BS: The Trolls and Flamers

Subject: the Trolls amd Flamers
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 19 Sep 16 - 09:39 AM

I'm wondering why internet trolls and flamers do it. Niot just here on Mudcat, but everywhere.

Obviously they wouldn't if they could not remain incognito, which immediately classifies them as cowards.

But, from a psychological point of view are they would-be psychopaths hell-bent on causing pain and disruption wherever they can, just for the sake of it?

In which case they are in a very dangerous moral state.

Or, in the context of this site, are they inadequates who couldn't sing or play a note and who are incredibly jealous of those who can?

I see most of them as very early teenagers who haven't yet gained maturity, up to mischief, or adults who have never gained maturity.

What do other Mudcatters think? And how do we deal with them? My immediate answer would be to just ignore them as attention seekers, that would hurt them most.

Subject: RE: the Trolls amd Flamers
From: mkebenn
Date: 19 Sep 16 - 12:37 PM

I think you can stop wondering, ya' pretty much got it. Mike

Subject: RE: the Trolls amd Flamers
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 16 - 01:22 PM

psychopaths hell-bent on causing pain and disruption wherever they can, just for the sake of it?

Rather like Trump and the Trumpists.

Subject: RE: the Trolls amd Flamers
From: keberoxu
Date: 19 Sep 16 - 02:16 PM

I met a flamer once. This was a long time before I knew that Mudcat existed.

I can tell you a little bit without anybody getting hurt. The context was a church parish, so one has a strong community agenda, an established hierarchy, and a network of committed volunteers working closely with fellow parish members. The parish had its own, what the heck is it called, online forum at one of the big Internet thingies. So there was interaction in person and online.

There was also, as you may imagine, a circle of insiders, and there were the members who shadow the insiders. I would describe the flamer as a person who shadows insiders, and who would never become an insider, will always somehow remain on the fringe.

Thankfully I was never the object of the flamer's attention. For a temporary period I was included in the parish's music ministry, mostly a pleasant and positive experience. Fellow music ministry participants included some people who were prominent in the parish, known to everybody, and who would attract the attention of the fringe people. I got to watch the drama at close quarters; hopefully I did nothing to contribute to the drama or make it worse, but I was in a position to see what was going on.

My opinion of the person who did the flaming, this particular person, is that the driving force was envy. Envy and resentment made this person experience not just attraction, but attachment -- a powerful sticky combination of desire and shame. It's yucky stuff and it makes the world of soap operas go 'round.

The person in the flesh was easily dominated and easily cowed, had probably experienced being the victim of bullying of some kind. Lots of resentment and anger, precious little courage, and not given to looking closely at oneself and thinking before one speaks. What I am trying to say is there wasn't anything flamboyant about the flamer, in everyday life.

Online, the flamer shouted, using capital letters. Such was the content of the forum posts that I could tell who the flamer was. I pity the objects of the flamer's fury, but mostly I feel sorry for the flamer.

Subject: RE: the Trolls amd Flamers
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 Sep 16 - 02:28 PM

Like most spiteful, hurtful and unkind behaviour, it stems from deep unhappiness. I imagine these sorts of people feel unaccepted by the rest of society, and possibly isolated and unwanted. The internet gives them an anonymous way of 'getting their own back'. I feel very sorry for them actually. It must be very painful to be so miserable that one feels the need to attack and hurt with words.
I saw several children like this in my teaching days. The ones who bashed weaklings in the playground, or scribbled on someone's nice piece of writing or called other children unkind names. They were always what I thought of as 'The Unloved'. One could punish them of course, but I found a better way was to praise them and show them affection, give them responsibility and respect. It often brought them round.
I wonder if there's a similar way to deal with trolls? Post something nice about them, or say something kind perhaps?

Subject: RE: the Trolls amd Flamers
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Sep 16 - 09:02 PM

Ignore them. Both are inadequate cowards who would never face up to themselves in "real life." I've been called worse than they have ever called me by people who were as far superior to them as I am.

I've often wondered what would happen if the Code Duello was still in force and they might have to answer for their statements with their lives:

"Sir, my friends will call upon you!"
"You ain't got any friends!"

Knock know....

"Hello, my name is Amos, Rapparee's friends. Would you please provide the name of your second so that we might make the proper arrangements? As the challenged party you, of course, have the choice of weapons."

"Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! I didn't mean any of that, I was just kidding around, I was...can't we make this up some other way?"

"I'm afraid not. Now, please, who is acting for you? We really must make the arrangements. And let's follow the American Code, if that's all right with you and your second."

Subject: RE: the Trolls amd Flamers
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 19 Sep 16 - 09:13 PM

H'mm. I met a troll once. In fact he stayed with me for a few days, cped next to my narrowboat. Met him through a forum where he was quite reepectful, but I knew what he was up to elsewhere. With a chosen name of Brian the Troll, how could I not!

I expressed kindness to him, bought him a couple of meals, bought his beer etc. because he reckoned he was broke.

I listened to his stories of how he was an abused child by the Catholic Church. (He eventually got compensation.)

My mistake was to ignore a text message from him. From that moment I became a target.

It got very bad. Everywhere I turned on t'internet, he was there, giving it some, undermining my reputation (which wasn't that good in the first place!)

Eventually I reminded him that I knew where his grandkids (yes, he is that old!)were and when they reached 18 I would send them a copy of all his online abuse so they could see what kind of person their grandfather really was.

Then it stopped, for me at least.

Subject: RE: the Trolls amd Flamers
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 12:52 AM

I went to Seattle about this time last year to meet Bob "Deckman" Nelson and a lot of Mudcatters I had corresponded with for years. Stewart gave me a tour of the fascinating Fremont district, and introduced me to the troll (click) that lives under the Highway 99 bridge. It was a very interesting troll, indeed.
So were the Seattle Mudcatters...interesting, not trolls.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: the Trolls amd Flamers
From: leeneia
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 12:54 AM

Sometimes the troll has been drinking or doing dope, the buzz is long past, and the sadness or anger has hit. If you know where the troll lives, you can figure out what time of day he posted. If it was 3 AM, well.....

It helps to realize that it's not personal, it's chemical.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 02:27 AM

On many occasions I have posted that I am prepared to discuss anything at any time but if it seems to me that we have moved from a discussion to abuse I disengage.

There is a very characteristic post the troll makes a lot of the time. It opens by a direct piece of abuse to me in an attempt to make me respond, but then goes on to abuse three or four other posters to the thread to try and rile them. For all the world it resembles the guy in the bar who wants a fight and doesn't much care with who. And, like them, you feel pity rather than anger.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 02:44 AM

From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 12:52 AM

Quote: I went to Seattle about this time last year to meet Bob "Deckman" Nelson and a lot of Mudcatters I had corresponded with for years. Stewart gave me a tour of the fascinating Fremont district, and introduced me to the troll (click) that lives under the Highway 99 bridge. It was a very interesting troll, indeed.

That's one hell of a Troll Joe!

We get 'em too, under bridges on our narrow canals. They are usually angry anglers!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Mr Red
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 03:16 AM

maybe they are angry because (in the UK anyway) their designated transport has disappeared

Trolley Buses


I'll get my fishing rod...............

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 03:36 AM

Hahahaha Mr Red!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: MikeL2
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 09:19 AM

Hi

I go with the ignore them comment.

They feed on argument.

many, years ago - before the Internet I had an encounter with what we now call a troll. For some reason I was a target ans received abuse and much worse me family and friends received untrue terrible comments about me.

I told all my friends about the problem and told them just to ignore this pathetic person.

I ignored the idiot and so did the others.

The "troll" soon gave up on us.

I know that other people were targets. I told them to just ignore the idiot.

Works.

Don't feed their ego which will only lead continued abuse.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 09:51 AM

The Perrine Bridge over by Twin Falls sits some 3,600 feet above sea level and about 486 feet above the Snake River. It has trolls on nearly every girder, or rather the ghosts of trolls who thought they were BASE jumpers or worse. They sit among the girders murmuring "Don't do it, you arse!" but are largely ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 11:30 AM

"I go with the ignore them comment.

They feed on argument."
Surely this section of the forum is dedicated to argument? it is a discussion section......the current mods are to blame by labelling every point of view with which they disagree.....as flaming or trolling...... especially concerning political matters.

A troll is someone who does not care about the SUBJECT under discussion, but simply wants to promote anger in his/her victim.

There are few real trolls here, but there were many abusive and vituperative people......who were allowed to practise their abuse until the management sorted matters out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 11:41 AM

Hey, Rapp, I walked over the Perrine Bridge in Idaho three weeks ago. Didn't see trolls, but I did see the Guys With Parachutes.
Joe

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 02:11 PM

Not come across the term " flames " before, not sure what exactly identifies these. And is troll , strictly an anon, or include those that name themselves and still spew abuse ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 03:46 PM

Or, pete, as in your case, still spew nonsense.

