What an excellent idea this group is.
Mark Houlsby
Will authorship discussion be outlawed (as one hopes)?
Regards
Mark
The Moderator
On Apr 5, 4:22 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> Kudos for starting it :-)
>
> Will authorship discussion be outlawed (as one hopes)?
No.
HLASM is a moderated version of HLAS and therefore anything that was
on topic in HLAS is on topic in HLASM.
> Regards
> Mark
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I still don't understand why you don't join Shaksper.
--Bob G., here out of curiosity much more than to actually post, since
I don't believe in moderated groups. But I may believe in what this
may become, simply a repeated strand of HLAS for the delicate.
--Bob
Mark Houlsby
Ok, well, one's fear is that the very fact of authorship discussion
may cause this group to deteriorate, as happened to HLAS starting from
day one.
Nevertheless your having started this group is terrific.
It should be on-topic for me to mention that your having written to
Roundtable in HLAS that you considered deleting my posts and banning
me - but then decided against it wins you *lots* of brownie points.
In the words of Andrew Gold:
"My hat is off/Won't you stand up and take a bow".
Shakespeare said it better,of course:
"The quality of mercy is not strained..." (fill in the rest yourself).
Regards
Mark
Mark Houlsby
On 4 Apr, 23:14, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net>
wrote:
> On Apr 4, 1:22 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
> > Kudos for starting it :-)
>
> > Will authorship discussion be outlawed (as one hopes)?
>
> > Regards
> > Mark
>
> I still don't understand why you don't join Shaksper.
>
Okaay.
> --Bob G., here out of curiosity much more than to actually post, since
> I don't believe in moderated groups. But I may believe in what this
> may become, simply a repeated strand of HLAS for the delicate.
>
You wouldn't fit in here. Too few newbies to chase away.
--Mark
> --Bob
The Moderator
On Apr 5, 8:14 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
Right, Bob, that is the point of this group (though, am not sure that
'delicate' is the right descriptor- more like HLAS for those that do
not want to wade through copious amounts of flame and spam.)
As I myself am not a great fan of moderated groups I can assure you
that my moderation will be minimal.
> --Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
On Apr 4, 5:45 pm, "The Moderator" <buckleyben...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:14 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
> but.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 1:22 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Kudos for starting it :-)
>
> > > Will authorship discussion be outlawed (as one hopes)?
>
> > > Regards
> > > Mark
>
> > I still don't understand why you don't join Shaksper.
>
> > --Bob G., here out of curiosity much more than to actually post, since
> > I don't believe in moderated groups. But I may believe in what this
> > may become, simply a repeated strand of HLAS for the delicate.
>
> Right, Bob, that is the point of this group (though, am not sure that
> 'delicate' is the right descriptor- more like HLAS for those that do
> not want to wade through copious amounts of flame and spam.)
You're right. I retract "delicate." The name-calling is trival
compared to the Repetitious High Morality.
> As I myself am not a great fan of moderated groups I can assure you
> that my moderation will be minimal.
I suspected it would be. Good.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> may cause this group to deteriorate, as happened to HLAS starting from
> day one.
>
> Nevertheless your having started this group is terrific.
That's untrue--for most of those in it. I was not here on day one,
but when I joined it, there were a lot of interesting, informative
threads. There were also emotional threads with name-calling in them,
but many of those were entertaining, and some even were also
interesting and informative. Richard Kennedy was the chief saboteur,
in my view, though even he posted appropriately at times. We had a
fly-by by Roger Stritmatter. And Art was here before I was. I, of
course, was occasionally Evil. Anyway, for a while it was my kind of
free-for-all, and I'm pretty sure others enjoyed it. Of course, it
wasn't for everyone. It started "deteriorating" only after a good
run, primarily, I'm sure, because most of the main posters had had
their say and no longer could keep repeating it. Even then, it was
okay, as far as I'm concerned, until Michael Martin, Spinoza and you
got going. You three single-handedly brought it to where it is now.
