 sj |
||
|
||
Duffers on the Mudcat Forum.
|
|
|
Subject: Just duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: The Shambles Date: 25 May 02 - 07:47 PM In response to a post asking for information, an answer which included the following advice was posted on rec. music. folk.
Avoid getting sucked into the Forum at Mudcat, though. They're just duffers with little real knowledge. Is this a true statement? |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Nemesis Date: 25 May 02 - 07:52 PM Depends which post you're reading on the Forum :) otherwise some impressive knowledge here I'd have thought IMHO. Anyway, nice "duffers" in either case - is there a link to this site? xx |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: MMario Date: 25 May 02 - 07:54 PM Some of us are - and admit it. Some of us aren't. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Lonesome EJ Date: 25 May 02 - 07:57 PM Sounds like they have an uncanny insight into my golf game. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 May 02 - 08:02 PM That first sentence has a certain force: "Avoid getting sucked into the Forum at Mudcat". Reminds me of "Beware the Jabberwock my Son!"
There's a many a mild and tuneful gentleman, and many the wise and musical lady, as has fallen unbeknowns't to themselves into the snares and mazy trapments of the deadly creature they call "Mudcat", and has never broke from those snares to walk free on God's Earth no more...
|
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: The Shambles Date: 25 May 02 - 08:20 PM It is a USENET newsgroup, and thaus considered by its oldtimers as far superior and more important than a mere website. You have to 'subscribe' to it, rather than a link.
To be fair the same post did advise a visit to the DT. But I was more than a little hurt to read the above. It was a bit like someone else criticising your children, Ok for you, as the parent to do it - Whatever their faults, hearing others doing this will put you right into defensive mode. I'll take a polite Mudcat duffer any day, in preference to a conceited poster who is under the impression that they hold a monopoly on "real knowledge". |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST Date: 25 May 02 - 08:35 PM It is a true statement.
The Mudcat was once cutting edge - but the old good ones have fled - and the new good ones don't hang around long.
Stay over here with the mudchat Shambles, these "folk" are more your speed and ability level. Mudshat is a shambles sort of place.
BTW - You do NOT NEED to subscribe to a newsgroup. You can pick them up anytime, anywhere. They are not archived and can be browsed, sifted at your leasure.
|
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 25 May 02 - 08:40 PM The originator of that remark is a member here of long standing, but doesn't look in so often nowadays. If he'd said many are rather than they're just, I wouldn't feel able to argue the toss. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 25 May 02 - 09:08 PM Yes Mr. Douglas... .............................Abby Sale is another one of the... ........................"old good ones" ................................................... who elects to draw refreshment from a different.................................................................................... watering hole.
Never fear...Max will soon make the MC... safer still for you duffers.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Jeri Date: 25 May 02 - 09:29 PM It may have been that ironic humor that Americans don't "get" very well. My clues for this include the phrase "sucked in" and the fact Abby posts here. In the beginning of the same post Shambles quotes is Abby's rec.music.folk FAQ: The current FAQ is: He may have meant it. We have a few knwoledgable folks who remain and post, but many who are still here post far less frequently. Anybody else imagining how they'd read Shambles kind sharing of the above comment if he'd posted as an anonymous guest? A troll is a troll is a troll, and here we are, back in anti-mudcat/too much BS bullshit again. Bye. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 25 May 02 - 09:36 PM Beware the self-proclaimed intellectual. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Sorcha Date: 25 May 02 - 11:08 PM Duffer(????) checking in here..........maybe. Am I a duffer? How do I know? |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Stephen L. Rich Date: 25 May 02 - 11:22 PM If I knew what the heck I was talking about, wouldn't that take all the fun out of saying it? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Amos Date: 26 May 02 - 12:14 AM Beware the shambly sort of pseudo-synthetic-superiority of intellect without heart and untouched by the Real Deal magic of song. They're automatons who try to substitute for emotional frostbite with layers and layers of mental gymnastics and data without any depth. I would submit you ar ebetter off standing the heat, and staying in the kitchen, right here. A |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Bert Date: 26 May 02 - 01:00 AM ...just duffers with little real knowledge... Now imagine what kind of person would make a statement like that. Not a Mudcatter for sure. Not even one of our beloved GUESTS. It wouldn't have been a member of the EFDSS by any chance, would it? *GRIN* |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: wysiwyg Date: 26 May 02 - 01:27 AM MAY 2002 RANT OF THE MONTH, "RANT ON" Can we just quit staring into our collective Mudcat navel, just once, without having to endlessly analyze every speck of lint in there (or that we imagine is in there) (or that we think is trying to control us from there) (or that we MUST control)????? Can't we just go play some damn music instead of talking about how we talk about music? It's like when the news covers the media, an eternally self-reflecting mirror image. Whaddaya think, now we have to call it the Inner Duffers' Clique? Sing with me: "I'm a duffer, he's a duffer, she's a duffer, yer a duffer, wouldn'tja like to be a duffer too? Be a duffer, yes, Mudcat duffer....." The MudDuff Cafe. Vive la dufferance! Lay on, MudDuff! And then get the heck ON with it! Hey, I think I'll throw in a rantling about Heaven too. My idea of heaven is, it's a place where everyone there has GOTTEN OVER IT, whatever "it" was, to them. That's why they're all praising God for eternity like it says in the Bahble..... just laughing joy and gratitude that all the grievancing can finally STOP. RANT OFF. There, that wasn't so bad, was it? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST,Bert Date: 26 May 02 - 01:29 AM Vive la dufferance! I love it |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Hrothgar Date: 26 May 02 - 01:53 AM Meanings for "duffer" in the Macquarie Dictionary: 1. a pedlar, esp. one who sells cheap, flashy goods as valuable items under false pretences; 2. one who steals cattle, sheep, etc., esp. by altering the brand; 3. a plodding, stupid, or incompetent person; 4. a shaft yielding no payable ore; 5. anything inferior or useless. Now, if the person concerned would give us their choice from these meanings, we'd be able to work out how highly we are regarded. Always wanted to be a horse thief, myself. And bert, I'm a member of the EFDSS, but I do suspect I don't fit their normal member profile, somehow. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: CarolC Date: 26 May 02 - 02:26 AM As one of the Duffers here, I'd like to take a moment to say that in a little under two years of being here, I've learned a hell of a lot. It would probably have taken me several years to learn as much in some other context.
I took a look over at rec.music.folk, and while I'm sure it's quite useful for people who are primarily interested in certain kinds of songs, it doesn't seem to have much for instrumentalists like me. So I would like to take a moment to thank Max and the many people here at Mudcat who have helped me so much over the last couple of years in my efforts to become a better musician and a better accordionist. And also for helping me to expand my musical horizons to include some genres of "folk" music with which I was not previously familiar. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: DMcG Date: 26 May 02 - 03:45 AM As I've said elsewhere, it all depends on what you are after. I don't think Mudcat is the right place for academic research (but maybe DTStudy will alter that). It is the right place if you are want to talk to people who are actually performing this stuff now. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Liz the Squeak Date: 26 May 02 - 04:44 AM I bet rec.music.folk don't have such a close network of moral, emotional and physical support, don't have gettogethers/getaways all over the world, don't have as many laughs and don't look up from their own navels half as much as we do here..... it's the difference between the junior library and the reference library. If you want to find out something factual, in an atmosphere of silence and studiousness, go to the reference section. If you want to find out something but have some fun and conversation on the way, go to the junior library. The same information is all there, but in a far more enticing and attractive format. Besides, doesn't it say cafe at the top? Isn't a cafe a place you go for refreshment and conversation?? LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Jon Freeman Date: 26 May 02 - 08:39 AM DMcG, as far as I understand it, the Mudcat was a good place for academic research and maybe your right in suggesting that the new move from Joe Offer will help matters. It reamins my belief that people like myself coming here and talking about anything (BS) has contributed to a decline and arguably has put some people of joining/ staying around. I'm still very much in favour of the new filtering wich I hope Max will introduce soon as I believe that will aslo help the situation in allowing people to have more of their own view of the forum, perhaps more in keeping with their own ideas of what Mudcat should be, be that pure music discussion or everything going (there is room for both). While the post in rmc may have upset some and perhaps was a troll here, I hope it does give a little jolt and at least prompt people to question "is this a general feeling outside" and perhaps also look inward and reflect a little. I don't believe Mudcat can ever be perfection but I do believe it can improve a lot in all directions. