BS: Dwindling BS section

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 07:38 PM

What has happened to those lively debates on just about every subject under the sun?

Have the actions of an unpleasant few really destroyed, or is it just passing through a bad patch?

Currently the MOAB is 89.6% of all that's here.

P.S. Elves please kill the OP. I hit submit too soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 07:42 PM

I liked the discussions that WEREN'T "debates".
I suspect people got fed up with the obsessive assholes, who seem to have quieted down for some reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 08:31 PM

Do name names please.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: gnu
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 08:46 PM

NO! Don't name names! >;-)

Jeri has struck the nail on the head. As usual. She has given me sage advice and well deserved condemnation over the years. Although, I will say, in my own defense

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Padre (has anybody seen my cookie?)
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 09:09 PM

I for one am glad to see fewer posts in the BS section - because they usually WERE screeds from one point of view or another, followed by angry, often immature posts in response, leading the original poster to fire back, until the 'battlefield' was covered in thick, dank smoke . At one time, there was even an option allowing a reader to totally block the 'below the line' posts, and I gratefully used that feature.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Steve sans cookie (bloody iPad)
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 09:26 PM

Yes, name names. Especially name real names. Less of the pusillanimous "assholes and you know who you are" shite, if you don't mind. Some of us are assholes but we're a damn sight more open and honest than some of the accusers who (without irony of course - "Jeri" shall remain nameless, for example) are very happy to call others assholes from behind their protective curtain of anonymity. Yours sincerely, Steve (asshole-in-chief). :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 09:44 PM

Does somebody need a hug?

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: gnu
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 09:56 PM

Well, there it is for what it's worth. Long gone are the days when trolls were slayed by the wit of Spaw or the constant and undaunted logic of the stalwart or the vicious self-impaling of those willing to forego all decorum and wreak havoc at whatever cost for the very sake of decorum.

Spaw himself gave up and toddled off to greener pastures and, more or less, said "fuck this bullshit" as did many others in kind and in turn. And, as Jeri has alluded to, so did the trolls, as was advised in the oldest of "Welcome to Mudcat, here's some ground rules and tips" threads. Even the friendly trolls. Mudchat was destroyed by but a few nasties.

Hmmm... reminiscing about the good old days makes me weary.

gnightgnu

PS... it's been a slice. Thanks Max.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 10:29 PM

I rarely have posted below the line. I don't come here to argue. I liked Jeri's post. When you see the same folks make the same points in the same thread time after time, it's clear nothing positive is being done. You won't change people's minds by telling them they're evil, stupid, and wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Oct 14 - 10:54 PM

Well, what is interesting to talk about?

How about, when did the carrot ON the stick become the carrot AND the stick?

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 02:03 AM

For what it's worth, in my humble opinion, the vociferousness of a limited number of right-wing, racist, sexist, fundamentalist, gun-loving, neo-liberal and Blairite "contributors" have made this place unpleasant - as similarly applies to "contributors" above the line whose purpose appears to be to deny or destroy the concept of "folk" music and song.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 02:29 AM

I miss the recipe chat and holiday talk - no matter what time of year it is, there's always some local festival or holiday and realted foods. Bat Goddess and I were big on those topics

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 02:47 AM

Room for some more categories Bridge? You might have missed a few. Armchair socialists, one world Tories who pretend to be right on...

Ah. That's better. A thread where you can point and laugh at pompous sanctimony. Like those who sneer and reckon they are above opinion yet curiously give it out. (Stand down Bridge. I'm onto other buggers now.). Those who can't spell "colour" or defend gun crime. One or two who advocate killing prisoners yet complain when called despicable by members of the human race. Those who rate good v bad by comparing imaginary friends. Those who claim it free speech to print lies in order to propagate hatred to whole sections of society.

These are the ones who complain about the BS section. Their complaint being that they find themselves challenged, and in the immortal words of Corporal Jones, "the fuzzy wuzzies don't like it up 'em.".

Nice to be back to a thread where no bugger wants a hug.
🐂💩

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 02:59 AM

Richard Bridge: "For what it's worth, in my humble opinion, the vociferousness of a limited number of right-wing, racist, sexist, fundamentalist, gun-loving, neo-liberal and Blairite "contributors" have made this place unpleasant......."

Yes!....An EXACT illustration of what fuels hostile exchanges....look at Richard's post :'right-wing, racist, sexist, fundamentalist, gun-loving, neo-liberal and Blairite "contributors'...when the people he is 'accusing' of those things, are NOT any of the above, and only painted that way, 'politically', and the proceed to be attacked....and very often because the ones attacking, subscribe to a VERY hostile, up-tight, view of a wider picture, that also incorporates common sense.