No more on this from me, I hope.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Female newbies, they're the ones I wait in hiding for. I think a lot
will show up once it gets around how free of direct insults this place
is. I'll finally get my chance and pounce on four or five of them in
succession before ol' Iggie knows what happened.
--Bad Bob
Mark Houlsby
On 5 Apr, 01:39, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net>
wrote:
> > Ok, well, one's fear is that the very fact of authorship discussion
> > may cause this group to deteriorate, as happened to HLAS starting from
> > day one.
>
> > Nevertheless your having started this group is terrific.
>
> That's untrue--for most of those in it.
Wait a second... are you saying that Ignoto's having started HLASM is
untrue for most of its members? Or are you being somewhat haphazard in
your placement of interjection, and in fact replying to my assertion
that HLAS deteriorated from day one? One suspects the latter, but with
you, Bob, one is never *quite* sure.
> I was not here on day one,
> but when I joined it, there were a lot of interesting, informative
> threads. There were also emotional threads with name-calling in them,
> but many of those were entertaining, and some even were also
> interesting and informative. Richard Kennedy was the chief saboteur,
> in my view, though even he posted appropriately at times.
Ok, so you *are* talking about HLAS... Kennedy did troll me as soon as
I arrived in HLAS, to be sure, as did Reedy.
> We had a
> fly-by by Roger Stritmatter. And Art was here before I was. I, of
> course, was occasionally Evil. Anyway, for a while it was my kind of
> free-for-all, and I'm pretty sure others enjoyed it. Of course, it
> wasn't for everyone. It started "deteriorating" only after a good
> run, primarily, I'm sure, because most of the main posters had had
> their say and no longer could keep repeating it. Even then, it was
> okay, as far as I'm concerned, until Michael Martin, Spinoza and you
> got going. You three single-handedly brought it to where it is now.
>
If it *was* the three of us, then it can hardly have been
singlehanded, can it? Besides, I think you give me more credit than I
deserve. Above all Art, then lackpurity, Reedy, Mouse, Weir and seeker
were the main culprits for its deterioration, much of which happened
before I arrived. What I was attempting to do (and your kind words
suggest that--at least to some extent--I was successful) was to hold
up a *mirror* to the group, and say: this is how YOU look to
prospective newbies. Notwithstanding that HLAS' charter reads:
"Welcome newbie", newbies are anything BUT welcome, clearly.
Not least because YOU call them airheads.
> No more on this from me, I hope.
>
So do I.
> --Bob
--Mark
Mark Houlsby
On 5 Apr, 01:43, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net>
Now, you see, you've disclosed your plans. One of the key elements of
surprising people is to keep your plans *secret*.
You're new at this, I can tell.
--Sad Mark
The Moderator
On Apr 5, 10:43 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
Hmmm, curiously enough Bob, the membership of this group appears to
contain not one woman.
> --Bad Bob
John W Kennedy
> On 5 Apr, 01:39, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net>
> wrote:
>> Richard Kennedy was the chief saboteur,
>> in my view, though even he posted appropriately at times.
> Ok, so you *are* talking about HLAS... Kennedy did troll me as soon as
> I arrived in HLAS, to be sure, as did Reedy.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The grand art mastered the thudding hammer of Thor
And the heart of our lord Taliessin determined the war."
-- Charles Williams. "Mount Badon"
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
The Moderator
On Apr 5, 11:28 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
wrote:
> On 5 Apr, 01:39, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, well, one's fear is that the very fact of authorship discussion
> > > may cause this group to deteriorate, as happened to HLAS starting from
> > > day one.
>
> > > Nevertheless your having started this group is terrific.
>
> > That's untrue--for most of those in it.
>
> Wait a second... are you saying that Ignoto's having started HLASM is
> untrue for most of its members? Or are you being somewhat haphazard in
> your placement of interjection, and in fact replying to my assertion
> that HLAS deteriorated from day one? One suspects the latter, but with
> you, Bob, one is never *quite* sure.
