BS: The Trolls and Flamers

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

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: 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: 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 - 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: Stu
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 06:14 AM

Well done ladies.

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 06:01 AM

You're trolling.

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 - 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 - 05:29 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 05:31 AM

Jim - 👏🏽 👍🏽

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.