 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The crack down
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: alanabit Date: 04 Jan 07 - 11:12 AM Well OK. It's more like one of my favourite pubs to me. I reckon if someone is going to start a fight at one table, I'll move over and have a pint with Big Mick and Rapaire (or whoever) at another one. Going into a pub doesn't mean I have to fight anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 10:58 AM Agreed to a point - but that doorwork must surely be far more than 'occasional' given the traffic through here. It's also pretty inconsistent. One of the problems, maybe, is that the way the Mudcat is set up is quaintly old-fashioned. Most discussion forums now seem to be phpBB or similar, and to be moderated (with the moderating team for each topic generally named and contactable - which allows all users to alert them to offensive posts). Most don't allow guest posting, or at the very least restrict it. But this is all old ground, I suppose. Maybe Max will reconsider, but at the same time I can't blame him - it would take a fair amount of midnight oil to migrate the forum to a new format, and the poor guy does have a life. So perhaps the best approach is to treat this place the way we treat life - it might stink sometimes, it might be unfair, but it's the only one we've got, so make the best of it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: alanabit Date: 04 Jan 07 - 10:49 AM Actually, a bit of goodwill, good manners and the occasional apology work very well for most of us. I do not have the same politics as Doug R or Teribus, the same musical tastes as Clinton Hammond or Kendall Morse, nor the same views on UK/Ireland Relations as The Curator or Ard Mhacha. However, I have been able to enter debates with them without becoming embroiled in bitter feuds. I would not like to lose the amenity of this discussion forum simply because a minority of posters feel they need more control over other posters. What they really need is more control over themselves. An occasional bit of doorwork is necessary by Joe and the Clones, but on the whole, we grown ups can sort these things out for ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxmaybe Date: 04 Jan 07 - 10:21 AM Maybe what all this navel-staring demonstrates is a need by Max to take a long, hard look at the Mudcat and concede that the whole BS thing is a bandwidth-hogging hornets' nest that would be better junked. With the notable (and unusual) exception of CH's boorishness in the "..walked out of a session" thread, most musical topics seem to be conducted in a genuine spirit of co-operation and decorum. Below the line, however, it's a bloody mess. The forum has grown too large, I fear, to cater for many of the subjects in the BS section. It's a bit like a bar - a small snug is fine for shooting the breeze and putting the world to rights, but the bigger and noisier the pub, the less easy it is to have a sensible conversation, and the more likely one is to end up with a punch on the nose. And yes, I know there are those wise virgins who say "but you don't have to look at the BS section - I've got a magic filter..." but that's not the point. Animosity begins below stairs, and filters upwards. CH is a case in point. And look at the ructions over Northern Ireland - ard mhacha, Divis Sweeney, Dave the Gnome and Keith A of Hertford are all decent people with a love of music. That should bring them together, but pointless (and boy, are they pointless) spats below the line serve to divide and antagonise. I just wish I could get all four in a bar together with a few beers and get 'em singing and playing... But, hell, I'm just a meddlesome guest! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxyes Date: 04 Jan 07 - 10:12 AM The GUEST of the 8:59 am post has more technical knowledge than some of us, and is obviously an insider, but those facts do not explain that poster's arrogance-based stupidity when it comes to grasping concepts, or his frustration at his impotence, or his extreme physical and mental cowardice, or his phony concern about "what goes on around here." Ooh - sticks and stones, my dear, sticks and stones! My only concern apropos "what goes on around here" is the fact that some people seem in grave danger of disappearing up their own fundaments. Relax, poppet; this too will pass - and sweet Shambles will still be tilting at windmills when New Year comes round again, that much I can guarantee. And some people will still be kind and helpful, and others will be incapable of civility, and others will still be trying to justify the war in Iraq by citing Kofi Annan's laundry list... But what concept is it that I have failed to grasp in my arrogance-based stupidity (and is there a humility-based stupidity as well)? As for impotence, I have as much or as little power in this forum as any here (apart from the designated clones). And as for physical and mental cowardice, extreme or otherwise, that's not for me to say. Thus far, however, if doesn't seem to have been found wanting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Emma B Date: 04 Jan 07 - 10:06 AM Thank you Giok, I believe I did say on departing the chatroom (and before I said anything I might subsequently regret when not so irritated) that I guess "you had to be there" I can differentiate between saying I find something offensive and that is an offensive person however. In fact I found a great many aspects of that particular conversation very distasteful! