BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 09:32 AM

For those desiring to know more (Guardian article):

"A short and curly history of the merkin

Comedy terrorist Aaron Barschak has another claim to fame - he's put the merkin back in the spotlight.

Before his royal gatecrash, the prankster amused crowds and cameramen outside Windsor Castle by lifting his pink ball gown to reveal a luxuriant, black pubic wig - making him the latest in a long history of merkin-wearers.

The Oxford Companion To The Body traces the merkin back to 1450, a time when the bidet was a distant prospect and personal hygiene fell well short of the mark. Pubic lice were common - so some women, fed up with the constant itching, just shaved the lot off and then covered their modesty with a merkin.

Prostitutes, too, were frequent wearers. In the days before penicillin, it didn't take long to become infected with sexually transmitted diseases. They knew it was no work, no pay, and didn't want to scare the customers off with their syphilitic pustules and gonorrhoeal warts. So the merkin was used as a prosthesis to cover up a litany of horrors.

The Oxford Companion recounts an amusing tale of one gentleman who procured the disease-riddled merkin of a prostitute, dried it, gave it a good comb and then presented it to a cardinal, telling him he had brought him St Peter's beard. Some prostitutes even used them to give their nether regions a bit of razzle-dazzle. So a natural brunette could offer differing collars and cuffs to demanding customers.

These days, merkins are largely the preserve of sexual fetishists - although the Oxford Companion notes that this piece of "female finery" is also an "essential piece of the serious drag queen's wardrobe". They can be made from nylon, human hair or even yak's belly, depending on what the erotic dabbler enjoys feeling against her skin. And they're either woven on to a mesh and stuck on with spirit gum, or attached to a transparent G-string.

"I know a bit about merkins, but I don't know anyone who wears one and won't be designing one myself," says Red or Dead founder Wayne Hemingway. "I can't see them making a comeback, but it is a bloody good word."

Would-be wearers will struggle to find any merkin retailers. "We're not 100% sure our customers would buy into the merkin," says Ann Summers spokesman Philip Tooney. "The trend at the moment is less is more - with the 'full Brazilian' and the 'landing strip' proving popular."

But fanny fashion can be fickle. And if there is a return to the dense undergrowths often seen in 70s porn flicks, then the waxed, electrolysed women of today may be reaching for a merkin until nature restores their full glory.
Gareth Francis "

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 09:19 AM

I don't personally think it's an *offensive* term Artbrooks. I just *personally* dislike it. The term has some decidedly negative connotations especially from Europe, because of the type of behavior commonly to be seen among classic self-defined "Brits" abroad - particularly those of the lager-swilling shaven-headed variety.

However this is not the only usage. As a diminuitive of "British", we can commonly see more 'affectionate' or informal usage of the term too. And I expect that's precisely the way most Americans here would use it.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 09:18 AM

I dislike Murkans who wilfully (one 'l' in the middle) and persistently fail to recognise the threat fascists pose to the music industry and to national heritage and belittle efforts to do something about it. They may not have been aware at the outset but bloody well should do by now.

1. Willfully - Why should I spell it the English way when I am an American posting to an American site? Usually I do spell the English way, as I live in the UK, extraneous 'u's and all. The spell checker just didn't catch that one. And what a piss poor thing to flag.

2.   I am not one of those Americans who persistently fails... etc. The BNP or MC troll have/has targetted me, because I support FaF and deride the BNP. But I, an American, am still offended by that term.

3.   I have ceded to you (and others) wish to not be referred to collectively by a term that is repugnant to you. You still persistently fail to see how the term you use offends the lot not just the one you say you intend it for.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 09:18 AM

"The British Isles" is a geographical term for the various islands offshore from mainland Europe. Not everywhere is "British", a political term. Most notably, the island of Ireland is divided into the Irish Republic (26 counties) and the statelet of Northern Ireland (6 counties).

"Britons" might do but there an awful lot of Northern Ireland residents who would object for historical / cultural reasons, as would residents of the Isle of Man and several Channel Islands.