Flamers all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 05:44 PM

Words change meaning and shade into one another, but this definition of troll is quite a good one: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Notice the troll does not have to believe it or even take any further part in the mess they created. For example I can think of several pairs of words I could post that would almost guarantee hundreds of argumentative, furious and abusive posts without my having to do anything else.   I am sure you, dear reader, could do the same.

A flame, on the other hand is a personal attack for a real or imagined slight or when someone presents a view they disagree with, and flamers are almost always active participants in the thread. It is not the same as a robust defence of another point of view; any reasoned response disappears in the abuse.    I remember the fist time I was badly flamed, which was for expressing the view that when designing a piece of software it was a good idea to think about Windows and Linux and macs. The fury I got as the supporters of each group thought I was saying the others were as good was astonishing, and lasted for an incredibly long time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 08:38 PM

Did you see any with those birdsuits or whatever they call them? That's the latest, apart from steam-powered rockets.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 20 Sep 16 - 09:26 PM

There are those who are somewhere between flamers and trolls. They are the ones who try to embarrass others, manipulate them into making replies they don't want or need to make and get them jumping around at their beck and call.

I would call these 'baters'. Spelt that way. It means those who seek to get folks flapping their wings wildly or frantically, a term used in falconry.

They nearly always do this from an anonymous position.

The only way to deal with them is to withdraw from any dialogue with them at all, no matter how provocative.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 03:46 AM

Thanks DMcg that clarifies .

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 04:27 AM

Surely a song in this?
"Oh, the Trollers and the Flamers should be friends..."

Perhaps not
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 05:35 AM

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 07:45 AM

At the risk of being 'flamed' or accused of trollery, is this BS section shrinking down to absolutely nothing?? Being phased out or something?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: mkebenn
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 09:04 AM

Having a rough morn, Sens? Mike (with all respect and not a touch of trollism, just kiddin'.} Mike

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 09:53 AM

Wiki: "The Flaming Trolls"...

An early 1960s one hit wonder Finnish pop beat group known for small club tours of Europe playing Rolling Stones and Beatles covers.
One minor Spanish summer chart hit of their own 1963 instrumental twist composition
"Oma perse on tulessa , ota kusta se sammuttamaan liekit"...

Record collector 2013: An original test pressing on the Peikko Perse Ja Kiveksiä label recently sold on ebay auction for £3.60. 😎

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 10:24 AM

Mike :)

Actually, I am having a bad day. A stray cat that hangs about here has just been sick on my kitchen floor. And a passing pigeon has messed on my lovely clean washing on the line in the garden. I'n not a Happy Bunny!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 11:18 AM

The BS section: some people have said it's just for debate. It's not - there are other kinds of discussions. The constant fighting, I believe, turns off people who don't want to choose a side and defend a position, but that's pretty much what's expected what you get involved in a thread.

There are some who get involved in a thread only to bitch about the premise of the thread. Increasingly, what I hear when I read those posts is "Hi there. I'd just like to announce to you all that I hate the subject of this thread, but I am too stupid to simply not read it. I'm also stupid enough to tell everyone this by bitching about it." It's better to try to see some Humor Among the Fuckwittery (should that be a tune title?) than get frustrated and/or respond.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 11:39 AM

"The constant fighting, I believe, turns off people who don't want to choose a side and defend a position, but that's pretty much what's expected what you get involved in a thread."

Bingo!

It turns also off people who would otherwise choose a side and defend a position, but who aren't prepared to subject themselves to the slanging and abuse. And it's precisely why the BS section is now down to a small handful of threads. Which, I have a sneaking suspicion, is what Max and the Mods wanted. The decision to close the BS section to 'GUESTS' was, in my view, a good one but, unfortunately, the group of members who lack any kind of filter-system are still busy driving people away.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 02:02 PM

With regard to the number of threads in BS, I've noticed that a few folk start thread after thread, sometimes several in one day, then all the usual suspects pile in and have a marvellous bunfight which gets a bit violent. But as has been said above, one can surely just pass by while smiling at the fracas.
I suppose it's true though, new people could be put off, thinking it's a zoo in here!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 02:36 PM

I often find the fighting annoying. What is particularly galling is when someone has made an interesting point and you are trying to have a civilised discussion with them while around you others are throwing brickbats. It makes me think of being in one of these bar room brawls that were a common feature of old westerns, while in the middle two people are sat trying to discuss conceptual art.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 02:46 PM

Hahahahaha DMcG!! Conceptual art!! :)

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 06:44 PM

I don't care what people think of me and the other "usual suspects," as we've been characterised, though almost never named. A troll is not an argumentative person who just so happens to not fit in with your personal establishment/orthodox religious/right-wing views. A troll is someone who posts provocative and brainless remarks with the SOLE AIM of getting an emotional response. As simple as that. Lots of people here, such as Teribus, akenaton and Pete, post brainless remarks which are not necessarily deliberately provocative - just stupid. Bobad and Keith are archetypal trolls because they post remarks that are bigoted, repetitively so in most cases, and designed to get responses that show up the responders to be angry and frustrated. That is their modus operandi and that is precisely what trolling is all about. If you can bear it, and I wouldn't blame you if you can't, just look at the way they have resurrected the Labour thread that has been toxic for weeks and which should have been allowed to sink into the mire. But they can't resist. That's precisely what trolls do. We are bloody idiots for failing to ignore them. Now I happen to think that this is a rather stupid and navel-gazing thread, and as far as I'm concerned I shall say no more. And that's a promise that I've never seen a troll making. And just see if I don't keep it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: keberoxu
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 07:40 PM

A rather stupid and navel-gazing thread, are we? I happen to like the stupid and navel-gazing threads. I have started a few myself. And for all I know will start others in future.

This may be off-topic, but on a number of non-music non-folklore threads in the BS section, I have observed another distinction. There are members whose posts are hard-edged and opinionated, consistently so, and when others respond to them, these members can genuinely take or leave what comes. And there are members whose posts have more than a little verbal aggression in them, who interestingly can get very touchy about how others respond to them.

On one thread, which was BS but still focussed on poetry, literature, and culture, I enjoyed exchanging posts with a certain member -- mind you, these were thread posts, not PMs, they were public and anybody (even the guests who couldn't post) could view our back-and-forth. The on-thread conversation was amicable and cordial, and it would please me to converse with the other member on that kind of subject -- television, short stories, novels, etc -- anytime. As I am conflict-averse, I stay off the threads on which this same member maintains their reputation for being opinionated and set in their ways.

But I think more of this member, even if I disagree with their position or if their manner in debate makes me anxious, because this person genuinely understands that they are not the center of the universe and does not worry about what others think of them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 08:02 PM

And "this member" in question is ???

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 09:09 PM

"The decision to close the BS section to 'GUESTS'"

Aah. Didn't know that. That explains why my bating 'guest guest' hasn't followed me here!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: ollaimh
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 09:46 PM

although there are people on line who intentional incite trouble, i find all too often anglos call anyone from another cultrual background a troll or flammer or both, if they do not conform to anglo additudes. and especially if they do not respect their class status(usually unearned) folk music in the anglo world is full of well of middleclass or higher ups who went slumming and never achieved what their parents did but insist on their class privledge being recognized--in vancouver there was a folk singer who was a school teach, who rarely failed to mention his father was a member of the british house of lords.but lectured every celt who went there on their bad manners(mainly not genuflecting to him--or should isay to jim)

and is it cowardly to remain anonymous? well in my experinence anglos are both gang up types and violent and there is no sense courting unnecessasy trouble. they will make it when ever they can without any provocation. better to go somewhere else.

however i have successfully sued flamers for libel from on line defamations. usually not worth the trouble but some are
persistent.

on mudcat we used to have a lotof antinative andanti gael racism. i wouldcall that trolling or flaming except it is apparantly normal in anglo culture --so its acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 21 Sep 16 - 10:16 PM

Good example of flaming, that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 02:25 AM

The problem with Steve, Jim, Ake, Keith, Teribus (there, I've named you) is their lack of any kind of filter. Clearly intelligent people, mostly very literate, they are unable to filter out, and ignore, anything posted by their nemeses. Their intelligence, sadly, doesn't extend to the understanding that, if you ignore a troll/flamer, he (almost invariably a he, but occasionally a she) will eventually bugger off.

Instead, they 'stonewall', throwing their own fixed, blinkered opinions back and forth, provoking further responses from 'the other side' ad infinitum (and, for the rest of us, ad nauseam). They just don't get it that the arguing interminably in thread after thread after thread serves absolutely no purpose, that they won't change each others' minds, that they can't, and won't, 'win'.

It's precisely the kind of 'Yah-boo you' behaviour that kids indulge in in school playgrounds the world over. Time the daft buggers grew up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 03:30 AM

And there's another classic example of flaming, posted by a notorious England-hating flamer, on the thread, which was immediately responded to by someone else.