One can, of course, be sure that Houlsby will not stop flaming at the
slightest provocation.
[snip]
> If it *was* the three of us, then it can hardly have been
> singlehanded, can it? Besides, I think you give me more credit than I
> deserve. Above all Art, then lackpurity, Reedy, Mouse, Weir and seeker
> were the main culprits for its deterioration,
This is complete nonsense. Reedy, Weir, Mouse, Seeker were ALL
valuable ON TOPIC contributors.
Art Neuendorffer and Lackpurity- though they are not to everyone's
taste- do appeal to some (for a variety of reasons).
The main culprit in the deterioration of HLAS, as has repeatedly been
pointed out to Mark Houlsby, IS Mark Houlsby. Persistant verbal abuse
(recall one regular who wrote of Houlsby's influence: "we now wade in
excrement"), constant off-topic posting and constant provocation of
flame wars are the three things that absolutely characterise his time
at HLAS. I cannot recall ONE decent on topic discussion that he has
been involved in (I *can* recall his bizzare and creepy exchanges with
Ms Mouse, his constant flaming and his constant use of profanity and
personal abuse).
> much of which happened
> before I arrived. What I was attempting to do (and your kind words
> suggest that--at least to some extent--I was successful) was to hold
> up a *mirror* to the group, and say: this is how YOU look to
> prospective newbies. Notwithstanding that HLAS' charter reads:
> "Welcome newbie", newbies are anything BUT welcome, clearly.
> Not least because YOU call them airheads.
Ah, so Houlsby changes his story. First he was "trolling trolls"- a
'hobby' of his- now he has decided his purpose "was to hold up a
*mirror* to the group". As anyone knows HLAS was never so vulgar a
thing as Mark Houlsby's has made it. Sure there was the occasional
outburst of bad humour- sometimes ill directed- BUT there was NEVER
systematic and prolonged abuse UNTIL Mark Houlsby arrived. HLAS did
never "wade in excrement" nor blaze with flame wars until Mark Houlsby
began his 'participation' (which was more like an attempted coup
d'etat).
> > No more on this from me, I hope.
I have decided to ban Mark Houlsby from the google group
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare.moderated because (inter alia):
1. His constant trolling of HLAS was a prominent cause in the
formation of this group.
2. The existence of this group has not stopped him trolling HLAS.
3. If anyone decides to come to post in HLASM it is probably, in fair
measure, to get away from Houlsby (and others).
4. There are posters who, I believe, would not participate in any
forum of which Mark Houlsby was a member.
I prefer not to exclude anyone. However in this instance I believe it
is an entirely fair and appropriate thing to do.
If anyone (besides Mark Houlsby) cares to disagree, they are welcome
to do so. If sufficient numbers of people ask for his reinstatement or
if sufficiently well made arguments can be made for his inclusion then
this decision will be reversed- (however I doubt that anyone cares).
Hopefully my last post on this matter (eVER).
The Moderator.
Mouse
Not so, Ig. I'll drop in from time to time, as long as the membership
remains polite. Good luck with your new project.
Mouse
>
>
>
> > --Bad Bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mouse
On Apr 7, 4:49 am, "The Moderator" <buckleyben...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:28 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Apr, 01:39, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Ok, well, one's fear is that the very fact of authorship discussion
> > > > may cause this group to deteriorate, as happened to HLAS starting from
> > > > day one.
>
> > > > Nevertheless your having started this group is terrific.
>
> > > That's untrue--for most of those in it.
>
> > Wait a second... are you saying that Ignoto's having started HLASM is
> > untrue for most of its members? Or are you being somewhat haphazard in
> > your placement of interjection, and in fact replying to my assertion
> > that HLAS deteriorated from day one? One suspects the latter, but with
> > you, Bob, one is never *quite* sure.