I'm an ignorant lout too as far as pubic wigs are concerned. Never heard of them, nor can I imagine their purpose. Are they the same as fig leaves?

"Murkan" is a fairly widespread (even if the contributor from Virginia has never heard it) term for an American, based I would imagine on how many of them pronounce it. It is not especially derogatory, if at all. Surely you wouldn't prefer "Yankee"? This would surely disenfranchise all those resident south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 09:13 AM

Ve-e-e-e-r-r-rrrrry interesting!

I'd never heard of such a thing as a pubic wig either - what a weird, perverted concept. Nor had I heard of 'Murkans'.

I thank God I live in the (civilised) Backwoods.

And I don't give a FF if someone refers to me as a 'Brit', or a 'Limey', or a 'Rosbif' or a 'Yellow-Belly', or a 'Backwoodsperson' or even a 'Backward-person'. Couldn't care less, far more important things to get my nether-garments in a bunch over.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 09:12 AM

I am an EARTHIAN.
I dislike being called a Brit.
Skarpi asked a question;the BNP ,British National Party are a small political party,some of whose members have been convicted of assault arson and violence against other ethnic groups in the uk.
their leader denied the existence of the holocaust,and has the support of the KKK ,KU KLUX KLAN.
Their policies[imo] would not to cure economic recession,but arguably could make it worse[sending back thousands of people to their ancestors homelands] would be expensive ,and in the case of other europeans against european law.
the BNP fail to understand that all people regardless of their colour are consumers,and are an important part of the consumer society,and thus a necessary spoke in the wheel of capitalist society.
they also fail to understand that many of these[foreigners]are highly skilled,and occupy jobs,that could not easily be filled by the people left behind in the UK.
.what would the bnp do about Barrack Obama,where would they send him.
Skarpi,they are a ridiculous bunch ,some of whom have been convicted for violence against so called foreigners.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 08:55 AM

I am also very sorry. I have always understood that the preferred expression for inhabitants of the British Isles was "Brits". So please tell me.us - what is the collective noun for those who live in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Is it British?

And BTW, I had never heard of a murkin/mirkin, meaning pubic wig, before yesterday. My wife says I'm an ignorant lout.   Maybe its a girl thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 08:45 AM

What Crow Sister said. I am English, one of three nationalities on the island of Great Britain. When you say
Americans don't associate the term Brits with shaved head lager louts you are apparently speaking for yourself. The rest of the world does.

Did George Washington have a pubic wig? I'm not sure that I need or want to know the answer to that, though I have read that he had wooden teeth, possibly fashioned from cherry tree wood.

I dislike Murkans who wilfully (one 'l' in the middle) and persistently fail to recognise the threat fascists pose to the music industry and to national heritage and belittle efforts to do something about it. They may not have been aware at the outset but bloody well should do by now.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 08:29 AM

Finally, on the subject of Murkans*, this is what many people tend to call inhabitants of the North American continent. Until and unless you desist from referring to all inhabitants of this sceptr'd isle as "Brits" as though were were a bunch of football hooligans, I shall continue to do so and you can get over it.

Your argument doesn't wash Diane. What many people? Who? You are the only one I have seen use it.

Americans don't associate the term Brits with shaved head lager louts. We see it as an nonprovocative collective term for the people of Great Britain. An appellation your people first applied to yourselves, not Americans, or Europeans or Martians for that matter. However, if you don't like it, fine. I will try to remember to desist from using it. I don't want to continue to offend once I know something I am doing causes offence.

However, "a Murkan" and "Murkans" as you use the terms are still an all encompassing willful insult to Americans as a whole, because of the allusion to George W and to the association by sound to a pubic wig.

You still knowingly and willfully generalise all Americans in a negative way, when you use these terms.   We Americans, do not when we use the term Brits, think lager louts. Ours is due to ignorance about a relatively recent connotation. What is your excuse? It looks from my POV that yours is a dislike for Americans. All of us.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: kendall
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 08:23 AM

Soldier, I do understand; all I said was History repeats itself. Can you agrue with that?

