Cakebelly has left?!

[Caesar dude]

I was catching up on some of the threads earlier and I came across a thread where I read that the reverend Cakes has left!

I've read the whole thread and wanted to comment but couldn't because the thread was locked!!!!

Could you please explain to me why? I do realise that the subject went "off topic" but that's never been a reason to block any other threads. I have always believed that the Dudeism Forum was a place to hang out and chill with like minded folks and like a good dinner party the conversation may start in one direction then ebb and flow across many different subjects then may or may not return to the original topic....it doesn't matter as long as everyone is participating and having a good time.

Is this the kind of censorship Cakes meant....I for one am not happy about being told what and what I cannot include in my posts....many of my posts are one line jokes maybe directed at the dude who wrote the last comment and certainly nothing to do with the subject....am I likely to be banned or censored for this behaviour.

No smilies in my post either. I would like clarification on this matter before I too make the same decision that Cakes did.

Peace.

[Busmum]

cesar, don't be rash-- cakes had a meltdown and acted the dick... the locking of the thread came later, i believe. i can enlighten you further if you want me to PM you.

xox

[cckeiser]

What?....what day is this?
What thread was locked? Why? I didn't lock it?
Why would anyone lock a thread?

[Caesar dude]

Try the "what state not state of mind thread" Dudely lama locked it....

Why would anyone lock a thread?

My point exactly!

I'd like an explanation cos this is very undude behaviour.

Peace.

[4weeddude]

It had to do with the  Moveing Dudeism forward thread, cakebelly wasn't really into trying to get Dudeism into the realm of alot of religions by giving title and trying to make it something with the ridgedness of religion, I have to admit I agree let it be.

[cckeiser]

Ok, I get it...the thread went way off topic and...and...? Ok..so the frickin thread went off topic...ok...ok... don't get it?
But then I'm just the janitor here...trying to keep the spammers out and the pad unspoiled.

[Caesar dude]

Yep the thread went way off topic as all the frickin' threads do..... why pick that one to censor?

Does this mean we are now going to have moderators and monitors...will it mean we can't swear if someone doesn't like it....? This is very undude.

[Tripnastic]

I got the impression that forumdude locked it because it had gotten extremely off topic and the thread starter was complaining about it and wanted it to stop.

[4weeddude]

Complaining?  I've heard about that but I do not know what that is? Is it some kind of DUDE THING?

[cckeiser]

Yep the thread went way off topic as all the frickin' threads do..... why pick that one to censor?

Does this mean we are now going to have moderators and monitors...will it mean we can't swear if someone doesn't like it....? This is very undude.

No dude...everything is ok...the plane has not crashed into the mountain. All is as it should be. The dude abides...I know you will.

[hannahdude]

marvelous.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Nothings fucked here dudes.

Maybe Forumdude/dudely lama just didn't know what to do at the time, lotta ins an outs happening all at once. It was a grim time, I don't think he meant to censor anything, maybe trying to cool things down. Dunno just guessing here. The thread was only locked, not deleted, still a matter of record, so it can still be commented on, as is happening here.

Then again, being so close to the controversy I don't really know what to say, I feel terrible, none of this was my intent.

[Rev. Ed C]

Locking a thread is hardly censorship.  DL acted in a manner so as to move the conversation out of a topic that was called "What state are you from?"  The info is still there, but if we want to start talking about it again we can either move it back to a more appropriate topic like "Moving Dudeism Forwards" where it all started or a new one, like this.

No one got censored here, no one got told off (apart from me, by Cakey) and nothing was undude (apart from that rather unfair personal attack on me, but, I got over that in a matter of hours of thinking and talking about it).

I can understand why thinkingdude was a bit pee'd, because he was trying to ascertain where we all come from (well, you Americans, anyway) and he wasn't getting any proper answers since Cakey hit the ceiling after GMS joked he'd be awarded a title for his contributions last month.  Some of us tried to keep it light and alleviate the fears of Pancake Waitress, who was quite alarmed by Cakey's strong sentiments, but Cakey didn't want to chill.

I wasn't happy about what was said, and I'm still a little hurt, but, y'know, it happened.  I don't mind talking about it, and in fact, I'd still like us to keep discussing Moving Dudeism Forwards, because I still think it's a relevent topic (especially in light of what happened).  I'm glad we've moving back onto it

I know I'm still getting flack from people who seem to not get the idea of the discussion, but getting angry helps nothing.  This is a rational, lighthearted, dudely discussion, and the fact that there's been so much teeth-grinding (as it appears to me) over this is, frankly, dumbfounding.

