BS: Dwindling BS section

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:32 AM

I know. Nobody cares about sections of society that they are not part of. Always someone else's problem.

No matter, Akenaton has a solution. Silence is his approval.

I don't try to reason with bigotry, I just wait for it to wither and die. In the meantime, confront it.

You know,,

Like those folk singers you all fucking revere...

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:36 AM

steve - i don't think i am the pete (i'm from cockermouth)you are on about here but if i am i apologise. but is this another long-running squabble that i was too bored to notice or keep up with. whatever -thanks for the recommendation - i'm off to give the dick gaughan forum an explore.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:42 AM

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

You're misrepresenting me. For the third or fourth time (I forget), I know the rule and I work with it. I'm not demanding or insisting on anything. I'm suggesting something and I'm backing up my suggestion with argument. No need to go off on one just because you disagree. And why should you be so wary? Do the other guys in your band know your real name? Do you reckon that the other guys in U2 call yer man The Edge (or, if they're being familiar, just "The")? Do you sit around in the pub with a bunch of guys who you know by nicknames only? Blimey, that's what would make ME wary! And I didn't necessarily suggest even that nicknames should be disallowed. Just that your real name is in your profile for other members to see. Not the whole world, note. This thread is about making this a nicer place, sort of. Anonymity, one hundred percent, helps to make it nastier. That's just human nature at work. You see it all over the internet. Well, that and allowing unsigned people to post. That's just daft, is that.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:46 AM

Pete the wacko creationist is the pete I was on about. I didn't know he was from Cockermouth. One or the other I should think. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:50 AM

God, I feel confused. It's you from Cockermouth, not him (yeah, I know, no shit Sherlock). Anyway, it isn't you!

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:54 AM

Going off on one ????

do you not sense the the cool calm serene relaxed tone of how I express myself here...???

..no high horses in my house...
I'm fairly ok at maintaining a reasonably moderate temperature under my collar...

At this stage in my life, I've really got to be very careful with my blood pressure....

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 09:58 AM

The starry one is a ruddy southerner..

One Mudcatter calls me Musket on the threads and Ian in the pub. (It's me typing now..) Another Musket called me Musket at a dinner party the other week, although I called him Musket too. Another person present assumed it was Masonic..

Come to think of it, that would be a better explanation than to say there is a wonderful folk music website that has a pseuds corner called BS where you can wind up weirdos and watch them bite.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 10:00 AM

Let's just agree then that in not one of my posts to this thread have I bullishly insisted or demanded anything! Misrepresentation is as cardinal a sin as calling someone a nasty name, you know.

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

"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!"

Yes Bill, nice post, but I take slight issue with the point you make.
When you state that, " a position is narrow, illogical, counter to facts, subjective...etc"   It is important that you can back up that statement with a reasoned argument
The quads and other "liberal" ideologues avoid reason like the plague, simply relying on the hope that some of the mud which they fling sticks.
As I often say universal equality is a faith position.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 10:19 AM

'Misrepresentation' is not a tactic I knowingly indulge in...

How 'you' intended to express something, may not be how it ended up appearing to others...

'Innocent' statements are all too often miscommunicated and misconstrued;
leading to all sorts of daft arguements blowing up out of all proportions here in BS ..


"We all need to look at ourselves in full length mirrors from time to time... to see ourselves as others see us"

.. quoted, vaguely paraphrased from some or other well respected dopey old hippy philosopher
whose name I'm buggered if I can remember..

errmm.. or maybe it was from the "Kung Fu" TV series...

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 10:29 AM

Ake,

You may take comfort in the false notion that the antipathy your anti-homosexual discourse inspires here is ideological but mine is just a visceral reaction to your inhumane intolerance.

And please don't cite any more of your statistics to me regarding a minor health problem that you use to make your bigotry seem reasonable. It's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 10:45 AM

I have met the Starry one. I do find his god-bothering (I don't think I've ever heard him sing a song about anything else) very hard to take.

Mither is fairly reasonable until he turns back into a Blairite or worse - a supporter of Thatcher's war on miners and unions.   His accusations that I am a champagne socialist are pretty stupid when you watch him brag about his wealth and pretend to have some left-leaning.

