859365)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shables, if what you said was truthful, Big Mick for one would have banned you.


15 Oct 06 - 12:30 PM (#1859409)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

You have become that party guest that most people try to avoid.

No Ron, he has become the scapegoat for a VERY FEW 'grown' men and even FEWER dubious women to kick about. Presumably they feel very powerless in real life. Shame.

Never be under the impression that they represent MOST.


15 Oct 06 - 01:11 PM (#1859446)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad

FWIW, I have also had a change of heart in regards to Shambles' posts and now feel that there is some validity to what he says. The posts of a few long time members, who seem to be obsessed with attacking him, have influenced the shift in my opinion.


15 Oct 06 - 01:25 PM (#1859466)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"he has become the scapegoat for a VERY FEW 'grown' men and even FEWER dubious women to kick about."

Good point guest! It is really hard to gauge who thinks what, but you start seeing the same names over and over.   

All it takes is a few grains of sand in your bathing suit to make a day at the beach miserable!


15 Oct 06 - 05:51 PM (#1859667)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Interesting that you use the day at a beach analogy. I always imagine the detractors rolling in like waves, albeit VERY SMALL waves.

It starts with a ripple, then a couple of 'I need to jump in here while it's going my way' detractors join in, then it rolls along steadily for a bit, then it reaches a crescendo as it gets very heated/irate/petulant. Then it crashes with a boom. Then it all goes silent.

Then they have another unproductive day where they are not taken too seriously and feel the need to build up into something they equate with power. And so it starts again and again and again.

Like Bobad, Shamble's VERY FEW detractors have behaved so ridiculously, they have done him a huge favour.

The funniest posts though are the regular as clockwork ' I know I should be ignoring him, but I just have to say this and then I will ignore him.' But they can't ignore him. It amazes me no end why his detractors are physically unable to not open this thread.

Shambles is all powerful.


15 Oct 06 - 06:07 PM (#1859678)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Good point guest! It is really hard to gauge who thinks what, but you start seeing the same names over and over.   

Like Shambles and now Ron Olesko...


15 Oct 06 - 06:10 PM (#1859680)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Sometimes we like to correct shambles blatant lies, guest.


15 Oct 06 - 06:11 PM (#1859681)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ah poor old guest 6.01 doesn't like it when the object of his/her bullying has supporters. Much more fun kicking someone around when there is no one there to watch eh? Carry on you are giving us all a great laugh now. Trouble is it is at your expense.

If you take out the false teeth and whistle real slow you might sound like the start of a wave.


15 Oct 06 - 06:12 PM (#1859682)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Calling a sheep a dog will not make it bark.


15 Oct 06 - 06:13 PM (#1859683)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ooops here we go - guest 6.10 is joining in the ripple effect. Altogether now..........whoooooooooossssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.


15 Oct 06 - 06:14 PM (#1859685)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

LOL. With or without our teeth in?


15 Oct 06 - 06:15 PM (#1859686)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ah poor old guest 6.01 doesn't like it when the object of his/her bullying has supporters

Worng guest. I dislkie anyone who supports shabmles' perpetual bullying of the mods.


15 Oct 06 - 06:17 PM (#1859690)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Hey guest 6.15 put those teeth back in they are interfering with your sepllnig.


15 Oct 06 - 06:18 PM (#1859692)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I also dislike supporters of lies.


15 Oct 06 - 06:19 PM (#1859693)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

whoahhhhhhhhh there we have ourselves a breaker - go fetch those boards chaps. Surf's up.


15 Oct 06 - 06:22 PM (#1859696)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

That was pretty good: "We have ourselves a breaker."


15 Oct 06 - 06:23 PM (#1859698)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

IMO, we need more humour here and less bullshit.

Two guys driving down the road. One says, "Hey, what's in the bag?"

Other guy says, "I got a bottle of wine for my wife."

First guy says, "Good trade."


15 Oct 06 - 06:25 PM (#1859702)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Well give us something better than that tired old joke then.


15 Oct 06 - 06:28 PM (#1859706)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

No, no. no. It's your turn.


15 Oct 06 - 06:29 PM (#1859708)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

BTW: Forget this 'us' bullshit. You speak for yourself.


15 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM (#1859711)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Where's the fuckin' joke? get yer shit together. C'mon, I got stuff to do.


15 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM (#1859712)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

OK, if you do not like us.

Please don't bore our forum with such tedious jokes.


15 Oct 06 - 06:38 PM (#1859719)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

At great risk of stating the obvious: The forum belongs to Max. There IS no 'our'.


15 Oct 06 - 06:40 PM (#1859721)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I know. Please tell that to shambles. I only used it because he keeps refering to "our" forum. If I was to correct that, you would moan about shamble's detractors.


15 Oct 06 - 06:41 PM (#1859723)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

An elderly man in North Carolina had owned a large farm for several years. He had a large pond in the back, fixed up nice; picnic tables, horseshoe courts, and some apple and peach trees. The pond was properly shaped and fixed up for swimming when it was built.

One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the pond, as he hadn't been there for a while, and look it over. He grabbed a five-gallon bucket to bring back some fruit. As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee.

As he came closer , he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond. He made the women aware of his presence and they all went to the deep end.

One of the women shouted to him, "We're not coming out until you leave!"

The old man frowned and replied, "I didn't come down here to watch you ladies swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked." Holding the bucket up he said, "I'm here to feed the alligator."


15 Oct 06 - 06:42 PM (#1859725)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Tell me when I post a joke you like. It would make my day.


15 Oct 06 - 06:45 PM (#1859729)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: bobad

A male surfer had just caught a great wave and was paddling out when a beginning female surfer took off on a wave, wiped out and her board headed directly toward the male surfer. Sure enough, her board hit him, and he immediately clasped his hands together at his crotch, curled up on his board in agony. The woman rushed over and immediately began to apologize. She then explained that she was a physical therapist and offered to help ease his pain. "Ummph, ooh, nnooo, I'll be alright... I'll be fine in a few
minutes", he replied as he remained in the fetal position still clasping his hands together at his crotch. But she persisted, and he finally allowed her to help him. She gently took his hands away and laid them to the side, loosened his board shorts and put her hands inside, beginning to massage him. "Does that feel better?", she asked. "Ohhh, Yeah....It feels *really* great", he replied, "But my thumb still hurts like hell!"


15 Oct 06 - 06:47 PM (#1859731)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Try again. That was an improvement. It did raise a smile.


15 Oct 06 - 06:48 PM (#1859732)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Peace's joke raised the smile. I dodn't think Bobad is trying yet.


15 Oct 06 - 06:54 PM (#1859736)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Two goldfish in a tank. One says to the other -

























Do you know how to drive this thing?


15 Oct 06 - 06:56 PM (#1859737)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orang-utan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's The Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books"?
"Well," said the orang-utang, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."


15 Oct 06 - 06:56 PM (#1859738)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

This is more like it. Keep 'em coming. But let's move to the 85 billion thread, OK?


15 Oct 06 - 07:01 PM (#1859741)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Are you sure? My money is on this thread beating the 85 billion thread to 85 billion.


15 Oct 06 - 07:02 PM (#1859743)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,surf's up

Make your mind up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


15 Oct 06 - 07:04 PM (#1859750)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I'm trying.

How's about we ask the mods to move the jokes from this thread to help the 85 billion thread along?


15 Oct 06 - 07:10 PM (#1859754)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Too risky. Is there an R in the month and a prevailing wind?

Let's just move.


15 Oct 06 - 07:12 PM (#1859756)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

OK


15 Oct 06 - 07:56 PM (#1859789)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

" Like Shambles and now Ron Olesko..."

Or the same guest


15 Oct 06 - 08:15 PM (#1859801)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Don't make the thread unhappy again Ron. We left it as a happy fun thread. Come join the 85 billion thread.


15 Oct 06 - 09:15 PM (#1859858)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Pshaw!   Who is making it unhappy?????????????


15 Oct 06 - 09:40 PM (#1859877)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Those unhappy with the mods, those unhappy with those who are unhappy with the mods and those unhappy with those who are unhappy with those who are unhappy with the mods.


15 Oct 06 - 09:44 PM (#1859879)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

"Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing"

.. excerpt from Shiny Happy People REM


sIx


15 Oct 06 - 09:44 PM (#1859880)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

The Shambles: Blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EDITORS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EVERYONE blah blah blah blah blah TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah THIS IS WHATS REALLY WRONG WITH THE WORLD blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY TOOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah YOU JUST DONT GET IT blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah.....................

Guest: YAWN.

The Shambles: Blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EDITORS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EVERYONE blah blah blah blah blah TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah THIS IS WHATS REALLY WRONG WITH THE WORLD blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY TOOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah YOU JUST DONT GET IT blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah.....................

Guest: YAWN

The Shambles: Blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EDITORS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah DAMN EVERYONE blah blah blah blah blah TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah THIS IS WHATS REALLY WRONG WITH THE WORLD blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY TOOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS blah blah blah blah blah blah YOU JUST DONT GET IT blah blah blah blah blah DAMN MODERATORS blah blah blah blah.....................

Guest: YAWN


15 Oct 06 - 10:22 PM (#1859910)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Are we at #2000 yet?


16 Oct 06 - 02:22 AM (#1860009)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Jolly good jokes


16 Oct 06 - 08:31 AM (#1860195)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

At great risk of stating the obvious: The forum belongs to Max. There IS no 'our'.

The website that our forum is on may or may not still belong to Max. The view has always been encouraged that our forum is what all the contributors make it.

Perhaps those who do judge this to be our forum can take this issue up with the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team?

[PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05

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-


16 Oct 06 - 12:15 PM (#1860422)
Subject: RE: musical traditions
From: The Shambles

thread name clarification


16 Oct 06 - 01:36 PM (#1860500)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

as I read the rules, Shambles may post certain types of commentary ONLY on this thread...I saw nothing in the rules to prevent others from posting on this thread. A few jokes might dilute things a bit...*grin*


so, there were two goldfish in a bowl, and one says to the other, "Ok, smarty, if there's no God, who changes the water?"


16 Oct 06 - 02:55 PM (#1860585)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

List of all joke threads

Where you will be able to place your own jokes and find plenty of others for you to grin about.

And where you won't have to see my posts or feel you have keep refreshing this thread only to moan about them.


16 Oct 06 - 02:58 PM (#1860588)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

Isn't refreshing this thread a good thing?


16 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM (#1860599)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Shambles: Have a good day.


16 Oct 06 - 03:16 PM (#1860600)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Isn't refreshing this thread a good thing?

Are you confused now and need someone to tell you what the current plan is?

Well it wasn't to be a good idea - then it was - then it was plan B....

Wesley S - if you you have something to add to the subject under discussion in the thread - which is clearly indicated in its title - then yes, it is generally judged to be a good thing to refresh any thread with your contribution.


16 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM (#1860608)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

Trying to control others' posts again, Roger?


16 Oct 06 - 03:29 PM (#1860612)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

Huzzah! 1100 is fast approaching!


16 Oct 06 - 03:45 PM (#1860625)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

A brain walks into a bar and says, "I'll have a pint of beer please." The barman looks at him and says "Sorry, I can't serve you." "Why not?" askes the brain. The barman replies "You're already out of your head."


16 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM (#1860683)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

"Wesley S - if you you have something to add to the subject under discussion in the thread"

I'm guessing that the operative word is "add". What if I don't have anything new to say? What if I just want to rehash the same things over and over and over again? Then is it a good idea to refresh this thread?


16 Oct 06 - 05:00 PM (#1860692)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

lol, Wesley...I think you're onto something!


16 Oct 06 - 05:03 PM (#1860694)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

who gets the honor?


16 Oct 06 - 05:12 PM (#1860701)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

Well Bill - Wouldn't you agree? I'd hate to refresh this thread if I had nothing new to say. If I was just going to rehash the same things over and over and over again it would be pretty much senseless. A waste of time. Repetative too. AND redundent.