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 07:54 AM

"To me it seems as if it's still much the same ramshackle assembly of songsters, oddballs, jokers and beady-eyed obsessives it's always been. The same kind of crowd you might get at a folk club or festival, with the bonus that it's a much more international crowd than you ever get in real life."


Now I really feel that I'm amongst friends!

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 07:52 AM

I found this thread last night quite odd. First I started by standing up for regular Christians, who get a bad rap due to the behavior of a few extremists. From this point I was criticised for using what I (rightly) assumed to be a conventional abbreviation of Christian, then attacked for Brit-bashing, then accused of being a Troll when responding with a silly reply to someone who was themselves supposedly only "messing around", then criticised again for using the prior conventional abbreviation after I'd already apologised, then barracked and preached at for using 'christian' as an adjective (the use of which may of course be readily found in the dictionary).
From this, I'm rather tempted to echo some of SharonA's thoughts...

"Murkan" is quite a new one on me, I assumed it was a play on 'mirkin'.

Otherwise, as to "Brit" I can't abide it either! Only lager-louts tend to call themselves "Brit", y'know the ones with shaven heads wearing war paint - like members of the BNP in fact.
I prefer to refer to myself as English, and I come from the UK *





* Gnu, I aughta probably confess at this point, that I don't actually come from Inner-Space. I do however have a silly sense of humour, and as VTam stated you liked to mess about..

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 07:17 AM


It's this sort of inane superstitious bullshit that needs moderating

This was said about someone who spouts extraneous religious claptrap at any opportunity, oblivious of how his degrading attitude towards women (at music venues, just to emphasis that this comment is on topic) is in bizarre contrast to an assertion of being "happy with his life". I couldn't agree more with the sentiment and if moderation could extend to preventing such proselytisers from turning up on my doorstep peddling Warcry I'd be even better pleased.

Meanwhile, this is someone else's weird and disturbing view of anti-fascists:

I found, and find, their peculiar combination of self-righteousness, mutual admiration and simple bullying, repugnant

This is despite innumerable explanations of what fascists did to trad music in nazi Germany and what is their declared aim here. I can only assume a peculiarly Murkan* myopia that renders them incapable of assimilating the concern prevalent among musicians and in the industry in general that prompted the formation of FaF. They seem to live in the cloud cuckoo land of assuming that fascism in their land consists of half a dozen KKKers sitting round playing Dixie. This is a jolly fine tune and if I were you, I'd go about reclaiming it.

Someone else advocated the separation of "religion and politics" from the main forum. This is patent nonsense. Religion has a place in a music forum insofar as it was once an integral impetus for composition. It is, however, an impossibility to separate politics from life. It is what the content of our music largely comprises.

Finally, on the subject of Murkans*, this is what many people tend to call inhabitants of the North American continent. Until and unless you desist from referring to all inhabitants of this sceptr'd isle as "Brits" as though were were a bunch of football hooligans, I shall continue to do so and you can get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 07:12 AM

"Oh dear, Joe. You just don't get it do you?

...

These are the people that MBSGeorge has chosen to join.

Do you still think that those who oppose them are "meaner than they are"?"

Snail, I think there are two issues here. Firstly there is the treatment of MBS George, and secondly the rather hysterical response on Mudcat to some sick and sad individual trolling on Facebook.

I stopped responding to the FaF threads here because they seemed to be much more about the self-righteousness of the contributors than they ever did about any real threat from the BNP. I tried to point out that the Facebook dramas were playground crap, and had little or nothing to do with real threats from the BNP or others on the far right - my feeling is, when your face is on Redwatch, that's when you start worrying. I was one of the first people to have my identity cloned by someone on Facebook (either a BNP member or a Mudcat troll - who knows?) - it was very unsettling, but then I decided to ignore it and focus on other things, and they pretty much left me alone. But the people who kept screeching about it gave the troll exactly the response he was after, so it escalated. They became the focus of his attentions.

