BS: Dwindling BS section

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:29 AM

Well Bill I did say that I wasn't accorded the right to know who I'm talking to, andso be it. Check that out in my post. If I don't like the rule I can say nothing, say so and stay, or just clear off. You don't always get what you want, in the words of St Jagger.

So you don't like the slap-down method of confronting eejits and bigots. You spell out your own worthy philosophy on how to deal with them. Well, that might work with some. But I watched you for month after month failing to get absolutely anywhere at all with pete. In fact, he was taking the piss and you didn't appear to be seeing it. Dragging you round and round in circles of his making. Maybe my method doesn't get me anywhere with the petes of this world either. But at least I won't let him make a chump out of me. Your dialogue with him merely worked to perpetuate his idiotic ambitions and give him his oxygen under the guise of "reasonable dialogue with the respectable guy". You were his succour. I meant that spelling but a freudian slip would have been just as accurate.

And do try to cut the cultural-racist crap. We have loads of nice people here, just like you have there.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:27 AM

" If you feel at risk by revealing your true identity to other members, you're almost certainly (a) wrong, (b) egotistical."

Maybe some of us are not so full of our own self importance that we need the rest of the world to know who we are...???

Freedom of choice ??? I choose anonymity.. simple as that.

I tend to be instinctively wary of the motives of those
who bullishly insist on demanding to know
other forum member's true identities....

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:18 AM

there is really nothing so depressing about this forum than seeing a load of posts alternating between musket and akenaton. please guys, just keep your arguments to yourselves. to keep it up over such a long time makes you both appear crazy and obsessed with each other. honestly, no-one else cares.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:04 AM

Soon to be leaving.... one last comment.

Steve says:"I want to know exactly who I'm talking to, just like I do down the pub.

So do I.. but I don't own the place. Max IS the final arbiter, and he has stated his reasons for allowing guests.

Musket says/say: "Sadly, if Steve Shaw and others, us included, didn't have a pop, then the most outrageous shit would be in mudcat unchallenged ..."

No... go back & read 10,000 threads from 3-12 years ago. Really outrageous shit has always been challenged. I did a bunch of it myself on several topics. I argued with gun fanciers, astrology nuts, evolution deniers, those who tended toward proselytizing on religion, homophobes, ... and against zealots on both sides of the Middle East morass. But with very few exceptions I didn't become an issue in and of myself! I debated positions, not individuals...including several I know personally and see RT regularly! Most of these people understand that and we are able to discuss all sorts of other things RT and just share music or whatever.
There is a huge difference between suggesting... or even stating clearly... that a position is narrow, illogical, counter to facts, subjective...etc.... and labeling the person as a bigoted, hate-filled asshole! Various posters (need I really name names?)...mostly in the UK... seem to take the position that "calling a spade a spade" means being as vehement as possible in condemnation of views they find repugnant. Perhaps that attitude is cultural... but it ALWAYS serves to escalate the debate to simple name calling and causes the opponent to raise his defenses and complain about abuse. You accomplish NOTHING except personal...satisfaction? (I can't imagine).. for having "given them a shot".

Being a sort of pragmatic realist, I don't really expect this to change anyone's style... your belligerent responses to perceived stupidity is as deeply ingrained as the flawed beliefs you condemn. You defend and rationalize your behavior just as they defend and rationalize their outrageous thinking.
I'm not sure which is the biggest problem...but do know that it is far easier for a mod who is pressed for time to zap simple insults than to laboriously analyze a contentious position and censor according to some complex sliding scale of universal judgment. (whatever that is).

Fluffy bunnies..white or otherwise....

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 08:24 AM

Come on Bill do you really want a section full of "fluffy bunny threads? :0)

You enjoy a battle of ideas as much as any one, and MOST of the time you remain civil even when you're getting your bum whacked.

It is however a symptom of "liberalism" to brand everything which does not fall within its remit as "hatred and bigotry".
The people who use this tactic, like "Ian Musket" or any other of the quadruplets are very rarely specific as to what the hatred actually is, they just keep saying it over and over again without addressing WHAT in particular is hateful.
This is ideological blindness and is in itself a type of hatred, hatred of freedom of thought.

If they had their way we would be living in an Orwellian nightmare, however the new legislation in the UK, protecting freedom of speech and banning personal abuse and hatred will hopefully alleviate the situation.

)

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw with iPaditis
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 07:59 AM

That was me again. Heaven forfend that I should ever post again as an anonymous guest! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 07:58 AM

Well I've been branded, along either other critics of the Israeli regime, a Jew-hater by a regular poster whose name is not known. I don't recall any big wading-in by the moderators then. Don't you think that that is stepping over the line, Bill?