>
> One can, of course, be sure that Houlsby will not stop flaming at the
> slightest provocation.
>
> [snip]
>
> > If it *was* the three of us, then it can hardly have been
> > singlehanded, can it? Besides, I think you give me more credit than I
> > deserve. Above all Art, then lackpurity, Reedy, Mouse, Weir and seeker
> > were the main culprits for its deterioration,
>
> This is complete nonsense. Reedy, Weir, Mouse, Seeker were ALL
> valuable ON TOPIC contributors.
Thankee. The Mouse takes a bow.
>
> Art Neuendorffer and Lackpurity- though they are not to everyone's
> taste- do appeal to some (for a variety of reasons).
>
> The main culprit in the deterioration of HLAS, as has repeatedly been
> pointed out to Mark Houlsby, IS Mark Houlsby. Persistant verbal abuse
> (recall one regular who wrote of Houlsby's influence: "we now wade in
> excrement"), constant off-topic posting and constant provocation of
> flame wars are the three things that absolutely characterise his time
> at HLAS. I cannot recall ONE decent on topic discussion that he has
> been involved in (I *can* recall his bizzare and creepy exchanges with
> Ms Mouse,
Yes, very creepy and unwelcome. I couldn't figure out what his purpose
was, but I didn't want to stay and find out.
>his constant flaming and his constant use of profanity and
> personal abuse).
>
> > much of which happened
> > before I arrived. What I was attempting to do (and your kind words
> > suggest that--at least to some extent--I was successful) was to hold
> > up a *mirror* to the group, and say: this is how YOU look to
> > prospective newbies. Notwithstanding that HLAS' charter reads:
> > "Welcome newbie", newbies are anything BUT welcome, clearly.
> > Not least because YOU call them airheads.
>
> Ah, so Houlsby changes his story. First he was "trolling trolls"- a
> 'hobby' of his- now he has decided his purpose "was to hold up a
> *mirror* to the group". As anyone knows HLAS was never so vulgar a
> thing as Mark Houlsby's has made it. Sure there was the occasional
> outburst of bad humour- sometimes ill directed- BUT there was NEVER
> systematic and prolonged abuse UNTIL Mark Houlsby arrived. HLAS did
> never "wade in excrement" nor blaze with flame wars until Mark Houlsby
> began his 'participation' (which was more like an attempted coup
> d'etat).
>
> > > No more on this from me, I hope.
>
> I have decided to ban Mark Houlsby from the google group
Thankee again. I do find Spinoza rather hard on women (and non-Strats)
also, but time will tell if this is a reasonable and reasonably polite
forum.
Fingers crossed.
Ms. Mouse
> humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare.moderated because (inter alia):
>
> 1. His constant trolling of HLAS was a prominent cause in the
> formation of this group.
> 2. The existence of this group has not stopped him trolling HLAS.
> 3. If anyone decides to come to post in HLASM it is probably, in fair
> measure, to get away from Houlsby (and others).
> 4. There are posters who, I believe, would not participate in any
> forum of which Mark Houlsby was a member.
>
> I prefer not to exclude anyone. However in this instance I believe it
> is an entirely fair and appropriate thing to do.
>
> If anyone (besides Mark Houlsby) cares to disagree, they are welcome
> to do so. If sufficient numbers of people ask for his reinstatement or
> if sufficiently well made arguments can be made for his inclusion then
> this decision will be reversed- (however I doubt that anyone cares).
>
> Hopefully my last post on this matter (eVER).
>
> The Moderator.
>
>
>
> > So do I.
>
> > > --Bob
>
> > --Mark- Hide quoted text -
The Moderator
> > I have decided to ban Mark Houlsby from the google group
>
> Thankee again. I do find Spinoza rather hard on women (and non-Strats)
> also,
Spinoza has said that he will "treat other posters fairly and with
collegiality".
>but time will tell if this is a reasonable and reasonably polite
> forum.
Hopefully this will be the case.
Welcome aboard.