At some point it stopped being anything to do with FaF or the BNP - it became a het-up minority of people who were just waiting for someone to jerk their chain, and some sad, rather sick bastard on Facebook who was only too willing to accommodate them. I'm sorry to say that some of them seemed to be getting off on all the attention, as they certainly didn't seem minded to just walk away in the hopes that the troll might get bored.

This is one of the reasons that the FAF messageboard on Facebook was shut - to stop the stupidity on both sides, because it was actually detracting from the matter at hand, which was to highlight the attempts by the BNP to colonise and appropriate folk music and culture.

You'll notice that the FaF website does not have a messageboard. Now you know why. All of this crap did a lot of damage to FaF's credibility, which seems counter-productive to say the least.

MBS George did choose to align herself with a fascist party. When someone stands for office representing a party that espouses racism, intolerance and the denial of fundamental human rights to a large quantity of the population, I find it extremely hard to separate that individual from their politics. "He's a really nice guy - he just happens to be a member of the KKK" wouldn't really wash, I presume, in the circles Joe Offer moves in either.

Having said that, the Mudcat responses to George when she finally raised her head above the parapet seemed not so much a proportional response to her actions, but a pissing contest in moral outrage. Again, it seemed to be more about the people involved than the issues themselves and, IMHO, did neither those people nor FaF any favours.


Re Christian-bashing: my only recollection of a discussion involving Christianity was about a nurse getting sacked for proselytising while at work. I still think that's wrong. I have no problem with Christianity, I have problems with evangelists. And that includes all faiths.

And having gone to a convent school, I am not a big fan of nuns. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: GUEST,Suibhne (Astray)
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 07:09 AM

To me it seems as if it's still much the same ramshackle assembly of songsters, oddballs, jokers and beady-eyed obsessives it's always been. The same kind of crowd you might get at a folk club or festival, with the bonus that it's a much more international crowd than you ever get in real life.

Thanks for that. You've just reminded me of something I was in danger of forgetting.

S O'P

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 06:59 AM

As long as I've been coming to the Mudcat (back in the last century) every now and then we get occasional moral panics, and Jeremiads about how the Mudcat has degenerated from a former Golden Age, and how nasty it all is these days. And the Golden Age in question is always a time when there were people just that same thing.

To me it seems as if it's still much the same ramshackle assembly of songsters, oddballs, jokers and beady-eyed obsessives it's always been. The same kind of crowd you might get at a folk club or festival, with the bonus that it's a much more international crowd than you ever get in real life.

There's the occasional nasty character hangs around for a bit, or sometimes the nasty side of some generally OK character reveals itself, but it rarely gets out of hand. We probably owe a lot of thanks to Joe and the clones for behind the scenes work on that, accepting that can't be easy, and that if the occasional mistake gets made that's understandable.

Basically, the Mudcat continues to be something for which I am extremely grateful, and value enormously.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 06:50 AM

Once upon a not so very long time ago, when I was a fire breathing baptist, I used to love to watch Catholic masses on TV. Something so calming and lovely in the Latin and English congregational chanting.

My baptist "friends?" would have frowned on such activity as of the devil. What head shaking and out loud commentary there was the one time my daughters and I sang Panis Angelicus and Ave Maria during singing sessions after a church homecoming.

How I wondered in my feeble brain, is it so terribly different from reading the scriptures in unison and singing hymns every Sunday morning? Catholics believe in the same Father God and Son Christ. They take communion and practice baptism after a fashion. How is supplication to Christ or the Holy ghost (I never understood this abstract) so far from praying to saints for help and forgiveness?

For michaelr - pedophilia and incest is not unheard of in the baptist community. Expecting someone to disengage from an organisation due problems with a minority is bit like expecting people who can't abide any (even trace) amount of pollution to move to another planet. Isn't it better to stay in and work to fix the problem? Isn't this thread a microcosm of just that. Staying and trying to work out a problem?


