BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Justa Picker
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:12 PM

So sad and so laughable that apparently no one sees the bigger picture.

(a) It's an internet forum. Period. People that rely on this place as their sole connection with the real world, need to seek professional help for their obvious psychoseez, NOW!

(b) In the end none of our opinions matter a rats ass, about how and what we'd like the forum to be. All suggestions and attempts to manipulate change in how WE want the forum to be, are totally irrelevant. Get over it now, and stop repeating these types of threads; threads that attack guests; threads where guests attack members, etc.etc. that are repeated and rehashed every few months.

With a flick of his magic wand (if he so chooses) this place could be focussed and moderated. Make no mistake, the way it is, IS QUITE DELIBERATE. Again get over it, accept it, or leave. You will NOT change anything with your rants.

(c) Joe Offer (unfortunately because of the puppet master) acts like a boxer in a ring, forced to fight with his legs in shackles, and one arm tied behind his back. This is also for the amusement of the puppet master and quite deliberate. Accept no other excuses.

(d) The puppet master is definitely having the last laugh on all of you. He enjoys the anarchy, especially the anarchy created by allowing non-members to post and ALL the ensuing threads complaining of such which continously recylce like a sewage plant processing water. AGAIN - Get over it now. IT'S ALL VERY INTENTIONAL AND PART OF AMUSING THE PUPPET MASTER.

This is the only internet forum I know of that allows non members to post. And it for that reason (and the anarchy this creates) that this place was never able to attract serious funding from commercial sources; and in attracting AND KEEPING new, serious musical contributors. (I have tried to interest at least half a dozen serious contributors who's musical knowledge rivals those of such respected members as Dale Rose, M. Ted, Gargoyle (yes Gargoyle!) and a few others here. They took a look around and said "no thanks.")

The fact that " A MAGAZINE DEDICATED TO FOLK AND BLUES MUSIC" is no longer part of the Mudcat logo, should cure all detractors of their whining about wanting to make this place more focussed. Get over it and get a life. Again, INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE.

THIS IS ONE BIG AQUARIUM TO ITS OWNER - nothing more.
Perhaps it was once upon a time, until power corrupted absolutely.

(e) The Puppet Master has absolutely no class. He does not personally acknowledge nor thank individual financial contributors on a personal level. Therefore since he had a manners-bypass somewhere along the way, why should anyone contribute a dime to this gold fish bowl?
This is has got to be the largest dysfunctional "family" I've ever seen in my life. Sad that there's no one willing to step up to the plate and cure it. Again, intentional and deliberate.

(f) Shambles has contributed a helluva lot more musically to this place than the member-troll who began this thread. For someone who works in tech-support he sure is useless at sharing detailed information here, about various tech problems that occur to members (but real good about whining about his love life and his depression.) Fortunately though we have John in Kansas. Anyone thanked you lately John? I THANK YOU!

(g) If this place was moderated, and membership was required to post along with posted IP addresses accompanying each post, you would not have to engage supposition to figure out who's who behind "guest" postings whether civil and maligned. I don't buy any of the arguments in favour of GUESTS being allowed to post. It's complete and utter bullshit. There are good cookies and bad cookies.

(h) Think very carefully and plan what you would do, if this place went down permanently tomorrow...because it will at some point, when the hassles outweight the amusement, for the puppet master.

Those of you with severe internet psychosis should start planning where you'll get your forum fix, as well as your identity and online sense of belonging and importance.

RANT OFF.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:54 AM

Amos - You say no and I supplied the evidence that you ask for - So you have now finally accepted Joe did call another poster names and should not have...That alone is enough to destroy the 'snow job' you have up to now been trying to maintain.


Roger,

You're just bloody unbelievable, ya know? I don't go to the trouble of trying to maintain a courteous discussion with you in order to have you insult me, you parboiled witherspoon! Let me point out that you have just demonstrated the mechanism of your own endless self-induced victimization: lure them in to a dialogue and then slice 'em up. Then wonder why you somehow end up out of people to talk to... Well, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We're done now. I am not investing energy into a dialogue which is intended from the start to be some kind of covert, manipulative mellerdrammer. How's that for a snow job, then?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:29 AM

Roger, I did a search on your posts back to the beginning in 1998. You have been setting yourself up on the cross since very early on. Same old game, create a false issue, get people to debate it, then set yourself up in your own mind as the long suffering voice of reason. Time to get a new game, old boy. You only look like a pathetic case when you continue to flog the equine corpse.