Responding to flaming/trolling isn't compulsory! What's so difficult to understand about 'Do Not Respond'? You can't win with these inadequates, so IGNORE THEM and they'll fuck off. It's so bloody simple!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 05:55 AM

I'll stick with a contentious BS thread that sparks my interest, until it no longer informs, educates, or entertains me...

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 06:05 AM

BWM, sorry but I enjoy challenging the views, preconceptions and as I see it, prejudices of others.
I know I will not change them, but it does force them to defend their assertions.

Not flaming or trolling. No-one else has to look at any of it.
Quite harmless.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 06:14 AM

no one else has to look at it
That's only partially true. Certainly we can ignore the thread in its entirety. But if the thread contains something that is interesting as well as a whole lot of "wind and fury" it does take some effort to disentangle them. Even if I ignore by certain people in the thread, it messes up the paging and such like by making so many post irrelevant. And since each new post resets where the blocks of 50 are counted from, it can still be an irritation that gobbles up my data allowance on the phone for no value to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 06:35 AM

In case anyone thinks the data charges comment is silly, my account used abroad has a daily charge of £6 a Mb for the first 5Mb. While a 50-post block is usually only a few 10s of Kb, it is happenstance if that crosses a boundary and so clocks another £6 on the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 07:34 AM

Well said Keith, totally agree. If someone puts up information or presents a poor argument then anyone should be at liberty to challenge it.

DMcG, concerns for you being able to follow it all on your mobile phone while abroad do not interest me or influence me in the slightest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 07:57 AM

And if six pounds here or there greatly concerned me I wouldn't look at threads from abroad either. That was not the point
Going further than saying that would risk flaming, so I'll leave this precise point here, but may post on other stuff that arises elsewhere in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 10:48 AM

I rather like navel gazing. Mine was just a standard inny until I had it pierced. Yes! By a doctor, who was repairing a bilateral hernia. Now it has a nice scar that I can tell people was achieved when I tried to protect a kindly old nun who was collecting money for food for the poor orphans when she was beset by a gang of drug-crazed punk rocker bikers when I came to her rescue and while defeating the whole mad mob was stabbed with malice aforethought by one who when he realized what he had done immediately converted and now is a plainsong chanter in a cloistered monastery in the Pyrenees.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: keberoxu
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 02:09 PM

Rap for emperor -- ooops sorry that's a different BS thread

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 02:17 PM

I recall a member who seems (seemed) to be under the impression that the person opening a thread has some type of ownership/control of it, and also the posting content. If challenged, or if someone posted something in disagreemt with he/she posted, the auto response often seemed to be to call the poster "a troll".

Quite odd, "I say" - if not very far off the mark.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: MikeL2
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 02:28 PM

Hi Backwoodsman

<" Their intelligence, sadly, doesn't extend to the understanding that, if you ignore a troll/flamer, he (almost invariably a he, but occasionally a she) will eventually bugger off.">.

Couldn't agree more. But I don't think anything will change - they are not intelligent enough to see it.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 03:13 PM

Yeah, I know that, Mike. It doesn't hurt to point it out occasionally though! 👍😎

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 04:22 PM

I recall a member who seems (seemed) to be under the impression that the person opening a thread has some type of ownership/control of it,

And this member is.......?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 10:43 AM

Here are some other kinds of posts which irritate me:

1. The person who asks for help, then never comes back to collect it and thank those who helped.

2. The person who asks about origins and is never happy with an answer. Always comes back with "Yes, but was there a version before THAT?" Me, I figure that if we know that a song was published in 1812 (say), that that's old enough.

3. The person who demands to know what supposed secret meaning is buried in a nonsense refrain.

4. A post like this:

Does anybody know the guitar tuning that Algernon Frogg uses for "The Sow beneath the Silo"? (THBTS) I don't mean the well-known tune for THBTS, I mean the other tune.

5. A person who pretends to be knowledgeable about the Irish language, but actually all he can do is sound pompous about getting fadas to show.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 11:08 AM

Well, Leeneia, I guess that's a primer on what people should do if they want to troll you. ;)

I just give up on trolls these day. They'll go away if you ignore them, but I've been on Mudcat for years, and I've never EVER seen that ignoring thing happen. Too many people enjoy having their buttons pushed.
Then you have these 1,000-plus threads that wind up being the same 5 or 6 people posting hundreds of posts because they just never get tired of saying the same shit over and over, and don't care how stupid and annoying people who AREN'T involved think they are. There are people who I once though of as friends that I don't want to be anywhere near. Not because of their opinions, but because they don't care what their volumes of masturbatory argument do to Mudcat. It's like "fuck you if you don't like it -- it's my narcotic and I have a right..."

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 12:54 PM

It might not be shit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 01:18 PM

It mostly is. Suck it up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 01:35 PM

Now THAT'S an image I could do without.

But I am with Backwoodsman. Once people have clearly stated their view and taken an opportunity to clarify it, there is no need to repeat the points again. I'm happy enough to let everyone else read the points of view and make their own mind up. If they agree with me, fine. If not, well, they don't and that's fine too. There is no obligation to have the last word.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 02:21 PM

"Come on, men! They can't shoot straight at this dis..." 
―last words of  unknown military commander

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 03:01 PM

I think BS threads should be closed after 256 posts. (256 is the square of 16, so it's musical.)

It's easy to tell people to ignore flamers, but the problem is that few Mudcat flamers are stupid enough simply to insult somebody. It's easy to ignore somebody who merely posts, "You blatherskite, you got mugwort in yer cerebellum!" And yes, catters often do ignore such posts.

But when I see a troll insulting a youngster, humiliating a beginning musician, needling an Aged P or smearing an innocent third party, then I feel the need to Say Something. The best thing is usually to post something for the OP which is so gracious, so helpful, so cultivated, that the troll looks like a complete fuckwit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 05:09 PM

Well I may well be one of those "fuckwits"/flamers/trolls/shit purveyors in someone or other's eyes, but let me just finally, hopefully definitely finally this time, tell y'all this much.

Ahem.

There is NO RULE around here that obliges you to open a thread. If you are of the opinion that a thread is populated only by several repetitive and obsessional bigots, you have formed that opinion ONLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY OPENED THE THREAD. There is no other way that you could possibly arrived at your opinion.

Now there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing that. You may be wanting to study the antics of the truly insane, for example, for your next thesis. Good for you. But if you repeatedly open a toxic thread JUST SO THAT YOU CAN GET YOURSELF INSULTED YET AGAIN, or BECAUSE YOU'RE WANTING TO FEEL ALL PREACHY AND SANCTIMONIOUS, then you are mad. More mad than the denizens of the thread you are pretending, in your spasms of self-righteousness, to hate so much.

It's really simple. Open threads only on topics you want to talk about. If you open a thread that you can see contains bile, NEVER OPEN IT AGAIN. People who deliberately upset themselves are insane. Simple. You can discuss stuff with the missus or with your mates down the pub. You can write letters to the Guardian or join a political party. But why hurt yourself by opening threads that you find insulting? Are you stupid or what?

Naturally, the guardians of the forum, the moderators, are obliged to expose themselves to all sorts of bile. What a pity that they refuse to sanction the real trolls here, the Keiths, the cheating bobads and the akenatons of this world. It could just be that some of the obsessives you're moaning about (moaning only because you're stupid enough to keep opening those threads, remember!) are actually right-minded people, not purveyors of Jeri's "shit" after all. So they're wasting their bloody time and no-one's listening to them. So what? WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH YOU! Leave the silly buggers to it and look up at the stars instead!

Or play a tune!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 05:40 PM

If the discussion is civil, does it really matter if it goes on , or even repeats points? I can appreciate though that if it descends to abusive language it may be time to wind it up.      It does seem though that some peoples definition of a troll is really, someone who they take exception to because of their different opinion and viewpoint to their own

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 06:00 PM

Well Pete, you may be utterly amazed to read that I agree with almost all that! When I'm discussing politics with my 92-year old dad (best avoided but what can you do!), repetition is the name of the game. I'm sure I've made the same telling points to Mrs Steve a hundred times (she lets me know in no uncertain terms, actually). Yes, a troll isn't just someone who takes exception to your views. A troll is trying to get you to react emotionally, a ploy that trumps any genuine effort to debate. Where I would disagree with you is when you say that abuse means it's time to wind it up. No it isn't. Abuse means that it's time for you to STOP OPENING THE THREAD. Just leave 'em to it! They have precious few listeners and can change nothing. It is irrational to let them get to you. DON'T OPEN THE THREAD!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 07:47 PM

'troll' is not a word I care much for, and I can't help being deeply suspicious of folks who resort to using it too easily and too often...

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 10:02 PM

Nope, Steve, it's shit. The forum is also for everybody, including first timers who think that's what Mudcat is. So who does Mudcat belong to? People who don't like the shit, or those who enjoy rolling around in it?