Anyway-- in my early 30's my AMEN (so be it, that's the way it is), turned into an AHEM (hang on minute, something's not quite right here) and then to AHA (I can only answer to myself and my fellow human beings). The figure of Jesus, gives me a good pattern to follow in dealings with mankind. For that I am eternally grateful. Do I want to ascribe to a belief that he is God or the Son of God? No. All the writings through all the ages are just that, writings set down by human beings. Not the hand of a god. Humans are imperfect and fallible and so the writing will be. Language develops and interpretations distort over time and cultures. Nothing written can be known as solidly, irrefutably, provably true. End of!

But our own hearts can be true, known and shown in the here and now. "A soft answer turneth away wrath" is effective for some. For others it is incitement to sneering, disrespect, even violence. But here goes anyway.

Mudcat is our village. OURS! To some it is sanctuary. To some a dumping ground. It belongs to all who wish to live here. Is it out of the question to take personal responsibility for how we look after it and treat everyone who lives here?

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 06:45 AM

"I found, and find, their peculiar combination of self-righteousness, mutual admiration and simple bullying, repugnant."

Interesting how standing up to thugs and bullies like the BNP can be described as "bullying". "Self-defence" would be more appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 06:03 AM

So that's it then is it?
The problem at Mudcat is not the way the site is run, or moderated, but it's the way people post things that other Mudcatters disagree with!
It has dissed Christians, also Xstians [sorry Xerxes]
No it hasn't!
It has dissed pagans [allegedly]
Has it?
It seems to me that it all comes down to a couple of things. The determination to allow people to post anything they want, as long as they don't attack another Mudcatter. Apart from that they can attack anyone else in the universe.
Apart from that, there are no rules, unless Joe says there are!

JM

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: GUEST,Suibhne (Astray)
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 05:25 AM

Walkaboutsverse or whoever the current Mudcat scapegoat is.

Don't know anything about MSBGeorge, but I do know Walkaboutsverse, who was dealt with purely in terms of his published manifesto in an effort to educate him on its innumerable errors both factual and ideological. The last thread that attempted to do this was The re-Imagined Village which remains my favourite ever Mudcat thread - good humoured banter in an open celebration of common culture with a view to enlighten someone who has got it so completely wrong.

The X in Xmas is exactly the same X as in the chi-ro, though it might be regarded as an essential secular shorthand. I think Xtian was first used by John Betjeman - I've also seen Xan, but use Xtian myself. My only problem with Xtians is their belief that the rest of us are going to hell and the sort of righteous pomposity this gives rise to. Georgiansilver's last two posts are a perfect example of: I am really happy with my life and my lifestyle... are you....????.... no... are you really??? What is the point of your existence? Why are you here???   I know why I am... do you???

It's this sort of inane superstitious bullshit that needs moderating; in fact, any form of evangelising really ought to be regarded as a hate-crime and the perpetrators punished accordingly. Otherwise I've no problem with religion as a cultural / folkloric phenomenon and happily accept any individual of any faith into my home, but once they start to preach they will be evicted with extreme prejudice against the notion that truth is to be found anywhere else but in the collective heart of humanity. Just a shame there's so much other crap in there too...

S O'P

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: MartinRyan
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 05:02 AM

Several months ago, I stopped posting to Mudcat under my own identity, having come to the conclusion that I didn't want my name associated with a site which, in my opinion, was being used by a particular clique (the anti-BNP group) as a platform to propagate their brand of moral purity. I found, and find, their peculiar combination of self-righteousness, mutual admiration and simple bullying, repugnant. The only exception I have made to not posting, was in an Obit. thread where sentiment prevailed over sense.

I have continued to post, anonymously, to music threads – I have never used a pseudonym in my life and have no intention of starting now. (The cynics among you may suspect that I'm afraid I'd forget my "name"!). I have also, on occasion, posted anonymously to the BNP threads in an effort to draw attention to some of the abuses that prevail there. The shrillness with which such posts are hunted down by anti-BNP supporters as "against the rules" contrasts strongly with their efforts to circumvent the moderators' attempts to limit their profile on Mudcat.


