BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:00 PM

I wouldn't miss you....

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Raptor
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:03 PM

You've hurt my feeling...





No wait... thats just a bit of gas. We're O.K.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:03 PM

Martin--


Particularly your attacks on Art Thieme, a talented man, and a good man (which you never try to be) and your attacks on Dick Greenhaus (can't remember why you attacked him--but then you never need a reason)--are way beyond the pale. That's just this year.

Then there are your vulgarisms for women, your ridicule of losing a child, and your ridicule of handicapped people, as well as your absurd attacks on Pete Seeger and your oh-so-subtle remarks on Kwanzaa. Anybody who thinks you've improved has a short memory and/or doesn't read very carefully. If the moderators have a leash on you, it needs to be shortened.

I can easily deal with you--the web is a medium of words--not your strong suit.

In fact, if you concentrated all your venom on me and left everybody else alone all the time, things would be a lot better around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:09 PM

Jeez, get a room, you two! You can cut the sexual tension around here with a knife.

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:10 PM

By the way, courageous "Martin," your post of 1:58 didn't sound very happy. I thought you were telling us how happy you were here, how you enjoyed yourself all the time (no pun intended, of course). You don't really sound overjoyed.   I keep asking you what I can say to make you happier, but nothing seems to work. As I said earlier, it's a puzzlement.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:14 PM

"You've hurt my feeling..."

Here's a quarter... go call someone who cares....

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:17 PM

Cluin is right. "Martin" has either pre-"Martin" syndrome, post "Martin" syndrome--or maybe just "Martin" syndrome. But whatever it is, it's a serious attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:29 PM

Joe has seen it all, on the internet in general and at Mudcat in specific. He's in charge because he's the right guy to be in charge. If you aren't getting along with Joe, and you don't like the consequences, it's on YOU to seek reconciliation. That's just a fact, and it applies equally to us all.

Who - apart from you and Joe - thinks that Joe is the right guy to be in charge?

Why do you think this?

Is it because there are no other candidates or any choice?

Is not Max in charge of his own website?

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:33 PM

Shambles the trashing religion thread is calling yooooooo--000----oooooo.

Please answer the call--you'll do less harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:33 PM

It would appear that NO ONE is "In Charge" here....

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 11:42 AM

For all of the women who have been stalked, harassed and are afraid to speak up I think the Mudcat could do without "Peace" for awhile.

...................................................................

ditto. I wonder how many of us there are?

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:13 PM

I confess I don't even understand that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:27 PM

Harassed over the net?!?!

That's funny!

Like you can harass someone who doesn't allow you to harass 'em over the net....

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:35 PM

Peace, Brucie: if you want to take a break do it! I did and was glad I did. I'm not back as much as I use to be, but enjoy popping in from time to time to heckel the liberals. You're both good guys and maybe a break would do you some good.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:41 PM

"For all of the women who have been stalked, harassed and are afraid to speak up I think the Mudcat could do without "Peace" for awhile."


Guest 1 and Guest 2 and Guest Combination, far be it from me to doubt a Troll. Let me just say: har har har har.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:58 PM

I'll stand up for Bruce too. If he is a stalker, PROVE it. I refuse to believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: suzi
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 06:12 PM

Brucie is a credit to mudcat...helpful, and very popular judging by how many catters want him to stay.... So stay with us Brucie...

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 06:21 PM

I have personally always found Bruce extremely supportive and friendly and would be sorry to lose his contributions here.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: GUEST,suspicious
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 06:30 PM

Aah it's like the good old days. One 'female' starts a " I feel like I really need to do y'all a good deed by telling you there is a big meanie bogeyman on this forum." And not one of these 'females' has ever named a name or given any guts to the tale. Now if I was stalked by someone on here I'd be singing it from the rooftops. Hollow words don't ring no bells.

And what clinton said too.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 07:27 PM

"Hollow words don't ring no bells."

Nice one!

"If he is a stalker, PROVE it."
Yup... put up or shut-up....

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 07:37 PM

Oh. That's what GUEST was getting at. Peace is a stalker and a threat? I wondered but I wasn't sure...

So GUEST managed to libel Peace and insult women who have suffered from REAL stalking all in one?

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: jaze
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:08 PM

Did I miss something?? Whatever is going on, I'd like to say both Peace and Azizzi would be missed and I hope neither of them leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: John O'L
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:10 PM

Guest -

Could we have an indication of where an example of this stalking & harrassment can be found?

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: gnu
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:18 PM

They ain't leavin. Neither is Joe. Hell no, we won't let them go.

Just a big misconfuzzilation.

I know this will be resolved because I have a fair bit of experience in "being human". I have been there more than a few times, in real life and here at the Café and as gnu or wildebeeste. To err is human, to forgive is bovine.

Don't have a cow, man. (Apologies to Bart Simpson.)

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:48 PM

See how easy it is to hijack a thread? Martin makes a crack and then sits back and laughs at how you all dance. From that one crack, we are now going down several roads that are unrelated to the thread. As much as you all profess to hate Martin, you sure like to let him use you.