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Jon Freeman Date: 26 May 02 - 10:08 AM Liz, re the sort of network of friends: I doubt that rmf has one but it is not impossible... Mudcat does have a tendancy to look inwards and think they are tey only ones in many ways... alt.banjo (alt is perhaps the hardest of the usnet heirachies) recently managed to collaborate and put a 2 CD set of contributions out. the (at some time I thought this was the feeling here) "evil outsiders" from the Paltalk music groups managed to organise a get together with Moongoddess... The way I see it is that Mudcat has been sitting around saying "what a wondeful community we are" while other places, even those in seemingly impossible circumstances have moved forward. Isn't it time to look and think and rather than just pat ourselves on the back (and in some cases I think have a Mudcat Cult (not clique)) to look at ways of moving Mudcat forwards. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: DMcG Date: 26 May 02 - 11:05 AM Well, I've just spent about an hour browsing through rec.music.folk and I don't think it is noticeably more academic than Mudcat - nor a great deal less either. There are popular threads on things like "who is your favourite artist" ... all in all, very like Mudcat I would say, with a different interface. There does seem to be less looking for lyrics and a lot more information about where various people are performing. While we comparing Mudcat with other groups, don't forget we were advised recently to "spend a month reading uk.music.folk" if we wanted to find out what 'insular' meant. Is it just possible each forum has its own strengths and weaknesses and that the people who take part make it into what it is? *G* Could Mudcat be better? Of course. Are other sites better? For some things yes, for others no. The wise researcher looks at several sources (and always did) ... |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST Date: 26 May 02 - 11:15 AM The wise researcher doesn't use chat forums on the internet, period. Having spent plenty of time in both places, I would say there are more knowledgeable people in the Usenet forums. However, the most knowledgeable folkies just aren't posting on-line anymore, period. There are off-putting aspects of every unmoderated folk music forum on-line. The cool people who used to hang around on Usenet, and who came to Mudcat when it used to offer a true alternative to those forums, have pretty much left. Only the chat forum junkies are left, and they seem to be addicted to the medium, more than the forums themsleves, ie if their fave forum folded tomorrow, you'd find another one to get the fix. The real problem with all these forums is too many jerks. Too many rude jerks, too many know-it-all jerks, too many trollers and flamers, too many idiots passing themselves off as experts, too many of the worst examples of humanity to put up with in your psychic living room. Mudcat just seems to be more delusional about it's "specialness" than most, is all. Face it Mudcat--you are the drivel of humanity that drove the good people out. Of course you think you are wonderful. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Celtic Soul Date: 26 May 02 - 11:21 AM Susan said: "...My idea of heaven is, it's a place where everyone there has GOTTEN OVER IT, whatever "it" was, to them". That's an excellent point...but, I'd like to gently say that it really does come across as if you did not take your own advice. As for the anonymous Guests posting, and what it says over at the newsgroup mentioned, and how it seems to have inflamed at least a few here. Why do we need to judge others to find what works for us? If the rec.music.folk is better for some, great! Wow, I'm glad that they found it. If reading the music threads only here is better for some, hey! That's great, go for it. If being here and enjoying the comraderie is what brings some who have less knowledge, wonderful! It's an opportunity for us to learn as well. If someone is more knowledgeable, that's great! Teach those of us who have not yet learned what you know, but why not impart it without judging us as inferior? That is the only way we'll learn and can be able to pass that torch along to others. I just don't see how anger will solve anything. And I mean, anything, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Rather, it only makes things all the worse for everyone *to include* the one who is angry. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Don Firth Date: 26 May 02 - 11:28 AM A chihuahua yapping at a pride of lions. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: DMcG Date: 26 May 02 - 11:32 AM I agree with you Celtic Soul (I hope you don't class me as one of the angry ones - I'm perfectly calm!) The most knowledgeable may have stopped posting entirely. I wouldn't know and it is unfortunate if it is true. But all that is really needed, as CS says, is that there are some here who are more knowledgeable than me - not that difficult really! - for it to be worth spending some time here. (I used to subscribe to rec.folk.music back in the late seventies by the way, so I may be one of the cool folk who used to hang round Usenet - what an appalling thought!)