You have made a couple of points over the years that had merit. For what it is worth, these threads have caused me to give a great deal of thought to my activities as a Clone. But a broken clock is right twice a day. You have now taken the shred of truth and sufficiently diluted it with your pathological need to be heard so as to take away whatever good effect you may have had. Give it a rest, Roger.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:21 AM

R 4 Is a sensible and responsible example being set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

A 4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.

Amos - You say no and I supplied the evidence that you ask for - So you have now finally accepted Joe did call another poster names and should not have...That alone is enough to destroy the 'snow job' you have up to now been trying to maintain.

But having finally accepted and agreed that I am right to question if a sensible and resonable example is being set and on the evidence supplied - finally agreed with me and accepted that it is NOT being set - you then go on to give an opinion and qualify whether the name was apt or serious - what has that got to do with the question? From that I am not too sure if many folk would have thought you and had reached agreement on anything.

As you know the issue is not the name but who is taking part and setting the example of name-calling and encouraging others that this behavior is OK. So now we are finally in agreement on something how do WE address this and what do you intend to do about it?

It would look as if you just intend to carry on with your 'snow job' and to claim that I am the agumentitive one. When a claim is made you tend to claim it is wide and speculative - when the firm evidence is provided to support that claim and you eventually accept it as a fact - you then go on to excuse and qualify it.........As I predicted you would.

I would like to have a sensible debate - based on the evidence - I have no intention of challenging your entitlement to opinions even though they may be attempting to cover-up the facts that you have finally agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 10:11 AM

Excuse me, Sham, but that is not what I did. Are you so stuck in argumentive mode that when someone says you're right about something you can't hear it?

I did give you a less generous opinion on a couple of other points, but it IS my opinion. Should I give you some other opinion? I don't think so. Don't like mine? Understandable -- apply elsewhere.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:42 AM

Amos I don't know why I am bothering to provide these examples as you have either ignored or excused them before and you probably will again -

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:46 AM

Joe was out of line to imply you were an idiot. You are not an idiot.

But you are misinterpreting the nature and magnitude of these things; and if the examples you gave above are the worst this community has to live through, then we ai'nt doing half bad.

As for you being a troll, well, that could be argued, as it asometimes appears that you will trot the same complaints out as long as anyone will react to them, not out of interest in discussion.

Both of these are opinions only. I have been called much worse by people on this forum, and you know, somehow I just survived!

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:35 AM

With regard to your example 4 below, that incident concerned a particularly nasty and personal set of attacks made anonymously (probably by (a) UK person(s)) on a well-respected and liked Mudcatter of long standing. If I had been Joe, I would have deleted the posts too, done some research and posted a similar message.

With respect - the point was simply that Amos asked to see evidence of 4. Is a sensible and responsible example being to set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.

This is what Joe had to say (about me) in the Guest Postings thread - I may not like what he has to say and I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll - The context of this thread was that a UK poster was making the point that they had been wrongly accused by Joe
in a PM of making anonymous attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Mr Happy
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:26 AM

Amos: Q. 'what is the sound of one behind clapping?'

A. John Cage's 4'33" ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:33 AM

1 Should the punishment fit the crime and does it currently?
I can't see anything here I'd call "a punishment".

2 Are all the volunteers authorised to administer summary justice and censor other's postings – without the poster's knowledge or permission – based only on their value judgement?
That seems a reasonable way of doing it to me - if someone with this role makes too many mistakes or is acting maliciously, they should cease to be allowed to carry on. "Summary justice" is a hyped up expression in this context. This isn't a spaghetti western.

3 Is there to be no difference to be seen between an abusive post and say an incoherent one?
Where people abusive posts it is appropriate to try to discourage them from doing so; people who make incoherent posts may benefit from being helped to avoid doing so on occasion. In both cases it might sometimes be appropriate for the posts to be removed,

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?
Courtesy is always appropriate. So is plain speaking. (And if you think that those PMs from Joe are "abusive"...)

5 Is it really too much to ask that those that would volunteer to judge (and punish) us – can be expected to always set the standards and be judged themselves by these standards?
Not too much to ask, and my experience is that that is precisely what we get.