Fundamentally, the objectionable stuff has found a home here because, unlike usenet or other places on the internet, people just go elsewhere and ignore the fuckwits instead of flaming the holy hell out of them. They just STOP OPENING THE THREAD. They give up.

As for the admonition to stop opening threads that piss you off, could you tell that to the 5 or 6 people who are keeping this monstrosity going. While Max has made it possible for you to engage in such games, you have to realize people will develop an opinion of your intelligence and niceness based on you doing so. Every now and then, we're likely going to bitch about it, but you're free to not read those posts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 10:09 PM

Also, for the record, the moderators are not "obliged" to read anything. Some have disappeared, and personally, I hardly ever open the threads I loathe. Life is too short. Somebody else may wish to, but since BS has gone to members only, I don't care about that side of Mudcat so much. "Law of the playground" or something.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 03:40 AM

Repetition has a place in the world; there are long established family jokes and references, nursery rhymes and songs in general, soothing sick people and summarising what has been said so far, for a start. So don't assume I am simply opposed to repetition.

But I have three main problems with Repetition in threads.
The first is that the poster does not appear to be listening to what other people say.(Normally they claim others in the thread aren't listening to them, which is often true but doesn't invalidate the observation.) In The Monstrous Thread referred to above I looked at the last 50 posts - that's my preferred approach an long threads - a day or two before I was out of the country for three weeks with very limited Internet.   When I came back I was surprised to see the thread still on the go.so looked at the last 50 posts again. And as far as I could remember it had not progressed in the slightest; same people, same specific events being argued about. Just a roomful of people all not listening to each other.

The second is like the first: there is so much ego in the postings that they assume they are the only ones who can see a flaw in an argument. If I happen to say something imcorrect to someone, it isn't always necessary for then to point it out. Allow for the intelligence of the other readers; most of the time it will be as obvious to them as is it to you. That's why I try to stick to the post-clarify-shutup model for any given point.

But the third reason is the most important. The world is full of wonder and people are marvellously complex. I hate reducing people to 'the one who is obsessed with X'. The more energy people pour into narrow topics the more they reduce themselves. For illustration I pick Teribus at random. I know his political stance so well I can predict how he will react on any remotely political topic. Buy beyond that? I know nothing of the guy. What sort of music does he like? No idea. Does he play an instrument and if so what? Pass. As seen through the posts this fully fledged real and complex person with live and interests is reduced to a single note. And that is not gooď.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 04:31 AM

The most ridiculous thing is when the A-holes start to try to justify their stupid, childish, OCD behaviour by attempting to shift the blame for their Shit-Fests on to everyone else - instead of shouting 'STOP OPENING THE THREAD', Steve, why don't you bunch of shit-for-brains fuckwits GROW UP, AND STOP FUCKING THREADS UP?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 04:54 AM

None of us 'owns' this site, and as such we are all guests here, even though we may be 'members'. In my view, one's behaviour online should mirror one's behaviour in real life. One would never go to a public meeting and let fly with abuse and insults such as we see on here. If that happened, one would be chucked out. In the pub, one may even get thumped.
I agree that potential new members might be put off by the vituperative and rude comments from some posters.
Surely, points of view can be expressed without insulting another's stance?
Rudeness and insults are indeed childish and belong in the playground.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 05:44 AM

When reason and reasonableness constantly fail with these people (as they invariably do, Eliza), and they just stick their fingers in their ears and sing "La-la-la", or tell everyone else not to open the multitude of threads they've taken over and wrecked (as though they're completely innocent and it's our fault for looking, what else is left?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 06:18 AM

Sadly Backwoodsman, I suppose the only recourse is to look for a site where this is less prevalent. Although my young nieces tell me there are trolls and vicious posters everywhere nowadays. What a sad situation!
I sometimes look at Mumsnet, although I don't post there. It seems that anyone being overly rude or insulting, or as they put it, 'not in the spirit of Mumsnet' has their post deleted, with a short explanation as to why. And the other posters tend to 'report' nasty posts and get them removed. But of course that's a huge commercial site with massive resources, and not in the same league as Mudcat.
I feel very sympathetic to the Moderators here, and grateful for their time and input. I'm sure they sometimes feel like chucking it in; I know I would.
Thank you Moderators!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 06:28 AM

And I suppose, John, that your name-calling and effing and blinding at me and about others is your version of "reasonableness." Good to see you have a sense of humour.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 07:57 AM

My main problem with Mudcat... and I guess probably why I come and go sporadically as my interest fluctuates, increases or wanes...

is that it seems to me there is not much else to stimulate reading here between the vicious bear pit threads and the twee happy clappy inane threads...
Back a few [but not too many ] years in time when some of my favourite mudcatters were still alive,
or the survivors still posting regularly,
mudcat used to be a far more interesting and varied forum for working and active musicians, and diverse music enthusiasts.... ???

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 08:34 AM

.. I should add, I do have existing favourites who i enjoy reading, and who do still post [some of 'em, far too ?] frequently...

Oddly they include two known persevering mods, and BWMs above list of dysfunctional BS miscreants...

Curiously, 'notorious' personalities always seem to stand out as most interesting and attractive...???

In the best movies the baddy is quite frequently more interesting and charismatic than the good guy...????

Anti heroes are even better....!!!!




.. Special mention though, for Senoufou who is a prime example of mudcat at it's very best... 😎

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 10:06 AM

That makes two of us who think I'm attractive then! 😉

I post to threads about music, threads about the weather, threads about wildlife, joke threads and threads about all sorts of things. The worst swear word I ever use is bloody. I don't think it's ever right to let racists, homophobes and bigots hold sway, no matter how few people are bothering with them. I spent 25 years in secondary school classrooms keeping a pact with myself that I would never allow a racist comment to pass. If I see one here, and, sadly, they are manifold, why would I now? To Jeri: there is shit and there is shit. It's very disappointing that you can't tell the difference. You really need to stop complaining. There are forums around where Keiths, akenatons, bobads and Teribuses are simply not allowed to exist. In fact, of all the forums I'm on, this is the only one infested by people like that. The threads WILL be read by moderators, they ARE moderated with a light touch, often an invisible touch, and moderators, unlike you, stay out of the mire instead of making offensive and sweary remarks about people they don't care for and having the last word. If you really can't see that your attitude doesn't help, then I don't know what. Consistency and zero tolerance rapidly lighten the moderatorial burden. The ETHOS is changed. Forget that tiresome yankee crap about "free speech" (which you yanks haven't actually got - it's amazing what even your President daren't say in public) and get a grip on the bigots. There are actually very few of them and you have the power to make them go away.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 11:10 AM

Thank you punkfolkrocker, and I do like your cool sunglasses!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Stu
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 11:15 AM

"The worst swear word I ever use is bloody."

You used the word "pricks" on another thread, and "shit" later on in the same post.

Just sayin'

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 11:31 AM

Bloody is much worse. It derives from "by Our Lady," a horrid curse as far as we good Catholics are concerned. I had to say prick because the joke demanded it, and shit is an excellent and ancient word that has exactly the right "feel" for what it refers to. But anyway, thanks for the close attention, Stu!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 12:39 PM

Isn't it amazing how reformed offenders are always the ones with the most 'holier-than-thou' attitude? Rather like reformed smokers who rail passionately against those who continue to smoke. And someone who used to be one of the most aggressive, rude, and vitriolic posters on this forum, now lecturing me about my language. Words like 'two', 'faced' and 'hypocrite' spring readily to mind.

Before objecting to my, admittedly unfortunate, lapse, perhaps some time should be spent in consideration of the relevance and value of the opinions I expressed in this thread, and others on a similar topic, and in facing up the undeniable, major part played in the demise of this section of the forum by 'The Usual Suspects', instead of merely seeking ways of avoiding that responibility by pointing out my own lowering of my personal standards.

I've said all I have to say, so I'm out. The Usual Suspects can do as they like - they always do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 01:14 PM

If you're talking about me, I always play a straight bat, thank you. You last few posts in this part of the board, not just the latest one which you embarrassed yourself with, have frequently been bitter and vitriolic, riddled with abuse and sweariness, for reasons best known to yourself. My suggestion to you is to give up reading the threads that the "usual suspects" infest. My blood pressure's fine. Do look after yours.

By the way, we're not "suspects." We are signed, sealed and delivered convicts (in the eyes of a few around here) and we'd rather have it that way. Very refreshing to have our names named, in my opinion!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 01:54 PM

Trolls and flamers come in many guises..... Backwoodsman... get out while you can my friend. Fun to be had elsewhere....... Don't think of it as retreating.... just making a mature move.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 02:24 PM

You are quite correct Backwoodsman, Steve is a phoney, he preaches about his wonderful stance against imagined racism(I have seen no racism here), yet gives away his true character with remarks like "there are forums around where the Keiths, akenatons, bobads and Teribuses are not allowed to exist"....and "Forget that tiresome Yankee crap about free speech".

