I really think that most of the irrationally heated rhetoric here on the mudcat stems from the manner of posting here (on a crowded forum).

In order to be "heard" in the midst of this very crowded, very noisy room, there is no way to "shout". (all caps notwithstanding - it's not exactly what I mean). So we adopt a few methods to stand out from the crowd...

1. Some are really skilled writers who stand head and shoulders above the din. Their comments, though often overlooked by the masses of those who come here to shoot the bull, seldom go unnoticed by their peers (other good communicators -- and even those who aspire to good communication). Their sense of "forum significance and security" is usually confirmed, if not by the masses, by the right people.

2. Some are givers. They are noticed because it is usually they who offer the search results, the lyrics, the chords, the trivial information. Other types of givers are those here who have forged real world relationships by sending needed "stuff" -- sheet music, recordings, etc. Still others have toted the mudcat barge and lifted its bales. They are more often treated with the common irrational rudeness that floats around this place like so much spent oil on a rain puddle -- but, again, their sense of "forum significance and security" is not in the responses of the generally rude, rather, in the warm friendships that their helpful ways have forged.

3. But when you can't offer anything uncommonly wise, can't write wortha shit, and don't want to take the time to be helpful...
...but you participate here out of a "neediness" for significance and security within a community (maybe because you've failed miserably in the real world), there are two fallbacks that are almost sure to get you some attention here. Unfortunately, they are the negative ones...

A. Read every post for its potential as a position to which you can be adversarial. Give me good attention, give me bad attention, but don't give me NO attention. I remember when Amos posted a discussion about "thinking outside the box". Everyone should have known what he meant by "thinking outside the box", as well as what he had in mind to discuss. Within the very first posts to the thread, more was made of the notion that Amos' example of thinking outside the box was "flawed". the concept of "thinking outside the box" was thus not discussed. I think our concept of being the smartest guy in the class may be too tied to the smartass kid who found his joy in correcting the teacher -- he stuck out in the crowded classroom...

...but didn't he sit alone at lunch?

B. Troll. You know the hot buttons here. Use 'em. Works every time.

The fact that the two negative ploys for attention here are so pervasive makes for some nasty arguments -- especially as one's negativity tends to stomp on the usefulness of the other's negativity, thus leaving two souls out for attention and each thwarted.

Other things that lead to real nastiness...

1. Folks reading "into" instead of reading others posts.
2. Posting information identical to information already posted in a thread, thereby "telling" the previous poster that they do not matter.
3. Neurotic people.
4. Folks telling what other people (the "other side") believe. We usually have it not only wrong, but flavored with a particularly nasty spin.