Richard Bridge:"....... - as similarly applies to "contributors" above the line whose purpose appears to be to deny or destroy the concept of "folk" music and song."

On this, I agree.....and depending on the varied definitions of 'folk'.
Nonetheless, I have repeatedly posted, that the angst in which some posters post, should be a tool, in composing music and writing lyrics... not for the 'subject matter' being discussed particularly, but for the essence of emotions, 'good or bad', that, in turn, can be caught in music...or even a musical phrase, or dialogue of emotions, contained within a single piece.

Methinks some of your tunes maybe be as single dimensional as your world view, through the spectacles of political chicanery!

Think about it for a moment....BEFORE you feel that uncontrollable urge to 'defend' your political identity...as if it were REALLY you, and who you are!!!!!!

PEACE!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 04:16 AM

Yeah but be fair Goofus. He has you weighed up...

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 05:47 AM

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who are ready to jump up and tell us what we debate and how we should conduct ourselves on an open and supposedly democratic forum.
That some of us should become angry at what is happening in Israel or Syria or Ireland or to racial and cultural minorities back home in Britain, and should occasionally go over the top in expressing our anger is, as far as I am concerned, a sign that the evils of our time do not go unnoticed.
While most of them are beyond our control, forums like these provide an out let to our anger.
Those who are not concerned, or do not want to think about these things, should feel free not to take part in these debates.
Last week-end in Waterford City, in the south of Ireland, a mob of three hundred assembled outside the homes of a number of Roma asylum seekers, kicking down doors and breaking windows and demanding they should be sent back to where they came from.
While I'm sure some people would rather be discussing 'numbered U.S. highways' or 'quotable quotes', some of us would be just as happy discussing other things - preferably without judgmental interference.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 08:37 AM

See, Steve, no need to name names.

Mrrzy, I always thought it was carrot OR the stick.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 09:23 AM

RE: BS: Dwindling BS section:

Many of them "dwindled" to Facebook... others with 'colorful' personalities (sometimes multiple personalities) have given up, died or been chased out. (and a couple banned outright)

Many of those old threads were filled with raucous humor, creative writing, interesting commentary on the world and silly non-sequiturs ... as well as the aforementioned opinionated assholes who could not seem to have an opinion without stating it in the most confrontational manner possible.

Me? I'm here because I've always been here. I liked the variety, and although I do peek into FB, I like this format better... (6 paragraphs required to explain).

I very seldom start a topic, preferring to add my **wisdom** (cough) to the musings of others..(the last time it went as I expected, with the usual suspects tending to drown out attempts at sincere discussion/debate with insults).... I suppose this thread will dissolve into the same pattern.

Also, some of the hot button topics have been done to death... guns, evolution, astrology (some of you missed the LONG bits on astrology), the Middle East (which still crops up over some recent events), 911 conspiracy theories...etc. What surprises me is that there are so few comments on the ongoing political issues- especially in the US, where mind-numbing issues of voter suppression and court-packing are making progress non existent.

Still, there's enough to interest me..(see Joe's thread on US 2 lane highways!) I don't NEED to explain philosophy & logic everyday... but can't always resist when I see obvious problems. I do try to keep my remarks 'polite', even when pointed.... and I have been criticized for NOT being more directly confrontational (as in 'just as insulting as others'.) Makes ya' wonder....

Whatever... I still read many of the music threads, and very occasionally add a bit as I used to do, although after 16 years, there are many here far more knowledgeable than me.

Now... I am going to start a topical thread with a time-limited photo... go see the Halloween thread

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 09:35 AM

I must say that I often avoid threads where the same names come up repeatedly. I find some of those folks very confrontational. I know they call it "debate" and "freedom of speech". But mostly it is just a lot of crusty old farts trying to saw sawdust.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: bobad
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 09:51 AM

Like flies to shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 10:22 AM

Yeah, the carrot is now the reward, the stick is now the punishment, but the carrot on the stick was neither of the above, it was a promised BUT NOT ATTAINABLE reward to motivate the stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 10:51 AM

"See, Steve, no need to name names."
What a strangely self-righteous thread
Do you think I should ask and adjudicator to close it down or have we we developed a procedure where adjudicators are self-appointed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 10:58 AM

I think the answer for those concerned either with a) the arguing on political threads or b) the diminishing of the BS section possibly due to a, is simply to make an effort to initiate more threads on topics that are interesting to you, or which avoid the possible negative err 'vibes' that you don't enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 11:52 AM

I need a hug...to resolve my frustration

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 12:23 PM

"Dwindling BS section" My first impulse was to respond with "We just don't do enough crap".