Perhaps Steve does not understand the connotations of such remarks, but I firmly believe that they illustrate a controlling and politically motivated mindset........I have always considered such people "Liberal Fascists" a state of mind which is adequately explained
HERE by Peter Hitchins.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: keberoxu
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 03:43 PM

IT'S YOU!! HI THERE!

I have to 'fess up. I was talking about you earlier on this thread. You and I had a lovely exchange of posts on the subject of Para Handy a/k/a/ The Vital Spark some months ago. This is what I was talking about in my earlier post.

And I have observed with interest that you walk your talk, and you do not get all touchy and sensitive online, because what others make of your position does not much interest you. None of this "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" for you. Glad you're here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 05:15 PM

Akenaton, you are an intellectual midget, a homophobe, a racist and a total waste of space. Almost every post you make here confirms all those things without our having to point it out. You call yourself a socialist yet your instincts are fascist. And that's the kindest thing I can think of to say about you. I'll leave it at that. Now the best thing is for you to refrain from addressing me or commenting on me. It's a free country of course. Off you go now.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 05:50 PM

Hello again Keberoxu....thanks for the kind words.
I think you are of benefit to the forum, your threads and posts broaden the horizons here.
Sometimes a bit over my head, as Steve says, I may be a bit of an "intellectual midget"......he should certainly be able to recognise one :0)

You seem interested in Scottish culture, do you have Scottish connections?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 06:16 PM

Aha. A mutual brain-dead, fact-free, reality-adverse mutual admiration society.

Vote Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 07:00 PM

Come on Greg, we all know you are going to vote for Donald...don't be so coy.   Just stringing us along eh?   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 11:49 AM

Is this thread dead yet?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 04:01 PM

Akenaton, don't imagine for one moment that, just because I've called Steve out on his hypocrisy, I'm on the side of his regular opponents on here.

I hold all of you who form the group which has come to be known by many as 'The Usual Suspects' - Steve, Jim, Keith, Teribus, you, and several others - in the highest, utter contempt. You people, 'The Usual Suspects', have conspired to wreck thread after thread with your non-stop bickering and name-calling, following each other around and dragging up arguments from months, if not years, ago, neither side listening to the other, just repeating the same old lines over and over and over. You have driven away good people whose views many of us hold in high regard, you have turned what used to be a great forum into a vile bear-pit where, rather than encouraging real interchange of ideas, the tactic you people have employed is to stifle conversation, and gag and drive away those who disagree with you.

You people, as a group, have been, and will no doubt continue to be, the ruination of a once-great forum. A forum that, thanks to your antics, and like many others who have voted with their feet over the past period, I no longer have any interest in taking part in.

It's all yours. Have a good time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 04:39 PM

I see that flaming and trollishness are going strong in this thread, as I rather assumed would be the case.

The interesting thing is where those indulging in it clearly seem themselves as opponents of these modes of non-communication...

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 04:56 PM

Well I personally hardly ever communicate privately with any of the other "usual suspects" so it's perfectly ridiculous to use the word "conspire" apropos of poor old me. I'm my own man and I play a straight bat, and I have had plenty of issues with the likes of Musket before now, even the odd one with Jim. I'd never claim that I'm never wrong-headed, but I resent being called a hypocrite and I should like the somewhat bilious perpetrator of that accusation to let this forum know when I've been such a thing, chapter and verse would be nice.

I care not a jot whether you hold me in "utter contempt." Rather an odd assertion, actually, as you and I have had some pretty genial exchanges over the years. You appear to have a rather worrying way of being one way this week and entirely the opposite way the week after. If Mudcat below the salt is making you so unhappy, then I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what the remedy is. Nighty night, John.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: keberoxu
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 06:14 PM

Can you all not see how amusing you are?

"Stupid and navel-gazing thread" for a start, and that might have carried some weight if you all didn't keep coming back!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 06:26 PM

Oh yes, we can be quite amusing. I've posted some amazing (though always second-hand) jokes on the joke threads and I can make light even of Keith and Teribus (they don't like it up' em, though). It helps to be outward-looking in order to see that this board is a minuscule part of life, and nothing to do with real life. Instead of insulting us, you could try that approach sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 06:47 PM

"Well I personally hardly ever communicate privately with any of the other "usual suspects" so it's perfectly ridiculous to use the word "conspire" apropos of poor old me."

Goes for me as well, Backwoodsman.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 07:46 PM

"If you were planning on teaching yourself the lambada on a greased platform over a pit full of knives, I wouldn't."

 Cassandra Clare

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 03:58 PM

Actually, Woodcock, 'twas I who posted that, not Backwoodsman. I could comment on your inaccuracy there, but on this rare occasion I should like instead to praise you for agreeing with me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 07:59 PM

A sorta summary?

This thread has become a bit of banter. Fine. No probs with that.

Quite amusing as it 'appens.

But the overwhelming conclusion that we seem to have come to is that with Trolls, Flamers and Baters (my term) the best solution is not to respond, but to ignore them, and they will get bored and go away.

So..... I'm off.

Uncle Tone

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 01:41 AM

Steve Shaw - 26 Sep 16 - 03:58 PM

Actually Shaw my post was addressed to Backwoodsman and I quoted what you posted then said the same applied to me wrt Backwoodsman's "conspiracy" tripe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 04:27 AM

I had no intention of joining this cat-fight, but I thought I would make my own position clear as somebody had the discourtesy to mention my name behind my back.
"I hold all of you who form the group which has come to be known by many as 'The Usual Suspects' - Steve, Jim, Keith, Teribus, you, and several others - in the highest, utter contempt."
And I have not much time for those who choose to make accusations such as have been made here behind the backs of "usual suspect's, without informing them first and ascertaining that they have a chance to respond, but there you go – I suppose it's down to what turns you on - or off - as the case may be.
"You people, 'The Usual Suspects', have conspired to wreck thread after thread"
No we haven't, not as far as I can see anyway.
Like Steve and Teribus, (probably the only time I have ever agreed with the latter) I seldom, if ever communicate with other members of this forum - the few times I have has been with people I don't agree with rather than those I wish to "conspire" with.
This is a debating forum and it is made up of people with differing views - sometimes passionately held; more often than not, these "flames" have occurred between contributors who hold opposing left and right views – often a toxic mix
Unless you are going to stick up a "no politics - no religion" notice (seen in pubs occasionally), arguments on subjects considered important are bound to become heated and erupt into shouting matches - we care enough about some things for it to be an ongoing risk - it would happen anywhere, given that mix.
For instance, I care about racism; I believe there are examples of it on the forum which have tended to make it a somewhat W.A.S.P. site – I wouldn't like to be a Muslim on Mudcat (a Forum on traditional music would benefit much from the presence of people with knowledge of Muslim traditions, in my opinion
There are other forms of this disease I feel equally passionate about and will put in an effort to oppose.
I come from an Irish background and it is occasionally difficult to not get angry, thanks to the openly intolerant behaviour of a tiny minority - god only knows how I would feel if I were a Traveller.
I'll take as long as I believe necessary in opposing that behaviour, that's – part of my upbringing.
While I accept entirely that it is totally wrong to allow these (often dialogue or triolog – is that a word?) arguments to dominate and spoil a thread while it is in full flow (I'm as guilty of doing that as any), I see no harm in attempting to take them to a conclusions – as long as it takes – there is no rule to say how long a thread should be – that would put contributors to the totally unmanageable 'The Mother of All BS Threads' out of a job tomorrow.      
It is a form of arrogance to tell people how long they can and can't debate an issue that is important to them.
So fine – let those of us who wish to persist with arguments, do so when the subject has run its natural course and let those who have no more to say leave us to it - these subjects d#on't actually 'belong' to anybody and there really is no compulsion to take part.
As far as name calling is concerned; up to fairly recently it was my practice to pick a nickname for people whose views I found offensive (not those I disagreed with – just the offensive ones I came up against regularly).
Joe Offer, in his gently persuasive way, pointed out that this was childish so I stopped – others (at least one) has yet to do likewise and has consistently refused to do so
That same individual consistently talks down to anybody who disagrees with him, often in and extremely insulting personal manner – there is a prime example of him doing so here..
I used to find it cute and amusing as one would a badly behaved child; now I find it just irritating - the child has taken his 'cuteness' too far – there is only so long that you can put up with such arrogance without reacting similarly, stupid, I know.
Name calling is childish, though some of us occasionally resort to it – I have noticed that those who complain loudest are often the greatest culprits (I'm saying this as a an experienced "Muppet and ignoramous")
The only way to stop this is for us all to agree to do so, otherwise, it will continue to be a feature of these arguments until that happens.
These are a name missing from the list of 'usual suspects' and I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why.
I have become extremely angry and sickened at the behaviour of one regular poster who is, in my opinion, a prime example of the racism I refer to, who refuses to engage in discussion or argument, who posts reams of Islamophobic racism gathered from some of the most extreme sites, and responds to any argument with vitriolic bile in the form of accusing his with unwarranted and totally unjustified accusations of "Anti-Semitism".
Such a person needs to clean up his act or be given his marching orders – there really is no place for that behaviour on a debating forum.
I won't mention a name – I'm sure I don't need to, tho it is interesting to not that he has his silent supporter here.
This is a debating site – passions are going to run high on certain subjects, it would be incredibly boringly anodyne if they weren't allowed to.
Given the range of knowledge and experience of some of those involved, it could be a perfect place to learn as well as to pass on what we all know.
I agree with Backwoodsman when he says that you are not going to change people's minds – but it's a great opportunity to expand your own knowledge and understanding while passing on what you have, or think you have to offer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Stu
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 04:38 AM