16 Oct 06 - 05:14 PM (#1860704)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles - You have an entire thread here where you hash the same crap over and over and over and you tell Wesley to add something new to it? Heed your advice buddy. How much time do you have on your hands that everyday you reply to this thread and search through past posts and threads and cut and paste like crazy to prove a point to the world that no one cares about. Do you ever go outside? Do you ever turn off your computer? Do you only get one channel on the internet and it's Mudcat???

Heal thyself!


16 Oct 06 - 05:18 PM (#1860711)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Please come to the 85 billion thread if you want to give people shit. We all love it when people give us shit because it helps the thread grow and come closer to its goal of 85 billion posts. Stop being such friggin' wankers on this thread. Come to the 85 billion thread and be wankers there.


16 Oct 06 - 05:21 PM (#1860716)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

Nothing new to add just yet. But - I'm working on it.


16 Oct 06 - 11:26 PM (#1860982)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

"A brain walks into a bar and says, "I'll have a pint of beer please." The barman looks at him and says "Sorry, I can't serve you." "Why not?" askes the brain. The barman replies "You're already out of your head."

Now that joke certainly deserves a Mudcat award ... of some sort.

sIx


17 Oct 06 - 02:06 AM (#1861025)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Second joke thread of 2006


17 Oct 06 - 02:17 AM (#1861028)
Subject: RE: musical traditions
From: The Shambles

Wolfgang (more sad than amused by a completly unnecessary thread; at least in this form)

Now you have informed our forum of your judgement of what others post - why would you think our forum should care what your judgement of them is or even be interested in such a post?

If you don't like the thread - why take the time and trouble post to it and refresh a post that is not to your taste - just to say so and be seen to make some pedantic observation?

Why not simply ignore this thread or start one that is to your taste?


17 Oct 06 - 06:47 AM (#1861139)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

Chili Oil

*Ingredients:
2 cups olive oil
4 teaspoons dried crushed red pepper flakes

*Preparation:
Combine the oil and crushed red pepper flakes in a heavy small saucepan. Cook over low heat until a thermometer inserted into the oil registers 180 degrees F, about 5 minutes.

Remove from heat. Cool to room temperature, about 2 hours. Transfer the oil and pepper flakes to a 4-ounce bottle. Seal the lid. Refrigerate up to 1 month.




*Preparation Time: 2 min + 2 hours
*Yield: 2 cups


17 Oct 06 - 08:01 AM (#1861181)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Notice how Shambles can't answer my questions that actually deal with the thread? Sooooooooooo surprising.


17 Oct 06 - 10:12 AM (#1861267)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

Shambles - if you you have something to add to the subject under discussion in the thread - which is clearly indicated in its title - please do so. But to refresh it by adding links to joke pages is just plain wrong.


17 Oct 06 - 10:20 AM (#1861270)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

Maybe "just plain wrong" is too strong of a phrase. But it does obscure the serious discussion that many of us are trying to have on this most important of subjects. Get with the program please.


17 Oct 06 - 11:17 AM (#1861300)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Some time ago - Wesley S came up with the following - it says more in a few lines than I can ever manage, in my long-winded way.

Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others


Not posting to a thread


17 Oct 06 - 12:07 PM (#1861324)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

For you Roger


17 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM (#1861454)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

A young man walks onto the stage of Stars in their Eyes, on crutches, with a plaster cast from his feet to his hips. Matthew Kelly introduces him as Simon.



"It's very brave of you to come out here," says Matthew.



"Please tell the audience what happened?"



"Well" replies Simon "about a year ago, I was driving with my uncle when we had a really bad accident. Unfortunately my uncle was killed outright but I survived. I was trapped in the car for six hours before I was eventually cut free."



"The doctors had me in surgery for 12 hours but they couldn't save my legs."



"That's terrible. But I see you have legs now. Are they artificial?" asks Matthew.



"No Matthew, while I was in hospital the doctors informed me that my uncle had in fact died, but that his legs were fine and with all the advances in medical science, they could graft the bottom half of his body onto mine. As you can see the operation was successful. I have been having physiotherapy for six months and hope to be walking fully again by the end of the year."



A huge round of applause erupts from the audience. Kelly responds with: "That's an unbelievable story. So tonight, who are you going to be?"



Read down



















You are really going to love this…………







































'Tonight, Matthew, I am going to be Simon and Halfuncle'


17 Oct 06 - 07:35 PM (#1861704)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Jeri

Guest, regarding Shambles not answering direct questions, I think it's part of the syndrome. I don't think he evades. I don't think he's capable of answering them, and no, I'm not trying to insult him or even argue. I think his inability to answer these questions, the memorization and repitition of phrases, the obsession with Joe and editing/moderation/whatever, and the inability to understand subtle clues about how serious Joe isn't when he says he doesn't like birthday threads or counting posts, are part of a syndrome. He doesn't understand what Max meant with his invitation to leave because Max is going to have to do something a lot less subtle for him to get it.   

I don't think he can stop, but I don't think some other people can either. And I may be wrong about the syndrome thing, but it doesn't matter. It's one thing to argue with someone who's capable of understanding you, but it's quite a different thing to continue to try to expect understanding and agreement from a person who only posts because it's part of his routine, and who can neither see nor care about the effects of his obsession.

It makes it easy for me not not get involved in discussions about editing. I see no logical evidence he's really trying to change anything, or even discuss the issue. Posting is just something he has to do. Depersonalizing Joe ("Chief of the...") and complaining about anyone with an edit button, whom he catches doing anything at all, is just his hobby.

The bottom line is that I don't think he can help it, and I can, and if he can't help it, it's harder to be angry at what he says.    It's easier to develop negative opinions of those who keep pushing his buttons, but I guess everybody needs something to inspire them.


18 Oct 06 - 02:07 AM (#1861911)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Piffle

All I have even done is to continue to try to post my honest views to a discussion on a discussion form set up for that purpose on an issue that some would rather was rather not discussed. This to enable all posters to be seen to be having a fair shake.

It is those who judge this using emotive words like obsession to describe my posting (because they do not agree with my views) but by NOT such words to describe the many and varied attempts that are encouraged to be made to judge and prevent this who are now adding to the problem.

A problem that will only be made worse by a few posters (in hundreds of posts) being seen to encourage and support the imposition of more restrictions or managing to prevent one poster fron contributing to our forum at all.

The answer to anyone who is not interested in discussing this issue has always been simple - don't open the thread to read it and don't post and refresh the thread.


18 Oct 06 - 05:53 AM (#1861993)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Right boys and girls, let's do just that. Let's not post here any more!
G


18 Oct 06 - 07:49 AM (#1862056)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Right boys and girls, let's do just that. Let's not post here any more!

It's one thing to argue with someone who's capable of understanding you, but it's quite a different thing to continue to try to expect understanding and agreement from a person who only posts because it's part of his routine, and who can neither see nor care about the effects of his obsession.

Jeri - Does it really follow that the reason someone may not agree with you is because they are not capaple of understanding you? Have you ever considered the possibilty that you are wrong? Or the fact that it is not necessary to reach agreement or to gang-up and grind any who continue to disagree into the ground? Only to be seen to agree to disagree?

Posters have been encouraged to post and call me many things and many aspects of my mental health have been diagnosed. Many judgements of my worth have been made and the simple act of my continued posting on our forum, has been described in every negative enotive term possible- by people I have never even met.

But if all these assesments and speculations were true - So what?

As no one is being forced to read or respond - are not all posters entitled to be as boring and as tedious as they wish, on our forum?

Isn't it the truth that all this fuss - is the distraction and not the problem at all?


18 Oct 06 - 09:03 AM (#1862096)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Shambles- I believe Jeri may have been defending you in a way so you should apologize.

Try using all the energy, time and thought that you put onto this board into something more constructive like world hunger, homelessness and world peace. Make a real difference in this world besides worrying about a moderated message board. Good grief man do something worthwhile!


18 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM (#1862180)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

seems apropos


18 Oct 06 - 10:45 AM (#1862202)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

It's easier to develop negative opinions of those who keep pushing his buttons, but I guess everybody needs something to inspire them.


18 Oct 06 - 12:03 PM (#1862257)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

It wasn't funny the first time Big Mick. Grow up!!!!!!


18 Oct 06 - 12:33 PM (#1862305)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I thought it was hysterical...both times...


18 Oct 06 - 12:46 PM (#1862319)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,KB

I thought it was a gas.


18 Oct 06 - 12:53 PM (#1862325)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"Lord, 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 really pissed me off."


18 Oct 06 - 01:20 PM (#1862342)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

"God grant me the Senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, The good fortune to run into the ones I do, And the eyesight to tell the difference."


18 Oct 06 - 04:11 PM (#1862510)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

I'm reading right now (for reasons that have nothing to do with this thread, but with my interest in a skeptical approach to personal experiences) Graham Reed's The psychology of anomalous experience which is a bit old (1988) but still interesting to read. The book does deal with normal people (in sometimes not so normal situations) and not with clinical cases.

I was reminded of the party metapher some hundred posts ago when I read the following in a subchapter about Anomalies in the flexibility of associations (p. 182f):

"The best example from everyday life is preoccupation, when our minds revolve around a single topic...Far from there being any conscious diminuation of mental activity, preoccupation often involves furious thinking - but the thinking revolves around one particular theme. Commonly, this theme has to do with some matter of significance...But often the focus of preoccupation processes possesses little personal significance or affective tone.

...Brooding [is preoccupation]...by a belief that life is treating one unfairly, or because one has been a victim of a slight (real or imagined).

...Preoccupation is usually triggered by a particular event or problem. But the same sort of delimination of cognitive energy may in certain individuals be such a habitual pattern as to be classifiable as a personality characteristic. At the opposite extrem from the person we describe as having a 'grasshopper mind' is the one with a 'one track mind'. This is somebody who tends to 'harp on' about one topic, to worry interminably about some difficulty, or to give protracted consideration to an idea that does not seem to merit such close attention.

...The inveterate one-track-mind is liable to be regarded as a bore, to be avoided at all costs. At social gatherings, he is likely to be a 'party pooper', not by intent or malice, but simply because his conversation is ewarnest, circumscribed, repetitious, and generally tedious. His inability to abandon his topic of choice, or even to approach it from freh viewpoints, impedes the spontaneous flow of conversation and deadens the lightness of tone associated with an enjoyable party. Furthermore, even the most well-intentioned of one-trackers will display a fiendish ability to turn the line of talk back to his focal theme, should attempts be made by others to change the subject." (End of quote)

Big Mick,
I can understand the temptation to try to be as repetitive as Shambles is and to repeat ad nauseam the same Max quote. But you are bound to lose that game and there is nothing you can do about it for two reasons:
(1) The repetitions by Shambles get under your skin on the long run, but Shambles is completely immune to repetitions (or arguments) by others.
(2) Your repetitions will look stupid to yourself after some time (as they should), but Shambles' repetitions will never look stupid to him.

Wolfgang


18 Oct 06 - 04:17 PM (#1862516)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

The book isn't full of typos, but my typing is.

Wolfgang


18 Oct 06 - 06:48 PM (#1862696)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The party analogy is not of course a totally accurate one.

For if my main protagonists and I were at the same party (rather than the reality of just posting to the same discussion forum) we would not be able to recognise one another for a start.

And unlike the party setting - it is quite possible for any poster here to completely ignore any fellow invited guest they find to be boring or otherwise not to their taste - without having any affect on the party atmosphere.   

As our forum is not a party - the one-track poster, trying to talk abour closed threads and deleted posts - is perhaps only what you would expect to find in a thread with this one's title.

To find in this thread posters being encouraged to swap recipes or tell jokes or to judge and speculate on the mental health of their fellow posters - is perhaps more unexpected. Especially given the whole justification attempted for this witch-hunt.

No - our forum is not a party. It is a online discussion forum - so any individual poster attempting to continue posting their views to it - is not a strange situation calling for assessments of that poster's state of mind. It remains the object of the exercise.

The various (and fun) means used to try and prevent any individual poster from doing this and to attempt to find some noble sounding justification for this online bullying is the questionable activity.


