 sj |
||
|
||
This is really poor
|
|
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Jul 14 - 06:12 PM Maybe he IS that troll! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jul 14 - 04:26 PM Unless you've be stalked by that troll and know how he works, you'd do well not to speculate. That is exactly how he operates. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jul 14 - 03:42 PM Calm? Steve Shaw wrote "I say what I think here and the only thing that reins me in is the fact that I use my real name and make no secret of where I am." 15+ years ago people set up accounts with monikers because they feared being picked upon based on their gender, or because they feared predatory behavior if their real information was out there. It was commonplace. By now many of us are so well-known to each other under these monikers that we'd have trouble figuring out who we were speaking to if we switched to our real names. Since then many of the outspoken mudcat members have dealt with a stalker who set up fake accounts at mudcat and elsewhere. There are still reasons for using monikers, but members who use monikers are registered with the organization and contact information exists. Guests who swing through using a proxy server only to cause mischief, with or without a consistent guest name, are the ones who are under consideration here. Members who come though as guests often have the same IP information and are confirmable by moderators if something doesn't seem right. You may simply be the fortunate person with a commonplace name. The troll doesn't bother with common names because it is too difficult for the victim to realize they are being spoofed with many other people named "Steve Shaw" in the world. Consider yourself lucky. SRS Yep, calm. Point not taken. The internet can be an anarchic bit of rough and tumble. If you can't take it, don't post. There is life outside and plenty of it. And your last paragraph is just stuff and nonsense and you know it. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD Date: 12 Jul 14 - 10:23 AM no..really.. I'm not the least bit special.... nothing special bout me at all. Don't want or expect special favours or treatment; just wanna intreract with people on a live and let live, give & take friendly kinda basis. Words I like include - 'irreverent' 'respect' 'integrity' 'flexibility'..and so on.. I try to stick to my own fair & reasonable rules and boundaries of behaviour, and definitely have no need to inpose them on any other folks, or try to control 'em... get the drift..??? Guess i'm bit of a slightly unruly old hippy really..??? but definitely nothing special. In fact I'm not that ashamed if big serious grown ups just think I'm a bit of a mischievous daft old CL!NT... [though there's always a caring intelligent & positive subtext] take care and have fun guests, members, and mods..... |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jul 14 - 09:33 AM GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD you're in the mix with everyone as a "guest." Normal guests to the left, trolls to the right for more rigid oversight - isn't going to happen. So far the most that was enforced (for a while, and not recently) was guests that guests were asked to use consistent names. You have found a couple of invisible lines drawn in the sand by moderators over which people generally don't cross and are trying to make a case that YOU can cross them even if others can't. You're special. How did we miss that? |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Backwoodsman Date: 12 Jul 14 - 08:44 AM Oh bollocks, I said I was out of this thread! It's not my fault! musket made me do it! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Backwoodsman Date: 12 Jul 14 - 08:42 AM In which case those shitebags should have more consideration for the feelings of normal people. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Musket Date: 12 Jul 14 - 03:54 AM Shitebags have feelings too. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD Date: 12 Jul 14 - 01:43 AM ..and then there are GUESTS such as myself, we are also genuinely decent people. Irrespective of any mildly impish fun I might enjoy mucking about with my online forum identity, or being sarcastic regarding the highly vociferous pompous self righteous authoritarian contrl freak egomaniacs.. my IP is never shrouded in guile or deceit. It's always the one allocated by my internet provider, and as consistent as it can be within the day to day loggings on and off of my computer. Like I said - nothing to hide, and mudcat admin can more than likely find me if they wanted to No proxies, no cruel insult or harm intended, absolutely no justification for GUESTS like me to be constantly 'despised' by association because of your unfortunate problems with spammers, imposters, shitebags, and 'trolls*'... [* a perjorative term used far too indescriminately imho..] |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jul 14 - 12:34 AM Calm? Steve Shaw wrote "I say what I think here and the only thing that reins me in is the fact that I use my real name and make no secret of where I am." 15+ years ago people set up accounts with monikers because they feared being picked upon based on their gender, or because they feared predatory behavior if their real information was out there. It was commonplace. By now many of us are so well-known to each other under these monikers that we'd have trouble figuring out who we were speaking to if we switched to our real names. Since then many of the outspoken mudcat members have dealt with a stalker who set up fake accounts at mudcat and elsewhere. There are still reasons for using monikers, but members who use monikers are registered with the organization and contact information exists. Guests who swing through using a proxy server only to cause mischief, with or without a consistent guest name, are the ones who are under consideration here. Members who come though as guests often have the same IP information and are confirmable by moderators if something doesn't seem right. You may simply be the fortunate person with a commonplace name. The troll doesn't bother with common names because it is too difficult for the victim to realize they are being spoofed with many other people named "Steve Shaw" in the world. Consider yourself lucky. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Jul 14 - 07:28 PM Yes, Slug, but I'm very calm if I call you a neo-Darwinist (actually, I'm far too bored with you to remember whether I did or not). Very calm. Do calm down, very old boy, and be more like me. Very calm. Icily so. I find it helps me to not stalk people. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: TheSnail Date: 11 Jul 14 - 06:20 AM Be like me, "mudelf": keep calm and carry on. This from a man who can wantonly accuse someone of being.... GASP!..... a neo-Darwinist. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Musket Date: 11 Jul 14 - 01:52 AM A post from Goofus is usually one big question mark. Or at least that's the image it leaves in my head. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Jul 14 - 12:14 AM Don firth: "Or--Clint Westwood, eh? Didn't you star in a movie called "A Fistful of Question Marks?" ..or a 'Few Question Marks More".................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..Or was that 'A Few Dollars More"""""""""""" GfS |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD Date: 10 Jul 14 - 11:44 PM ahhhhh... it's back again now... balance is restored in the universe... [mimd you, I do have a shite sense of humour sometimes - ok, often...] |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:45 PM Hi, Don.. "Or--Clint Westwood, eh? Didn't you star in a movie called "A Fistful of Question Marks?"" .. if no one has a clue re your comeback joke responding to my now 'non-existent' innocuous silly riffing on your 15 ?s gag.. ... go ask a mod, they work in mysterious ways ??????????????? |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:13 PM Do note qualification applied to my comment, inflatus insanitas. Anyone died in your arms lately? |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Don Firth Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:13 PM Or maybe resting an elbow on the keyboard? Or--Clint Westwood, eh? Didn't you star in a movie called "A Fistful of Question Marks?" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:25 PM ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????!!! |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Don Firth Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:23 PM Fifteen question marks in a row is definitely symptomatic of a mental condition. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:07 PM Steve Shaw: "Be like me....." Are you fucking kidding us??????????????? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Jul 14 - 06:25 PM Gawd knows why some anonymous "mudelf" chimed in in critical mode on my last post, which, basically, was in sympathy with the moderators (do read the post again, carefully this time, "mudelf"). This place is someone else's gig, not mine. I'm totally relaxed about what posts of mine live to see another day or don't. I have a life, you see. Be like me, "mudelf": keep calm and carry on. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 10 Jul 14 - 03:34 PM Leaving doesn't have to be permanent anyway (Eliza, please note!) - reminds me of the old chestnut: "Quitting cigarettes is easy. I've done it lots of times." |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Claire M Date: 10 Jul 14 - 03:27 PM Hiya!! That curry sounds lovely. I'd better not try it though. Granddad on mum's side was always eating spicy food, then few hrs later he'd groan "oo …… gotta go…." & stagger off leaning on his stick. I think I may have inherited his funny stomach. I agree w/ Steve. Nice to ☺@ & share long-forgotten good memories in said closed topic even if they are rather tainted now. @ the end of the day, as much as I enjoy coming here it's a website – if something offends me/stresses me out I'll leave. I just wish real life was that easy. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,highlandman at work Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:42 PM Ah, after hitting submit I see that the mathematics of my modest proposal don't work out.... my point, of course, is that the moderators really don't deserve all the guff they get for doing a job that nobody in their right mind really should want. I've served as mod on other boards and I know. -Glenn |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,highlandman at work Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:39 PM Random thoughts.... The only place I've heard "scattergun" is in Western movies. Maybe it's a regional thing. Then you've also got a "greener" (etymology unknown) referring to a sawed-off (illegal these days) shotgun. Color-coded mods sounds cute, but we have enough colorful characters already, don't we? My modest proposal - members and identifiable guests may only comment once per time period concerning moderators' actions. By serving as a mod for a similar term, with all the rights and privileges thereof, they can regain authority to make another comment before the waiting period runs out. I joined Mudcat when the bad old internet days were still recent enough to make me chary of signing up for anything with a real name. I do have a membership, but I got tired of fighting to keep my cookies functional, so 99% of the time I'll sign in as guest, highlandman at work (or at home as the case may be). Perhaps the best way to not get spoofed or impersonated is just to be boring like me? -Glenn |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:23 PM MtheGM: ".....'"scattergun" used as an adjective'." Scatterbrain is used as a noun! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:05 PM Ahhhhh Michael, ya killjoy... beat me to it... |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:03 PM Or THIS? http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199532964.do |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: MGM·Lion Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:58 PM Richard -- I have that: it is a very-small-print edition of the full dictionary in two volumes, in a slip-case, provided with a magnifying glass to assist in reading. There have been at least two editions, of which I have the first, 1971. Perhaps that was the one in question; and perhaps the later one gives the usage under consideration -- I have no access to it. But the definition I cited above is from an online edition of the Dictionary, which I found by googling -- '"scattergun" used as an adjective'. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:53 PM LOL, my "shorter" OED is two thick (expensive) volumes. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:42 PM SRS: please correctly identify the Compact Edition of the Complete Oxford Dictionary - yes "the Complete Oxford Dictionary". |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:57 PM What a great blog, Stilly - cheers. Duly RSS'd & Followed & Liked. (For all those aeons of spare time I dunno what to do with...) |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:39 PM Probably a regional thing. Calling A Way With Words for analysis would solve this one! |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Musket Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:34 PM Scattergun is also a term denoting a rather interesting curry, served in The Taj Mahal in Sheffield. Not so much a vindaloo as a where's the loo. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:01 PM Scattergun is more like a blunderbuss than a shotgun...though they are similar. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Jeri Date: 10 Jul 14 - 11:33 AM Pedant alert also: I've heard both "scattergun" and "shotgun" used. In the US. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD Date: 10 Jul 14 - 11:25 AM ... yeah.. see that... only a small gesture of compromise and concession; but colour coded mods could actually make a positive difference !!!! cheers... Btw, knowing our love of history and tradition.. Blunderbuss??? |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:59 AM Fairy Nuff Guide to talking complete bollocks. P147 :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: MGM·Lion Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:51 AM DtG "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" The Merchant of Venice IV i 65 ☺〠☺~M~〠☺〠 |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:42 AM Pedant alert: In the U.S. the term is "shotgun," not "scattergun." Maybe the compact Oxford Dictionary definition should indicate that "scattergun" is what some individuals in the UK think people in the US say." SRS |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Jul 14 - 09:58 AM Must agree with Richard on this one, Michael, sorry. Scattergun is used metaphorically to describe an imprecise approach. The scattergun would spray everything in it's path with pellets. Richards approach was, as he said, precise. I do not believe that Richard was saying he was unfamiliar with the term per se but was rather suggesting it was not a good description of what he did. But what do I know, being neither a lawyer or journalist :-) DtG BTW - I started to use the word shotgun rather than scattergun but mistyped it as shitgun. Maybe I should have left it? :-D |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Wesley S Date: 10 Jul 14 - 09:15 AM Sorry - I had no idea that this thread was going on. If I had known I would have brought the popcorn earlier. I'm always up for this summer sequels. They make for great boxoffice even if they are repetitive. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:30 AM So, ok, if we all at least agree it's sensible and courteous for guests to adhere to a consistent mame, either overall or per thread; here's a constructive suggestion [maybe it's already happening???]: we don't need to know the identity of mods [unless they choose to 'out' themselves], but how about mods choose a consistent individual coloured print for their comments in threads ?
[That is a fairly reasonable idea]
How about we try this: you stop fighting among yourselves and then kvetching when one of the mudelves deletes the nonsense. No other action is necessary. --mudelf |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: MGM·Lion Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:24 AM I might have said "floccinaucinihilipilification" or "Renaissance neo-Platonism". Or "aardvark" or "zymurgy". But the term I elected to use was, as I demonstrated above, an accepted metaphorical usage for the concept I wished to express; which your suggestion covers no better, if as well, so far as I can see. If that use of the term was new to you, then I suggest you take this opportunity to learn it and add it to your vocabulary, to which no addition should ever be unwelcome, rather than carping so captiously and reproachfully about the term I opted to employ. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:09 AM That definition, MtheGM, is not in my Complete Oxford Dictionary (Compact edition). It simply says that the term "Scatter-gun" is a US colloquial term for a shotgun. Your use was metaphorical, and I correctly pointed out that my targets were precisely named and precisely picked off. You might have done better to say "laundry-list". For once I have to agree with some of what Goofball says (or what I think he is trying to say) "However, 'folk music' VERY OFTEN incorporates social issues, so methinks it not inappropriate to 'hash out' social/political issues." I disagree with Steve Shaw in that I think the mods mostly get it reasonably close to right. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: TheSnail Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:48 AM I wonder if TheSnail counts as a self-important pseudonym. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: michaelr Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:20 PM Except the bit about Argentina slaughtering the Krauts. Not gonna happen. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: michaelr Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:18 PM I wholeheartedly agree with Steve. But it's up to Max, not the mods. |
|
Subject: RE: This is really poor From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jul 14 - 07:40 PM This is a massive forum with tons of posts per day. I absolutely hate (I jest, of course...) what the moderators do at times, but, mostly, the poor dears, they do nothing at all. Because they can't. They have day jobs, etc., and there are far too many of us wankers posting complete shite for them to get on top of. The whole bloody shebang is a voluntary effort. Stop telling the moderators what they should or shouldn't do. Yes SRS et al. have made some daft decisions. Especially SRS. But this forum isn't yours. It's theirs. If they delete your posts or give you a bollocking, tuff titty. If you let that get to you, then get a bloody life why don't you. You have grass to cut, a missus to make love with and a supermarket to buy wine in, and you can always watch Argentina slaughter the Krauts on Sunday. If you're lucky. And, if you're not, ask yourself why not. No guest posts. Real names only. You're not signed in? You don't post! No self-important pseudonyms, as if you're someone really important ("exercising your right to anonymity," you pompous twat), which you are not. Angst-ridden problem solved, mods, at a stroke. Stop bloody whingeing at us and just do it. As has been mentioned before there are a half-dozen moderators behind the scenes watching over the BS threads. Your speculation about who makes what decisions, and why, is just that: speculation. Stop worrying about who does what moderation-wise and worry about how you're behaving in the forums. --mudelf |
| Share Thread: |