Don't get me wrong. What I'm saying is that the current anarchic mess actually makes moderation impossible. You can post under multiple guises and you can post as an anonymous unsigned-up guest. Threads are plagued by the fact that half the time you don't know who you're supposed to be talking to. On the Bulmer thread last week an anonymous guest persistently badgered ME, without irony, as to who I was! I suspect it was more than one guest. Nothing was done. You sometimes end up with deleted posts rendering threads nonsensical. It's no good defending this setup then complaining about bad behaviour. The anonymity and all the jiggerypokery that goes with it is the reason for moderators tearing their hair and often screwing up. And no, it is not sufficient for just the management to have your details. I want to know exactly who I'm talking to, just like I do down the pub. The current rules don't accord me that right. So be it. But if you say something illiberal or just plain bloody stupid under anonymity, you're abusing the situation and I can't respect you. I'm only human.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 07:47 AM

Bill. The Three Musketeers was an attempt to cut through some of the bullshit and outrageous crap that the BS section pollutes an excellent music source website with. If anybody takes some of the stuff here seriously, they should get a life because amongst all the recipe and well wishing threads, we also see oxygen for bigotry and hatred.

Some people, your good self included, try to reason with the unreasonable. Fine, but forgive me if I see that as mental masturbation.

Sadly, if Steve Shaw and others, us included, didn't have a pop, then the most outrageous shit would be in mudcat unchallenged and that, for an innocent bystander coming here, isn't nice. We see defence of terrorism if the imaginary friend is the right one, homophobia with a version of "the final solution" put forward as necessary, subjection of women, defence of firearm crime and even the odd bod reckoning there is such a thing as blasphemy. It isn't opposing views that are there issue, it's views that are hurtful to others, whether they be members or logging on for the first time.

Have a pop at trolls such as Akernaton and you see threads such as this one appearing.

Fascinating...

Sorry, but some people smile and turn away whilst others challenge. It takes all sorts.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 07:27 AM

Well, I am confused. All this 'naming of names' and admissions has only muddied the waters further. If there are really "3 Muskets", how is that different from others using regular pseudonyms? Can Steve Shaw convince some assortment of 'Muskets' to use definitive names at all times?

You must realize that for the first 3-4 or so years, there was very little trouble with trolls and anonymous sniping. Nicknames were just 'fun'... some used 'em... some didn't. Once Google found the site and swooped it up in their net, many people other than folkies discovered it and gradually folkies with **opinions** introduced topics far beyond music, and non-folkies searching for their favorite fights joined in.... and awaayyyy we went. It was then that Max decided the moderators were needed....to delete spam and keep SOME semblance of order.

In 1997-1999 or so, it was possible to read... or at least scan... almost every thread, but today that wold require a full time position.

Steve Shaw says:"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."

That really is a distortion of the situation. The mods TRY to be fair.... but they are just as human as those they try to gently control. Steve's accusation misses the point about who gets "bolloxed". Opinions are tolerated... even minority opinions that most of us don't agree with... but vicious, nasty, hateful expressions of those opinions are subject to some sort of moderation. How the lines are drawn is the most frustrating problem for any moderator! Just how offensive does a remark have to be to be deleted? Those who call for for censorship of **opinions** they don't like can be far more offensive in tway complain than the subject OF their complaint! Personal insults using foul language to 'make a point' about someone's minority opinion causes 3 times the uproar as the original opinion!

As I have said before, I can't imagine how the poor mods could possibly delete or edit many of the 'problem' posts without making the whole thread confusing... and as all of you have seen, deleting often just leads to new thread complaining ABOUT the deletions and demanding "explanations". And any attempt at explanation just breeds MORE huffing & puffing!

Sheeesh... why do I bother? I will be away at a craft show for 3 days. I hope by Monday everyone will just be playing on the "fluffy bunny" thread and this one will be closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 07:21 AM

I don't need any defending from people like you Ian :0)....with enemies like you, who needs friends!

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 07:13 AM

I am not a "building trade labourer", I am a stonemason to trade and have been in business since 1970 serving the community.
I am also a trainer of racing greyhounds.
Seaham Cemetery posted here that I was involved in the Seaham scandal which involved the killing of dogs of all species, but mainly greyhounds by one man.....I was not aware that his name was Smith.

I live hundreds of miles away from Seaham, have never met this man or had any dogs "killed" by him or anyone else, other than the vet attached to our local racetrack, on two occasions due to serious injury.

I asked Seaham Cemetery to provide any proof of his allegations, offering to resign immediately from the forum if he could do so, but to date I have heard nothing and Mr/Dr Seaham seems to have vanished from the forum.