I use my own name. And the only problems have been with that which we do not discuss. I suppose they get corns on their knuckles from dragging them along the ground (while hiding behind internet anonymity).

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 10:54 AM

'wid some power the gift tae gie us - to see oorselves as ithers see us' - this is a (badly remembered) quote frae rabbie burns - i think.
however - no-one else needs to see this unless they really want to - and for now i don't think i can be bothered . good try to try to talk about this dwindling section but it turns out to be a great example of the problem and with no sign of a solution in sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 11:18 AM

Bridge is a wonderful wind up merchant himself. Considering Musket Ian is an ex miner who still has one bottle of champagne left. (Drank one when the bitch finally died and the other cheap plonk is waiting for Scargill to die.) I notice what's left of The NUM are chasing him through the courts again and trying to bankrupt him. Couldn't have happened to a better Trot.

Tell you what. I wish I were two bob behind a solicitor like Bridge... I've never been a Tory for that matter either. 😜

Naw, I swapped Socialism for champagne. Different thing entirely. True, I did believe in the New Labour philosophy when Kinnock set out to make them electable and to this day, I contend that the best way to deliver a social programme is to afford it in the first place. The Blair idea of bypassing and ignoring Parliament and disastrous decisions about The Middle East preclude calling me a Blairite though. (A photo of me shaking hands with him is no longer on display in the study. No ideological reason, just needed the space for photos of my Granddaughter.

If my take on life puts me at odds with a solicitor who carries a cross for those he has sympathy rather than empathy with, I'm cool and happy 😎

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 11:57 AM

WTF?:
why we often say WTF 

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:03 PM

Perhaps third time is the charm, this post isn't sticking.

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.

Ake, no one asked you not to post. I suggested not responding to the attacks so they could be removed. Any attacks are generally removed quietly across the forum if it's possible to do so without chopping up the discussion, but if everyone piles on and responds, then removal is impossible.

"Moderated as it should be" - now there is a can of worms. If people would stop leading with their chins and picking the scabs off of wounds that can not be healed in this environment, the job would be a lot easier. You're speculating about moderation motives, and you're all fighting to get the last word. You know how that is going to turn out.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:11 PM

I use my nickname on the forum, but also a lot in real life. I have repeatedly asked some people who know me offline not to reveal details of my person, and am routinely and, to my mind, extremely rudely, ignored. How dare they, is what comes to mind. Are there netiquette rules about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:13 PM

Friday Oct 31, 2014. Wall Street Journal"


Brian Gaar …

I'd never interact with a stranger in person but give that stranger a computer and I'll ignore my family on Christmas to fight with him

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:15 PM

Asking him not to post isn't such a bad idea if his posts cause distress and upset when he lies in order to villify people whose only crime is existing.

Whilst ever he posts hate, it shall be challenged. It isn't difficult to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:28 PM

Reading this thread brings to mind an old admonition often given to school children:

Never hit back! You are the one who will be seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:32 PM

I am firmly of the opinion that people with multiple personalities should share them with people who don't have any.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:56 PM

in this day and age on a public forum it is just not safe for people to give their true names, addresses etc. Maybe moreso for women but not necessarily.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 01:06 PM

I'm keeping the personality that snaps knicker elastic at 40 paces for myself though if it's all the same to you Don.

The one that growls when I wake up is available to any bugger who wants it though.

Anyway. About to shower and change into my Halloween costume. That's another personality but reserved for tonight's party.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 01:13 PM

Halloween...

I've switched off all the lights in the front of the house and am now hiding at the back in the kitchen
having a quiet bit of cuddly saucy slap 'n' tickle with the mrs...

...we'll emerge around 8.00ish and then risk putting the telly and lights back on in the front room..

That's my true personality...

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 01:17 PM

@ Mrrzy -- Your privilege of course to keep your ID confidential. But would it be a reasonable question to know how to pronounce your forum name? Is it like the river at Liverpool? Or...?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 01:22 PM

Yes, exactly like the river Mersey. Or like mercy with a Z, if you prefer. And you can read that as "with a zee" or "with a zed" depending on where you're reading from.

