BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe

Subject: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 09:36 AM

With this sudden spate of folk singers, living, dead, embalmed and
worthy of knocking off,

F. S's who are not dead, but should be [Thread combined with Musicians who are neither alive nor dead -Mod]

Folk Singers Who Are Still Alive

Musicians who are neither alive nor dead

Folk singers not yet born, or concieved [Thread combined with Musicians who are neither alive nor dead -Mod]

Folk Singers who Have Died

Folk singers embalmed, but not dead [Thread combined with Musicians who are neither alive nor dead -Mod]

I think this day in Mudcat history will be the
day Joe Offer finally flips his lid.

Please spare a kind thought for our dear old Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 09:46 AM

Even stupid people need to feel like they contribute.

(Don't know who I'm talking about, but if you've looked at the threads, YOU know.)

It could be enlightening to see who contributes to the moronic threads, but the "HEY, LOOK AT ME--I CAN START A THREAD" ones could be combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 09:55 AM

in that case Jeri, I am guilty for starting this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 09:58 AM

Not so much-- I don't see this as a copycat thread, and you have a point. Being able to start a thread doesn't mean a person should.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:02 AM

They've missed one out: Zombie Folk Singers

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:20 AM

He likes to have something to worry about, makes him feel needed :)

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:27 AM

Much neater just to list the "jokey" thread titles in one thread rather than open up lots of threads

folk singers who are undead
folk singers who are fed
folk singers who are dud...

Ad nauseum.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 11:45 AM

I'm glad you started it. The type of threads you are attacking deserve the attack IMO. I feel they are attempts to appear witty by those that are wit impaired, in most cases. But these folks clearly have the right to start them, and I simply exercise my right to stay out of them. But I still say they are a waste of bandwidth.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 12:37 PM

Problem is this Mick, not only do we not speak the same language as you Americans do, we don't share your sense of humour either!
In other words, it's a Brit thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM

Give me a break, friend John. While I might agree that irony plays a bit bigger role in Brit humour, we colonials are still capable of understanding it, especially when we get a little assistance from you Brits. Problem is this, John. I far prefer that my education come from English Brits than from Scotch Brits. Both are acceptable, of course, but we all understand that the English sense of it is better developed.

Excuse me a moment ...... I have to pry my tongue off my cheek. While I am at it, I wonder if you wouldn't mind parking your patronization lorry around the corner. Thanks.

There we go, now back to the topic at hand. In the age of Mudcat, I have become much more attuned to the culture and humour of others. This has made me a much more complete person, and I am grateful for the gift. This is most true where it applies to "Brit" humour. Having said that, let me say that it still doesn't cover up the lack of creativity and wit I see in these endless, and IMO, silly exercises. There is little that would be considered to be witty or humourous in them. Just my obviously unsophisticated colonial view, you understand.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM

Maundering around idle configurations of semiotic twisters is not purely a Brit thing; it is pursued by the partially-gifted in all corners of the English speaking word. But it is a shame to chalk it up in such large letters because it is shallow wit at best.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:52 PM

Hmmm

IMHO Its not a waste of bandwidth if one person enjoys it, including the poster. On the other hand, this is being said by someone who has never opened one of those threads. All I am saying is that in 2010, bandwidth is pretty cheap and sponsors pay for eyeballs, not quality discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:59 PM

I just wish people who had no useful information to contribute—and no sincere questions to ask—would stay out of the music section.

It isn't only Joe who is annoyed by this puerile behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:01 PM

oh dear... I did not mean to start a thing with this.   For my part I thought the spate of threads was uproariously funny (I am American for anyone who doesn't already know). But I also understand the problem in having so many silly threads, multiplying unchecked.

Let's not turn this into a bunch of rumbling of us agin them, ok?

My main reason for this thread was to be an easing of the annoyance of those other threads, not to highlight the annoyance.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:05 PM

It occurs to me that 2 divisions in Mudcat aren't enough. We need at least 3:

1. Factual information about music.

2. Opinions about music.

3. Non-music.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:19 PM

Jack, I can always count on you. I wonder if you would be so kind as to show me where I sai I have never opened one of these threads? Or perhaps what I said is that I choose not to. That might just imply that I have read them before, found them lacking and have since chosen just to ignore them. While you have your "reading for comprehension" specs on, you might also note that I recognized the right to start them and made it clear that these are just my opinions. Had I advocated for banning them, then I would understand your comment about "more eyes".

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: IvanB
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:55 PM

Mick, I took Jack's post as referring to himself as someone who never has opened one of those threads.