18 Oct 06 - 08:38 PM (#1862786)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Uh huh.............ayup...................


18 Oct 06 - 08:57 PM (#1862790)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I disagree Shambles, our forum is very much LIKE a party. You are entitled to your opinion, and I hope someday you will be able to share it in other spots.

No, you cannot always avoid someone you do not care for at a party. If you are in a small room and the person keeps interjecting in conversations, you are stuck. Often words are said.

Sometimes you can go into another room to avoid that guest and hope that he or she won't follow.

Often, conversations that appear to be going along are hijacked by someone who wants to make a change.

Of course, all of this is approved by the owner. That is just the way things go and the partygoers have to deal with it.   The enjoyement of the party will ultimately be theirs - they can try to have fun. Often, it is up to the host to determine how things go.

Yes, Mudcat is very much like a party.


18 Oct 06 - 09:02 PM (#1862793)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Ron, Shambles isn't prevented from sharing his opinions in other spots. Never has been. What he is prevented from doing is taking this argument to other spots. In fact he has been given a whole thread just for his complaints. But he is not allowed to hijack other threads to complain about the mod's and the running of the Mudcat. With all due respect, your understanding of this issue doesn't go back far enough to understand why this occurred. This man earned the treatment he gets.

But I repeat. He is not banished from other threads. He simply cannot take this discussion to them.

Mick


18 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM (#1862845)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Mick, I realize that I do not know the "whole" story, but I am not sure why others can take arguements to other threads and he can't.   IF there is an issue with Shambles that has him being treated differently from others, perhaps he should be banned completely.


19 Oct 06 - 02:30 AM (#1862901)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

No, you cannot always avoid someone you do not care for at a party. If you are in a small room and the person keeps interjecting in conversations, you are stuck. Often words are said.

Yes - Ron, I agree.

That is exactly why the party analogly falls down. That is exactly what posters can do on our forum. The reality that no poster can have any control of what another choses to post and as a result - there is little point in anyone trying to - this must slowly be dawning even on my regular accusers and name-callers?

For it is not one party. The threads are a series of themed parties. It is perfectly possible to avoid any subject that is not to your taste - without being encouraged to be seen to gang-up in concerted efforts designed to have restricions imposed upon a a fellow guest and for these posters to be denied the invitation that that you take as a right.

That is not the guest's/poster's call. It is our host's. If Max decides to ban me from posting after all this time - for trying to continue to post my views - because of the 'distraction' generated by those who should be setting a better example, have never accepted the realities of our forum and who are now seen to have their own agendas - it will be a sad day for me.

But it will be a sadder day for our forum. For bullying will have been seen to have achieved its object, the lynch-mob will move on to another scape-goat and the party will be over for anyone but the like-minded.


19 Oct 06 - 04:55 AM (#1862976)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Mick, I realize that I do not know the "whole" story, but I am not sure why others can take arguements to other threads and he can't.

Ron - I suggest that you do indeed know the whole story.

You appear to have just come to a different conclusion (and are brave enough to express it) from those few who seem to judge that being seen to disagree with their views on our form - requires them to be seen to gang-up and bully others into agreement. And if this tactic does not succeed - to use all of their efforts to be seen to try drive their fellow guests out of the party.


19 Oct 06 - 09:24 AM (#1863155)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shambles, I do not know the whole story because I have not followed it from the beginning, and it appears that some of your posts were deleted if I what I have read is true. It is hard to get a complete picture.   I do see a number of people who seem to continually harp on you, make comments about you in other threads, and then complain that YOU are the obsessive one! How odd is that?

As for the party, I am not sure how many parties you go to but usually the ones I attend will have more than one conversation going on at a time. In a corner of the living room there will be a group discussing sports, in another corner of the room there may be a discussion over the latest episode of CSI. In the kitchen there may be a discussion of movies going on. People drift in and out at parties, just like they do on Mudcat.

When I go to a party, I realize that my "rights" are restricted. I am following the hosts rules - as strict or relaxed as they make them. I have witnessed people ganging up on individuals when there is a disagreement (New Jersey parties can be rough!!) and the host is usually the final arbitrator.

As you say, it "is not the guest's/poster's call. It is our host's". If anyone calls for your banishment, it is utimately the hosts decision.   Of course, that works as a two way street. If you are claiming that individuals do not have the "right" to impose their views about you, then you do not have the right to post your views about any change you would like to see in the way this system operates.

Because there has been limited action taken by the host, the posts will continue. People will continue to gang up on you, and you will continue to state your case.

Just to be clear - I do not want to see you banned. I did not want to see Martin Gibson banned either.   I respect the hosts decisions, even if I don't always agree with them. They do what they feel is right for the system that they operate.


19 Oct 06 - 10:09 AM (#1863190)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Agreed Ron, that it would be hard for you to get the complete picture. And I also agree that there is a certain set that do respond negatively to Shambles. Take a look at the names. Bill D, Wolfgang, Catspaw, Jeri, myself, as well as many others. Most of these folks have been here a long time, and are well respected (myself excluded). Ask yourself what would make a Bill D respond to Shambles. This man is a gentle, good natured, and intelligent poster. Same with Wolfgang. Jeri is awfully hard to set off. Spaw and I, well sometimes our passions get the best of us. Take a look at MMario's comments in this forum, then ask yourself why such a decent guy would respond in a negative way to Shambles.

You just get to the point that you tire of him bringing nothing to the party but bitchin' and whingeing, and his attempts to twist threads to his vendetta. That is why he has been relegated to one thread for this. It got to the point a few years back where every thread was being hijacked. There are places where his obsessiveness actually were a benefit. I think of the PEL situation. I believe I was the first of the Mudcatters to write at his request, to the authorities. But overall, he just was so out of control, and his arguments got so self serving, and his out of context cut and pastes got so tiresome, that this is the outcome. Quite frankly he got off easy. Joe actually stood up for Shambles. I was, and am, in favor of banning him and deleting any posts he puts up. I have been overruled on this.

Mick


19 Oct 06 - 10:13 AM (#1863196)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If you are claiming that individuals do not have the "right" to impose their views about you, then you do not have the right to post your views about any change you would like to see in the way this system operates.

Ron - you will accept that there is a difference between you or I simply posting to expressing a view or making a suggestion on this or any other subject - to when some anonymous fellow poster - not only judges our post as wanting in some way but imposes that judgement, by taking some form of action?

But talking of 'rights' will lead us to contentious areas.

The latter example now seems to be generally accepted as some form of 'right'. But posters do not now seem to have ANY 'rights' at all on our forum. I can't help feeling that they once used to......

The latter may well be a 'right' - but I am less concerned about it being a 'right' than I am concerned about the effects of being seen to so ready to exercise that 'right'. As its main protagonists now publicly question its effectiveness - it may be a time for posters to seriously examine and discuss what I consider to be the counter - productive effects of this - before we just plough on?

It would seem to me that those who wish to be surounded only by like-minded posters - in order to express personal judgements about - really do need a members only forum. But that it does NOT follow that our forum must be changed to accomodate those wishes. I feel it is time that the tension cause by this uncertainty of the future direction of our forum is finally settled.

Either Max is happy for our forum to be led by (some of) our 'moderators' towards a change to members only posting or it needs to be made clear to those calling for this (and to our forum) to be informed that this is NOT going to happen.


19 Oct 06 - 10:22 AM (#1863201)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

There are many opinions and statements about people that are disgusting and have been left on the boards. Shambles, although he disagrees with aspects of the forum's editing, has never been rude to people. Contrary to what you say, Mick, there are instances where mods have taken arguments from this thread and carried them over to others. Eoither Shambles is entitled to his opinion or he isn't. That alternative is NOT that he should then be entitled to my opinion, your opinion or someone else's opinion. There is no alternative. Ban Shambles and I will forward a request to Joe that he also ban me completely, because it may as well be that way. Shambles has done nothing for which he deserves to be banned--other than piss you off. Don't pretend to support a fairly harmless form of free speech such as is often exemplified on this forum when at the same time you try your best to quell it.

The consistent posting from many mods has given Shambles a great deal of air time. Take a good look at yourselves before you slag Shambles. If you want to do something constructive, get to the 85 billion thread. Do it there. We welcome any and all posts, even from mods.


19 Oct 06 - 10:22 AM (#1863202)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

'Either Max is happy for our forum to be led by (some of) our 'moderators' towards a change to members only posting or it needs to be made clear to those calling for this (and to our forum) to be informed that this is NOT going to happen"

Once again you appear to be dictating to Max how he should run his site. He is under no obligation to inform the posters of this site what he plans or may plan to do. He has not yet made the forum members only - and while he may or may not have plans to do so in the future it is his decision. Just as it was his decision to appoint moderators.


19 Oct 06 - 10:24 AM (#1863205)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

Peace says:Shambles, although he disagrees with aspects of the forum's editing, has never been rude to people" - not true. There is a difference between rude and crude. I will admit that the shambles is careful to not be crude - but more then one person will admit to feeling he is not only rude but calculatedly so.


19 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM (#1863212)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5


19 Oct 06 - 11:30 AM (#1863257)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

PS I don't doubt that my being banned would give about a dozen people their jollies for the day. That's just the way that is. But banning Shambles because he disagrees with the way moderation is carried out is a method of eventually controlling all posts and shaping them as some people wish.

I have not seen the rudeness, MMario. (Not over this issue I should clarify.) I have seen some rudeness directed at Shambles. You have too if you have been following this thread. Please address that also.


19 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM (#1863266)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

Peace - if you haven't seen rudeness from the Shambles you haven't been following the issue long enough to even begin to understand it. That is fact.

I do not excuse my own or others rudeness to him; but to claim he has never been rude to others on this forum is just an out and out falsehood.


19 Oct 06 - 11:43 AM (#1863275)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Bcak up a bit fella. I was saying I have seen no rudeness from Shambles on this thread, NOT on this forum. You want to call me a liar about it, do so. But for fuck's sake, call me a liar for something I said, NOT something I didn't.


19 Oct 06 - 11:47 AM (#1863282)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

my apologies Peace - this thread is the culmination of **SIX YEARS** of the same issue. We were talking apples and oranges.


19 Oct 06 - 11:52 AM (#1863287)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Mick, I agree with your points. I believe that I am a fairly patient person, and I too have flown off the handle. I also agree that the names of the people you mentioned (yourself included) are some of the most reasonable and level headed people on Mudcat. When I see posts from those individuals, I take notice.

Yet, as you say, all of us have become upset with Shambles posts. I think it is because of the tactics he uses and what seems to be a case of him not listening to what we are trying to say.   He becomes very defensive and seems to have a need to justify every single point he makes.   When Shambles says something like "Either Max is happy for our forum to be led by (some of) our 'moderators' towards a change to members only posting or it needs to be made clear to those calling for this (and to our forum) to be informed that this is NOT going to happen" - that should be the end of the story. He made his point, he is not adding anything new to his arguements, and the rest of us get frustrated.

I do think that some of his points are well taken.   I do think he can be annoying.   I also think that all of us who are posting and continue adding to the discussion have a touch of the same problems that we blame Shambles for having.

We can't seem to let the issue rest, we keep coming back, we keep repeating ourselves. Are we that different from Shambles??


19 Oct 06 - 11:58 AM (#1863295)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Emma B

After 1148 posts it is a real pleasure to see people taking cogent and objective stands, admit their own shortcomings, being prepared to acknowledge misunderstandings AND apologize - perhaps there is hope yet......


19 Oct 06 - 12:12 PM (#1863304)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Hey, MMario--it's cool. (That's an old expression from the 1960s. It means it's ok, no prob, back atcha, sorry for the misunderstanding, screw the goat--wait, screw the goat is from a Scottish thread. Sorry. Anyway, not to worry.)


19 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM (#1863428)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

He made his point, he is not adding anything new to his arguements, and the rest of us get frustrated.

You get frustrated?

At least I am making a point for discussion. You don't even have to read it - why should you be frustrated?