Back to the subject at hand. I dislike public exits more than most things on this or any site. They aren't about leaving, they are about getting folks to beg you to stay. They are usually accompanied by some weak statement that attempts to justify the public exit. If you really want to leave, just do it and save us all the histrionics.

To the specific cases in this thread I say, we will be poorer for your leaving, but if you feel the need then fair winds. If this really is about disgust at some of the reactions to you by bigots, or perceived bigots, then I don't understand. Leaving is what they want you to do. Why would you ever give an adversary what they want. If it is about no one leaping to your defense, then I would say it is time for some deep introspection.

In either case, I will miss your posts and hope that you decide to stay.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:55 PM

You know, it's gotten pretty bad already.

I don't swear here any more and still the censorship thing is getting out of hand.

big Mick, I think fewer people hate me here than you realize. I think that also bothers some of the management here.

There are plenty here who love what I write and how I write it.

Being truthful and bluntly honest with your feelings really disturbs some very thin skinned clones.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 09:06 PM

Actually, Martin, I'm sure this will come a big shock to you but most folks don't hate you here...

They just feel sorry for you...

But guess what??? Give up???























This thread ain't about you... It's about people who actaully care about ***other*** folks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 09:14 PM

bobert, you don't get it that I really could care less. Brucie has really been a friend here and was really the very first one who showed me some true warmth here and is now one of many. More than you realize and for sure more than you want to hear about.

So if it's about my friend Bruce, it's about me, also.

Screw you bobert telling me what this thread is about. You get plenty of good kicks in the ass here yourself for making comments without a fully functioning brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: gnu
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 09:30 PM

Hi Jack!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 09:31 PM

No, Jack off!

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 04:57 AM

Why would you ever give an adversary what they want.

*Smiles*

Well if antone knows the answer to that one - it would be you Mick. Perhaps you could tell us?

The whole issue is NOT about dealing with those who do the childish and cowardly things online that some people seem to think it was created for and which they would never have the balls to do face to face.

It is about how others respond to this. Some see it as a green light to behave equally childishly and cowardly, but atempt to justify this response usually in what they think to be safe concert with others.

But the only thing that matters is to always ensure that the essential freedoms are NOT curtailed in any response.

For giving an adversary what they want is exactly what is being continued on our forum as the only policy. But the first mistake is to assume (especially on a discussion forum) that anyone who may hold, express and evidence a different view or do it in different way - is an adversary. They can be the very fresh air a stuffy room requires.

It seems that that is how Joe Offer, his fan club and anonymous volunteers would define an adversary and when they have done this - there is only one clunsy and counter-productive weapon in the arsenal for them to use against this perceived adversary.

And this selective censorship is exactly what ensures that this constant battle will continue. For it does not matter what judgement one posters may make of any fellow poster's personality or of their possible motives for posting what they do (good or bad). The only thing that matters is whether you respond or ignore what they say in their post.

It really has always been that simple for the only thing that is as sure as eggs - is that making any form of personal judgement about a fellow poster's assumed personality (good or bad) on a public forum - will only end up with responses in kind.

There are PMs and email for doing this - perhaps the use of this for these personal messages can be encouraged more as none of these add very much to any discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 05:16 AM

And this selective censorship is exactly what ensures that this constant battle will continue. For it does not matter what judgement one posters may make of any fellow poster's personality or of their possible motives for posting what they do (good or bad). The only thing that matters is whether you respond or ignore what they say in their post.

But Roger we do ignore your posts!

Giok ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 05:22 AM

Why would you ever give an adversary what they want

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 05:34 AM

Value judgement that one Roger, some people want attention, while others think that person wants a kick in the arse.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 05:52 AM

I would imagine we've all been offended at times on mudcat, and life being what is, we've probably given offence. I got so pissed off with recent the BBC4 programme thread (the BBC have recently done 3 part history of folk music, ommitting the names of everybody I have ever enjoyed on the folk scene and praising to the skies everybody who has ever emptied a folk club by boring people shitless) - I simply can't bear to open it.

However whereas in real life we would probably give those people that we disagree so profoundly with a wide berth, on mudcat - we see them talking about other aspects that they care about and we get a glimpse of their humanity and decency. For those qualities are in all of us, and none of us can go too long without revealing them.

personally I don't really see the point of having other noms de plume. And if I were Bruce Murdoch, with all his great talent I can't see how I would want to be regarded as anybody else.

I have enjoyed the posts of both these people - Bruce and Azizi. I hope they don't leave.

And Divis Sweeney I would miss you also very much, don't run yourself down.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 09:46 AM

I don't know all the details. I too hate public exits but understand that you may need a break. Whatever the circumstances, you will not be the first to leave and then come back and be warmly greeted.

Azizi - you are a treasure and will be missed.

Brucie - you are a dear sweet man who occasionally goes way off the deep end. You too will be missed.