Streuth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 05:31 AM

Jim - 👏🏽 👍🏽

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 05:37 AM

Would just add to an already much too long posting that one habit that constantly plagues this forum is the practice of (one individual particularly) treating discussions as competitions and regularly proclaiming that they have "won" a debate.
If people find this difficult to refrain from, perhaps we should establish a 'gold-silver-bronze' system of handing out rewards!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 06:16 AM

Well said, Jim. And, as matter of fact, my mind has been changed on quite a few things by debates on forums and I've often been obliged to look things up in order to ensure that I don't make a complete arse of myself. In other words, there is the potential here for learning. Most often the !earning curve for me will be in threads in which I'm not very active. So it's a pretty pig-headed thing to say that "you won't change anyone's mind anyway." You can, and maybe you will, and you may alter some perspectives while you're at it, or even have your own altered.

And oh, please, Teribus, we can all see that you slipped up. We all do it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 08:18 AM

"Joe Offer, in his gently persuasive way, pointed out that this was childish so I stopped – others (at least one) has yet to do likewise and has consistently refused to do so"
As a matter of accuracy It was me that pointed out it was childish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 08:24 AM

"my mind has been changed on quite a few things"
Mine too, but while I agree that opinions can be fine-tuned and expanded on these forums, I think it is very seldom, if ever, that anybody abandons life-long held beliefs and heads off in the other direction.
I, like you, have had gaps in my knowledge filled in and misconceptions put right, and have been grateful for the information that has done that for me, but I thinks that's about as far as it can go.
People who are passionately interested and committed, tend to have done enough homework to make them so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 08:36 AM

That's what most angers me when threads are summarily deleted because of the antics of a few arseholes..

All the other posts get discarded forever too.

There was one such thread, were Joe [for example] contributed some of the best and wisest posts I have ever read here..

Now they are permanently gone..

Even though I habitually save every thread I read..
That one was amongst the six months of unbacked up data I lost to a sudden hard drive failure.... ☹

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 09:18 AM

PfR, nothing posted here is ever permanently deleted. It's the nature of an indexed database that everything is somewhere.

I think if this thread continues to be a place for people to go after those they don't like, it will at least get closed.

Jim said "This is a debating site " No, it's not, and I suppose that bothers me. It's a music site that allows non-music discussion. That means some debate, but sometimes people may want to just talk about something with other folks and hear what they think. That never seems to work because of the debate-aholics, who think it's always necessary to choose up sides and defend their point of view to the death.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 09:27 AM

I take your point Jeri, re technicalities of a data storage system,
but the best bits of deleted threads are no longer accessible for us lot to to read, and reread if required...

which is a shame...

I used to be an industrial museum photo archivist..

It'd be the same as arbitrarily sealing a binder of great photos of steam engines in a biscuit tin and burying them under concrete
because some miscreant stuck a few selfies of his privates on adjacent pages.... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 09:35 AM

Well what I meant, Jim, is that, though passionate and committed, it's also possible to have done insufficient homework to join a debate with people who would quickly spot it and shoot me down. I know a bit about WWI (my dad could lose anybody on that topic but he's a bit overwhelming on it) and a bit about the Easter Rising, but not enough to wade in big-time. So I follow the threads, look at a few links and pick up some stuff I didn't know. Nowt wrong with that. I also read a lot of interesting music threads that I can't make useful contributions to. That's OK, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 09:41 AM

"It's a music site that allows non-music discussion."
Whence the difference Jeri
There is no restriction on the amount of time anybody can spend on one or the other as far as I know and it's not as if one interferes with the other in any way, again, as far as I know.
I use both sections equally and am quite likely to become just as passionate about music as I am about humanitarian politics.
There is generally a degree of intolerance I find a little distasteful.
I find it astounding that, on a forum devoted to traditional/folk song, the discussion of definition of those terms is a no-go area and is just as likely to be howled down by nasty epithets as are some of the topics on the B.S. section - odd, don't you think?
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 10:07 AM

"That never seems to work because of the debate-aholics, who think it's always necessary to choose up sides and defend their point of view to the death."

But it's no use keeping complaining. If the ground rules are not laid down, then human nature will dictate that anything goes. Tell us that there'll be zero tolerance of name-calling or playing the man. You know what bigotry looks like so kick out the bigots. There are only about three real ones and if you don't know who I'm talking about then I don't know what. But what kind of a forum wants to give bigots free rein? Sheesh. Tell us that sweariness, which you indulge in on occasion and which Backwoodsman did in this thread without a trace of irony, will not be accepted. Don't waste time bantering with miscreants, either up here or in private, about whether you might suspend them or how you wish they'd behave better. Just make them disappear for a week or two and leave it shrouded in mystery. Don't bother posting moderatorial complaining about people all the time. Save your energy and get on with the banning. Brook no protests. Molly does it on the Gaughan forum and Jeremy does it on The Session. There are few, if any, signs of moderators or moderating on those forums, but begod just watch what happens to you if you step over their lines, and they don't waste time talking to you much about it either. The Session was a hellish place a few short years ago. I invite you to take at look at how much nastiness there is there now. You won't find any.   It isn't about being horribly strict and nasty with people, like a bad cop. It's about making the ethos better. I mean, why do you let hateful threads go on and on and on? Are you trying to prove how terrible we are? Shut the thread. No argument, no comment, no last word. Do what Jeremy does and tell us to play a tune instead. And the person you ban first is the person who moans at you that you're curtailing his free speech. Just say, "Not here there isn't. Go and set up your own forum. Bye bye!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 10:43 AM

The "bigots" are those who want members removed for discussing "controversial subjects", there are no proscribed subjects on this forum as far as I am aware. The mods are perfectly happy to put in their dollars worth when the subject interests them, they have also on occasion closed threads when their point of view was being questioned or disproved.   

I do not want to see anyone banned, even the most vociferous, the people who engaged in criminal behaviour are no longer with us.
Libel and real life stalking can never be allowed if the forum is to survive. There is a difference between arguing your case strongly like Jim does and imposing your own rules on what may or may not be discussed.....that is for the owner of the site to determine.

Steve, your perceived bigotry is all in your head...this forum is one of the most civilised on the net.....you would turn it into somewhere that equates to how you think.....God help us!
Your attacks on Christianity and those who support it being a good example.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 11:08 AM

Having promised myself that I've finished with Mudcat, I've been logged-out since my last post on 25/9, intending never to darken this forum's doorstep again. But, being the bloke who got seriously pissed-off and who now regrets allowing his sense-of-humour failure to get the better of him, I've continued to lurk and read the posts following mine, and there are a few more comments I'd like to make….

First – specifically to Jim. No accusations were made by me behind anybody's back. Everything is here in black and white for all to read and respond. I don't do, and never have done, back-stabbing, I tell it how I see it to the face(s) of those I'm talking to, whether it be on a forum like this one, or face-to-face in the pub car-park, I have no preference.

Second - I have no problem with discussion. I've made this point on so many occasions - discussion is great, I love it – but I do have a problem with constant, non-stop bickering and fighting, dragging up old fights from months, if not years, ago, repeating a point (or, more often, points) over and over and over again, accusations of every kind of '-ism' simply because their opinion differs from someone else's. Different people see the world differently and, if you don't convince someone of your argument the first or second time you put it to them, you sure as hell won't persuade them by repeating it over and over, dragging it up in every thread you subsequently post to, and using it as a big stick to batter them with. And you certainly won't persuade them by calling them 'racist', 'homophobe' or any of the other epithets so readily bandied about here. Use of those terms is simply a cop-out, a lazy way of trying to occupy the high moral ground, and serves only to re-inforce, in the minds of those accused, their own beliefs. If your arguments don't persuade your opponents, it means that either your arguments don't hold water, or you're making a bad job of putting them over. Either way, you're not going to persuade anyone by constant, non-stop repetition, and/or accusatory name-calling.