Never once has any single person advocated any of the extreme things people are unhappy about.  No one wants a structure, a higherachy, rules or anything like that.  No one is trying to fuck anything, we're just trying to take stock.

I keep feeling like the guy whose pointing out the elephant in the room, only to be told that acknowledging elephants is tantamount to turning Dudeism into an elephant only club, no humans aloud

A reminder of the original issues I raised:

1)  Lebowskian-driven imagery taking over the wider philosophy.
2)  Lebowskian ideals putting off women and other ethnic group/nationalities from out universal, egalitarian ethos
3)  The single, white, male slacker image being actually nothing like the group that we have here, who tend to be a mixed gender group of married workers (or similar).

You'd think, when asking people's opinion on these subjects I'd called everyone a bunch of c**ts and spat in their Caucasians

To be honest, I've been called quite a few things over this, and had a lot implied about my dudely credentials, which I think is quite an undude state of affairs to start ragging on a guy.  To reiterate:  I ain't a Christian, I don't believe in inequality.  I am an agnostic Dudeist with a good spread of knowledge about/respect for other faiths.  But first and foremost in my principals, I am an egalitarian.  To be lambasted over trying to supposedly mastermind a scheme to introduce a dudeist hierarchy, to talk down to dues and push issues to "Christianise" Dudeism, are some of the most absurd and unfounded claims you can bring against me when it comes to my part in this community (unlike the claim that I waffle and talk too much, which is totally true! ).

I don't believe there was ever been any censorship here, the Dudespaper or Facebook, nor has there been anything going on to discredit Dudeism or its dudes.

It's true that there are occasionally people around here who take offense too easily and can't always get into the good-spirited ways of the forum and small online fights break out, but I think if we were all sitting in a room together instead of trying to interpret the words of people we've (for the most part) never met, this wouldn't be an issue.

I'm still hoping Cakey will come back and take part in our community again and go back to driving issues he felt strongly about.  We've lost some people in the past that we didn't all know half as well as the ubiquitous Cakebelly, and I really hope he's keeping up with us over Busmum's shoulder still

And, GMS... don't blame yourself man.  We've all put in our two cents to this messy pile of rusty change that is the "event".  I'm sure we all know it was not your intent to spark the fire, you were just joining in the actual topic and added a bit of levity with it.  I for one could not have predicted such a reaction, or I don't expect you to have either.

We abide, we talk, we all evolve... we carry on abiding

[Busmum]

Then again, being so close to the controversy I don't really know what to say, I feel terrible, none of this was my intent.

revgms, this was in no way, shape, or form your doing-- don't buy into the survivor's guilt syndrome. 

i feel more than a little uncomfortable talking about what happened in a public way, because cakes' actions were his own, and he should be the one discussing it with the principals involved.  on the other hand, i have insights that the rest of you aren't privy to because... well... not only are we married, but we are friends and mates, so i know exactly how we came to this impasse.

but i will say this:

in my opinion, cakebelly's infamous diatribe was poorly written and edited, and therefore not only lacked the proper background info supporting his conclusion, but came off as flaming certain individuals, rather than addressing the issues, which is the saddest thing of all to me... because the passion overcame common sense, the message was lost, and the discussion here became all about the effects of when someone acts like a rank asshole.

and you know what? that's how life rolls sometimes.  i can't fix it (nor should i), but i'll also share how hurt i feel about it all too... and that it is interfering with my ability to contribute sound opinions to how we are to move dudeism forward.

sorry ed-- cakes isn't backseat typing, nor does he have plans to return as far as i know... and that's a damn crying shame really, because i think any important discussion needs dissent in order to bring ideas into sharper clarity and strength.

so... instead of taking a lane, i'll just sit back a bit enjoying my beer, and abide. have at it, gentleman. 

[Rev. Ed C]

sorry ed-- cakes isn't backseat typing, nor does he have plans to return as far as i know... and that's a damn crying shame really, because i think any important discussion needs dissent in order to bring ideas into sharper clarity and strength.

I certainly didn't want him backseat typing, or contributing in your name (I'm glad you're you, and to be honest, that's unmistakable!), I was just a'hopin' he was a'watching, y'know, from up there