The Mudcat community needs to decide whether it is prepared to be exploited in this way. Ironically, of course, if enough members follow my example, the group concerned will simply try the same tactic elsewhere.

p.s.
In relation to Joe's comments on abuse of Christians and/or Christianity, I confess (sic) that I haven't noticed any more than the fairly common phenomenon of abuse of the institutional church(es) for past and present clerical sins – and some special pleading in particular cases.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Rasener
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 03:49 AM

>>And I don't care what a person's political views are - what they think does not justify our bullying or scapegoating them, whether they be MBSGeorge or Walkaboutsverse or whoever the current Mudcat scapegoat is. Mudcatters, especially the 'in crowd' of Mudcatters, have an embarrassing tendency to identify and destroy their chosen scapegoats.
<<

Hear hear.

So moderate and remove posts that do such things. Stop allowing people to bully or make certain people scapegoats.

At the moment you are condoning it by not taking such action.

As far as religion goes, you are entitled to do what you want Joe. I will respect you as a person. However, if anybody tries to preach religion to me, then I just remind them I am not interested. I still respect those people, but I will not listen to any preaching of religion from anybody. By the same token I expect religious people to respect the fact that I choose not to believe and leave me in peace.

I think that Religion and Politics, more than any other subjects in Mudcat, create most of the issues and I would say strong moderating in those areas woudl probably take away most of the issues that Mudcat are suffereing at the moment.

Why don't you create a seperate section for Religion and Politics and just moderate that area strictly and carry on the way you moderate the rest as is.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Rowan
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 01:11 AM

And your other spellings, Janie, were OK.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: michaelr
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 01:05 AM

I see your point, Janie -- but the only "diety" I recognize is Jenny Craig!

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Janie
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 12:40 AM

Damn. That last post of mine was almost coherent.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Janie
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 12:25 AM

michaelr,

I truly gently suggest that is throwing the baby out with the bath.

Change is most likely to occur when it comes from within, as well as from without. As a public servant who has always worked within the "system", I fully see and endorse the value of the "gadflies" outside of the system, (regardless of what the system, beaurocracy, power structure may be -church, large corporation, or government.) I also fully endorse and know the value of those working within the system to serve and operationalize the core values and mission of the service organization, sometimes with the support of the organization, sometimes in spite of the organization, and in every shade in between.

I tend to agree with Joe that there are a lot of posts that indiscriminately bash Christians on the threads that arise about religion and diety. However, I suspect that an analysis of those posts, and of the posters to the threads that deal with these issues would reveal that a relatively small number of Mudcat members tend to post to them, regardless of position.    If one focuses on those threads, there is a lot of knee-jerk bashing of all Christians (actually, of all religion.) But those bashing posts are made by a small number of the people who regularly post to Mudcat.

My impression is that both believers and non-believers who frequently post to these thread are in "emotion mind" and are reactionary instead of responsive when they post. The same is true on other "hot topic" threads. People (the world over) tend to mistake belief for fact, and to let emotion mind drive the bus. Because of my own upbringing and struggle to overcome the effects of fundamentalist and cultural indoctrination, my initial gut reaction to postings that state religious and spiritual beliefs as fact is irritation and adversarial (sp?) refutation. That is my problem. It is then my responsibility to own my emotional reactivity, and change out the lens distorted by my own emotional experiences for a lens less distorting before I react.

All a very long-winded way of saying I am responsible for what I post, and responsible for my reactions to what I post.   The Mods are not responsible for my behavior on line.

The Mods are responsible for carrying out Max's philosophy regarding self-policing, and therefore moderate with a very light hand. It is ludicrous(sp) to me, given the parameters Max has articulated, that people hold the mods. responsible for the behavior of themselves or others beyond a very limited mandate.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 11:13 PM

I'm going to break the rule one more time. Thank you, Joe, for your post of 29 Oct 09 - 08:54 PM, second to last paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 10:47 PM

The answer, Grasshopper, is found within.....