|
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST Date: 26 May 02 - 11:37 AM I was thinking more along the lines of Irwin Silber, DMcG. I should add that some mailing lists is where knowledgeable people have gone. For instance, rec.music.celtic sucks, yet there are still many knowledgeable people posting on the IrTrad list. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: wysiwyg Date: 26 May 02 - 11:45 AM CS, of course! That's the whole point of a rant! *G* I sure am not syaing I am better than anyone else! *G* ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Jeri Date: 26 May 02 - 11:47 AM Hello again. Here's the thread in which the post occurs. Just a clarification. The stripping of the humor from the rest of the message and re-posting those lines alone here, where they're sure to garner defensive reactions and fanning of flames ("Mudcat sucks and Mudcatters are a bunch of weenies" - see above messages from GUEST and .gargoyle for examples) by our own indigenous trolls is what I'm calling a troll. As far as "moving forward" goes, the major thing we've got to get past (IMO) is feeding trolls, most of whom start and/or get heavily involved in Mudcat navel-gazing threads or attacks on individuals. It's the very fondness we have for this place and the people who come here that will fill it with trolls and flames, because we can't seem to NOT react. Eventually, we become the trolls and flamers. We post messages from other places that have inspired our defensiveness. They inspire the same in others who read them. We actively search messages for insults and find them, perhaps where none was intended. We post messages about making Mudcat better - in my opinion, the places that are less contentious are so because they aren't trying to be anything - they just are. If people there felt the same group identity/loyalty they do here, they might fall into the same navel-gazing routine Mudcat has. Interesting opinion here, on Getting People To Behave The Way You Want. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 May 02 - 12:47 PM Trolling? I thought that was an amusing quote Shambles gave us from rec. music. folk, with just enough truth in it to be interesting. Nothing to get angry or over-excited about. The very use of the word "duffers" indicated a tongue in cheek element.
One of the things I like about the Muscat is that it's open house, and there's an acceptance of variations in expertise. I'd loathe a forum where when naive people get sneered at and made to feel they have no right to get in the two-pennyworth. I don't in any way feels that that devalues the real and impressive expertise on abstruse matters that shows up every now and again.
If there really are knowledgeable people who have got fed up with sharing the forum with people who know less than them, and have taken their ball home with them, or to somewhere else, I'm sorry they felt that way - but I think they miss the point. The best aspect of folk music is that for the most part it isn't like that.
As the Old Bill cartoon from the Great War put it "If ye know of a better 'ole, go to it." Which I have always understood to be an invitation to stay, and that's how I mean it.