I would also be interested to hear what Joe had to apologise to "Ian Musket" about......I thought it should have been the other way round considering how much "Ian Musket" had to say about Joe's "imaginery friend" etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 07:06 AM

No I don't disagree with your views. I disagree with propagation of hatred, a criminal offence for all UK subjects. Your views are both irrelevant and on the whole, illogical and contradictory. I reported Mudcat to my ISP as websites that do not moderate incitement to hatred could be blocked if the actual culprits aren't stopped. I asked SNP if they were happy with a member stating on a website that Alex Salmond doesn't give a damn about equality and just put through equality legislation to gain few votes. Fair enough question.

By the way, this Musket has no view on greyhound racing, but adopts ex racers as pets. Different thing entirely.

By the way worm, my post above was inadvertently defending you. The truth is the truth, even if it gets you off a hook.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 06:54 AM

I agree with a lot of what you have just posted Steve, but admin have my personal details, address etc, and I feel that is sufficient. Ian, one of the four muskets, says he has my details and has reported me to the police, my political party(SNP), and god knows who else, because he disagrees with my views. I take it that he has also circulated my details amongst his three accomplices.

This is the reason that a degree of anonymity is important, or everyone would have deranged ideologues following them around and wasting police time.
Jack mentioned Dave Smith, I am at a loss to know why.
All I know about Mr Smith, is that someone of that name runs the UKs largest greyhound forum....Greyhound scene.
The "muskets" apparently hate greyhound racing and want to see it banned.

The "muskets" have contributed many scurrilous lies to this forum, not only against me, but several other members.
I think its about time the gang were removed.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 06:22 AM

Not even accurate. Akenaton is a Scottish greyhound trainer and building site labourer and despite his anonymous presence here, is known in the greyhound industry, including to Seaham Cemetery's wife, who also trains them. The three Musketeers, including Ian, have no knowledge or view on that subject. A quick google about the story when Mr Smith was convicted shows that police are investigating more greyhound trainers but that's about it. Joe Offer was originally taken in by Akenaton's mud slinging afterwards, but I believe Ian was given an apology afterwards by him.

But, as Akenaton wishes to remain anonymous whilst referring to other members by their real names and printing hurtful lies about whole sections of society, who are we to stop him eh? See above, he wants the three musketeers to be banned so he doesn't get so much challenge for his incitement to hatred. Such people don't like scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 06:10 AM

"Akenaton" is really David Smith from Durham, an exterminator for the English greyhound racing business?

Figures, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Steve and his damned iPad
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 06:09 AM

There isn't a Redwatch any more and hasn't been for years. And why drag redness into this!

Here's the point. This is a music website that also allows wider-ranging discussion. Your presence here is entirely voluntary. If you feel at risk by revealing your true identity to other members, you're almost certainly (a) wrong, (b) egotistical. Maybe you're not as important as you think. So let's have a rule that each member's profile contains their true identity. If you don't like that rule, well you won't die by not coming here. My guess is that everybody already here would still be here. And a few other nice people too who are not here at the moment. Good manners would be de rigeur. Bad manners would be rare, such would be the improved ethos.

Take a look at that Gaughan forum. There's plenty about it I don't like and I'm an occasional contributor only. There are sensible people, hard-noses and downright bloody nitwits, just like here. And you can swear a lot. But there are no anonymous guests and there is no trolling and, in general, people are reasonably nice to each other even when they disagree. Supportive, even, when someone goes off half-cock. The moderator operates only occasionally and always with a light but firm touch. To a very significant degree, it's because anonymity is not allowed. We can have that if we want.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 05:49 AM

Lies? Interesting use of the word...

This thread is about why BS is dwindling. Your unfortunate appearance makes further debate unnecessary.

Now bugger off before you manage your usual trick of introducing anal sex into the debate, like you usually do. Your unhealthy interest in the subject isn't nice for decent people to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 05:22 AM

Well I don't know what the rest of the membership think of the above admission, but to me it seems an example of the worst type of destructive trolling......as gnu is our resident expert on trolls perhaps he would like to comment?

Admin should be more consistent in what they allow, four people using the same handle to "wind-up" one another and the forum....hmmmm.

What about all the lies Mr Mather perpetuated about "Seaham Cemetery"? the person or "persons" who libelled me over the treatment of animals in my care!

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.

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: 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,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: Janie
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 10:28 PM

Whew!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,Unsaintly Steve
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 05:43 PM

That was me.

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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 11:52 AM

I need a hug...to resolve my frustration

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: 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: 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: bobad
Date: 30 Oct 14 - 09:51 AM

Like flies to shit.

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.