(it sure ain't found out here...*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 10:45 PM

Forget the question, Bill D. What was the answer?

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 10:40 PM

"Bill, get with the program and get pissed about something. "

ummm...well.... Ok, I uh... I'm royally pissed at myself for not being so exquisitely clear & coherent that everyone would have instant awareness of the perceptual incongruities inherent in this conglomeration of divergent concepts of relevant mmee,,,errttt
uh...what was the question again?

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 10:38 PM

Are you speaking of Scotch Tape, Spaw?

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Rowan
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 10:32 PM

Although I've had no personal contact with Joe, apart from the rare PM, I share Amos' praise of how Joe has presented his reasons for his religious beliefs and how he applies them in practice. Dogmatism is something I've tried to avoid, whether coming from me or coming from others and I have respect for those who try to manifest the positives of their belief system against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

To be a moderator on this forum and still have a life would be impossible if moderating required one to monitor all of Mudcat's threads let alone deal with putative miscreants. From what I've gleaned, it's difficult enough just responding to allegations that members raise; part of the difficulty must arise from the fact that just receiving the allegations must expose a moderator more to our faults than to our good side.

It might be that, to start any proper discussion on our behaviour, Joe had to lead with his chin, and the posts he's experienced about the BNP and about Christianity provided recent and/or apposite examples. So far, the discussion has been interesting (to me) and mostly good humoured. If it must be closed, I'd regard that as a pity but, so be it.

Many thanks for the thread Joe.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 10:06 PM

Oh dear, Joe. You just don't get it do you?

Have a look at these links -
http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg07.htm
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-a-party-of-convictions.php

These are the people that MBSGeorge has chosen to join.

Do you still think that those who oppose them are "meaner than they are"?

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: number 6
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 10:03 PM

Good one Spaw !!

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:57 PM

You can pour a stiff tall one using Scotch? Man, that's gotta' be cheaper than Viagra!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:56 PM

Joe:

I have to tell you that I have a much deeper respect for practicing Christians than I did many years ago, and that this change in my respect is almost entirely from talking to you, and people like you, who are clear-thinking and compassionate people, rather than ideologues.

Although I have done my share of bashing unclear thinking, and ideology used as a substitute for compassion, I have never seen any of that from you.

So thanks, and please accept m,y apologies if I have contributed to your discomfort on this topic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: michaelr
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:55 PM

Far be it from me to engage in Joe-bashing, but I'm compelled to gently point out the following:

I am quite sure you're no pedophile, but you do identify as a member of an organisation whose (albeit unstated) policy it has been for a number of decades, if not centuries, to shelter and protect sexual predators and abusers of children. If it was me, I would have cut all ties to said organization a long time ago, and I certainly would not admit publicly to being a member.

Best regards,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:49 PM

biLL, I thought he did that BEFORE he started this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:46 PM

Joe, has there been some recent anti-Christian stuff? I've missed it, if so and in fact can't recall much of any in recent times. It's possible, of course, that I missed it...there are a lot of threads I do not open these days.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: number 6
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:45 PM

Geeezuz Joe .... I thought you'd open a bottle of scotch and poured yourself a stiff tall one after you initiated tis thread !

biLL :)

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:37 PM

"Our principles are the springs of our actions. Our actions, the springs of our happiness or misery. Too much care, therefore, cannot be taken in forming our principles." Red Skelton

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:30 PM

Well, I haven't noticed THAT from you, Jack, but I did get an earful from Sing Out! Magazine about how unfairly you treated them in a thread you started about Sing Out! and the blind - especially since I was able to prove (almost a month later) that your allegations were totally untrue. Your thread certainly didn't help to give Mudcat a good name in the U.S. folk community. But that's another matter.