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Becca72 Date: 04 Jan 07 - 10:00 AM No, no Rapaire..."It is my opinion that you are a prick". ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee Date: 04 Jan 07 - 09:53 AM The Cap'n would say "I thinkyou're a prick" then? (He said, smiling, ducking, and running for cover.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Becca72 Date: 04 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM I'm probably going to be dismissed because I'm his daughter & I haven't been around here long, but I also know my father pretty damned well if I do say so myself. When he expresses an opinion it is just that. "I feel" or "I think" or "it's my opinion that...". Whereas Clinton is more likely to say "if you feel that way you're an asshole". And it goes downhill from there. The personal attacks are what gets Clinton in trouble. I have never known my father (Kendall for those who didn't know) to come right out and say "you're a prick". The same cannot be said for Mr. Hammond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno Date: 04 Jan 07 - 09:40 AM Tech-challenged as I am, I submitted the 9:34 am post without a handle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 09:34 AM The GUEST of the 8:59 am post has more technical knowledge than some of us, and is obviously an insider, but those facts do not explain that poster's arrogance-based stupidity when it comes to grasping concepts, or his frustration at his impotence, or his extreme physical and mental cowardice, or his phony concern about "what goes on around here." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 Jan 07 - 09:27 AM Emma B, I was present in the chat room when the exchange you mention took place, and while on the surface what was reported as having been said was merely bad manners, or possibly even a poor taste joke, only the person relating the story was actually there. It's a lot like things written on here, meant in one sense by the writer and taken in another sense by a reader, either because of poorly written posts, or because of wilful malice on the part of the reader. I think you had to be there before you could declare a position regarding the reported remarks. You have to know the situation, the ambiance,the amount of drink taken, and many other variables. So if the person who told us the story says he was offended by the behaviour, we have to accept that he found it offensive at the time, as neither of us were present. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: JennyO Date: 04 Jan 07 - 09:20 AM fauxno, the guest was obviously funnin' around with some HTML - not hard to do. It's not the genu-wine article unless it's under the thread, with NO posting box. This Thread Is Not Closed. See? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Becca72 Date: 04 Jan 07 - 09:18 AM It makes sense in French-Canadian. :-) As someone with an Expos AND Habs sticker on my car I appreciate the thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee Date: 04 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM Just for the record, I've responded privately to Seamus. What's a "Hab?" Is it some sort of nasty name? Backwards it spells "Bah", like in "humbug" (which backwards is "gubmuh" and makes no sense in English). For that matter, what's an "Expo?" ("Opxe" backwards). And I rarely feel threatened by blue jays or even the camp robbers we get out here in The West. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,NOT the fauxno idiot Date: 04 Jan 07 - 08:59 AM The fact is that the thread is NOT closed. This proves absolutely you don't know what goes on around here and would be better off butting out. You're showing your ass already. The red letters saying the thread is closed are INSIDE the posting box, not outside. Now go find somewhere else to play. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno Date: 04 Jan 07 - 08:51 AM The fact that "GUEST.not Joe Offer" has closed the second thread concerning closed threads and deleted posts proves absolutely that site operators are using the GUEST mode selectively. How can credibility be established when that is being done? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing Date: 04 Jan 07 - 08:05 AM Thanks, Emma, for the link. I had forgotten that thread, and, frankly, cannot believe so much has grown out of it. You'd think people would learn to let it go. Until just after Guest, Gloucsterman's posting on the 15th of Sept., it was not that bad, as Mudcat arguments go, imo. I think Kendall and Clinton are evenly matched in stubborness. It's too bad a music thread from well over a year ago has led to recent events concerning the two of them. As for Joe cracking down on spam, we clones are spending most of our time deleting it as soon as we see it. If someone sees it before we do, they should post the URL in the Help forum to let us know. We always delete spam, as long as we know about it. kat P.S. While I didn't like the choices Clinton made sometimes to express himself, I do like to remember it was his idea to start the whole Secret Santa exchange we've done every year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Emma B Date: 04 Jan 07 - 06:11 AM origins of a disagreement? I have heard the same description of Stan Rogers as a "boor and bully" recently when I was