I've changed my mind. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 12:27 PM

▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭▭



Insert your own teeny-weeny unreadable little teeny-weeny letters......

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 12:28 PM

Try eating prunes. You'll never have to change your mind again.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 02:48 PM

i like a good discussion - i really never meet anyone prepared to argue from a right-wing or establishment/capitalist perspective in real life. however, every time something gets going on here there is always a descent to cheap abuse and personal attacks. (eg as a socialist why am i inevitably of the champagne sort or a 'trendy lefty' - when i never drink champagne (or wine at more than 6 poonds a bottle) and have never been remotely trendy since the rock against racism days)
something new on here may be a bit of honesty.
Q. why do you post on chat room sites?
Q. is it more interesting to make your own points or slag off others' points?
Q. are you lonely? are you an angry person?
q. would you like a hug?

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 03:54 PM

Anyway, I've asked about the carrot on the stick to a lot of language fora (?) to no avail, so I thought I'd try here. There is a lot of strange knowledge floating around in the brains of the people here.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Steve still on the bloody iPad
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 03:56 PM

So name your own name, Jeri. I don't even know whether you're a boy or a girl. And I note you let go without demur brainless comments from anonymous gits with names such as "gnu" who diss people who disagree with his illiberal nonsense by referring to them as flies to shit. Good to know from your silence whose side you're on. Go and hug gnu. You and he/she need each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Gurney
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 04:18 PM

Steve, Gnu isn't anonymous! He's well-known here, and he can be for or against any subject, depending on his mood, as stimulated by previous posts. It IS the bullshit section, after all.

I'm also finding the BS section less interesting these days, partly because Little Hawk posts so seldom. I miss his whimsy, and the wry comments of posters like him.
Too many people who are erudite but not humourous, in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 04:26 PM

At this point, people are known by whatever name they use here, it doesn't really matter if it is a real name or a moniker. Gnu is gnu, a lot of mudcat members wouldn't know who it was if he started to call himself Gary here.

If the mudcat account name changes, people would have to figure out who is posting, as has happened at times in the past when people decide to change the name for some reason or other.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 04:52 PM

Mrrzy:
Well, what is interesting to talk about?

How about, when did the carrot ON the stick become the carrot AND the stick?
I am not sure that there ever was such a change (except in some peoples perceptions). My understanding is that the expression was always "the carrot and the stick", referring to a carrot (on a piece of string) attached to a stick, which was in turn attached to the harness on a donkey (or mule). The carrot seemed close enough that the donkey could reach out and eat it, but it was just too far away. Stepping forward (to get closer to the carrot) would cause it to swing on the string, appearing to become even more attainable, and encouraging the donkey to keep trying to move forward.
Under such conditions the expression "the carrot and the stick" makes sense. Unfortunately, some rationalise the same expression as meaning two separate things, the carrot for reward, or the stick for punishment. Once this alternate view takes hold, some (who know the original meaning) may take to re-writing the original expression as "the carrot on the stick" to make the meaning clear.
As such, I believe the latter expression is merely a back-formation.


My opinion only :)

Cheers
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 05:14 PM

Sorry Maggie, but the mods are the problem.

Any subject should be up for debate, personal abuse should be stopped, too often it is allowed to pass by people like jeri who are more like cheerleaders than moderators.
He/she, rarely posts a personal opinion, or joins in debate, but regularly snipes from the sidelines.
Moderators have a duty to see that CIVIL debate can continue, regardless of their personal views.

You asked me to stop posting and I acceded to your request, by my views are firmly held and will be advanced when this forum is moderated as it should be.
Too many here have been driven away by the cursing and sneering of the "equality loving" Mr Mather ....when left to his own devices, he is a poor "draw".....don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 05:35 PM

Can't say I mind the dwindling nature of the BS section. The nastiness and bigotry there, has been an embarrassment. I think it has cared many people away, and has become dominated by bullies. I think that our discussions have a much friendlier tone on the Mudcat Facebook page, and I think it's an advantage that Facebook discussions disappear after a while.
I do hate it when people discuss songs on Facebook, because those discussions disappear; but the Mudcat Facebook page seems to be a good place for ephemeral things like concert and folk club announcements.
The trouble is, the BS and ephemeral things do draw people, and they are then available to give input on more permanent things like song research.
So, I dunno.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Steve on damned iPad but still undeniably St
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 05:40 PM