Basically there are two ways of running things in any community - family, village, nation – one is having a system of laws and tribunals and all that; and is the other involves trusting people to do the right thing. The latter way can break down, and isn't always possible, but where it's possible to do it the second way, and have things work reasonably satisfactorily, that's the system I prefer. That's a personal preference, and I think that in the Mudcat it works pretty well. It's organisationally untidy, but I can stand a fair amount of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: mooman
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 04:18 AM

Dear Shambles,

With regard to your example 4 below, that incident concerned a particularly nasty and personal set of attacks made anonymously (probably by (a) UK person(s)) on a well-respected and liked Mudcatter of long standing. If I had been Joe, I would have deleted the posts too, done some research and posted a similar message.

Personally, I think the balance is about right and of the 2000+ posts I've made under this or my previous moniker, to my knowledge none have been deleted. But there again...I don't go round making personal attacks under my Mudcat name or as a "Guest".

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:12 AM

Ebbie that probably makes this point rather well. It is time for our forum to be ALLOWED to grow-up.

As for indulging in - encouraging or just tolerating 'witch hunts, we don't have to look too far. The danger in this toleration of witch hunting by Joe and Co of anyone who has any criticsm of Joe and Co is that the witch hunt will over time develop a momentum of its own.

Forums Discussion Groups

We don't know who is part of Joe and Co - with to power to CENSOR our contributions so there could well be many more who are not setting an example and following the highest standards - who in fact are following a double standard, which others are supporting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:05 AM

Oh, grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:55 AM

Amos I don't know why I am bothering to provide these examples as you have either ignored or excused them before and you probably will again - but here goes.

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being to set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest
Postings
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 01:32 PM

Actually, I didn't make any accusations. I just asked Cat if she was one of the people making anonymous posts, and if she was, could she please stop. Could all of you Brits please stop this nastiness, and be nice to each other? Mudcat is supposed to be a folk music forum, not UK Folkie Gossip Central. I've seen this backstabbing here at Mudcat from all sorts of UK people, and I saw it in person when I was in the UK last year. I met a lot of UK Mudcatters when I was in England last year, and this year at the Getaway, and I like almost every British Mudcatter I've met. You're wonderful people - why don't you like each other?

Don't you people have anything better to do with your time?

We don't go on witch hunts. We have no axe to grind. We don't allow personal attacks, so we delete them when we see them or when we get complaints about them. We would much rather spend our time on something other than settling personal squabbles and dealing with petty gossip. So, would all you children please grow up?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:38 PM

I hear all sorts of comments about Guest posts, but Max and Jeff and I still think we need to accommodate posts from people who don't want to register. We think it's the only way to keep this a growing, vibrant community instead of an inbred group of people drowning in their own smalltalk and inside jokes and bickering.

However, that being said, if a nasty note is posted anonymously, there's something more frightening and ominous about it. Even if it isn't intended, an anonymous message of disagreement tends to take on a leering, threatening tone. There are very few messages from registered Mudcatters that are frightening, but such is often the case with our anonymous posts.

If a person posts anonymous information about music, or makes a positive comment, almost everybody can accept that easily. Anonymity is disagreeable only when the text of the message is disagreeable - and then that anonymity tends to amplify that frightening nature of a message.

Shambles can say whatever he likes about me, and it's very unlikely that his messages will be deleted - despite all his complaints about deletions, the only Shambles messages that get deleted are the duplicate ones he posts in two or three locations. I may not like what he has to say and I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll - but at least he has the courage to use his own identity when he speaks, and I respect that.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 10:22 PM

1. There is no crime, and there is no punishment.
2. The editorial management they do is not a justice action. It is not censorship in the usual sense of the word. IF it is, it is the mildest possible form of censorship.
3. This question makes no sense. Of course there is a difference.
4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.
5. Already answered earlier -- no it is not too much to ask.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:40 PM

No -- because, at a guess, he is enjoying it or at least riding the wave with a bit of humor.

Amos - Enjoy is hardly the word for the truth is out there somewhere - but even if that were the case - the point is a good one and probably deserves a better answer that the one you provided. It is really these double standards that provide all the ammunition for the so-called trouble-making guest to exploit.

No one - including me has to open the thread so there is really never any need to delete this or any BS thread.

Kevin if I get told off for duplicate posting - will you take the 'rap'? I have posted the 5 questions here as you suggested for I see that you have alredy provided the link here from Barry Finn's thread.
...................................

The point I would make here is that there is only one punishment for any crime. And that this punishment is used increasingly and not just by Joe. Is it really proportionate that personal attack using foul language from an anonymous poster will receive exactly the same summary justice as a duplicate or an incoherent posting?