Do we get one? We then we get a post just accusing me of being rude. Providing no evidence for this and totally ignoring all of the offensive personal judgements and name-calling that I am subjected to and not protected from as if it was of no consequence. It would be had I indulged in anything like this.

Perhaps I am due some little credit for not responding in kind?

For one of the main culprits then justifies all this and describes the posters and 'moderators' responsible for setting this example of posting behaviour as gentle, good natured, intelligent and decent posters!

If you are frustrated or bored - then leave the subject to some newer posters who may be prepared to discuss the issue - rather than be obsessed with simply judging personalities.


19 Oct 06 - 02:08 PM (#1863440)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shambles, you are not interpreting my comments in the way I meant them. I am not judging personalitites - are you?

Yes, we get frustrated, and it is obvious that you get frustrated as well.

You are making a point for discussion, which as you say we don't have to read. However, assuming that you meant it when you say you post to have a discussion, our frustration comes when it appears that you ignore or never seem to acknowledge that our points could have some validity.   Your steadfast insistence on re-posting and continually arguing your case should probably be admired, but instead in results in frustration because there does not seem to be a discussion.


19 Oct 06 - 03:09 PM (#1863491)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

You are rude. You may not couch it in filthy language, but you are rude nonetheless. It reminds me of the child that doesn't listen, and talks over everyone in the room. Your rudeness extends to taking quotes out of context, years old, hijacking threads, and refusing to accept Max's right to run the site as he sees fit. Your rudeness includes making petty arguments over whether the volunteers here have the right to modify thread names for clarity sake. I could go on and on.

You surely are rude, but as Mario says, you just don't do it in a crude fashion.

Mick


19 Oct 06 - 07:43 PM (#1863714)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

You forgot to put IMO mick.

Many don't find shambles rude. I find him witty and extremely gracious. You don't agree with him. You are as obsessed as his other VERY FEW detractors and regularly have to post to tell us all to stop responding.

Jeri summed you and your merry band up best.

You admit if it was your call you would ban him.It really grates on you that you do not have the power to do that. You should be able to get a grip on this one and move on and stop opening this thread.


19 Oct 06 - 08:40 PM (#1863750)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Fair enough. You are absolutely correct. That is simply my opinion. I would correct you on a few minor points. It doesn't grate me that I can't ban Roger. I have made my opinion known, and I am fine with whatever decision is ultimately made.

As to Jeri, she is entitled to her opinion as well. We may be friends, but we don't agree on everything.

One of Shambles tactics is to twist the truth to serve his arguments. He does this with out of context quotes, etc. Sometimes he gets so caught up in his crusade he ends up arguing both sides. Just because I am a moderator does not take away my ability to have an opinion. I stay out of most of this back and forth, but occasionally I think it is important to point out misstatements.

As to your opinion of me, nothing has changed nor do I expect it to. All I have to do is wait and you will cease to be able to take your sniper shots from the bushes of anonymity. I can do that.

Mick


20 Oct 06 - 04:32 AM (#1863949)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

It's sadly all about misplaced power with you.


20 Oct 06 - 07:24 AM (#1864043)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

However, assuming that you meant it when you say you post to have a discussion, our frustration comes when it appears that you ignore or never seem to acknowledge that our points could have some validity.   Your steadfast insistence on re-posting and continually arguing your case should probably be admired, but instead in results in frustration because there does not seem to be a discussion.

There is just about discussion here, despite the recipes, jokes etc and the attempts to make the whole discussion cetre around the worth of one individual poster. However, there may not be total agreement. But should there be?

I am not sure that I try to carry on posting my views to be admired - do you?

However, in reply to your point, it is necessary to repeat arguments from time to time - both in reply to posts and for the benefit of those posters who may not be as obsessed as others and to which these points will be new. And there are lots of aspect to this discussion, probably too many for one thread.

But if we find that threads and posts that others may admire - bore or frustrate us - should we then blame the other posters for our boredom and frustration ? Or should we just accept that there are all tastes and move on to another thread? Or should we been seen to try to shout-down and remove those posters who may bore and frustrate us?

Ron - are 'you' not equally frustrated by those posters and 'moderators' who are seen to encourge the idea they have some right to be seen to publicy judge another named poster? And to to be seen to do this on regular basis with a view to preventing discussion and with the aim of bullying them into agreement, into silence or off of our forum completely?

I know that I am. But I accept that I have no control over the posting of others. And no matter how frustrating I may get - perhaps you will accept that I do not respond in kind to these. I have found your views and actions to be frustrating but have I questioned your mental health or made any personal judgements of your worth?

Many posters here appear to pay only lip-service to the idea that posters are free to express their view. Perhaps you would agree that this remains the whole point - no matter how frustrating you may find it in practice?

In the course of this discussion I have accepted many points and agreed with many other posters - I have found that the level of my regular detractors frustration does not appear to relax any as a result of any agreement shown on my part. You may be different.

On the contrary, I have found that this frustration actually looks to increase - in the unlikely event that some other poster does make a contribution to the discussion - one that is not limited only to a post making some personal judgement of me. Or heaven forbid - a post that could be viewed as providing any sort of support to any of my views........That really raises the frustration level - if the resulting increase of posted one-line judgements and recipes are any guide.

I try to carry on posting - in the face of this (largely engineered) frustrated reaction against it, partly to show that the problems raised and the many suggestions made to solve them will not be examined - if a certain few of our fellow posters are not in favour of them. The same few who now appear to be set on engineering a change to members only posting.

Hopefully this will show that as long as a poster does not provide any grounds for Max to ban them - EVERY POSTER MUST ACCEPT THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO PUBLICLY CALL FOR ANY FORM OF CENSORSHIP ACTION TO BE IMPOSED ON THE POSTING OF ANOTHER NAMED POSTER.

If (as Max informs us) this site is about happiness - the encouragment of posts only containing judgements of the worth of other named posters - by the example currently being set on our forum - can only result in the very opposite of this happiness.

I have found that there is little need for for me to respond to Mick's posts (in kind or at all). These posts demonstrate the basis for MY argument - far more eloquently than I can ever manage.


20 Oct 06 - 12:14 PM (#1864339)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

We can't seem to let the issue rest, we keep coming back, we keep repeating ourselves. Are we that different from Shambles??

Yes Ron. Some of 'us' are far worse and in fact those who are most obsessional about posting only personal judgements about me and other named posters and who feel they have some right to set this example - have a far worse posting record than me - for which there is little shortage of evidence.

Ron - You will not see any evidence placed here to support my detractors claims about what a terrible poster I have been - simply because there IS NONE. If there was - do you really think that the ace pedants among my detractors would not have provided it by now?

Perhaps Ron you will now accept that all this is a completely BOGUS attempt to distract attention from the real issues. There is certainly a public enemy that has been 'fingered' - but there is no evidence of any proportionate 'crime' to support such a label?

It not that my posts are any more repetive, or boring than anyone else's. The fact is that a very few poster (following the lead of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) do not approve of me expressing my views and have used every tactic they can justify (and many they can't) to try and prevent this.

That this attempt has turned into the 'distraction' it is seen to be by our host - is entirely due the abuse of privilege by those who have been seen to lead this attempt.

It may not make me very popular with some on our forum but I can do little or nothing about this, except try to continue to post in spite of this attempt to prevent it and to point this out to our forum, in the hope that it will finally be addressed. But before it can be addressed - it first has to be recognised for what it is.

For at the heart of this (also commented on by our host) is a simple personal disagreement between two long-term posters. Niether of whom wish to be subjected to any form of judgement - one who has no wish to impose their judgement on other posters and one who does.


20 Oct 06 - 12:24 PM (#1864349)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

Shambles - what you appear to be saying in your last post is this:

I want to tell Max how to run his site and will continue to post until he does it my way.

If this is untrue - could you please explain to me how complainng about the procedures max has established and the personel he has chosen to impliment them and demanding they be changed is differnt then what I have stated?


20 Oct 06 - 12:40 PM (#1864358)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

mmario why don't you address that one to mick. He wants max to ban guest postings. Is mick also at fault for not allowing max to run his site as he chose?


20 Oct 06 - 12:44 PM (#1864359)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

Mick hasn't publicly claimed to not want to tell Max how to run his site. In fact, Mick has publicly stated that he and Max differ in opinion and Max is doing what Max wants.

the shambles has been complaining about the way Max runs his site for six years - but also claims to not want to tell max how to run his site. Then demands changes in the way Max runs things. I just want to know how he reconciles the two actions - or whether he is willing to admit that he DOES want to tell Max how to run his site.


20 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM (#1864362)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I want to tell Max how to run his site and will continue to post until he does it my way.

MMario - the above are your words not mine. But so what? If they are my views - they are only my views.

As you know my concern is NOT how Max runs his website - my concern is only our forum.

I could equally say that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is effectively saying, by his public posting - I will continue to moan on about peace being impossible until Max finally changes our forum to members only.   

Perhaps you could tell our forum what the difference is. Except that one is supposed to be seen to be using their best efforts to make Max's currenly preferred posting policy work.


20 Oct 06 - 12:50 PM (#1864365)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Amos

It not that my posts are any more repetive, or boring than anyone else's

Yes, it is, Roger. They are, by far. This is not something you care to face up to, nor to change, but it is so, I can assure you.

A


20 Oct 06 - 01:00 PM (#1864373)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

I would respectfully suggest that the difference might be that Joe IS moderator of this forum as appointed by Max - who owns the forum and all content on the forum. And he is doing his job.

You cannot seperate the forum from max's website. it is part of Max's website - it is wholly owned by Max and Max reserves the right to edit, delete, move etc any posting or thread etc, etc, etc. Joe is a moderator of the forum and operates by appointment by Max as Max's proxy.

BTW - I didn't say those were your words - I said that was what you appeared to be saying.

Am I correct or incorrect?

Because if You are not saying (in paraphrase) "I want to tell Max how to run his site and will continue to post until he does it my way" a lot of people have totally misunderstood your postings for a long time and clarification is necessary.


20 Oct 06 - 01:05 PM (#1864377)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Yes, it is, Roger. They are, by far. This is not something you care to face up to, nor to change, but it is so, I can assure you.

I'm sure you have posted that judgement that before......have I ever posted a similar judgement of you?

Amos if I were the most repetitive and boring poster and I were to admit this - would that be grounds to restrict, prevent my posting and get me banned?

If it were - perhaps many other will be similally judged and subject to the same treatment.


20 Oct 06 - 01:13 PM (#1864386)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shambles, you asked a number of questions in your posts of 7:24am and 12:14pm. Let me try to respond

No
No
No
Yes
maybe, but "shout down" is open to interpretation by the reader
yes
yes
no - and how have my views had that effect on you?
not sure
open to interpreation
I do not understand the question as you posed it.


20 Oct 06 - 01:16 PM (#1864388)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

"I will continue to moan on about peace being impossible until Max finally changes our forum to members only."

Roger - does that mean that the "campaign" stops when the Mudcat becomes a members only forum?


20 Oct 06 - 01:26 PM (#1864394)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Roger - does that mean that the "campaign" stops when the Mudcat becomes a members only forum?

The only campaign on our forum - will have then suceeded in its aim.


20 Oct 06 - 01:39 PM (#1864404)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

Roger - it appears to me - in my opinion - that you don't like to answer direct questions. So let me ask you this: If the Mudcat were to become a members only forum - if Max were to institute that change - would you continue to post here?


20 Oct 06 - 04:30 PM (#1864557)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

How about closing this thread or deleting about 1200 posts?


21 Oct 06 - 08:07 AM (#1864978)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You are making a point for discussion, which as you say we don't have to read. However, assuming that you meant it when you say you post to have a discussion, our frustration comes when it appears that you ignore or never seem to acknowledge that our points could have some validity.   Your steadfast insistence on re-posting and continually arguing your case should probably be admired, but instead in results in frustration because there does not seem to be a discussion.

It would be nice if the discussion could move on to the issue - rather than continue to focus on one named poster - for this IS only the distraction to the issue itself . But the following post demonstrates well some of the reasons for the above perception.

