 sj |
||
|
||
Thread Proliferation Control
|
|
|
Subject: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:51 AM There were two Iraq threads started today that just didn't need to be started, since there already were a number of Iraq threads running. The new threads didn't deal with a major change - they were ancillary to the ongoing discussions. With a little thought, the thread originators could have fit their information into the ongoing discussion. I think there's a general consensus that a very few people are starting a very large number of threads, and I think there is general annoyance with new threads started when there is already an ongoing discussion on a related topic. On music threads, we combine requests with previous threads as a matter of course. I've been wondering about the political and other BS threads, and I think maybe I'll go in the same direction. When Iraq threads get started that don't really bring up a new topic, I think I'll move them into a Misc Iraq thread, or to an existing Iraq discussion. I suppose some of the thread originators won't like it, but maybe it will help them learn to fit their comments into existing threads, instead of fragmenting the discussion so much. We have some fascinating people at Mudcat, people who have well-honed opinions on just about any subject you can think of. If they're interested in a subject, they will give a well-reasoned response that really gives you something to think about. The way things have been, a small number of people have flooded the 'Cat with a huge amount of repetitive information, and the well-reasoned messages get drowned in the flood. I really hate to delete messages unless they're clearly harmful, but I think maybe that a system of moving them may serve to focus the discussion. I think you'll note that the PEL people have settled down a bit. Maybe the Iraq folks will do the same. -Joe Offer- (copied over from the Help Forum [click]) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: DougR Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:54 AM Makes sense to me Joe. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 02:03 AM Yes! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Wesley S Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:41 AM Thanks Joe. Undoubtedly though someone will cry out that their "freedom of speech" has been trampled upon. Keep up the good work anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:46 AM I'm all for it, Joe! When I skim down the threads, there are so many on Iraq, and the impending (seemingly) war, half the time my eyes start to glaze over, and I click on Mudchat (where interestingly, I haven't come across a single conversation about Iraq.) I think everyone has the right to express, re-express, slightly modify and enldlessly repeat their observations, but howz about one REAL BIG IRAQ THREAD? :-) Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: TIA Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:48 AM Excellent move. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:53 AM How about suggesting people lump the tidbits in a "Topical News--Thread Drift OK-Week/Month/Year" that is where odds and ends can be placed, instead of all new threads all the time? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:58 AM Overdue. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: mack/misophist Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:01 AM As I understand it, it's your job to keep things neat and tidy. You'r doing your job; what's to complain about? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: RichM Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:15 AM Good idea! Carry it further though: Forbid the messy notion of allowing uncontrolled new threads-- Every morning, or once a week,or whenever-- publish a pre-approved list of acceptable new topics. So that we (as member or guest) can only post to an existing OR pre-approved thread. And NO more threads containing the word Ir** ! Rich McCarthy I don't think I want to do that, Rich. One of the beauties of this place is its spontaneity, so I want to be careful not to exercise too much control |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:21 AM My only concern is that the starting of these threads may be yet one more volley designed to troll Mudcat Central into increasing its control over the forum-- made necessary only by the slowness with which members realize a thread is a troll thread, and our collective inability to let these threads die. You see, although I agree with your idea, my concern is that it'll just amount to another extended "Look what Joe did" fracas. I KNOW you can take the heat-- but if it serves to make the thread originator(s) feel they have gotten attention and "won" a moral victory, it may serve only to encourage them further. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:22 AM You jes' do what you have to Joe! If I'd had "thread proliferation Control" in my life for the last 40 years, I'd a bin a lot better off! Rock |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:35 AM Rich, no way on the "Approved Topics List"........Anything is fair game. That idea is way too close to censorship. I have posted previously in the HELP forum on this and I'll repost it here. It would be a lot easier to keep up with the news on the PEL issue, a very important topic to many, or Iraq, or General News with fewer threads. I think it would be quite simple to start a "PEL News of the Day" and an "Iraq News of the Day" threads. Everything goes there. If the subject fits into another existing thread then post in it as well or transfer the post later.....Just stop the friggin' daily thread additions. Khandu mentioned Punch the Horse...We HAVE a "Who's playing where" Permathread don't we? Let's use it. A new addition to Iraq or PEL or just some General News tidbits can also be listed in the appropriate thread assuming there is one, but a "News" thread would be simple to keep up with. As an example, let's say someone posts a new thread. "Kim Howells Rips a Fart"....maybe that would best go under some other existing thread, but for now it becomes a post in the "PEL News" thread rather than a new thread of itself. If there can be found a thread it might best fit in like, "Kim Has Smelly U-Trou" than it can be transferred there later but everyone gets the news. Same with Iraq only moreso as not much of that stuff is future reference. Say at about 300 or so posts a new "News" thread is started. Only rarely can I see the need for a new Iraq thread. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: RichM Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:49 AM - My comments were meant as irony, Spaw. I guess I was unclear, because I am reluctant to be sarcastic! To state more clearly, I would say that I feel all topics should be allowed--by guests or members, unless they are personal attacks or insults to others in the forum. A nasty or contentious topic will run it's course and die a natural death. Rich |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Art Thieme Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:55 AM I'm all for it Joe. Anything that will pare down and streamline so that the idea (if not the reality) that the music threads are the main reason for Mudcat Cafe is wonderful. This will serve to make the music threads more obvious, and that is just great with me. As I've said before, I'm for censorship that will create a moderator for the Mudcat that tosses non-music topics into the grease trap. ART THIEME |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:56 AM Rick, if you'd had "Thread Proliferation Control" in your life, you wouldn't be the Rick we love so much. Your wife Heather wouldn't like you, either. I hope to be gentle in this system of control, but it will be a trial-and-error process. If a thread starts out with a well-reasoned expression of opinion that invited comment, I'm likely to leave it alone. If it starts with a link, a one-liner, or a cut/paste article, it's likely to be consolidated. If it's an answer to an existing thread, it's likely to be consolidated. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:59 AM Geez, sorry Rich....as a sarcastic bastard myself, I should have realized!!! I wouldn't want to stop anyone from posting anything......but every thought on Iraq doesn't merit a new thread. A "News" thread free to drift would be fine and in the case of a continuing topic like Iraq or the PEL, much easier to keep up with. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM I am going to be a brat for a moment.:-) Just for the record, I posted this a while ago and was shouted down, sort of **bg**: Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: katlaughing - PM Date: 19 Feb 03 - 06:50 PM Three cheers for you, Joe! Thanks. How about if we have a News of the day thread, a continous one which is a central location for all of the political/news stuff? The only exception being some momentuous happening such as Columbine or the Space Shuttle? Ha! kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:04 PM My problem is that no one KNOWS when I'm being sarcastic! C'mon...where the heck are the "OUTRAGED GUESTS"? I'm waiting for my Mudcat entertainment value. Do they only come out at night? Cheers One of Joe's willing sheep, ha ha! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:35 PM maybe if you changed it to "Ricktin Crisp" they'd notice ya more! **bg** |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:41 PM 1) Proliferation is too big a word for most outraged guests to understand quickly. 2) The sun never sets on the Mudcat Empire! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:55 PM Okay, Joe. I understand about redundant threads, particularly related to Iraq. Now please explain to me why one of the threads that was moved had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ! The thread that was entitled "Terror Alert Level: Purple Haze!" is most emphatically NOT about Iraq. It is about the people who were busted this past week for selling Marijuana smoking paraphenalia over the Internet! Did you even bother to look at the content of the post or did you just assume that you knew what the content was based on the thread title? GUEST who started the thread was making a joke when he chose the title for it. My wife was unable to get into a military housing complex the other day because of heightened security. She joked that since she was wearing a plaid jacket we must be at alert level "plaid". Same kind of joke. Get it? Personally, I feel that the folks getting busted for selling bongs is a topic worthy of discussion on this forum. Those items were sold to individuals who paid for them by credit card. Computers have been confiscated and The Justice Department now has the name and address of every person who ever made a transaction. You can bet your ass that there are some people waiting for a knock on the door right now. I believe you made a mistake and I respectfully request that you move that thread back to the main forum. Sincerely, Bruce W. LaWall |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Beccy Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:00 PM Go Joe!!!! Works for me. As an aside- wouldn't it be neat if someone invented "Sarcastic" font for the 'puter so that we could rely upon that to convey our biting remarks? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Don Firth Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:29 PM Excellent idea! One of the problems with multiple threads on Iraq (or multiple threads on any given subject) is that if you are interested in the topic, you wind up having to bounce from thread to thread to follow the discussion, and if you post on any of them, you practically have to keep a running log of which threads you've posted on. I am interested in the Iraq discussions and I do post to them, but it's a real hassle trying to keep track of what's where. Keeping it all on a single thread would really simplify things, and I don't see that anyone could have a reasonable objection to that. I think we should also consolidate the "Conspiracy du jour" threads. That stuff is getting ridiculous! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:51 PM You know, Bruce, you're right. I'm likely to make some mistakes. The "Purple Haze" thread should have gone under "miscellaneous useless horseshit." Your reponse was worthwhile, but the initial message didn't even give much of an idea what the thread should be about. The original message in the thread consisted of a single, barely-comprehensible sentence, and a link. That's enought to start a hundred-message chain of useless verbiage - but not enough to start a discussion. It took me more time to dispose of it, than it took the original poster to start it. I guess I'm asking people to think before they post messages, and especially before they start threads. I know this is a novel concept to some, but perhaps it IS possible. Another novel concept is that this is primarily a MUSIC forum. We welcome all discussion, but we have to exercise certain controls to ensure that the political stuff doesn't overwhelm the music. I'm trying to keep those controls as gentle as possible, but it's a difficult task. If you want to start a thread similar to "Purple Haze" and begin with a message that gives your own opinion of the issue, that's fine. It does take some time to start a worthwhile thread - I would think it should take at least ten minutes to type an initial message that has some actual thought in it. The initial message needn't be long, but it should be thoughtful enough to provoke discussion. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:59 PM That brings us back to the idea of Guests not being able to start any non-music thread and/or having to enter a consistent identifier next to the Guest moniker. |
|
Subject: Changing Subject Heading May Help From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:05 PM Another thing I think it is good to remind people of is they can change the Subject heading of their individual postings, so that it makes it easier to search for them,later, and also for people to scan threads. I think if we did this more often it would help a bunch, esp. in everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink threads such as the political ones. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:12 PM I got the joke Rich; I mean it had to be a joke didn't it, after all it had a name attached to it. Usually remarks like that are headed GUEST. And they say that Americans don't do irony!! failte.....Giok |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Art Thieme Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM Joe, I only advocate what I do (probably) because I know it doesn't have a snowbll's chance in a jalapeno patch of coming to pass. I've learned to enjoy the B.S. too and I can't advocate going back to only music-related stuff because precedents for B.S. have been firmly set at Mudcat now and it would hurt too many good people to take it away. I learned to like the BS like Dr. Strangelove learned to love the bomb. Still, this is a good idea. Limiting BS threads by de-fragmenting is a nice way to do it. Thanks for all you folks do. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bobert Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:19 PM Now I'll be the first to admit that I *might* have started some purdy dumb threads that weren't worth startin' and so, yeah, Joe took me aside and gave me a voucher good for one weeks worth of Betty Ford "Dumb Thread" counselin'. Now I usually ain't into vouchers but, what the heck, I did the time and Iz feeling much better now. But... ...those urges are still there. But, I'm doing what Betty told me to do: smoke, drink, beat the danged dog, etc so I should be able to get thru this one! However, I feel a *dumb one* comin'. Hey, Joe, can I get another voucher??? Please, depot agent... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Deckman Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:21 PM Joe ... a couple of thoughts: First of all, thank YOU for all the time and effort, and other things that I know you put into MUDCAT. Even though I once (recently) started a "BS" thread about cigarettes, I hang out here for FOLK MUSIC. That's what is so important to me. So, following some others suggestions, I do like to idea of perhaps including, or starting, a daily thread titled "Garbage Disposal." I am clearly putting myself in agreement with Art. In my opinion, if it isn't about folk music, I do NOT want to read it here. CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:45 PM Joe has the patience of Job. If he didn't, in fact, I think I would have more fun and might even consider being a pain-in-the-butt guest tweeking the people what can be tweeked. (What the hell that Max guy does is beyond me, but) Joe is a near-saint. So, Joe, I'm sorry I impersonated that guy who wasn't gay. Your patient efforts are appreciated more widely than you probably realize. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: greg stephens Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:13 PM To the people who are sick of threads on Iraq(and who can blame them?) may I commend my modest thread on "Musicians from Iraq" which has so far only attracted 7 postings, as opposed to the 17,336,471 letters on Iraqui politics we have to wade through. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Lepus Rex Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:33 PM Well, this is the least bothersome to me of your "censorship" plans, Joe, as you're not deleting posts or preventing anyone from posting. But I urge you to choose the threads you relocate carefully, as those long strings of somewhat-related posts from a deleted thread can really disrupt the flow of the thread they're added to, and are difficult to read in their new form. (Much like that last sentence. Screw it. I'm tired.) But, of course, this thread brings out the ASG, once again howling for restrictions of GUEST privledges, and apparently trying to incite another irritating "I hate the Mudcat elite" flame war. I once again remind you, Joe, that they may be loud, and they may respond to your every suggestion with "Huzzah! Joe is God! Gimme that boot, Joe! *lick*" But they are a small minority of Mudcatters. I don't think the majority feels the need for draconian anti-GUEST pogroms. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:42 PM Oh fer krisesakes, Lepus! Pogroms? Really over the top there, esp. considering the absolute bullshit certain GUESTs have posted trying to "save" us from our own ignorance and denial, long post after long post, after long post. Some of them make the right wing conspiracies nuts look half-way sane; in fact, I'll bet some of them kicked the holier-than-thou SOB, or maybe it should just be "B," out. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:57 PM Basically I'm for it - but the kind of thing I'd worry about would be that threads like the musicians from Iraq thread might get swallowed us in a Iraq miscellany. A single issue can often have radically different aspects which can justify separate threads. I think we ought to make much more use of putting in links to other threads which seem relevant to us, like I did just then. I think that we are still stuck in ways of thinking that are pre-upgrade. Any thread longer than 50 or so used to be inaccessible to some people, and anything longer than 100 was a nuisance to everybody. That meant that starting a new thread rather than continuing on older one made sense. But now it really isn't necessary most times. The other thing that's been happening, as has been pointed out, is probably an effort by one or two people who like to pose as friends of free speech to try to force the Mudcat into a more moderated and controlled pattern, so that they can pretend it was like that all along. It's how some people get their kicks. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 27 Feb 03 - 07:57 PM I don't have any problem with Joe's policy. I do have a bit of a problem with people other than Joe thinking they need to do Joe's job for him. I hope those people (those who are not named Joe Offer) who are quick to jump into threads and yell for Joe to come move them, will not be hypocritical when it comes to the threads they start themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:09 PM Couldn't agree with you more, Carol. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 11:53 AM This policy is starting to confuse me quite a lot. We are instructed to add to existing threads when possible. Yesterday, a thread that was started in order to have a little fun was consolidated with some other threads in a way that made it not fun any more. So I looked up an old thread that was fun, thinking I'd put something I thought was funny on it in order to have some fun. This was a thread that had no acrimony on it and it was (is) a good natured, funny thread. The thread in question was started in October of 2002. The last post that was made to it was made in October of 2002. Two weeks ago, when I looked in on the thread in question, it was still open for posting. Today, when I looked in on it, it was closed. What's really going on here? Are we supposed to add to existing threads or not? Are there specific rules about what types of humor are permitted here (other than the rules about personal attacks, etc.)? If so, would someone please point to them in the FAQ? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:52 PM Sorry, Carol, you'll have to be more specific. Which threads are you talking about? I consolidated three threads yesterday (click), based on suggestions from people who had posted to the three. Consolidating is not a perfect solution - it's better for people to use control on their own. As far as policy on specific types of humor, the only rule is "no personal attacks." As for starting threads, the rule-of-thumb is that only one thread on any given topic should be active at any given time. If there are 15 Iraq threads on the Forum Menu today, some are going to be consolidated. Five is tolerable. Fifteen is ridiculous. Yes, you're encouraged to add to existing threads. But refreshing sixteen Shatner threads or twenty Iraq threads is not going to make people happy. We want people to be happy here... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:15 PM Neither Rob nor I start very many threads. We both practice moderation in the threads we post to in that there are many more non-music threads that we don't post to than those we do. We both are happy to follow rules that are clearly spelled out, and applied consistantly. But this rule looks like it's being applied selectively, and that's not only confusing, it's hurtful. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: dick greenhaus Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:24 PM Joe- One counter-cultural suggestion: We have one thread on who's going to Old Songs. This just tacked the 2003 responses to those for the 2002 Festival. Why not split thim, and let last year's postings go back to sleep? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:28 PM Joe, you said As for starting threads, the rule-of-thumb is that only one thread on any given topic should be active at any given time. (My emphasis.) I have supported the consolidation of the myriad Iraq threads and I have been outspoken about nameless ones who have started so many on that and on conspiracies, because they just became ridiculous, as you say. BUT, I don't think the above rule is going to work. There are always going to be overlapping threads on any given subject and I don't see how to draw the line on some but not others. I added to the Political Misc. one, today, but really wanted a new thread because I feel what I was posting was very important, the way Bobert felt his thread on Saddam's interview was important. I think the one possible solution still might be limiting the right of nameless GUESTs from starting anything but music threads. Not even sure if that would work, though. Please know, this is not personal. IMO, you've done nothing more than what many have asked for or, agreed was a good idea. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JohnnyBeezer Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:09 PM What do the shorthand/Acronyms "BS" "GB" "PEL" stand for? Serious enquiry. Does anyone have a glossary of these esoteric (I'm English) references? Thanks Johnny N |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:37 PM hi, johnny, BS=Breeze shooting or, if you prefer, Bullsh** I haven't seen the context in which GB was used, but a guess would be George Bush or Great Britain (but you'd suss that one out, wouldn't you:->) PEL is Public Entertainment License of which there's been quite an uproar in the UK **BG** = Big Grin IMO = In my Opinion a variant is IMHO, in my humble opinion Hope that helps and welcome to the Mudcat! kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Pooka Date: 28 Feb 03 - 04:07 PM Joe, may I add to members' thanks for all you do for this community. I may not always agree with you, but (a) who cares? :) and (b) I cannot *imagine* having to do your job. You're making good-faith efforts to handle what is clearly a growing problem, while reasonably balancing the competing considerations. I get really annoyed at those cut-and-paste threads. :) hoo hah |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 28 Feb 03 - 05:24 PM What a bloody mess. I just came in here after a couple of days being away, and threads are being deleted, consolidated, closed...I tried reading the "consolidated" threads, and it was like listening to the rants of a madman. Great solution? You must be joking. RichM is dead on. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 28 Feb 03 - 05:37 PM Another negative to this plan--Joe Offer's merry band of clones are Mudcat insiders with a very low tolerance level for discussion of politics here on Mudcat. The political cleansing of the forum has begun. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,sorefingers Date: 28 Feb 03 - 05:54 PM Santus Sanctus Santus Is the deleter who vaporises non musician troller-flamers who divert the true path of the Mudcat FOLKMUSICIAN'S forum Joe eo Gratias |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 28 Feb 03 - 08:36 PM So let me see if I've got things straight here? Joe is combining some threads 'cause they're reduntant (in his view).... He's eliminating some other ones 'cause he feels they're a waste of time. (is this actually true, or am I simply confused and just parroting what his detractors said) I'm assuming this is all being done to streamline the site a bit. Some folks (about three or four, and an anonymous guest who MAY be one person or six ) are pissed. How many people actually USE this site? Surely it's several hundred. So what's the BIG complaint that the majority might have? Is it the "Censorship, first admendment" thing? That is SOOOOO American, and this IS an international forum. Who cares if your immortal words get poofed? Write 'em again if you think you're that profound.....chances are they WON'T get bumped a second time. This place has long ceased being a viable source of really accurate detailed information about the old time,Blues, Bluegrass and Country Music I love, so there are other places I go to discuss that stuff, but Boy, have I learned a LOT about traditional Vocal music from the Cat....plus some great Gospel stuff, and tons of fringe stuff. It's still very valuable to me.....but for different reasons than when I came here four years ago. I LOVE the political discussions! But reading the same things over and over again from idealogues who simply can't spell, and don't give a shit about being part of the communinty just becomes boring. So who ARE the Joe Clones anyway? Apparently there are still folks here who think Max runs the place. Reading between the lines indicates to me that he stopped doing that a LONG time ago in order to have a life.....yet people KEEP using his name. Are the Joe Clones just the ones who answer all the technical questions? Is Jeri a Joe Clone? She seems pretty balanced. Are there others who are perhaps NOT as balanced? Jeez, I'm not sure I wanna know....perhaps Gargoyle is a Joe Clone...he knows a lot of computer stuff! Anyway, who ELSE would you want besides Joe making the decisions to keep Mudcat manageable? Not me, that's for sure....cuz I'd insist on memberships and identification....more fun (for me) that way, and I might even editorialize in every thread...it would be tempting. Nah....I think if someone's gonna push the buttons, it might as well be Joe. Many of us (the honoured inner circle) have met him, we know a LOT about him, and I think HE'S REASONABLY SANE! Remove this Joe, and I'll cut yer balls off! Cheers Rick Ballsoff? Remove WHAT, Mr. Rick? I don't wanna remove anything, Mr. Rick. No, Sir. Not ME! |
| Share Thread: |