There seems to be many more than these two examples of what is not allowed and that will receive this one punishment and these would appear to be increasing. However, the questions that are not at all unreasonable to ask - must be:

1 Should the punishment fit the crime and does it currently?

2 Are all the volunteers authorised to administer summary justice and censor other's postings – without the poster's knowledge or permission – based only on their value judgement?

3 Is there to be no difference to be seen between an abusive post and say an incoherent one?

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being to set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

5 Is it really too much to ask that those that would volunteer to judge (and punish) us – can be expected to always set the standards and be judged themselves by these standards?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:24 PM

Wait a minute, Amos. How is Shambles going to ask for a deletion without being a hypocrite. My guess is he has no choice but to go along. Personally, I think the whole thread stinks. It should be deleted but hey, let's punish Shambles because he dared to speak against the tide. Who is being hypocritical here?

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Mudcat over-policed
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:09 PM

On the other hand, changing the thread title to the one I put on this post would be a good idea, I think anyway. (And I see that Shambles is evidently for that as well.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:05 PM

And to delete this thread because it in some sense attacks Shambles would be doing just what he has stated on numerous occasions he is opposed to. And I imagine he would be bloody furious if it happened.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:53 PM

No -- because, at a guess, he is enjoying it or at least riding the wave with a bit of humor.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:43 PM

...so this doesn't qualify as a thread attacking another mudcatter? Why, because Shambles views are unpopular or what?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:37 PM

"May I add a Musical(ish) if parodic note?"

"Not in MY thread - no."

I don't suppose you'd like Micca's post deleted, then?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:19 PM

Sorry made a bit of a fart of that one.

Roger, this raises a new and mystical question: what is the sound of one behind clapping?

A FA - Or possibly an RT?

It's the way I tell 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:19 PM

Well, you certainly spiced things up there, dintcha, Not-Martin?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:16 PM

Roger, this raises a new and mystical question: what is the sound of one behind clapping?
A FA - Or possibly an AT?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:09 PM

I nominate this thread to be the most boring "insider" thread currently out there.

What a yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:59 PM

Roger, this raises a new and mystical question: what is the sound of one behind clapping?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:39 PM

May I add a Musical(ish) if parodic note?

Not in MY thread - no.

And leave my left behind alone too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:15 PM

Fanfuckingtastic, Miccadarlin'!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:03 PM

faaantastic!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:44 PM

Nicely, nicely done, Pat!! LOL!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:41 PM

oh, my! That is destined to become a classic, Micca! *great BIG grin*

that's why we humans WRITE poems and songs...to capture the essence of ourselves in succinct metaphor. (he said pompously)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:13 PM

LOL Micca I love it!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Micca
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:51 AM

May I add a Musical(ish) if parodic note?

So Shambles spins
(Tune Sir Patrick Spens)

The Shambles sits at his keyboard
Writing a new thread whine
"Oh Who shall keep the Mudcat pure
The task must sure be mine"

Then out spoke bold Joe Offer
"Bold arbiter I be
That Shamble's a contentious git
As ever you might see"

The Shambles wrote a great great length
In threads that Numbered three
Saying "Guests that post anonymous
Are all OK to me"

"Its No-o way, its no-o-way "
so loudly he did moan
"will I be part of a witch hunt
'gainst folks who remain unknown"

The first line that Shambles wrote
No laughter laugh-ed he
"I'll not a single line here will I use
When I can two or three"

"Oh Who is this that's done this deed
And calls the clones "all right"
"We must resist the Witchfinder
Resist with all our might"

The thread it hardly had been up
A day or maybe three
When diverse Mudcatters spoke out
Both Loud and long so free

"The Shambles he is full of shit"
and many insults more
"He talks oppression of us all
He just don't know the score"

"Take heart ,take heart Mudcatters all
Make sure that we are clear
Its not for glory or for fame
But Music we are here"

Then out there spoke young Mudcatter
"I fear the 'Cat will sink
And with these personal attacks
It will begin to stink"

They had not passed 100 posts
When Giok shouted "Please
Its havering loud that yous all are
Your worse than the Wee Frees"

Thomas the Rhymer and BillD
Amos and Kevin McGrath
Were loath to leave the thread alone
Or be seen to run awa'


For if they to yield, and opt for quiet
The Mudcat soon you'd find
A place for guests and spoilers all
And a Shambles left behind

© Micca Patterson

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 06:07 AM

You're a sick puppy Roger......LOL....