Duffers welcome. And non-duffers. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST Date: 26 May 02 - 01:09 PM If there really are knowledgeable people who have got fed up with sharing the forum with people who know less than them, and have taken their ball home with them, or to somewhere else, I'm sorry they felt that way - but I think they miss the point. The best aspect of folk music is that for the most part it isn't like that. The reason that many knowledagble folkies have left Mudcat is that folk music too often takes a back seat to threads about how the Israelis are the real terrorists and about what color Mudcatters prefer for their underwear. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Amos Date: 26 May 02 - 01:13 PM Ya know, the bottom line is that the post that started this thread quotes an opinion and then asks if its true, which is an absurd proposition. If we "got over" the belief that opinions were facts, or that they were some sort of solid scary beast, we'd be a lot less loaded up with endless threads trying to find out which opinion was trueer than which other opinion. It's an endless business of chewing up old thoughts and spitting them out again and it really doesn't add much to the joy of sharing information or sharing opinions clearly understanding that's what they are. A |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Liz the Squeak Date: 26 May 02 - 01:18 PM McGrath - that's just how I felt when I looked into rec.music.folk a few weeks ago... I felt like I was a poorly tolerated beginner in a long established session. I could only play a few tunes and they begrudged me that, so in the end I gave up. The attitude was one of 'we know everything about folk and you ought to as well, don't come down the deep end of the pool if you can't swim with us'. I'm staying here, where at least people can laugh at and with each other. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Jeri Date: 26 May 02 - 01:44 PM Well, I'm obviously not immune from seeing bugaboos. It irritates me when people respond to what they thought was said or should have been said instead of what's actually there. That's what I've done. Shambles didn't ask about our opinions of the statement - he asked whether we thought it was true. As far as "duffers" - I'd probably fit the category. I know a little. On forums where off-topic posts are discouraged, I mainly read what others say and learn. Let's face it - you don't have to know much to discuss trolls, people's love lives, food, etc. - you just have to have an opinion. I gots loads of opinions! I have a few books I can turn to to help people and I'm pretty handy with a search engine, although I think Sorcha has me beat. Still, folks with an ability and willingness to look for and post information are of as much help to askers of questions as the folks who actually know the information. Folks who Know Things may not have the time to answer questions, or maybe they just can't be arsed to post. They may be sick of answering the same questions. (To the person who asks, it's as fresh a question as it was the first time the old-timer heard it.) It's why we can keep going even when the more knowledgable people get bored or busy or fed up, and leave. Someone's always here to find an answer to a question even if they don't know it. Also, somebody frequently does have specific knowledge because we all have some specific knowledge. So maybe, even though we as individuals can be duffers, as a whole, we're pretty darned good. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 May 02 - 01:44 PM One thing about the Café is that it's self-service, In fact it's help-yourself generally. The kitchen shelves are open, and the cooking facilities freely available.
There are some ropey cooks about, but that's no problem, because you can just make something to suit yourself and the people you get into conversation with.
Every now and again someone walk in wrapped up in an impenetrable cloak and starts whinging about how there isn't a proper menu, and all the best people who know how to cook have gone off somewhere else - but you just have to treat that as a kind of freelance cabaret act that's a bit long in the tooth.
Remember, it is better to set fire to your whiskers than to curse the darkness. Try it some time. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 26 May 02 - 02:12 PM duffer n. 1.a. a foolish, enept, or objectionable person; (now esp.) a foolish or objectionalbe old man; (rarely) a fellow. [ The British sense, 'a worthless, exp. counterfeit item', ...........
b. Horse Racing 1880 N.Y. Clipper Almanac 44: Duffer. - A horse which loses heart or refuses to exert himself during a race.
c. Golf. an unskillful player
duffer2n. [prob. alter. of duff, dial. pronun. of dough; cf. S.E. duff 'boiled or steamed flour pudding'] Hobo a piece of bread; bread; (occ. bread and coffee.
Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang Vol I, Random House, New York, 1994 J.E. Lighter - editor.
Sincerely |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: The Shambles Date: 26 May 02 - 02:33 PM It is the group identity/ loyalty aspect I find most unfortunate, whether on this forum or anywhere else. The use of humour in that post does not disguise this approach, such as the use of the word "we", when all an individulal poster anywhere can claim is I.
The origin of name-calling is rooted in usenet. Be it "duffer" or Troll or Flamer or Spammer or whatever. The practice still goes on there, mainly to prove that one individual is wiser, more informed or more correct or just been there longer. Unfortunately some have just followed this example on the web, when this offers us all online the chance to grow up, in an internet sense.