That said, while bandwidth may be cheap, Mudcat is still being run pretty much on Max's shoestring, so even "cheap" bandwidth can probably add up pretty fast. And, as one who pretty much satisfies himself with reading threads nowadays and participating in few of them, I find myself somewhat resentful of the dross I find when scrolling through the thread list. The "copycat" threads remind me of the way we used to act when I was in 1st or 2nd grade, and I find it hard to see the humor in them no matter what one's background.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 03:02 PM

Jack, I re-read with my own "comprehension spec's" and find that Ivan is right. Excuse me a minute ..... sounds of Mick furiously washing a dozen eggs off his face ..... thanks for your patience. It seems I owe yet another apology. Sorry about that, Jack.

But I do stand by my opinion of these threads.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 03:10 PM

It's not a matter of irony, it's about that even more characteristic of English humour, silliness.

Silly lists can be great fun - as in BBC Radio shows such as "I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue", and the "worse" the puns the better, for those who appreciate this style of humour.

But a list is best appreciated when it is presented as a list - in one place, not spread out all over the shop.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 03:10 PM

Such tolerence is a wonder to behold. Get the starch out of your knickers guys.
People can come on to Mudcat and behave like utter morons, eg CH and others, and folks defend their right to be arseholes, to the death.
"We believe in free speech here on Mudcat" is just one quote.
Right you let something childish annoy you, good, childish is fun sometimes. All ya gotta do to get rid of it, it click your wee mouse.
It's no big deal, and it's certainly not woth being pompous about.

I shall now go away, and get on with enjoying my life.
I'm growing older, but I have no intention of growing up.
I've seen how grownups behave, and it's boring :)

[Please note, SMILEY FACE!]

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 03:29 PM

In fact, John, I have said in virtually every post that I agree that these folks have their right to do this and I am not advocating banning such activity. I simply have the opinion that it is not humorous to the extent we see it.

And I would like to apologize again to Jack. John is correct in pointing out the pomposity of that post. But do note, John that I didn't just click my mouse and make it go away. Mind if I join you on the playground, buddy? We are friends, after all. And that is a sincere comment.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: gnu
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 03:40 PM

Ahhh... let the threads die? Don't open them? Don't post? I was of two minds. And the right one decided not to bother. But, since so many have decided it's an affront and a reason to prolong the deaths of these threads, long live freedom... FREEDOM!!!! A (movie) Wallace quote Mick.... >;-)

My cheek hurts.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 04:02 PM

Butt?

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: gnu
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 04:07 PM

Butt what? Ye knows I doesn't go with them kinda girls eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 04:12 PM

Butt cheek g :)
Ya know, Samson slew the Phillistines with the assbone of a jaw, and all that jazz.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: gnu
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 04:16 PM

Butt, Deliela never boned Samson eh? She just cut him off.

Cheeky you.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: kendall
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 04:57 PM

No one has ever forced me to read let alone post to any thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: gnu
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 05:28 PM

And I shall never be forced to turn the other cheek.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 06:32 PM

Not even for Kentucky?

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM

I was really enjoying watching those threads appear. As each one did, and it became more outrageous and funny than the last one, I was chuckling away over here in Torquay...because I knew the naughty lil' schoolboys who've refused to grow up and were coming out with the next witty title, then the next, ad infinitum, were chuckling away in front of their screens too, joining in the fun..

Come on, guys, lighten up. Life isn't all about trad. music and being sensible, staying on thread and never having a giggle. Gawd you'll all end up with serious, down turning wrinkles if you carry on like that...

And Joe loves getting his Naughty Step out and flexing his Cyber Muscles now and then..they're located just under the Giggle Bone, by the way..

I love the Wonderful Wit of Mudcat, along with all the interesting and crazy things you can learn on here...

Long Live Silly Threads!
Lizzie :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Janie
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 08:16 PM

Ach, Joe. I spare good thoughts for you daily, without regard to the threads.

Thankee, sir.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:31 PM

Janie's just suckin' up.**BG**

(Note BIG GRIN,Janiedarlin'!)

I notice Joe has done the only sensible thing and stayed out of this one! "Old" Joe, indeed...what an insult!:-)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 11:31 PM

[sigh]

...I'm feeling older every day.


I know the copycat threads are started with the intention of being entertaining. By the time they reach copycat #3, they begin to seem tedious.....and I begin to feel old.

-"Old" Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Art Thieme
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:43 AM

Joe, some of us appreciate you!