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:04 AM

Even stranger than that - are there are signs that some changes here are on the way?

I kid you not - the following link is to a thread where Joe Offer is asking for the words to Time to ring some chamges

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:53 AM

There's a great scene in "Monty Python's Life of Brian" where Stan (a man) announces to his fellow members of the People's Front of Judea that he wants to be a woman, ". . . because I want to have babies."

"But you can't have babies," declares Reg, the PFJ's leader.

"Don't you oppress me!" shouts Stan, who also wants to be called Loretta.

"I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?"

………………………………………
According to a story in the London Daily Telegraph, a 34-year-old British man asked a doctor for a cervical cancer screening (also known as a "pap smear"), but the doctor refused on the grounds that men don't have a cervix. The patient lodged a complaint with the National Health Service two years ago, after the doctor refused to put him on a recall list for cervical screening.

Apparently, the Exeter Primary Care Trust, which is part of England's National Health Service, didn't know men don't have a cervix either. The PCT has summoned the doctor to a formal hearing over his refusal to perform the exam. However, in an attempt to be more patient friendly, the PCT did agree to the patient's request to be re-registered with a female name.

The PCT also issued a statement saying "Loretta" has asked for a number of "complex issues" to be reviewed concerning his care and treatment by "Doctor Reg."

"In this instance a range of issues are being considered, and the hearing is not solely about the availability of cervical screening." A spokesman for the PCT also told the Telegraph, "We have received a complaint as you described and as required, under the NHS complaints procedure, we are investigating along with other complaints from the individual."

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:55 PM

hUllo jOhn...hUllo?

Why don't yhour chat?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:53 PM

Keep it up. I like It. Mr. Shambles...much of your schlock has been a big contribution to the MC of today....

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Without your dedicated perseverance this American never would have become "knowledgable" of the plight of maligned-gypsies, buskers, license-fees, and Morris=-dancers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:50 PM

catpaws-mouses are flat and thin, and rubbish, , but hamsters are fat and good, and they put food in there face, and they clever, besause they knoew how to escape, and mouses dont, they just sit about all day, and they shit all over the place, but hamsters only shit in the corner, exept when you let them out, [then thhey shit on the floore], hamsters are betterr than mouses.john

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:47 PM

Yo, Shambles, I was kiddin' around.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:47 PM

Well, you're doin' that, so this must be workin'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:38 PM

Can we please do as customary on threads and respect the wishes or the original poster and keep these harpies and hampsters off of a thread created for me to ""piss and moan in"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:31 PM

Harpgirl is harpy, Harpmaker is Harpy.... right?????

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:15 PM

Here it is! The Hampster dance

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 08:48 PM

A buddy and I went into the main Eaton's store near Christmas one year. He bought some underwear for his girl friend. When the sales gal asked if he wanted them gift wrapped, I said, "No thanks, we'll eat 'em here." Jesus, catspaw49, you posted the above like there was something WRONG with it. Don't get on my shit list, pal. Oh, yeah, the bicycle seats are a treat, too. HA!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 08:34 PM

Now 'spaw... quit yer knawin... tha's jes not so. Hampsters are afficianados of a certain kina dance in da UK... OK? 41,000 hits on google, ya see... 'course ah ain't no smellin' bee eithah...

Cheerio! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: harpmaker
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 07:25 PM

Justa P, harp girl US =Harpy? harpmaker UK = Harpy? Nicknames the mudcat given me/us. Now what?? (No Th/cre intd, just a point)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 06:37 PM

Look, I gave up on these threads awhile back as generally pointless but on this one I'd like to make a positive contribution by clearing up the difference between hamster and hampster.

A Hamster is a small, furry, little mouse like looking mother which you buy at the pet store. They live their lives uselessly running about in a cage or a wheel or any number of wackyass toys available at the pet shop. Notice how the pet shop keeps factoring in? This type of hamster can be purchased for less than ten bucks but in it's short lifetime will cost you $2418.OO in assorted bullshit to keep it entertained.

A Hampster is a guy who sneaks into girls' dorm rooms and whiffs the underwear in their dirty clothes hamper. These too will end up costing money as they become guests of the local and state incarceration facilities where they are as useless as the other hamster but do provide entertainment value to many of the other inmates.....ahem.........The pet shop does not factor in here.

Glad to clear this up and also find this to be an entirely appropriate thread to do so.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,si
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 05:46 PM

Wrats. I always thought grebulls only had one ell.