The poster is welcome to express their view and I can agree or not. It is a matter of taste as I have said. I just prefer the generally more friendly and open approach on the forum, rather than one based on tiresome name-calling and the placing of people in categories, mainly to enable them and their views to be dismissed. One of the reasons I copied the comment here is that can never be a bad thing to find out how you may appear to others. You can 'shoot the messenger', (another usenet speciality, not to my taste), by calling them or their post a name, but it would be wise to at least listen to the message (even if you may choose not to respond). |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST Date: 26 May 02 - 02:41 PM A troll, is a troll, is a troll. Whether nameless or a shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Burke Date: 26 May 02 - 02:42 PM I looked at the dates on the original message in rec.music.folk, my response to it there, and the first message in this thread. I suspect if I had let Abby's comment pass, it might not have been otherwise noted. My response was a throw away line. I don't have a good Usenet feed, don't even check news very often & have to use Google; so I was not expecting to engage in a debate of any kind. I'm sorry now that I did it. I've seen threads in r.m.f that were critical of Mudcat (Pete Seeger's banjo comes to mind) & now this one critical of r.m.f. (there may have been others). Personally I think if you have a disagreement with something said in a particular forum you say it to the the person there in that forum & duke it out there. If you have other complaints about r.m.f do your complaining there. I quit r.m.f mostly because DejaNews got messages in a pretty timly way, but Google always seems too far behind. A duffer.
|
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: The Shambles Date: 26 May 02 - 03:08 PM There really is no excuse for carrying on with personal spats, making insults and name-calling (publicly) online. Those that insist on doing this in public, for real would be thought to be rude, strange, anti-social and childish. Why should it be any different online? For it is possible on usenet to e mail posters and insult them all you like, and no one else has to wade through it. The same is also true on this forum with personal messages (if one has a cookie of course). |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST,of the house Date: 26 May 02 - 04:10 PM Of all the forums on the vast world wide web, I doubt that there's not one that spends more time than Mudcat discussing itself and the infiltration of guests, trools, etc. Given that he has the tools to control this place, I can't help but think that Max loves seeing you duffers argue the same old shit over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Celtic Soul Date: 26 May 02 - 04:55 PM Susan penned: "CS, of course! That's the whole point of a rant! *G* I sure am not syaing I am better than anyone else! *G*" Oh, hey, Susan! I'm sorry if you thought I was lumping you in with those who treat others as inferiors...I was not. That's why I seperated you from the next line. Sorry for the confusion. I *did* think it was amusing that you asked folks to get over it in a rant, though! ;D
|
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: wysiwyg Date: 26 May 02 - 05:08 PM I think that's the whole trouble with us human beans... we can usually not see our way out of an upset except by first giving into it. A pushed button is a pushed button... so once you have let one get pushed it's hard to remember all the good reasons why you were not going to give into that stuff ever again! *G* Seems unfair sometimes, that wisdom is based on hindsight, yet we have to live looking forward! *G* I think we might all have a better time here if only we could ever remember to start a post off with something like this: "OK, here I am not writing from my best self again, I've gone and gotten upset, and in fact I am so far from my own best thinking that now I need to blow, excuse me for taking up the space to do it, but can you just let me blow so I can get my thinking straight again..." We seem to be able to do that in person, and to give each other a hand in that way with mutual permission and support, and with mutual progress.... and a lot of laughing seems to drain off the mutual button-pushing that can happen in that kid of exchange.... but in a thread, once you say something, it's fair game for all comments, and a cascading button-pushing exercise. Oh well. I guess that's another symptom of Duffer Disease. I hear music is the only cure, too. *G* Look, I think the main thing, human beans tend to do the best they can in any circumstance, and some days, some of us (who are also doing the best we can) find that someone else's best is not good enough for us, while we protest loudly that our best ought to be good enough for THEM (or is at a minimum none of their damn business). But fortunately music cures that, too. *G* ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Celtic Soul Date: 26 May 02 - 05:30 PM Susan, excellent points! I