We have had threads recently about guilt. Well, perhaps some of it is mine (no I'm fairly sober thanks). I had been away for some months (no, not "away" in that sense) and I trotted back in and posted (irony!)without huge reflection. Back then I don't think it would have been so sinful. But I did think a bit, and for the reasons I stated it was of help to me to be able to post to this thread. The Mudcat would be less for me if that function were removed.

Senseless posting helps no-one. Folk music depends often on the understanding o fhuman issues and to that extent it may be helpful to all of us to understand human issues. I would therefore not rule out human issues for posting. For that reason it is better to avoid the barrister's sneer.

I think some misunderstand Gargoyle (also seemingly named above as gregg). I make no claim to understand him fully. But usually his postings, even the sharp ones, are witty or well put. One of his above was obviously spiky, but perhaps was not read as intended. That may make it worse or better, but it indicates the need to think. Does that temptation, the temptation to say something witty whatever the cost (which cost Oscar Wilde so dear) drive him. Do we have to stop and ask if he means anything he says? If so does that exonerate him at all?

Perhaps indeed the better idea is to separate the Mudcat fromthe Mudchat. But (and I leave you to decide whether I am striking for an ironic point) one of the reasons I am less likely to go to the non-chat areaa is because so little of it is about folk music and so much about country or contemporary (usually American) acoustic music. Does that lead us to four fora? Does this argument lead to a reductio in absurdum?