Anonymous Drama Queens who choose to attack a man's character without identifying yourselves - I have said this before. You are BIG GIRLS and this is the internet. Use some common sense and for heaven's sake grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:52 AM

Apparently, from the PMs I have ruffled some feathers. So I will explain a bit further: if I were being stalked or threatened, even over the 'net, I would first contact the police and the Forum owner and then do everything possible to avoid my stalker. By tweaking Brucie's nose at every opportunity, you appear to be a woman scorned rather than one who sees herself in serious danger from her stalker.

If he has "taken advantage" of you, you were a party to it. Each of us has a responsibility to protect ourselves on the internet just as we do in real life. If you meet a charming stranger on the street corner or are introduced to one by a friend in a bar, do you then believe every compliment? Do you invite him home based on those compliments? If so, you are going to find yourself in difficult situations.

I am genuinely sorry that you are hurt and/or frightened or have been "used". This doesn't give you the right to destroy a man's reputation anonymously. If you have a genuine criminal complaint, take it to the proper authorities. If not, let the rest of us figure it out for ourselves. One of us may actually find Brucie the perfect mate.
Poor Brucie!

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:54 AM

Did Peace actually make a public exit-statement? I never saw it, and so I don't understand where Mick's post about it came from. Was it assumed just because of the thread title?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:32 AM

Stop fretting, folks -- Bruce is not gone. He posted 18 times here yesterday.

And I'm pretty sure he started a thread, as a GUEST, called "No Advance made in the Mudslinging" too. It was deleted after an hour or so. I didn't read all the posts, so I don't know why it was deleted, but no doubt the 'powers that be' here had their reasons. (Not to be confused with excuses).

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:14 PM

Bruce Murdoch is an ass. I'm quite certain he isn't gone from Mudcat, as this is his usual way of behaving here.

Azizi, on the other hand, likely is gone. And you can't blame her for that, after the way Bruce treated her, and the rest of the membership sat back and said nothing about it.

But then, that's par for the course with the Mudcat membership too. So it all works out the way it always works out here. The status quo, reinforcing asshole behavior by the membership, reigns supreme.

Azizi likely decided she was no longer willing to dance to the Mudcat tune...

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:33 PM

And you, sirrah, are a varlet and a dog with no legs and a shortage of understanding. Brcue Murdoch, far from being an ass, is one of the most talented musicians and generally intelligent people to grace these pages; and he at least has the courage to use a handle (well, most of the time. The majority of those who have dealt with him have found him to be considerate and articulate.   Hell, even Martin Gibson likes him!! He will wade into a scrap when he gets riled, but he is otherwise quite civilized. Go chase neutrinos.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:40 PM

I'm quite certain he isn't gone either. Mainly because he posted a bunch yesterday after this thread was started, but I don't think he EVER posted that he was leaving. You guys who talked about how you dislike public farewells: pretty funny, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:56 PM

WYS, you beat me to it. I actually thought of it last night though.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: GUEST,12:14
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 12:56 PM

Hmmmmm, now what possibly could have happened to the post I submitted just seconds ago, saying that my own post above wasn't accurate either--intentionally.

Why would a person do such a thing?

To make a point, natch.

The point of how idiotic threads like this, full of misinformation, lies, and peoples' personal venom towards each other, are de rigeur here at Mudcat.

But one of the clones (Jeri I'm guessing) quickly deleted it because of the way I made my point.

Let's see if she'll let it stand: the membership here love the smell of each other's shit, and revels in the rolling in it.

There you go clones. Now get to work defending the delicate sensibilities of those reading in the Mudcat realm, and making sure they never need read strong opinions from any quarter (member or guest) about their precious, wonderful little world here.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: LilyFestre
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 01:09 PM

What is interesting to me about some of the posts here is that you folks seem to know who said what to who, when it was said and the context in which it was said. It amazes me how much time people spend here (including myself sometimes), the extent to which they take in the exchanges...all of it. I can't decide whether it's more like high school or hospital gossip...it just is never ending, is it?

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 01:10 PM

Then again there are some Guest posts that don't actually need the name of the poster at the top, as it's so obvious from their style who they are.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 01:11 PM

Selective censorship? Well of course! nothing else would make sense.

To the best of my meager knowledge, the only firm rule here is NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. If you can't deal with that rule then go somewhere and grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 01:17 PM

Nothing your wrote in this thread has been deleted, guest. I'd guess maybe you had an oopsie when you meant to post?

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 01:21 PM

A tempest in a teapot. Guess who

Subject: RE: BS: Peace, Brucie, Bruce Don't go
From: GUEST,12:14
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 01:25 PM

Ah, my dear 1:11. New around here, are you? Personal attacks here are ALWAYS allowed, so long as the poster is attacking using the following rules:

1. The personal attacks can't be against a clone, especially the most thin-skinned, Joe and Mick (whom I believe was referring to Azizi, not Bruce Murdoch).

2. The personal attacks can't be against a popular member.

3. The personal attacks can't be against the ally/friend/relative of a clone or a popular member.

Which doesn't make this place look like high school as much as, say 1st or 2nd grade...

"I did not!"

"Did so!"

"Did not!"

"Did so!"

In perpetuity...