All, Long ago I started the 'infamous condom thread' to point out the banality of at least 50% of these threads. Lo and behold, it became a humongous tome.

I realized then that humor is often not viewed by many here as funny. And on we go...

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:36 AM

ahem.... are you all listening?


"OLD" WAS MEANT AS A TERM OF ENDEARMENT!

Capslock on for the heard of reading. I do my best to make my posts equality/diversity friendly.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:45 AM

Tam, I'm not offended. It's just that I'm......old.
My wife saw this, kissed me, and said, "Good night, Old Joe."

I think it's time to put me out to pasture. Grazing is an occupation I could really get into. So, yes, as Tam says, "Spare a thought for good old Joe."

-Old Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 03:11 AM

Altogether now.. 'Poor Old Joe, he ain't what he used to be, ain't what he used to be, ain't what he used to be'

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 04:44 AM

or, maybe Joe is more like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCEe8habCec

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:11 AM

Shouldn't it be "Poor Old Joe", given the Mudcat's relationship to the DT?

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:50 AM

Arthur_itis, thanks for the link. LMAO! That's brilliantly funny!

Tam, I smiled when I said it.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 11:32 AM

I know Kat... I forgot my big grin because I was in a hurry to post before leaving for work.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 11:36 AM

kat, did you spot Joe in it? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 11:39 AM

Poor Old Joe :)

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 03:25 PM

I don't think the "waste of bandwidth" argument against copycat threads holds water. For one thing, the bandwidth around here is starting to smell a bit like stewed rutabaga, old shoes, sheep farts, Preparation-H, and a few less mentionable things. It's high time it was replaced. And if wasting it's the only way to get it out of here so someone can truck in a fresh supply, I'm all for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: olddude
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 04:23 PM

Bee
you forgot Leeks ... wild Leeks and Limburger cheese OH YES
my brothers wife kicked him outta the house !!

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 04:51 PM

You won't understand the bandwidth argument if you take bandwidth too literally.

Have you ever picked up a magazine because it had a tantalizing "blurb" on the cover, and then you spend several minutes trying to find the matching article—because the blurb didn't give the page number, and the table of contents is hidden behind several pages of advertising, and then the titles of the articles are quite different from the phrases on the cover, so that it's difficult to find a match; and even after you have figured out the page number you want, it's still hard to find the page because most of the pages don't have numbers, because page numbers would spoil their lovely advertising layouts—and then when you finally do find the article, it's a big disappointment?

That's a waste of bandwidth.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:33 PM

Most important part of my post: IMO or "my opinion". That is a wholly different thing than an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:00 PM

Can't agree with you there - pretty well all arguments boil down to a difference of opinion, either about ideas or facts. IMO

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM

I disagree, Kevin. When one makes an argument, under the rules of debate it is incumbent onthat person to support said argument with supporting evidence or it falls into the realm of gratuitous assertion. One's opinion may be supported by evidence, or it may simply be based on one's likes or dislikes as in this case. Hence my opinion that I consider these types of threads as a waste of bandwidth is nothing more than my opinion based on my own personal taste. And I recognize that others are not required to agree. So my opinion, because it is mine, stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Spare a thought for good old Joe
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 08:10 PM

The general principle isn't "bandwidth" - it's space on the Forum Menu. If a single topic gets five or more spaces on the Forum menu, things are out of balance and less-publicized menu items don't get the attention they deserve. So, we generally set a limit of one active thread for any given subject (including repetitive jokes), and we enforce limits on thread duplications by combining or closing them. For the same reason, we do not permit ALLCAPS thread titles, although we usually tolerate one title word in Allcaps.

I'll admit that the "Folk Singers who Have Died" thread title was almost begging for parody. And I suppose if somebody posted a parody within the thread, it have been condemned as "disrespectful to the dead." But when the Forum Menu had a half-dozen parody threads, that drew attention away from the more useful threads. Besides, that sort of silly duplication makes us look stupid - and far too many people think that of us already.

And while I'm on my soapbox, let me state my personal opinion that "list" threads are useless and annoying. The "dead folkies" thread would have been beneficial if it had provided links to biographical information about the dead people. If the song lists were to provide links to the lyrics of songs (or whatever), that would be a different story. What bugs me most are song lists that include songs that haven't been posted here. If you think so highly of a song, why not make sure we have it and that people can find it? Oftentimes, I will turn "list threads" into links, so the threads have more value. But then I had some Mudcatter chew me out because a moderator had changed a word in his message to a link....

-Joe-