Roger - it appears to me - in my opinion - that you don't like to answer direct questions. So let me ask you this: If the Mudcat were to become a members only forum - if Max were to institute that change - would you continue to post here?

If I don't provide an answer - in the eyes of some posters - I will confirm the accusation that I don't like to answer direct questions. And if I do answer - in the eyes of some posters - I will be seen be repeating myself. Which is the worst?

Rather like MMario's posts - which ignore everything else and wants only repeat the point made many times - that I have stated that I have no interest in running Max's site and that he sees some conflict in this, between my position towards our forum. As if making this small point (yet again) is the most important aspect of this discussion.

My position towards a change to a members only site can be clearly seen in this thread and the many others that Wesley S has contributed to. He appears to want me to repeat it (which will only provide more ammunition for that charge) so he can (again) make the point that if I will not be interested in posting to this changed forum - that will be a good reason alone for its introduction.......

So you can see that with the same few posters ignoring the main issue and concentrating on scoring personal points and with them accusing me of not answering direct questions, if I should avoid answering them again - there may not appear to be much progress in this discussion.

Yes it is frustrating. However there IS some slow progress - and being able to continue a discussion on this subject at all - is an end in itself.


21 Oct 06 - 08:12 AM (#1864980)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Amos if I were the most repetitive and boring poster and I were to admit this - would that be grounds to restrict, prevent my posting and get me banned?

Amos - it appears to me - in my opinion - that you don't like to answer direct questions.


21 Oct 06 - 09:58 AM (#1865029)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

" It would be nice if the discussion could move on to the issue "

That is very true, but don't forget you made a point about yourself and then asked me a question to which I responded. If you are going to drift the thread, you can't complain when people follow.

All of my comments were meant as constructive criticism and not a reflection on your worth. As you have posted, I am not being rude or attacking you. Wouldn't you agree that all of us have faults?

I don't want to cloud the discussion any further. If you truly wish to keep this on topic, you would not respond in public to the negative comments about you and defer all comments and responses of the type to private messages.


21 Oct 06 - 11:46 AM (#1865079)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Ron - can you tell me why 'moderators' who have publicly stated here they are not in favour of a change to members only posting - would allow the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (who is in favour of this change) - to publicly speak for them?

If you can't tell me perhaps they will tell us?


21 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM (#1865167)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Damn.
All this time, I thought I was speaking for myself - at least on my proposal for members-only posting.
-Joe Offer-


21 Oct 06 - 03:05 PM (#1865212)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

It is sad that the use by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team of words like 'I' - 'we' - 'our - 'us' - does not any longer refer to all of our forum'. All these words now refer to and are used to speak for the actions of an unspecified few.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

It is pretty clear that the reference to 'our best efforts' and the stated shortcomings of these collective efforts are referring to and speaking on behalf of all of those involved in these efforts.

For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change
Joe Offer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?

-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
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.
------
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
------
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-
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.
-Joe Offer-


21 Oct 06 - 03:23 PM (#1865222)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Say "Goodnight Gracie."

"Goodnight, Gracie."


21 Oct 06 - 06:03 PM (#1865280)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

"And THAT'S the way it is,"

""Good night David. Good night Chet"


sIx


21 Oct 06 - 06:16 PM (#1865287)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Goodnight'Grandpa. Goodnight,Grandma. Goodnight,John. Goodnight,Olivia. Goodnight,John-Boy. Goodnight,Jason. Goodnight,Ben. Goodnight,Jim-Bob. Goodnight,Mary-Ellen. Goodnight,Erin. Goodnight,Elizabeth. Goodnight,Curt. Goodnight,John-Curtis. Goodnight,Cindy. Goodnight,Ginny. Goodnight,Baldwin Sisters. Goodnight,Yancy. Goodnight,Ike. Goodnight,Corabeth. Goodnight,Aimee.


21 Oct 06 - 07:10 PM (#1865318)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

That is where I disagree with you Shambles. I think Joe has every right to speak for himself, and I don't think his actions have set any influence or directed actions to meet his suggestion. True, I don't think I would have voiced an opinion but he did, and so what?

Personally, I think you both should take this outside and settle it in the schoolyard so the rest of us can back to our studies.


21 Oct 06 - 09:03 PM (#1865371)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

"Good night, and good luck."

I think Ed would have that right with this thread.

sIx


22 Oct 06 - 08:05 AM (#1865557)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

That is where I disagree with you Shambles. I think Joe has every right to speak for himself, and I don't think his actions have set any influence or directed actions to meet his suggestion. True, I don't think I would have voiced an opinion but he did, and so what?

As a fellow poster - of course this individual has everyright to speak for himself in as many threads as he wishes to (unlike me) and he does this.

But this was not the point being made - was it? It was this individual being seen to be speaking for others.

You may not judge this have set any influence or directed actions to meet his suggestions - but I have a different view. But perhaps you will accept the intention to incite is there - whether any posters take any notice of it or not.....?

In this role of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - both in editing comments and in posts here and on the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum - and by the use of words like 'we' 'us' 'our' etc, this poster is seen to speak on behalf of others. Which quite understandably, will then be seen by many posters as an official Mudcat line.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's favoured private agenda of a change to members only posting of BS and of him first approving any music related posts - does NOT currently appear to be the official line (although the way it is being pushed publicly by some of our 'moderators', it will come as little surprise if it does come to pass).

It is not an agenda that appears to be shared by all of our 'moderators' but it is an agenda pushed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team as the only solution the the problems on our forum that he now appears to see as insurmountable, without such a radical change.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

No - I for one do not agree with that statement - nor the only suggested solution to it - do you? But can any poster who does not agree and who values Max's open invitation for the public's open contribution and wishes for it to continue - really accept that this policy is in safe hands?

Given the push for this agenda - can posters really be expected to trust that our current 'moderator's' best efforts are being made to make Max's current posting policy work? Or could they reasonably suspect these best efforts are being made to demonstrate that it cannot?


22 Oct 06 - 08:26 AM (#1865567)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

I'm trying to stay away from this circular thread, as all it does is rehash all the same old arguments, comes to no conclusions and never will, and most of the people concerned don't take any notice of what the other contributors say.
Roger won't change anything about how the Mudcat is run, and may in fact be the single largest factor in any decision to go to a members only posting scenario. Especially as he seems to attract more Guests than any other contributor, and I know for a fact that many of those Guests are Mudcat members.
Anyway, having posted when I know I shouldn't bother as it is a waste of cyber space, I will tell you why I came back to this thread.
I have discovered a new word which perfectly describes this thread, along with it's main subject and contributor, the word is...........

BOREGASMIC !


Giok


22 Oct 06 - 09:47 AM (#1865608)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Sorry Shambles, I have to disagree with you. I do think that Joe might have been better served if he did not make his feelings about you known publicly to eliminate the appearance of "mis-use" of his authority.   I don't think he has done anything wrong other than deal with people as human beings. His emotions are just like any of us.

I also think that you have the opportunity to post your views in other forums, but you have been instructed not to discuss your views about this particular subject in threads other than this. Is it right or wrong? I am not sure. Is it the result of lengthy disagreements that have boiled over for years? Yes. It really should be a private matter.

Giok is right. This has become a circular discussion. I am sure you are going to knock apart the above two paragraphs that I wrote by using quotes gathered over the last 7 years in an attempt to disprove my views.   That is your choice. This ceased to be a fruitful discussion a long time ago. My posting and the postings of others probably say more about our own faults then it does yours. The point is, we all have faults. Mudcat is not a forum where lives are at stake, or our freedom of speech.   We are human beings and like the music that draws us to this site, we wear our emotions on our sleeves. We do not have to read any thread, we do not have to post. Yet human nature draws us to these subjects. We like to see our words in print. We blow off steam by calling people names, knowing that we will never have to face that person and deal with it honestly. We cower under the cloak of anonymity which allows us to be something we aren't.

To make my rambling short - we make mistakes. We deal with it. Live goes on and harping on problems of minor consequence only dulls our senses for the real important issues.   I realize that you feel this is an important issue Shambles, but I hope someday you will realize that even though you have a good case, it isn't worth wasting an effort.


22 Oct 06 - 11:04 AM (#1865651)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I don't think he has done anything wrong other than deal with people as human beings. His emotions are just like any of us.

The issue is not who has or who has not done anything wrong. For I hope that none of us would claim to be perfect?

What matters is the effect on our forum of - what has been seen to be done and the way this is seen to be done.

Our 'moderators' have largely been able to do as they wish - but they refuse to take any responsiblity for the result - which they go on to describe as. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

Ron - I don't agree with this - do you?

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

I do think that Joe might have been better served if he did not make his feelings about you known publicly to eliminate the appearance of "mis-use" of his authority.

Ron - you slip this in as if this were a minor criticism and if it were of little or no account and just to be accepted - when it is the main cause of all of this, and badly needs to be adressed and corrected. Perhaps you would accept that a start could be made by removing the special restrictions on my posting?

All posters must be seen to be receiving equal treatment from any 'moderator'. Otherwise none of them have any protection from any accusation from posters that these 'moderators' have "mis-used" their authority.

For not only are these personal views, assumptions and speculations about possible motivations made known - in posts and editing comments - they are also seen to be acted upon.

If the personal feelings of our 'moderators' about any named posters were not made public on our forum - other posters would not feel that it was acceptable posting behaviour to follow this example by posting only their personal judgements of named fellow posters. BUT THIS EXAMPLE WAS SET - AND IT CONTINUES. It is no form of solution to anything and will only further and quite needlessly divide our forum, should it be allowed to continue.


22 Oct 06 - 11:38 AM (#1865675)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ron, You keep falling for Shambles' baiting and engaging him in a discussion that you will never win or even score points in.

Shambles, Why can't you understand that almost everyone here just doesn't care about your views. No one will ever change anything because you are the one asking them to do it. It's like in the Broadway show 1776, no one would do anything that John Adams wanted because Adams was obnoxious, a bore, a pest and just totally unpleasant to be with. Does that sound familiar?


22 Oct 06 - 11:43 AM (#1865683)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Groundhog Day?


22 Oct 06 - 12:57 PM (#1865728)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Like I said Shambles, there is nothing further to debate. I've already answered all your questions and points. I've already stated which points of yours I agree with and which ones I don't. No sense in repeating myself, yet again.


22 Oct 06 - 01:03 PM (#1865730)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

FYI


23 Oct 06 - 05:53 AM (#1866294)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I don't think he has done anything wrong other than deal with people as human beings. His emotions are just like any of us.

I certainly appear to have been judged as having done something wrong - as I am under some punishment for this. Have I?

Do you think then that I HAVE done something wrong - in trying to engage in discussion? For unlike many who would feel qualified to judge me - I have not encouraged the example of posting only abusive personal attacks and name-calling - no matter how high my emotions may be running or how frustrated I may have become.

It is not only possible for posters to do this - it is vital that our 'moderators' are not to be seen to indulge in this. It is just as vital that such posting from them - is not seen to be excused. Especially when the consequences for other posters are to be seen so severe.

Ron - you appear to me to be supporting a unfair and unequal double standard of posting behaviour. One that to my mind is responsible for all of the things on our forum that our current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team now finds fault with and has led him to state: And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion

Do you agree with that statement or not? For I have asked you twice and if you have answered - I have not seen this answer.

My view is that until drastic change happens and a more positive example of posting behaviour is set by our 'moderators' our forum will just reflect the current negative example back.

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-


Can you? I suggest the first thing is for 'moderators' not to be seen to be indulging in conflict on our forum with individual named posters. For if you wave a red rag at a bull - you can hardly be surprised at the bull's reaction.


23 Oct 06 - 06:39 AM (#1866317)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

A load of bullocks?


23 Oct 06 - 09:25 AM (#1866414)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"Do you agree with that statement or not? For I have asked you twice and if you have answered - I have not seen this answer."

Come on Shambles. Don't be upset that Ron didn't answer you. You're the one who always avoids answering direct questions. Are you now expecting a double standard from someone else?