"Gnu" and his ilk will always be able to issue a blanket diss such as "flies to shit" of those who disagree with his extreme right-wing and illiberal views because he is anonymous. Whether some in-crowd here know who he really is nothing to do with me. Nothing like having to use your real name to make you think twice about posting ill-considered bilge. I occasionally post to the Gaughan forum which permits you to have a soubriquet (I don't bother) but which insists that your real name is available to every subscriber. The manners there are impeccable, the moderation is firm and there would be absolutely no room for the likes of gnu, akenaton, goofus and their like posting under their present guise and in such ill-considered ways. Not even you, Jeri. I didn't even know you were a mod. You don't act like one.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 05:42 PM

I am undeniably not a saint. Not the first time I've been truncated.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Unsaintly Steve
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 05:43 PM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Janie
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 07:48 PM

Neither the Mudcat BS section nor me are as much fun as we used to be. Lots of reasons. Evolution and de-evolution.

But still here, fwiw.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 08:05 PM

"These are the ones who complain about the BS section. Their complaint being that they find themselves challenged, and in the immortal words of Corporal Jones, "the fuzzy wuzzies don't like it up 'em."."

Precisely the opposite of my reason for deleting my membership! I have never even suggested that there was anything wrong with Max's formula for the Cat!

"I very seldom start a topic, preferring to add my **wisdom** (cough) to the musings of others..(the last time it went as I expected, with the usual suspects tending to drown out attempts at sincere discussion/debate with insults).... I suppose this thread will dissolve into the same pattern."

I hope not Bill D, as I always relished your erudite and reasoned contributions to genuine debate.

"I think the answer for those concerned either with a) the arguing on political threads or b) the diminishing of the BS section possibly due to a, is simply to make an effort to initiate more threads on topics that are interesting to you, or which avoid the possible negative err 'vibes' that you don't enjoy."

Which is exactly my point C.S. When you are so much pursued by certain people, that you cannot post on any thread without the hounds following for the opportunity of debunking all that you have to say, the only answer to the trolls is to delete your membership and either bugger off, or, as I have chosen to do, conceal your identity under the GUEST tag.

While you remain identifiable, as I once was (with photo et al), the nasties never relent!

I can relate to Guest achmelvich, who seems to grasp what is wrong, though his stance diverges widely from my own.

I have more respect for the poster who can disagree without a)Twisting the words I use, b) Claiming the right to always be right, and c) Calling me nasty names when he can't make me recant!

"I'm also finding the BS section less interesting these days, partly because Little Hawk posts so seldom. I miss his whimsy, and the wry comments of posters like him."

I agree Gurney, and a lot of posters in the same category. I am bored of those who can see no other viewpoint than their own.

"The manners there are impeccable, the moderation is firm and there would be absolutely no room for the likes of gnu, akenaton, goofus and their like posting under their present guise and in such ill-considered ways."

MAX, bless him, decided that he wanted the forum to be as free and unfettered as he could make it, and to some extent, we have all let him down very badly.

I had hoped that this might be an amicable discussion leading to a better BS section. Seems that I asked too much!

Mods, as the OP, please terminate this here!

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 08:41 PM

Bill D: "Many of them "dwindled" to Facebook... others with 'colorful' personalities (sometimes multiple personalities) have given up, died or been chased out. (and a couple banned outright)..."

..and some of them are embarrassed to show their faces, because they used to champion our current administration....who has turned out to be....well, 'less than honest'??....but don't feel alone...almost every Senator who was catering to the 'so-called liberal' base, are running from Obama, to save their political asses!

True story.....
Makes you wonder with anticipation, that the 'so-calleds' will accuse those same Senators who are trying to save their seats(and asses), by distancing themselves from the President, of being 'Racists'.....