can say that there are most definitely times when I am not at my diplomatic best, that is for certain. I think the idea of a preface is a great idea, especially when venting to and with friends. I think it's wonderful to feel safe with friends, and know that they will be there after you've gotten it out of your system, and prefacing it allows them to know that it is such a moment, and not to take offense. The unfortunate fact, though, is that once the emotions get elevated with those with whom that level of support and friendship do not exist, it's all the harder to bring those on the other side of an issue back down, and so, it's all the harder to get ones own emotions back in check as well. I know people who are very good at helping others to make light of just about anything...I know I am not one of these folks, so for me, I need to keep it in check no matter what (not that I always succeed). I have taken to walking away from my PC whenever I am about to lose it. So far, so good, though I know this may not always work. We all have our moments...me as much (or moreso) than anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: GUEST,the other house fell on my Usenet sister Date: 26 May 02 - 05:32 PM I agree, of the house. And Shambles--your original post was in bad form, but it was classic Mudcat member trolling. Thanks for illustrating what those who have cared enough to be constructively critical of this forum, have been saying for well over a year now. BTW, I also agree with your assessment of unmoderated usenet groups in your 2:33 post Shambles. What I don't agree with is your belief that Mudcat is any different. In my view, this place really isn't any better or any worse than unmoderated usenet. However, that said, in my opinion both Mudcat and unmoderated usenet ngs are considerably worse than well moderated usenet ngs, and many many private mailing lists. You just don't get the riff raff, the duffers, the trolls and flamers, in moderated forums that you do in unmoderated ones. Which is why the people who love this place the most likely don't spend any time on moderated forums. They don't want to be held accountable for their way-off behaviors which definitely would not be tolerated in well moderated forums. I really do think it that simple. I find Mudcat and uk.music.folk to be the most unwelcoming of strangers of all the unmoderated folk music forums on the internet. Rec.music.folk, like rec.music.celtic, just doesn't see much traffic at all anymore. I believe that is because those who "rule" uk.music.folk are so cantakerous, obnoxious, and argumentative, that they have argued and bullied and harrassed decent, friendly, and knowledgeable folkies right out of the unmoderated folk forums, destroying other folk forums in the process. They are quite smug and complacent about that right now over in uk.music.folk. They've driven virtually all the Americans out of uk.music.folk, to be sure. And left both rec.music.celtic and rec.music.folk smoldering shells of their former selves. Not an uncommon sight if you've had any dealings with left leaning political movements, where people destroy what is successful, in order to take power in the vacuum they create once the successful endeavor has been destroyed by their own hands. Sad, but sadly predictable too. Same thing seems to be happening here. Question is, who will win the battle of Mudcat--the Brits or the Yanks? |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 May 02 - 05:35 PM I can't see any difference in principle between saying "we" on the Mudcat and many other settings. When you say we, we (sic) are always open to correction or to the comment "that doesn't include me"
But so many people seem to take things like this so seriously. Get all uptight and angry, and then blame someone else for the fact that they get like that and don't like the feeling.
I mean a light-hearted comment like that is hardly worth getting all het up about. If the worst we (sic) get called is "duffer" that's not bad at all.
Some might see it differently, but I beg to duffer. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: Celtic Soul Date: 26 May 02 - 05:53 PM GUEST, "the other house" penned: "I find Mudcat and uk.music.folk to be the most unwelcoming of strangers of all the unmoderated folk music forums on the internet." There was a time not so long ago when I was new to the Mudcat. I became a member almost immediately, but I was complete stranger to all but 2 people who were already here, regardless of membership. The only people who were outright rude, unfriendly and unwelcoming when I was new here were unnamed Guests. The members, while I may not have agreed with them on numerous occasions, or they with me, expressed their disagreement in mainly polite terms. This trend has continued to the present. |
|
Subject: RE: Duffers on the Mudcat Forum. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 May 02 - 06:06 PM I came to the Mudcat a couple of years ago, and I didn't know anyone who'd ever even heard of it. Other than that my experience has been exactly the same as Celtic Soul. |
| Share Thread: |