23 Oct 06 - 09:40 AM (#1866427)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Shambles, I have already answered your questions. Please refer back to my posts that are found among the nearly 1200 posts to this thread.


23 Oct 06 - 10:18 AM (#1866469)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"For if you wave a red rag at a bull - you can hardly be surprised at the bull's reaction."

Any rag actually. Bulls are colour blind I think.


23 Oct 06 - 10:24 AM (#1866478)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

It's a metaphor Bruce!


23 Oct 06 - 10:28 AM (#1866480)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

I've never cared for metaphors myself. I prefer the giant economy size metaphives instead.

Spaw


23 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM (#1866484)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: JennyO

I never metaphor I didn't like.


23 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM (#1866485)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

But I am going.................

Spaw


23 Oct 06 - 10:35 AM (#1866486)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

to go for it and get...........


23 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM (#1866488)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

1200

Spaw


23 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM (#1866489)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

1200


23 Oct 06 - 10:38 AM (#1866492)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Damn, just missed screwing you up. Shit!!!!!


23 Oct 06 - 10:39 AM (#1866493)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Make that Lane and Swan then?


23 Oct 06 - 10:40 AM (#1866494)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

Had it all planned out....multiple windows and all......I NEVER play this game because I never get close or I have to add 4 or 5 posts.....But since this is such a complete POS thread anyway.....WTF!!!!!

Spaw


23 Oct 06 - 10:44 AM (#1866498)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

1205


23 Oct 06 - 10:45 AM (#1866499)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

1206


23 Oct 06 - 10:45 AM (#1866500)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

1207


23 Oct 06 - 10:48 AM (#1866502)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

15:48 here


23 Oct 06 - 01:16 PM (#1866588)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"What's a metaphor?"

Hell, I don't even know what a meta IS!


23 Oct 06 - 01:19 PM (#1866591)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Shambles, I have already answered your questions. Please refer back to my posts that are found among the nearly 1200 posts to this thread.

No harm in repeating it. For if you did provide it. I honestly don't know what it was. Perhaps for purposes of discussion - someone else may like to provide their answer?

Do you agree with the following statement? Which given the radical change to our forum which is suggested to solve it - is a crucial one.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

My view is that if anything is wrong it can easily be solved. As it is largely as a result of these efforts. Which are now seen to to limit and shape our forum to the wishes of a few posters, rather than be seen to enable our forum to accomodate many and varied requirements of the the majority.

I also consider that the public push to change our forum even further to a members only forum - is just the latest piece of limiting and shaping by a few posters to their requirements. And the statement - just another tactic by these few to achieve this end.

If those who make this statement and those who support them - really feel this our forum is now so poor- no one is forcing them to stay on our forum and not be able to be able to goof off or not be able to have a good discussion.

And as most of their efforts (on this thread) seem to be designed to prevent good discussion rather than contributing to this one - should they leave to start their own private members club - their presence on this discussion forum will not be missed.


23 Oct 06 - 01:56 PM (#1866611)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Can't hold a discussion with someone who will only answer those questions that suit them, and ignore all others.


23 Oct 06 - 01:57 PM (#1866612)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Yes, there is harm in repeating my views again, which are very evident elsewhere in this thread.


23 Oct 06 - 02:00 PM (#1866613)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

I ask you to clarify your point and you say that the question is irrelevant to the discussion?


23 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM (#1866615)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

MMario & Giok - are you directing your last posts to me? I believe I answered questions and clarified my points numerous times.


23 Oct 06 - 02:03 PM (#1866616)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

"If those who make this statement and those who support them - really feel this our forum is now so poor- no one is forcing them to stay on our forum and not be able to be able to goof off or not be able to have a good discussion.

And as most of their efforts (on this thread) seem to be designed to prevent good discussion rather than contributing to this one - should they leave to start their own private members club - their presence on this discussion forum will not be missed. "

What about you Shambles? You're the one who is doing the most complaining on "our" forum. Perhaps you should consider leaving and starting your own non-edited, say-whatever-you-want forum.


23 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM (#1866628)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario

sorry ron, no my remark was directed at the Shambles.


23 Oct 06 - 02:21 PM (#1866630)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

and mine


23 Oct 06 - 02:24 PM (#1866632)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Thanks. Just checking!!   :)   It gets confusing.


23 Oct 06 - 02:49 PM (#1866651)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

If you truly wish to keep this on topic, you would not respond in public to the negative comments about you and defer all comments and responses of the type to private messages.

Ron - If posters were not encouraged to post only such negative comments - as if this could pass as discussion - I would have nothing to respond to and for you to judge me amiss for?

Perhaps you could ask that posters do not post only such things and refrain from this yourself?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-


Can you think of any other suggestions?


23 Oct 06 - 02:52 PM (#1866655)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Here's a novel idea for you. Let it go.


23 Oct 06 - 02:55 PM (#1866658)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"Here's a novel idea for you. Let it go."

Neat idea for a book. Good title, too.


23 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM (#1866659)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Please do not cloud the discussion Shambles, and please do not put words in other peoples mouths. I did judge you "amiss". You should also state that it is your view concerning who is encouraging what sort of negative comment.   Nor do I have a reason to refrain either since my discussion is not of the same substance or concern.

I think the suggestion of members only posting has great merit.


23 Oct 06 - 03:12 PM (#1866663)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

I do not see what is wrong with members' only posting in BS. Would you please explain that, Shambles? I fail to see how that restricts free speech.


23 Oct 06 - 03:13 PM (#1866665)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I think the suggestion of members only posting has great merit.

Can you think of any other suggestions - for our forum?

If this is still a place to goof off and have a good conversation - why should our forum be changed so radically from the posting policy that Max has followed from the beginning?


23 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM (#1866673)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

"why should our forum be changed so radically from the posting policy that Max has followed from the beginning?"

Because things change. It's not the same forum it was 6 or 7 years ago. If Max wants to change HIS forum he can. And we can either like it or leave. Max hasn't asked me - and I doubt he will - but I'd like to see his Mudcat become a members only forum.


23 Oct 06 - 03:26 PM (#1866677)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

I do not see what is wrong with members' only posting in BS. Would you please explain that, Shambles? I fail to see how that restricts free speech.

Our forum has managed without this for 10 years - firstly is there any evidence that this proposed change (or anything at all) would bring about the peace required on our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

And if anyone is not happy with the current posting policy - what is preventing them from starting a forum with whatever policy they wish?

But that is only half of the proposed change. Because as a result of this change, non members unable to post BS, would then be free to post on the music section - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has offered to first review any post there before it appears on the forum.


23 Oct 06 - 03:27 PM (#1866678)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

No I can't think of any better suggestions.

The answer to your second question has been previously given, and my opinion doesn't matter anyway. It also has no bearing on whether or not there should be changes.   Change does not necessarily need to be made to "fix" something.

Plus, it is not "our" forum.   Damn.. I said that before.


23 Oct 06 - 03:32 PM (#1866681)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

"Our forum has managed without this for 10 years - firstly is there any evidence that this proposed change (or anything at all) would bring about the peace required on our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?"

Along with many others Roger!

I know you like to blame Joe for everything that you don't like on Mudcat, but your statement is misleading. As your statements often are!


23 Oct 06 - 03:32 PM (#1866682)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

" is there any evidence that this proposed change (or anything at all) would bring about the peace required on our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? "

Evidence is not required to try something new.

"what is preventing them from starting a forum with whatever policy they wish?"
That question has no relevance. What does starting a different forum have to do with this one?    Change can still occur here.


23 Oct 06 - 03:35 PM (#1866683)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

My I offer {pun intended} a suggestion? Perhaps the term "the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team " should be changed to "Max's chosen moderator". It would be more accurate.


23 Oct 06 - 03:45 PM (#1866690)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Roger likes to think of Joe as a temporary appointee, it makes his Quixotic campaign seem a bit less pointless.
G.


23 Oct 06 - 05:34 PM (#1866739)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

That question has no relevance. What does starting a different forum have to do with this one?    Change can still occur here.

It is of course perfectly relevent. As for some time now, the first response encouraged to be made to any poster who would dare to make a suggestion for any improvement (that the few didn't not want implemented) - would be to tell that poster that if they did not like our forum - they were welcome to go elsewhere.

It is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who is publicly saying the following - And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

If this is the case - should he and those who agree with this be the ones to go elsewhere to indulge in the (questionable) merits of a private members club? For if our forum IS still judged to be a place to goof off and have a good discussion - there is no reason to change it - is there?

So is it or not?

We are back to our football game where the referees, are not satisfied with making up their own rules as they go along, being able to send players off but who now wish to kick the ball and join the teams and want to turn it into a diffrent ball game altogether.

Perhaps it is time to stop humouring such referees, accept that they will NEVER be satisfied and start enjoying the game without them?


23 Oct 06 - 05:43 PM (#1866746)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

To use another analogy we might say that the referees - appointed by the president of the league - have gone to dinner and ordered fish for dinner. However the private dining establishment they have gone to wants to serve them beef instead. So in a huff they decide to ride orange bicyles across town and have Tex-Mex food and pizza instead.

But wait - while eating pizza their bicyles are stolen and they have to ride the bus home. Whereupon they feed their tropical fish and go to bed. And in the morning they have blueberry muffins for breakfast. With coffee and green beans.


23 Oct 06 - 07:32 PM (#1866811)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

Excellent Wes!!! That's the first sensible analogy I've read here.

See, then you can alter it easily and see that if the Columbian supplying the coffee and Redneck supplying the green beans have a discussion and decide to jointly raise avocados the bus driver will have to revert to feeding the tropical fish and the cat which arrived after the kids left.

Really works doesn't it? Just the kind of thing that the Piss&Moanmeister can understand as it resembles many of his own postings!

Spaw


23 Oct 06 - 09:05 PM (#1866851)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

" there is no reason to change it - is there? "

There is no reason except for the choice to make changes for the sake of change. The host of this party can do whatever he wishes, should he choose. Nothing ANY of brings up including whatever chief cook and bottle washer on duty suggests, means anything.   Whatever suggestion is ultimately implemented or left alone is up to the host.

This discussion is getting to be like discussing the pros and cons of the sun burning itself out. Not a damn thing any of us can do except for complain.


24 Oct 06 - 02:33 AM (#1866981)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Not a damn thing any of us can do except for complain.

Those 'moderators' who publicly complain about our forum thus: And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.

And those who agree with this this and those who see the merits of a members only forum as the only solution - can leave and form one that is to their requirements. That will leave those poster who do not think this and who do not complain to concentrate in discussions on how to make Max's posting work - rather than finding fault with it.

And those who set the example of publicly posting only to complain about the worth of their fellow posters, to judge the threads and to intentionally find ways to prevent and restrict open discussion - can follow them - or stop.


24 Oct 06 - 03:58 AM (#1867006)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Ach zo, today der Mudkatz und tomorrow de vorld, ve haff vays off
borink you till you leef, und zen ve are in sole charge ja?

For you Tommy, ze var ist over!


24 Oct 06 - 05:41 AM (#1867045)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Nothing ANY of brings up including whatever chief cook and bottle washer on duty suggests, means anything.

Careful Ron - that sounds close to heresy. Perhaps you would accept that everything that we post means that others are likely to follow this example?

And when the chief cook and bottlewasher on duty is seen to publicly suggest things like the following - that this example is likely to be followed by other posters? And that it certainly has been?

Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
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.
------
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
------
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-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a damn thing any of us can do except for complain.

No Ron - that is the ONLY thing 'the chief cook and bottlewasher on duty' encourages you to do - by being seen to set the example of constantly complaining about our forum, blaming everyone else and taking no responsibilty themselves for what this example has created.

And when those posted complaint post are about our forum and other named posters such complaints are encouraged BUT NOT REFERRED TO AS COMPLAINTS.

The only posts that are judged as 'complaints' by 'the chief cook and bottlewasher on duty' are any posts that do not moan about our forum and fellow named posters - but are seen not to be in complete agreement with the many public complaints of 'the chief cook and bottlewasher on duty' and the example of posting behaviour this has now set.