saying, in a chat room, how much I appreciated and enjoyed the CD of his songs that my Santa sent me this Xmas. Neither myself or one of the other "married women" in the room could quite believe the premise on which this accusation was based was meant to be taken seriously - I guess Clinton had the same problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 Jan 07 - 05:06 AM Cluin your succinct synopsis of the CH v Kendall affair is admirable, but relates to only one thread. The CH insulting Kendall thing has gone on for a long time, and apparently has it's origins in an exchange over the merits and demerits of Stan Rogers as a person, not as a writer performer, but as a person. CH was unable to accept Kendall's opinions on the matter, and instead of agreeing to disagree he took to insulting Kendall in a vicious and personal manner, including wishing rectal cancer on him. I think that this when said to a man who has already had medical problems with a minor cancerous growth is the lowest of the low. He also insulted another Mudcatter who is disabled, and according to a reply I got when I PM'd him to point this out, he was aware of this fact. While many people apparently admire his ability to call a spade a spade, many others, myself included find his abrasive and intentional lack of tact to be out of keeping with what one would expect in polite social intercourse. So don't make the mistake of thinking that he was banned for making one post, it was the result of a chapter of rude and abusive posts. He will probably do what several other banned posters have done and come back as an anonymous and obnoxious Guest. I think I even recognise the style of some of those posting in this thread. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:28 AM I thought you didn't have that problem with the red carpet in the basement. A Sears wet/dry shop vac will take care of the mess. There are some button-pushers here at Mudcat, and some people who walk around with their chins out and chips on their shoulders, just begging for someone to knock it off. It can add up to toe-to-toe meeting in the threads. Not a pretty sight, and perhaps a very good reason why there should be red carpets in many of our virtual houses. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:07 AM Seamus, don't start a physical fight with me. Or rather, don't put me into a position where I can't walk away from it. One or the other of us would be hurt very badly, and I mean physically. Here, online, well, ain't nobody called me nothing I haven't been called before, and usually by better people. Best to ignore such, and if they want my address so that they can punch me in the nose, well, it's not a secret or anything about where I work. But it better be one good punch, 'cause that's all they're a-gonna git. And I apologize in advance if I go into "finishing technique;" it's an automatic program and I would do my best to stop before it came to that, but I really can't promise. That's why I'd rather walk away. Dead people are so, well, MESSY, and I feel badly every time I see the spot where I killed somebody. Why, I'd probably have the room recarpeted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:34 AM Jean Drapeau and Paolo Violi. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:27 AM If the thread-starter won't have to react anymore when attacked, as he asserts in his first post, what is the outlook for others who are attacked? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:17 AM Well said, Alan (and Rap.) Peace, you'll have to come down here to D.C. to see the Expos! Go Caps. Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:11 AM That Montrealer thing is true. It was caused by Jean Drapeau and the fact that at one time everybody--all one and a half million people in the city had a friend who had a friend who knew the whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa. It was a closely held secret. Still is to this day. GO HABS! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM Don't be norty or you'll go to bed wif no dissert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:00 AM What is the crackdown, with specific reference to posting rules? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:55 AM But it's Habs season right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:54 AM Once a Montrealer... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:53 AM I MISREAD IT! Expos ALL THE WAY! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:51 AM Will joe be cracking down on posting spam? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: alanabit Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:50 AM For myself, bearing in mind that spiteful comments are going to be cracked down on, I shall try to control my own temper in future. At times I have been tempted to reply in kind to (usually) anonymous guests. Given that I frequently disagree with the views of other Mudcatters, I am usually only angered by those who make contentious remarks from behind a concealed identity. Rapaire and indeed you are usually able to respond with some grace and humour. I'll work on it! I welcome the crackdown. I don't know anything, which suffers from having better manners as the norm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:49 AM He just means there's not much to fear from a Blue Jay, Seamus. He has the non-Torontonian's good healthy hate of Toronto. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:49 AM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:45 AM Peace, that's BAT, not HAT. Go Expos! Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:38 AM "waiting outside your door with a gun or a baseball bat" Well, not if it's a Toronto Blue Jay's hat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Musicmic Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:37 AM We have had similar experiences on a Philadelphia Folk Festival Volunteers list, mostly when the elections for PFS Board of Directors are being waged. Our list hostess (She calls herself our list mother and she is correct on so many levels) has had to step into some frays and suspend posting privilages to one or two miscreants. Her justice is swift and sure so, when I want to engage another poster in philisophical combat, I have taken to contacting him/her, directly, off list. This stratogy allows me and my worthy opponent to shout at will and, then, almost invariably, to resolve our differences. Oh, we have our pot stirrers, too, but that's why God made delete keys. Mike Miller |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:35 AM Rapaire, I like your response right up to (But If I am attacked...), I'd like to ask, how can you be seriously attacked on Mudcat? It's a computer screen with words on it, for heaven's sake... what's it gonna do, explode in your face? Now if a crazed 'Catter is waiting outside your door with a gun or a baseball bat, OK, go for it. Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:33 AM Typical!!!!!!!! Post that while I am trawling through 300 posts on another thread! To compare - I found : 1. shaneo got pissed off with a loud tv while he was playing and pissed off. 2. clinton (who sounds like he gets paid for playing) observed he should have just stuck it out. 3. shaneo was doing it for free so didn't feel the need. 4. numbers 2 & 3 above explain the differing reactions to loud tv's. 5. clinton then took umbrage at something kendall said and possibly misread it. Easy to do on the 'net. 6. insults traded. 7. a crowd had assembled by now and joined in cheering for their side. In the middle of all that are hidden a few quite funny sun shining out of arses jokes. And clinton was banned for that? The asshole who does the coloured writing is worse than anything there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:24 AM Well, unless I get really, really angry -- and that's not very often -- I find it easier to walk away. 'Tain't cowardice, it's maturity. (But if I am attacked, seriously attacked, I will take whatever means is necessary to defend myself.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:02 AM If you don't want to go wade through the "session" thread, here is the Coles Notes version: 1. Shaneo said he walked out of a session where he didn't feel appreciated by the pub owners/staff. 2. Several people posted including Clinton Hammond relating their takes on the situation and their own experiences. 3. Kendall posted solidarity with Shaneo saying he wished he was there to walk out with him and suggesting to remain where you aren't appreciated was pathetic and needy. 4. Clinton then basically called Kendall arrogant. 5. Then (amongst other posts dealing with the subject of the thread which we aren't concerned with here) a lot of people attacked Clinton for attacking Kendall. 6. Clinton lashed back, getting nasty in the process. 7. Kendall, to be fair, seemed surprised at the response from Clinton. Then he accused Clinton of identifying with the "pathetic" and "needy" description. 8. Clinton insulted Kendall some more. 9. Clinton was banned from Mudcat. 11. People wondered where he went and threads asking if he was banned were deleted or closed. 10. Clinton doesn't much care right now. He is living his life. That's about it, as far as I know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:44 PM Why should I have to go to another thread entirely to find out why a different thread was closed or deleted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:35 PM Official statements should come from those with official positions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:34 PM All you have to do is go to the thread titled I WALKED OUT OF A SESSION to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:29 PM As the thread in question was deleted we will never know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:28 PM Don't try to bait me, I only react when I'm being attacked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:21 PM He didnt explain what was going on before the threads were closed or deleted. I find you guilty of hi jacking a thread and personal attack. Please try and curb such behavior in the future. It is disconcerting to others of a sensitive nature. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:17 PM Guest a sometime fan, I didn't do it knowing it would be closed. I was simply responding to another post. Please get the whole story before you pan the book! The man attacked another member once too often and Joe finally took care of the situation which he has every right to do, and he doesn't owe anyone an apology or an explanation. Being the gentleman he is, he did explain what is going on if you would care to read the whole story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:13 PM Can a thread be closed for obscurity? |