Third – The bickering and accusations may (does, IMHO) also have the effect of deterring people from posting who would otherwise have interesting, useful, even important, things to say, but who have absolutely no wish to find themselves subjected to attack by one or other of the two sides engaged in the fighting. I'm one of those who is deterred and, from chats I've had in the Real World with other members, I know I'm not alone.

Fourth – it's true there's no limit to how long a thread can go on and, AFAIC, that's good. But there is a limit to people's patience, and the sharp fall in the number of members posting to BS threads, in fact the sharp fall in the number of BS threads themselves is, IMHO, an indication of how, for want of a better term, 'The Usual Suspects' non-stop brawling and name-calling has driven, and is continuing to drive, people away from the forum.

Fifth – I'm astonished if anyone genuinely believes that, by using the term 'conspiring', I was suggesting that 'TUS' were communicating 'behind the scenes' in order to organise a thread-wrecking spree. If that's the case, I'll clarify by explaining that I used the term in the same sense that we talk about 'circumstances conspiring' – in other words, their joint, but un-coordinated, behaviour having unintended (or maybe intended, who knows?) consequences. Alles klaar?

Sixth – Whatever I have said in my earlier posts, however exasperated I've been with 'a certain section' of the Mudcat 'crowd', no matter what epithets I've used to describe various individuals and groups of individuals, it is no indication of my 'liking' or 'disliking' those people. In fact, at worst, I'm simply ambivalent about them, at best, there are those whom I genuinely like, despite my criticism. Steve's right, he and I have had some genial 'behind the scenes' conversations, as have Jim and I some time ago and, in almost every circumstance, I'm in complete agreement with their views. And although I almost always disagree with Ake and Keith, I have no personal ill-will towards them, I'm happy to accept that they're just people whose view of the world is out-of-kilter with mine. But this isn't about 'liking' someone or not, all of this has been born of utter frustration that, despite frequent exhortations from a number of members and Moderators, despite the limitation of the BS section to members only (a good thing, AFAIC), and despite the departure of good, interesting, often-funny contributors, there still exists this hard-core of posters who, IMHO and that of others, take threads over in order to pursue their own agendas and vendettas.

Jim's right when he says, "The only way to stop this is for us all to agree to do so".

Why is that such a difficult thing to do?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 11:26 AM

If your own case is weak, it is always easiest to blame the moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 11:32 AM

"The "bigots" are those who want members removed for discussing "controversial subjects","
Nobody her has ever suggested that anybody such be removed for discussing such subjects - it is probably a waste of time my asking you to provide an example.
The bigots are those who target Muslims and blame them for the crimes of a few, or homosexuals as unnatural disease carriers
I have made quite clear why I believe the person I was referring to should be removed - if he didn't clean up his act.
His is not the behaviour to be tolerated on any debate forum.
I have no idea which 'perscribed subjects' you are referring to - enlighten me.   
"the people who engaged in criminal behaviour are no longer with us."
Not necessarily true - some statements made on this forum would be subject to prosecution under the incitement to hatred laws.
I have never at any time attempted to impose rules on what should be discussed - again, feel free to put me right.
The incitement to race hatred is a punishable offence by law.
That law may not apply to this forum, but the fact that it is open to all races and religions, in the spirit of open democratic debate, it should a guideline to what happens here.
THe moderators have been sensible enough in the past to remove B.N.P, and the like trolls - I see no reason why the same behaviour should be tolerated from members.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 11:37 AM

Please notice that while this thread started off being about internet phenomena, it's morphing into being an opportunity to call out people that someone has a grudge against. A thread isn't going to last long when it just provides a platform for personal attacks.

I'm a moderator, but I'm a member too, and I have opinions. It is my belief that it's often pretty damned clear what should be deleted and what shouldn't, and that's not based on whether I like it or not... or whether anybody else does, either.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 11:57 AM

Well said Backwoodsman. It seems that there are some here who show courtesy and even goodwill despite differences of opinion. There are others who are like dogs with bones.... can't or won't let go or agree to differ. Asserting ones dominant nature should not be the prime objective, nor should pathetic name calling. For a few years I have been using the 'Music' section.... purely as a learning tool... but after my stroke, I decided to return to BS thinking things might have changed. I guess to some degree they have in some part, for the worst! and there still remains a few of the dominant... or should I say potentially dominant who triumph if others allow!! I well remember being attacked for ending my posts with ''Be Blessed'' and being accused of proselytising because of it. I felt then that there was little give in the few members of the group who felt the need to try to belittle me and name call and decided to leave BS. However I am back and here to stay with opinions (like them or not) and and am not prepared,this time. to allow people to down me.... whatever their intention is. I'm here to enjoy myself.... how about you??

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 12:10 PM

Jim, please indicate where I said anything about removing bigots, 'perscribed' (by which I assume you mean 'proscribed') subjects, 'people who engaged in criminal behaviour', blah-de-blah-de-blah, yadda-yadda!

Where the hell did that lot come from? What are you on?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 12:41 PM

Ah, ignore my above post - just seen the one you're referring to (at 10:43 I think)? My mis-understanding, sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 12:52 PM

No problem B - I certainly wasn't responding to you.
There is a difference between courteous and being committed to your argument.
I try to be both - when I lose my rag, it's usually in response to ban manners and what I perceive to be dishonesty.
It certainly wasn't always the case in the early days - this is the only debating forum I've ever been involved in, but I like to think I've matured a little down the years.
I hope we're all here to enjoy ourselves, an maybe learn a little at the same time.
Would wish you to B. B. if I were into that sort of thing!
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 01:12 PM

I'm not blaming the moderators, Maggie. Can't remember now exactly because I don't keep my PMs but you and I have had a number of constructive exchanges and I have always acknowledged that moderators have a tough job to do, AND I have occasionally expressed my appreciation.

There's nothing wrong with being a mod and a posting member, but moderators need to be respected and you will reduce that respect by condemning a person on one side of an argument for being prickly whilst ignoring, or even defending, the bigot who he's criticising. One such is posting in this thread whose vile views I've seen defended both on the forum and in PMs. He's clever enough to make his posts "look polite," of course. Like the kids who sat at the back of the class getting away with doing no work because they were clever enough to keep quiet. You will also reduce that respect by getting all negative and sweary. We know who the mods are but we need to know whether the mod hat is on or not. As I always say, it's your gig and you run it the way you want to. But there are ways of lightening the angst and the burden and I politely pointed out some ways in which I've seen it done. It won't just be me who saw Jeremy take his snakepit of a forum by the short and curlies and completely clean it up with a new zero-tolerance policy. Wouldn't mind betting it was a hassle to begin with, but there's little or no trouble there now and all he has to do is keep a weather eye open. The ethos has been transformed, maybe at the expense of a bit of liveliness at times, and one or two of the nitwits are still there, but it's a sweeter and more inclusive place. I thought that's what you wanted. The only thing I "blame the moderators" for is complaining aloud. Won't work with a bunch of reprobates and flawed human beings such as us.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 02:24 PM

Couple of things ....Steve says teribius got it wrong . Perhaps, but I understood the post referred to in the same way, and that was in agreement with Steve on that point.             And it often seems to me that the very people who accuse others of being islamophobic exhibit antagonism and/or mockery towards Christianity , and are so blinkered that don't see it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 02:36 PM

It's a good job then, that some of us are fair minded & objective and equally dismissive of all religions... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 03:02 PM

"who accuse others of being Islamophobic exhibit antagonism and/or mockery towards Christianity"
As an atheist, while I'm prepared to discuss religion till the cows come home, I have no problem with what anybody believes - virtually all the Irish traditional singers we recorded over the last 40 years were devout Catholics - all of them we considered friends ad deeply mourned their passing.
Religion is fine when it is a personally held belief not forced on others - particularly immature children - that goes for Islam, Christianity, Judaism.... whatever.
My problem is with those who have abused the authority that their religion gives them to perpetrate harm on others, again, particularly on children.
Ireland is still reeling from decades, even centuries of that abuse, and will be for the foreseeable future.
What really gets my goat is the inhuman and dishonest behaviour of "Christiains" on this forum whose Christianity bears no resemblance to that of our late friends whose beliefs we admired and respected because it came tempered with humanity - "real Christianity" and not just lip-service.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 03:09 PM

That is a very good point PFR.
I have been an atheist all my life but I consider my views on that purely personal and would never abuse people for having a faith, in fact I rather envy them.

Unfortunately there are those who consider Muslims a discriminated against minority who must be protected from the attentions of rogue Christians who are intent upon lopping off their heads, enslaving their women and laughing and pointing at homosexuals.