What all posters can still do is to discuss this. I can only try to discuss it in this thread - in between the posts containing personal judgements of my worth, the recipes, jokes and the spam that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has littered this thread with.

Despite all this - I remain a great supporter of Max and our forum. In order to continue to support our forum (with the example set by our 'moderators') In effect and along with this - I have been expected to accept a double standard of posting behaviour. Other posters may be prepared to support this - (openly or simply by not being seen to challenge it) but I see no place for this on our forum.

For being seen to support any part of this double standard of posting behaviour (even if you consider the end may justify the means) will just turn us all into hypocrites.


24 Oct 06 - 06:13 AM (#1867050)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

"Despite all this - I remain a great supporter of Max and our forum."

Poor Max; that's a bit like Sweeney Todd supporting the Barber's Union.


24 Oct 06 - 08:48 AM (#1867137)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Can someone perform a mercy killing and close this thread now? Better yet, can someone do something to stop these constant ramblings by Shambles. Hell, I'll even become a member if "our" site goes members only if that is the only way to shut Shambles up. At least then the act will be done and he won't have anything left to ramble on about.

Max, if you are reading this please do something to put Shambles out of our misery.


24 Oct 06 - 09:22 AM (#1867174)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Tweed

WAIT!! Don't close it yet Joe! There is still the matter of the errant manatees to discuss. Somehow the original thread was mistakenly closed but I have started a new one to deal with the migration of these lovable and delicious animals to Memphis.


24 Oct 06 - 09:35 AM (#1867194)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Hey Shambles, Your days are numbered!!!!

Subject: RE: Open Letter to Max
From: Max
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:17 AM

Our priority number 2 is to beef up the back end security of the site so that we can confront such issues. I cannot currently effectively enforce a ban on the savy. It would be too easy for them to find a workaround and get back in, now angry. Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can.


24 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM (#1867206)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"And those who agree with this this and those who see the merits of a members only forum as the only solution - can leave and form one that is to their requirements. "

It just won't sink in with you, will it? It doesn't matter who has the better solution. It isn't your call to make. People can do whatever the hell they want as long as the host allows it. Change can come to this precious forum whether you like it or not, and whether your arguements are just or not.   You have every right to complain, and keep posting, but whatever is going to happen will happen regardless of your efforts, my efforts, or Joe's efforts.


24 Oct 06 - 10:22 AM (#1867241)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang

I don't have a persecution complex - I am being persecuted. (Shambles)

Wolfgang


24 Oct 06 - 01:11 PM (#1867387)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Are you beginning to feel the walls closing in on you Shambles? Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Maybe if you stopped ranting and raving then this can be prevented. No one says that you have to like what happens here. You just have to accept that you can't change it.

The clock is ticking...


24 Oct 06 - 03:02 PM (#1867471)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You have every right to complain, and keep posting, but whatever is going to happen will happen regardless of your efforts, my efforts, or Joe's efforts.

Do I still have this right?

It does not now seem as if I do.


24 Oct 06 - 03:23 PM (#1867487)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

You have the rights that have been made available to you as per the host.


24 Oct 06 - 03:48 PM (#1867510)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

tick tock, tick tock. We will soon be members only Shambles and you will soon be history.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.


24 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM (#1867511)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

You have the rights that have been made available to you as per the host.

My rights are now different yours and every other poster - how do you know this is what our host has now made available to me - has our host told you this?

Our forum has certainly been told what restrictions the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has decided to impose on my posting. Are you telling us that our host agrees with this?

Our forum has also been told that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that:
And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.
And that:
So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps you could tell us if our host agree with this as well?


24 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM (#1867529)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

"Our forum has certainly been told what restrictions the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has decided to impose on my posting. Are you telling us that our host agrees with this?"

Oh Roger why do you persist in regarding Joe and Max as two different entities? Max owns the site, Joe and others help him run it and maintain it, they are synonymous. Logic dictates that IF Max disagreed with what Joe is doing, then he'd stop him doing it, think about it man!

As CH said on another thread, and I agree with him for once, you seem to delight in going out of your way to prove all your detractors right, by constant repetition of questions you already know the answers to.

Many of your points are valid, but are lost in the constant fug of repetition. Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf.

Giok


24 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM (#1867545)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Oh Shambles, please. You are asking me to repeat myself again and again. You know exactly how I know, just like you know.   

The host knows all, and you know that as well.

Enough already, I am tired of hashing out the same points in this repititious excuse for a discussion. You have suckered me in again and again and I can only blame myself. I apologize to everyone else on this thread.   See my previous notes before asking more questions to get the same answers.


24 Oct 06 - 04:39 PM (#1867568)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

He will ask and ask until someone tells him what he wants to hear. If it takes forever then he will ask forever.

But Shambles, your days are numbered...you don't have forever.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.


24 Oct 06 - 07:44 PM (#1867716)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella

Why, on reading the last few posts of this thread, do i suddenly feel like the theme music for Dr Who is most appropriate....?


He will ask and ask until someone tells him what he wants to hear. If it takes forever then he will ask forever.

But Shambles, your days are numbered...you don't have forever.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

To be continued.....


25 Oct 06 - 02:50 AM (#1867906)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The host knows all, and you know that as well.

No I don't and with all due respect Ron - nor do you. All our forum knows about what our host knows or thinks is what he chooses to tell our forum in his few public statements.

I have yet to read a public statement wher Max has stated that his views are synonymous with mine, yours or anyone elses - have you?

However, a few other posters (with agendas of their own) insist on telling us that our host's views ARE synonymous with those of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Or are they really trying to tell us that Max is now 'being led by the nose' and that Max would not dare not to do as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly requests?

These few posters choose to ignore and not to provide any answer to the following - which clearly demonstrate that our host's views are NOT synonymous with those of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - as they claim.

Our forum has also been told that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that:
And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion.
And that:
So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps you could tell us if our host agree with this as well?

Max's more recent public statements have not given a firm answer either way to whether our forum is the further changed to a members only forum to meet the public request for this - made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's to suit his requirements. Perhaps Ron you know and can tell our forum why Max has chosen not to do this? One thing is sure - posters appear to read from these statements and see in them - what they wish to.

But that no reply had been given by Max to this request was made clear in the post where the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team made the above statement. So why this claim that our host's views should be seen to to be synonymous with the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - when he himself is under no such impression?

By the same token - why do a few posters so vocally support the continuation of 'best efforts' that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has publicly stated have not been able to make Mudcat - a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion?


25 Oct 06 - 07:06 AM (#1868024)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

PM] Max No BS: The Mudcat Is Shutting Down (72* d) RE: No BS: The Mudcat Is Shutting Down 02 Nov 01

>snip<
There is a Mudcat clique, or core group, if you will. I call you the 1%ers. Half of my design efforts, functions, doodads, are for the 1%ers, half are for the other 99%. The 1%ers are so because they're here a lot, and they post a lot, not for any other reason than that.

I ask more of you. I ask the 1%ers to simply represent us, the Mudcat, with pride, patience, empathy, tolerance, and love. I've seen some testiness lately. Don't you think I get pissed off? See me do much about it in the forum?

You are the 1%, which means you are not the majority by far. Try not to forget about the other 99%.


25 Oct 06 - 07:09 AM (#1868030)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

[PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00

Thank you Shambles. I think some may not catch what your trying to do.

The Mudcat's gonna grow. There will be a lot more content, a lot more people, a lot more posts, a lot more media, a lot more songs. We can't stop that now. But does this change anything? Some of us may get nervous that our happy world here may change, but what ever stays the same? The Real World is what it is, as is the Mudcat, and both are changing and growing everyday. Fear not the future, fear not the growth, fear not the change. It all comes down to one simple thing:

It will be what we make it... PERIOD


25 Oct 06 - 07:26 AM (#1868045)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

You somehow believe that supports you don't you Roger?   How, I have no idea. Take a leap back to reality.

Spaw


25 Oct 06 - 09:28 AM (#1868165)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"No I don't and with all due respect Ron - nor do you. "

Stop playing a game of semantics. You know very well that the host can do what they want and they will.


"why do a few posters so vocally support the continuation of 'best efforts' that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has publicly stated have not been able to make Mudcat - a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion? "

Again you ask the same question and if we take the time to answer you will disregard it again. Stop the game playing, this is not a way to have a discussion about the serious issues you brought up.


25 Oct 06 - 11:01 AM (#1868292)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Stop playing a game of semantics. You know very well that the host can do what they want and they will.

No - Ron this not a game it is a discussion. That our host can do what they want is a quite different point of this discussion and one that you know that I have long ago accepted in this discussion and in this thread.

You stated that The host knows all, and you know that as well.

Our forum only know what our host knows - when he tells us what he knows in his few public statements to our forum. Everything else is assumption.

As for me posting Max's public statements in support of my views - that is not it at all. It is to show that I support his views as expressed in his public statements.

To show that I am no idealist who just makes these things up. Ron you appear to have gained your views (from your somewhat shorter tenure as a poster) and seem to feel that the 'take-it-or-F*** *** attitude that you now pecieve on our forum has emantated from our host. The view that it is our forum - is one that host has encouraged. If Max's view has changed - I have not seen a public statement from him to that effect.

If you have answered the following - I have yet to see the answer.
By the same token - why do a few posters so vocally support the continuation of 'best efforts' that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has publicly stated have not been able to make Mudcat - a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion?

But it is a point for discussion........For it remains a mystery to me.


25 Oct 06 - 11:17 AM (#1868310)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

Sorry, I'm tired of playing word games. For you to tell me where my thoughts come from is very disrespectful and unfounded. I do not care to have my words turned around and misinterpreted. I have clearly stated how I feel about this site and I do not appreciate being played with like this.

Also, my "shorter tenure" extends at least 8 years on this site.


25 Oct 06 - 11:28 AM (#1868318)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49

LMAO.......Well there ya' go! You really are a mental case Shambolina!

Here's one guy who really tries to work it through and see your points and stand up for you with some solid reasoning............So you aggressively go out of your way to piss HIM off?!?!?!?!

I have a bad case of the giggles and it's hard to type..........The irony and your inability to perceive anything.............geeziz    LOLOL ................you're really mental........LOLOL

Spaw


25 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM (#1868326)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Goodnight, sweetheart, well, it's time to go,
Goodnight, sweetheart, well, it's time to go,
I hate to leave you, but I really must say,
Goodnight, sweetheart, goodnight.

(repeat)

Well, it's three o'clock in the morning,,
Baby, I just can't treat you right,
Well, I hate to leave you, baby,
Don't mean maybe, because I love you so.

(chorus)

Now, my mother and my father,
Might hear if I stay here too long,
One kiss and we'll part,
And you'd be going,
Although I hate to see you go.


25 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM (#1868327)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Read the thread spaw. Most people don't find you funny. Most people are sick of you and your little group. Carry on laughing . Inanity suits you.


25 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM (#1868376)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

You are digging your own grave Shambles.

According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving.

Repent sinner. The end is near!


25 Oct 06 - 01:38 PM (#1868442)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D

shure am a lot of annoymous predictions about what Max will do as he addresses the situation. I am making no assumptions.


25 Oct 06 - 01:40 PM (#1868444)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Ron, you are getting a dose of what has driven otherwise decent folks so solidly against this person. He has been twisting words and taking things out of context on this interminable argument since early on in this forum. I find no redeeming value in his posts, and am dismayed when decent folks get sucked into them. This is all a game for this sad man. It is about getting attention, creating red herring arguments. When he is ignored, he starts tossing bait out until some person answers.


26 Oct 06 - 02:00 AM (#1868867)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Open letter to max

The above thread - after being relgated to the BS has now been closed by persons unknown for reasons unexplained.

But not before at least one recipe (and a good few sensible post) could be posted to it.


26 Oct 06 - 02:30 AM (#1868877)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Sorry, I'm tired of playing word games. For you to tell me where my thoughts come from is very disrespectful and unfounded. I do not care to have my words turned around and misinterpreted. I have clearly stated how I feel about this site and I do not appreciate being played with like this.