...and when the debates disintegrate into THAT nonsense, which it already has on many occasions, is why the B.S. Section has dwindled...those idiotic posts from idiotic ideologues, just drown out every bit of common sense with their uniform, uninformed roar!
.....now nobody wants to listen to them...or even have dialogue with them....they're lunatics!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 09:29 PM

No-one has let anyone else down badly. The baleful fact is that the internet is full of poisonous eejits spilling their testosterone over the planet in poisonous threads on poisonous forums, all because they can do so from behind a protective curtain of anonymity. Force every poster to reveal their true identity and, believe me, you would fix 99% of the internet social scene's problems. I haven't half heard some arrant bullshit about this. "I can't reveal my identity for professional reasons." "If everyone knew who I was, I'd be hounded and intimidated." Well I've posted tens of thousands of controversial posts over the last dozen years on umpteen forums on religion, sex, Israel, abortion, lousy bodhran players (which is all of 'em by the way) and God knows what else. I was in voluntary exile from one forum for years and I got kicked off another. I'm well known in my own little musical circle and I've written over forty articles in a music magazine over the last eight years. Yet not once have I had a poison pen letter or a threat or been subjected to offline hassle. NOT ONCE. The one forum I'm on that allows controversy that forbids anonymity is the one forum I'm on where the manners are always good. This forum has many good points, but it allows regulars such as gnu, goofus, akenaton and other such toerags to post their unthinking bile anonymously. It allows people who are not even signed up to post their bile as "guests" (what a bloody farce - really!). I could post here under several names and I doubt whether anyone would actually care. And you wonder why we get moans and groans about bad behaviour. We have moderators, so-called, who bollock people they happen to disagree with/make them uncomfortable, yet who allow sexists, racists, homophobes and Islamophobes to run riot, untrammelled, unchallenged.

The answer is simple. No anonymity. OK, have a pseudonym on the board if you must (Christ knows why you'd want to, though), but every other member has access to your real name. If you have some bullshit reason for not wanting us to know your real name, then just bugger off! No guests. You don't get to post unless you're a signed-up member. If your cookie's dead, you're dead as well until you fix it. That way you get a forum full of sweetness and light. If you don't agree with me, then stop bloody moaning about the "bad behaviour" of people you happen to not agree with. You're just asking for it!

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 09:49 PM

Here ya go. With apologies to Dick Gaughan for not requesting permission, here's Rule Two of his forum:

2. No anonymous members.

It is a requirement of forum membership that you let the other members know who you are. There is not a single good reason in a forum of this kind for anonymity. If you are normally known by a nickname, by all means use it here; my birth name was Richard but the only people who ever use that are my parents (both dead) and my two sisters and their children. The no-anonymity rule is not here to check people's birth certificates, it is simply so that we all know who we're talking to and the risk of anonymous trolling is reduced. As said, by all means use a nickname on posts and as your username but please put your real name in your member profile and you will be asked to give it when registering.

"There is not a single good reason". And, if you don't like it, go elsewhere. And it works. The forum can get very controversial, but there's just one active moderator and she rarely needs to intervene (she's bloody tough when she does, though). Good manners prevail. If that's what you want, you can have it. But don't go all "laissez-faire-on-principle" then moan when it doesn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Cthulhu
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 10:14 PM

So speaks "Guest from Sanity," one of the worst offenders when it comes to name-calling and twisting other people's posts. And stalking them in order to do so.

I agree with Steve Shaw. If a person has to use his or her real name, they tend to be a bit more circumspect.

"Careful! I know where you live!" keeps people a lot more civil.

Cthulhu

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 10:24 PM

importance of internet anonymity

take yer pick...

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Janie
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 10:28 PM

Whew!

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 10:28 PM

Steve.. just a little reminder...

I'll post the wiki entry rather than give a direct link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwatch

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 11:47 PM

GUEST,Cthulhu: "So speaks "Guest from Sanity," one of the worst offenders when it comes to name-calling and twisting other people's posts. And stalking them in order to do so."

Nonsense!..This is just more political driven drivel!..EXACTLY what I was just talking about!..Your accusations are phoney!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Cthulhu
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 01:00 AM

Nothing political about my TRUE accusations. It's a fact that all can see.   AND THEY DO.

Cthulhu

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 02:27 AM

Internet anonymous terms?

For starters there are three Muskets. Always have been. We all have the log in and wind each other up on the BS section by trying to keep the conversation as if it were one person. Ian started it and is often named, (it is usually Ian on the music threads though, although we all chip in with the absurd "what is folk" threads as they are more BS orientated than any other!). Out of interest, we know each other through the folk clubs over the years and in one way or another are in the same professional bearpit. I post as a guest sometimes when looking for musical answers.

There were four of us but Seaham Cemetry (sic) branched out as it were.

Interesting that Akenaton is so ashamed of his own bigotry he prefers to remain anonymous yet insists on calling Musket Ian Mather.

I suppose even nasty little creeps deserve to be accurate a third of the time.