Sheesh!! as they say in the good old USA.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 05:01 PM

Well I do regard all religious belief as infantile, irrational, superstitious and deluded. But I've been a Liverpool supporter for the decades in which they've failed to win the league. I also love Carly Simon and won't hear a word against her. I even like Rhihanna. We are human beings and we are entitled to a bit of irrationality. The thing is, I'm not going to force Carly down your throat and call you a heretic if you say that she's shite. I won't call you a sinner or an apostate and threaten to behead you or ostracise you. I won't condemn you to hell if you don't listen to her songs once a week. These are the things that many people of religion who are convinced that they have a monopoly on what's true try to do. Their children are forced to worship the same God as their parents and threatened if they don't comply. It's not good enough, is it. The only way you can legitimise your delusions is to force them on your kids. Nobody cares what you "believe" as long as you keep it to yourself. It's fine to have convictions you want other people to take on board as long as your method is persuasion only and as long as you have evidence. I don't mock Christianity, Pete. I'd soon lose most of my friends if I did. But I do condemn those people who prattle on about it, tell me they're praying for me and who send kids to religious schools thinking that they're doing them good. Just keep it to yourself and defend to the hilt everyone else's inalienable right to disagree with you, not follow you and even condemn you. By the way, I've just got back from a holiday in Siracusa in Sicily. I went into more churches in a week than you've had hot dinners in three months.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 06:05 PM

exhibit antagonism and/or mockery towards Christianity , and are so blinkered that don't see it.

Not quite, pete. I think you'll find that the antagonism and mockery is directed tyowards blinkered "Christianity"[sic].

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 07:30 PM

"Unfortunately there are those who consider Muslims a discriminated against minority"
Which they are in Britain
The muslim population as a whole is no more responsible for the behaviour of a minority than are Catholics responsible for the behaviour of pedophile clergymen
Nor are the Jewish People responsible for the behaviour of the Israeli regime, despite the fact that that regime claims to be acting on behalf of the Jewish in order to protect a Jewish State.
To blame any racial or religious group for the actions of a fanatical minority is racism - it really doesn't get more simple than that.
With your track record, I really wouldn't bring homosexuality into this, if I were you.
I suggest we don't allow this thread to be used as a platform for racial or religious hatred - that would be to confirm the point made by the O.P., even though the culprit here is not on BW's 'usual suspects' list.
If such a list is accurate, statements like this should place this poster right at the head of it.
This is nothing less than simple racist provocation - everything that is wrong with this forum.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 01:57 AM

Not very clear which 'culprit' you're talking about there, Jim. If it's Ake, please check the list in my post of 25 Sep 16 - 04:01 PM, he's on it. Plus I used the phrase 'and others' as a catch-all. It's as well to remember that, in the same way as one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom-fighter', one man's 'racist' or 'homophobe' is another man's 'fearless speaker of the truth', depending on which way round they hold the binoculars.

For the record, In general (though not necessarily on every occasion, I hold the binoculars the same way you do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 02:20 AM

Thanks for that Pete, I too thought the original was plain enough and obvious enough to understand - but "knee-jerk" reactions from Shaw are the norm and his comprehension of the English language has never been all that great.

Thanks also to Backwoodsman for his post of 27 Sep 16 - 11:08 AM which laid out his stall comprehensively and clearly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 04:21 AM

"please check the list in my post of 25 Sep 16 - 04:01 PM,"
Sorry B-W I missed that.
Yes, I was referring to Ake, who holds the most outrageous views as far as denigrating immigrants, and homosexuals and puts them in such a hit-and-run manner that he is often overlooked.
My apologies for suggesting that he had been by you.
Of course your "homophobe - speaker-of-truth" comparison is true - that is why we debate these issues to their conclusion, when possible.
It is also true that there are a number of self-declared homosexuals on this forum and there used to be at least one Muslim who upped-sticks and went, reportedly because of the attitude of a tiny handful of members.
I'm not sure I'd stay around if I'd have been depicted as a culturally implanted potential child-rapist or a unnatural disease-carrier.
Accusations such as these need to be debated fully, when made, and when they are made in the manner that they are sometimes, perhaps they have no place here anyway.
I value this forum as a facility for debate; I would hate to see it become a hate-sheet.
I really don't think there is too much of a gap between our attitudes and most of the confusion is down to my own heavy-handedness.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 04:31 AM

"knee-jerk" reactions from Shaw"
Can I just repeat here that it really doesn't take too much of an effort to address fellow posters on this forum by thy chosen title.
This poster continues to address people he doesn't agree with in this hostile manner.
He has been asked to desist from doing so by Joe Offer, as we all were.
It is hostility such as this that fans disputes into "flames".
I have requested that he stop, Joe has requested that he stop, perhaps it's somebody else's turn now.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 05:29 AM

But J.I.M. of "thy chosen title" my chosen title for Shaw is Shaw. And as far as I am aware I have not been told by any "Moderator" to do anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 05:36 AM

No, they allow you to make a complete arse of yourself with your rather pathetic name-twisting without any help from us or them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 05:54 AM

What name twisting Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 06:01 AM

You're trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 06:08 AM

"But J.I.M. of "thy chosen title"
My name is Jim Carroll, J I M was a spelling out of my name in order to help you with your obvious literacy problem.
Your obvious aggression in all your posts to those who disagree with you s one of the main causes of "flames" on this forum.
Once you settle that, perhaps we can them start to deal with your superiority/inferiority complex - the cause of your aggressive and persistent bullying - one day at a time, as they say in A.A.
Until you sort out your problems, your behavior will continue to be a running-sore in these discussions.
You have been asked by Joe Offer, to desist from your aggressively childish behaviour - I suggest you respond to his request.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Stu
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 06:14 AM

Well done ladies.

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 07:45 AM

"I looked back, to see if you looked back
And, 0h, you looked back, to see if I looked back
To, see if you looked back
To, see if I was lookin' at you.

La la-la la la-la la-la la-la la la
La la-la la la-la la-la la-la la la
La la-la la la-la la-la la-la la la..."

Four Jacks and a Jill

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 08:12 AM

Sorry lads, but this sort of somewhat smug trolling really doesn't help
Some of us are trying to sort this out and get our act together.
Your support is much appreciated
Just goes to show that the problem doesn't just rest on the "usual suspects" shoulders
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 08:26 AM

"I got heartaches in my pocket
I got echoes in my head
And all that I keep hearing
Are the cruel, cruel things that you said

I'm a thousand miles from nowhere
Time don't matter to me
'Cause I'm a thousand miles from nowhere
And there's no place I want to be"

Dwight Yoakam

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 08:35 AM

My total contribution to this thread:

1: Teribus - 22 Sep 16 - 07:34 AM

Well said Keith, totally agree. If someone puts up information or presents a poor argument then anyone should be at liberty to challenge it.

DMcG, concerns for you being able to follow it all on your mobile phone while abroad do not interest me or influence me in the slightest.

2: Teribus - 25 Sep 16 - 06:47 PM

"Well I personally hardly ever communicate privately with any of the other "usual suspects" so it's perfectly ridiculous to use the word "conspire" apropos of poor old me."

Goes for me as well, Backwoodsman.

3: Teribus - 27 Sep 16 - 01:41 AM

Steve Shaw - 26 Sep 16 - 03:58 PM

Actually Shaw my post was addressed to Backwoodsman and I quoted what you posted then said the same applied to me wrt Backwoodsman's "conspiracy" tripe.

4: Teribus - 28 Sep 16 - 02:20 AM

Thanks for that Pete, I too thought the original was plain enough and obvious enough to understand - but "knee-jerk" reactions from Shaw are the norm and his comprehension of the English language has never been all that great.

Thanks also to Backwoodsman for his post of 27 Sep 16 - 11:08 AM which laid out his stall comprehensively and clearly.

5: Teribus - 28 Sep 16 - 05:29 AM

But J.I.M. of "thy chosen title" my chosen title for Shaw is Shaw. And as far as I am aware I have not been told by any "Moderator" to do anything.

6: Teribus - 28 Sep 16 - 05:54 AM

What name twisting Shaw?

Right then folks where's the "Aggression", where's the "Bullying".

Generally my contributions to this forum are confined to challenging the outrageous, ill-informed and bigoted views you and your pals keep coming out with.

By the way should it come discussing "literacy problems" we could of course compare your posts and mine purely from examining them as compositions in English - I believe that once you delete the cut'n'pastes from yours, your spittle-flecked, multi-coloured rants would definitely come in second in the "literacy stakes".

Now correct me if I am in error but have you, or have you not referred to yourself in the past in your own posts as "Jom" and "J.I.M." - If it is good enough for you it is good enough for me. So I'll ask the question again - What name twisting?

Subject: RE: BS: The Trolls and Flamers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 09:34 AM

""Jom" and "J.I.M.
You are wrong and you know it - one was a typo, the other was as I explained.
Your dishonesty in claiming otherwise makes it pretty clear that you are part of the problem, not of the solution.
As far as "Shaw" is concerned, it is an example of your arrogance that you should decide to continue your hostile attitude towards anybody who disagrees with you
This ends here - your part in this is established to my satisfaction, as is your intention to take no responsibility for what has happened and your intention to continue your unacceptable behaviour.
Conversation over
Jim Carroll