Ron - I am sorry if you really feel that I have been playing games with you (or if you have now caught the dose referred to):-)

However, a look back will show that if anyone was playing games here and playing to the crowd - it was you. As for me telling you where your thoughts come from and you judging his to be disrespectful - this was something that you started. And a look brief back will show hardly a post from you has gone by when you have not been judging my worth and telling me what I should do. Like the in the following.

If you truly wish to keep this on topic, you would not respond in public to the negative comments about you and defer all comments and responses of the type to private messages.

Although it was unasked for, I will take this advice starting with your posts - which rather clearly demonstrate the double standard of posting conduct, that some now consider to be acceptable on our forum. If you wish to post any more advice to me or personal judgements about me (or any other poster) you are welcome to do this via PMs.

If you wish to post to enter in to a public discussion on our forum - you may just get one but you will never get the 100% agreement you appear only to accept as a discussion.


26 Oct 06 - 02:39 AM (#1868878)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

The above thread - after being relgated to the BS has now been closed by persons unknown for reasons unexplained.

That thread does now have an inserted editing comment of explanation for its (eventual) closure. As follows:

OK, so now it's time to say goodnight and to close this thread, since we only allow one Shambles thread to be active at a time. Say goodnight, Shambles.

Goodnight, Shambles.

-Joe Offer-


26 Oct 06 - 02:41 AM (#1868879)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer

Say goodnight, Shambles.


26 Oct 06 - 05:33 AM (#1868953)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

Perhaps our forum can be told, how exactly a 'Shambles thread' is now defined?

It would now appear to be any thread that our 'moderators' wish to close - but only of course after they have set the example of posting their own personal judgements (of other threads) in it?

Like the following:

Subject: RE: Open Letter to Max
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 01:42 PM

The birthday threads are obviously intended to be obnoxious, but the nice thing about them is that we can add actual music information to them and reverse the obnoxiousness.


We all have our own opinions on what we judge to be obnoxious intentions or not - perhaps our forum should be left to decide for themselves what those things are?

I may judge the intentions behind these imposed restrictions and thread closures to be obnoxious - but unlike an open thread - it is not possible for posters to 'reverse this obnoxiousness'.


26 Oct 06 - 09:23 AM (#1869065)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Yes Shambles you are 100% right about selective editing. The Open Letter thread was not hijacked by you...yet. While the thread had absolutely no purpose and much of it was in poor taste there is no reason whatsoever that it should have been considered a second Shambles thread. Perhaps a moderator would like to comment on this. Shambles certainly had a right posting to that thread and defending his actions on the birthday threads. I think that the mods jumped the gun on this one.


26 Oct 06 - 09:27 AM (#1869067)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

There you go again, twisting my words. I don't know why you call it "judging your worth" when someone offers criticism or suggestions. That is a slimy way to garner sympathy and you are certainly not a martyr.

If I am guilty of "judging you", it was when I came to realize that your points were valid and you are indeed the victim of scorn and derision that is simply not necessary. Yet you accuse me of seeking "100% agreement". The fact that I don't agree with all your statements and tactics has you calling me part of "the crowd" and catching a "dose". You can't seem to grasp that some people can make judgements and interpretations on their own.   Shame on you.

As for throwing out a line that you did not ask for advice, perhaps you have been a big guilty of that yourself?

I am not asking for 100% agreement from this forum - I could care less how the majority or the minority feel. As you very well know, it begins and ends with the host. I know you hang on to that one post made many years ago, but it is not "our" forum in the sense that you are trying to make it. This has been discussed over and over.

You asked for examples on how you are rude and how you've attacked people. Look at your last post directed at me. You can continue to attack me if you would like, but when you do, think again the next time you accuse people of attacking you.


26 Oct 06 - 09:57 AM (#1869090)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Guest you answered your own question really, you said it was not a Shambles thread YET. It was however well on it's way to becoming another one of his platforms. You also said it served no purpose, and was in poor taste.
Work it out for yourself!
Giok


26 Oct 06 - 10:51 AM (#1869127)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

You guys are a riot!!

This thread has now become a daily "lunchtime" read for me ... along with the Daily City segment of the Saint John Telegraph news. The part of the paper were one reads about the Mayor, city councellors arguing about such matters on what is the most efficient way garbage can be picked up, or defining what constitutes an unsightly building. In effect nothing is ever resolved, but the debates are very entertaining.

"And THAT'S the way it is,"

biLL


26 Oct 06 - 11:02 AM (#1869134)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

It's a hobby! It beats watching Springer.


26 Oct 06 - 11:32 AM (#1869156)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk

I see it the same way. It's a form of slightly tacky but definitely amusing daily entertainment. Much better than a Hollywood gossip column and less depressing than the evening news.


26 Oct 06 - 11:43 AM (#1869173)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

A lot of it reminds me of Professor Irwin Corey. Makes just about as much sense.


26 Oct 06 - 11:50 AM (#1869181)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

"A conceit is a figure of speech which makes an unusual and sometimes elaborately sustained comparison between two dissimilar things."


26 Oct 06 - 12:02 PM (#1869196)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

I wonder if Shambles realizes how many people are laughing at him. I'll bet that he probably doesn't care.


26 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM (#1869201)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles

There you go again, twisting my words. I don't know why you call it "judging your worth" when someone offers criticism or suggestions. That is a slimy way to garner sympathy and you are certainly not a martyr.

Ron - The start and finsihing point is that you consider we both have the right to express our views for purposes of discussion.

Following on from that all that is required is for us to stick to the issue. Unlike yours - most of my suggestions and questions are largely limited to just that.

If you judge what I have posted to you to be an attack - then how would you judge some of the regular posts from the likes of Mick and Co? Which example - if I have to remind you - you were more than happy to follow - until you say you came to realise that my points were valid.

If my points are valid - I consider that any of my (many) personal short-commings are secondary to this discussion - as are yours.


26 Oct 06 - 12:10 PM (#1869202)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wesley S

I rather laugh at someone who thinks we should care about the insults and opinions of a nameless "guest". Or should I say troll?


26 Oct 06 - 12:42 PM (#1869217)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

"If you judge what I have posted to you to be an attack - then how would you judge some of the regular posts from the likes of Mick and Co?

We've been throught this. I answered this weeks ago. I agreed with you.

Enough with the repeats. Stop making accusing me, I'm not accusing you. You make it hard to stick to the issue when you do this. Don't try to invalidate me, I'm not doing that to you.


26 Oct 06 - 12:48 PM (#1869219)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

Obfuscation is Shambles middle name Ron


26 Oct 06 - 01:12 PM (#1869236)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Shambles: Ron has been the fairest poster here with regard to your 'campaign'. IMO, you owe him an apology. It is a bit disheartening because I too agree with very much of what you say. Willows survive Canadian arctic winds because they learned to bend a little.


26 Oct 06 - 01:17 PM (#1869238)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Pseudolus

For what it's worth, I think Spaw is VERY funny....

And Ron? You're a good man, I feel your pain....

Frank


26 Oct 06 - 01:22 PM (#1869242)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

People who think they are funny are generally the bane of those suffering their 'wit.'


26 Oct 06 - 01:30 PM (#1869253)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie

People with no sense of humour often post as Guest!

[BTW Guest this post is just as accurate as yours.]

G.


26 Oct 06 - 02:05 PM (#1869282)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Ron,

That's the payback you get for trying to befriend Shambles and defending him more then most people do. He obviously intends to disagree with anybody and everybody. It would probably be in your best interest to refrain from trying to engage him in a debate since it is obvious that he does not know how to debate. He is way too stuborn to even contemplate that his ideas may not be 100% right.


26 Oct 06 - 04:29 PM (#1869379)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

I'm am certainly not laughing at Shambles .... or at anyone who posts to this thread ... I just find it very entertaining.

biLL


26 Oct 06 - 04:38 PM (#1869386)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

"Willows survive Canadian arctic winds because they learned to bend a little."

Also .... the roots of a willow tree are strong, wide and deep .... keeping it stable and secure.

biLL


26 Oct 06 - 05:03 PM (#1869402)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I'm not sure about the willow tree.   From what I know, they do not have deep roots which is why they thrive near sources of water. They are strong to support the massive bulk of the tree, and they do spread, but they are not very sturdy.   Two years ago an approximately 50 foot willow narrowly missed my home when it crashed during a noreaster.


26 Oct 06 - 05:21 PM (#1869415)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

Sorry, Ron. I'm in forestry country. A fifty-footer is just a sapling.


26 Oct 06 - 05:27 PM (#1869419)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

I did not think that willow trees grew much higher.


26 Oct 06 - 05:55 PM (#1869443)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: number 6

OK Ron ... you are correct ... the roots of a willow tree don't go down deep ... but they sure as hell spread out and will grab hold of anything they can.

biLL


26 Oct 06 - 06:33 PM (#1869469)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie

Southeast Alaska's topsoil isn't deep and we have LOTS of rain so almost all of the trees - and we have LOTS of them - pancake instead of sending their roots down to much of any extent. (On the other hand, we also have giant trees, primarily of spruce and cottonwood, so we also have a certain amount of downed trees.)

Just about any lawn up here has a network of roots outlining the tree's system. I remember a few years back when the house museum I was living in got new sodding, a new lawn from start to finish. For a few months it was smooth and even but very quickly the roots became evident and mowing once more became a problem.


26 Oct 06 - 07:35 PM (#1869508)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko

That is true BiLL - I still have roots that were spread 5 or 6 feet from the trunk. Tough to get them out of the ground.   It was amazing to see it when it fell over - the base was huge.


26 Oct 06 - 07:39 PM (#1869512)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

I've never in a long time seen anything so funny as Ron Olesko's reactions coupled with Peaces comments. Do these people really not think many of those who got caught up in "shambles" things have not been there.

Can they not now admit they now know why what seems to be instant judgements to them have occured over a 6 year campaign...


26 Oct 06 - 08:01 PM (#1869529)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST

Aw c'mon. Let's ban guests in the BS section - what would it hurt.

Besides,1300 is the new 1,000.


26 Oct 06 - 08:10 PM (#1869533)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jeffp

Thirteen hundred!


26 Oct 06 - 08:14 PM (#1869538)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace

GUEST, Jon: You are addressing two issues in one sentence.

1) The fact that I had a run-in with Roger about 1 1/2 years back has bugger all to do with the fact he's correct with some of what he says on this thread.

2) Roger has not been offensive to me here. I don't think he will be. But it's this way: I do not like people who hunt in a pack. If Roger IS offensive with me, I will deal with it. NOT me and my posse. Got it?


26 Oct 06 - 08:23 PM (#1869548)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

The inconsistancies are the same Peace.

Sure Shambles makes some valid points. He centres this campaing around issues such as levels of censorship, degrees of power held by moderators, etc.

These are undoubtably areas readers may be concerned over - although ~I'm sure for example that for every reader that feels things are to loose here, Mr Murdoch, another will feel are too tight.

There is no right or wrong there and these points of shambles have been noted for years.

The problem with the shambles viewpoint is that he has the ship single handedly taken over from Max by Joe Offer.

That is where you will find his illogic creeps in. He is not about genuine concerns but twisting everything to fit a grudge.


26 Oct 06 - 08:31 PM (#1869555)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick

Fair enough, Peace, but I would make two observations. 1) A busted clock is right twice a day. 2) Just because there are a number of folks tired of this man's crap, doesn't necessarily mean it is the pack mentality. When one runs down the names, they see a fairly significant number of decent folks, thoughtful, and the furthest thing from "lock steppers". One could not accuse Bill D, or Wolfgang, or a number of others of being something other than independent thinkers. I understand the comments about me. I have gotten pretty intolerant of Roger's shenanigans, and I am one of the mod's. By the way, I regret some of my intolerant comments. But I reiterate. The fact that a large number of folks are tired of his crap, doesn't mean they are sheep.

Mick


26 Oct 06 - 08:32 PM (#1869558)
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon

taken over from Max by Joe Offer.

(Against the will of Max that is)