I'm not going to name names or cite specific circumstances, but the anti-Christian stuff and the irrational BNP hysteria have oftentimes come from people I admire very much, and that disappoints me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:27 PM

whiskey spelled (not spelt) with an 'e', thus a good sour mash bourbon?

The very word is controversial!

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:00 PM

About this Christian thing. I'm opposed to televangelists and door-to-door evangelists as much as anybody here; and I'm a Catholic, but I certainly don't take my marching orders from the Pope. The think I object to at Mudcat is that the Conventional Wisdom defines all Christians as mindless fundamentalist drones, and all Catholics as zombies under the direct control of an evil Pope.

I'm not seeing that, at all, from anyone. It would help if you named some names. Are you saying I've expressed such opinions?

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:54 PM

Mick called me about this thread this morning, before I had a chance to get online (his time zone is three hours ahead of mine, so I'm allowed to sleep later). He suggested I have two cups of coffee and some Irish whiskey before I started reading.
Well, my AT&T Internet service was down today, so I had to wait until the library opened at 3 PM - and I forgot to bring the whiskey.
I'm going to close down this thread pretty soon and go back to our police of prohibiting threads like this, but I'll let it go a bit longer.

I'm feeling like a poor, whipped puppy about now. Nobody seems to understand me.....

About this Christian thing. I'm opposed to televangelists and door-to-door evangelists as much as anybody here; and I'm a Catholic, but I certainly don't take my marching orders from the Pope. The think I object to at Mudcat is that the Conventional Wisdom defines all Christians as mindless fundamentalist drones, and all Catholics as zombies under the direct control of an evil Pope. There is almost no acknowledgement of those of us who are of the progressive ilk. The mudcat Conventional Wisdom follows the party line of the fundamentalists, who say that we progressives "aren't really Christians" unless we are zombies like they are. Hey, this faith is part of my being, and I'm not about to abandon it to the zombies. Most of us Christian Mudcatters are progressives - don't forget or deny that we exist.

I didn't complain about anti-Americanism, but it does persist among the Brits at Mudcat, who seem to think we all support the policies of Dick Cheney and his lackey, George W. Bush. Most of us hated him.

And about the BNP - I detest it. Don't try to say I don't, just because I cannot support the use of brownshirt tactics to oppose it. All I'm saying that in opposing the BNP, we need to use a peaceful, rational, non-hysterical approach. We won't defeat the BNP by being meaner than they are - we CAN defeat them by being smarter than they are.

As for the false Mudcat stuff on Facebook - I can't control it, so I won't concern myself with it. If you Facebook participants want to deal with Facebook to have it deleted, that's fine. But I have reasonably good information that the Facebook troubles are mostly the work of good, old-fashioned trolls who just want to play us for suckers. Maybe I'm wrong and the Facebook stuff is the work of the BNP, but I tend to doubt that.

And I don't care what a person's political views are - what they think does not justify our bullying or scapegoating them, whether they be MBSGeorge or Walkaboutsverse or whoever the current Mudcat scapegoat is. Mudcatters, especially the 'in crowd' of Mudcatters, have an embarrassing tendency to identify and destroy their chosen scapegoats.

Maybe I'd better go home and have that whiskey....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Leadfingers
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:51 PM

I was going to make a comment about how absurd all this arguing is , but I think I would be wasting my time

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:35 PM

"I will say that I believe there IS some cultural dissonance between UK and US posters (with Canada somewhere in between)."

Not to mention, Aussies, Kiwis, etc.... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:34 PM

I think it's clear from these many tangents that there is no problem with Mudcat that is not a problem in the individual temperament of an individual Mudcatter.

Perhaps it would help if we took to heart the principle that we are not only promoting ourselves when we post, but we are also contributing some representative piece of the community. Maybe the frothing and raving would die out if it were replaced with more responsibility for the whole, is all I mean.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:30 PM

I agree, Spaw.

Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:21 PM

Teachable moments are great Ziz, as long as there are some equally into learnable minutes as well...........


Spaw