Also shortened to Mrr, pronounced like Myrrh.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 01:25 PM

I have repeatedly asked some people who know me offline not to reveal details of my person, and am routinely and, to my mind, extremely rudely, ignored. How dare they, is what comes to mind. Are there netiquette rules about that?

Behaviour - on the net or anywhere else - doesn't come any ruder than disputing with people and not giving your name. That's the attitude of people who stone people's windows in the dark.

If I knew your name I'd use it. As it is, I just don't take anything you say as being a communication from a real human being.

I don't expect to ever see you on Dick Gaughan's forum. I doubt we're missing anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 01:31 PM

"If I knew your name I'd use it. As it is, I just don't take anything you say as being a communication from a real human being.

I don't expect to ever see you on Dick Gaughan's forum. I doubt we're missing anything."

So are the more pompous sanctimonious members of that forum
known affectionately as 'the dicks'...???

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 01:50 PM

I once interviewed Dick Gaugan, about the time of his releasing his Different Kind of Love Song album, and asked if he felt his popularity and appeal as a musician would be wider if he were less political in his choice of songs.

The answer helps explain why I never got beyond hospital radio and although his answer wasn't broadcast, it was played at the Chrimbo party to my embarrassment.... What he didn't know as he lectured in his dressing room (Regal Arts Centre, Worksop) was that I was introducing him on stage and saying nice things about him in a few minutes... Years later, when he was appearing with Allan Taylor in Matlock Bath, I asked him about the night but he had forgotten it...

Interestingly, my own set thirty years ago was quite left wing political. Now, I don't think I sing anything, mine, traditional or others that could be classed as partisan political. Mainly lover's balls and best pint I ever had songs to be honest...

The point of that name dropping (he is a hero of mine musically) is that I find many people in the folk world fairly opinionated in the final analysis, so it isn't that these threads can be combative that is the issue, but surprised they arent even more so. Performers tend to have strong personalities, even if they try to hide them.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 03:11 PM

in this day and age on a public forum it is just not safe for people to give their true names, addresses etc. Maybe moreso for women but not necessarily.

Well I for one have not suggested that anyone should give out their address. As for safe, well I'm a sample of one, admittedly. I post controversially and provocatively at all times if I can. Without wishing to blow my own trumpet (I'd much rather someone else did that for me ;-) ), I'd guess, in all humility (honest), that I've accelerated the posting to this thread by about double. I've done it here and on a number of other forums for at least twelve years. You'd think that after all I've said about Israel that Mossad would be on to me by now. After all I've said about abortion and those wicked anti-abortionists you'd think I'd have had death threats (they are evil bastards after all). Actually, my phone was bugged in the 1980s when I was an active CND member! But my true name is Steve Shaw and I live near Bude and I would not go ex-directory even if you held a knife to my throat. No-one to date has threatened me or lobbed a brick through my window, and I say what I want to say. I like that. Yes there are nasty people around. But I never suggested that all our real names are flaunted for all to see. Just that they are in our profiles so that other MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD can see who they're talking to. Just like you do down the pub. Stop pretending that there's anything "social" about talking to people you know only as gnu, Sanity, Hawk, Ake, Teribus and so on. Yeah, even Jeri, Musket, achmelvich and punkfolkrocker. There you go. Saying what I think, hang it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 03:25 PM

Steve - equally...

If you know someone by name, do you really know them ?

do you know what evils they are truly capable of...???


quote - probably paraphrased from a Marvel comic...

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 03:48 PM

Well, here we are again....the wannabe 'political activists' when confronted with real facts, just go into a semi-literate name calling tirade against those who actually present facts.....the activists only have their 'pie in the sky' delusions, that they united with others of like-ilk, to call names trying to diminish those who present facts.

Akenaton has been repeatedly been praised for his patience with dealing with such antics, from the deluded dolts of political correctness...but factual fantasies.....dream on...you are NOT going to change FACTS with propaganda and talking points!.....nor will some of you abandon your hatred and bitterness that you get from getting NO traction(except from other like minded air-heads), in turning fiction into fact.
Sorry...it's not working.....

GfS