Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafebrownie

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]


BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Jim Carroll 24 Feb 17 - 12:25 PM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 12:12 PM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 11:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Feb 17 - 11:23 AM
Teribus 24 Feb 17 - 11:11 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Feb 17 - 10:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM
Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 10:26 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 10:15 AM
Teribus 24 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM
Iains 24 Feb 17 - 09:51 AM
bobad 24 Feb 17 - 09:49 AM
Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM
Teribus 24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM
bobad 24 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM
Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM
Teribus 24 Feb 17 - 09:03 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 07:26 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM
Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM
Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 06:52 AM
Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM
Iains 24 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 06:06 AM
akenaton 24 Feb 17 - 06:03 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Feb 17 - 05:46 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Feb 17 - 05:42 AM
Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM
Big Al Whittle 24 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM
Teribus 24 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Feb 17 - 04:38 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 03:57 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Feb 17 - 04:05 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 12:25 PM

"I am currently being cross examined by the whole (non-existent!) gang of four over a couple of posts I once made years ago."
You are being asked to justify an obscenely racist statement - it was raised in response to a request for evidence of your extremism
You ppersist on lying about it and you ignore the irrefutable evidence from the Justice Departmant which proves that no "over-representation" could not be true
Your "massive over-representation" originated in a book entitled "easy Meat", written by an author with connections to an extreme American publication.
You are attempting to smear an entire culture by suggesting that they are prone to child rape.
Please don't suggest we are "cross-examining" you - if you had made this statemnt publicly elsewhere, you would be faced with the possibility of prosecution under the incitement to race hatred laws.
If you can't face up to the implications of your beliefs, do not express them publicly
I have worked in houses that have been damaged by having petrol poured though the letterbox by people who share your beliefs.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 12:12 PM

I need to say something about Teribus.

I am currently being cross examined by the whole (non-existent!) gang of four over a couple of posts I once made years ago.

He is answering for me on one of them, and doing it better than I ever could.

I am very grateful to him because all these simultaneous attacks are too much for one person to deal with.

I also have a life to live, and probably a short one.
Thanks Teribus. You are a friend indeed.
keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:59 AM

Jim,
300 cannot possibly be an over-representation of anything

Less than 2% of the population are of that demographic.
If they form more than 2% of any group, then they are over-represented.
That is what the term means.

87% is a massive over-representation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM

Dave,
I gave other reasons for possible over representation.

No Dave. You suggested reasons why the over-representation might be an illusion.
My case was that it was real, but I acknowledged that I could not prove you wrong.

Later I was asked if I believed the explanation was cultural.
I said I believed it was, " but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:23 AM

"Oh I asked Carroll about this "insecurity" thing,"
Didn't notice this
In my experience, most bullies are insecure, that is why they bully
"which proved to be true."
Why do you persist with this Keith - it is not true and now you know it can't be
300 cannot possibly be an over-representation of anything
And your mates wonder why we keep on at you - this is purely self-inflicted
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:11 AM

And acknowledged and corrected about one hour latter - the proof of that happening is detailed on this thread, as is the refusal to accept that acknowledgement and correction by Steve Shaw. That was in December 2014 and to this day Shaw still does not own up to what can be plainly seen in the detail given in my post Teribus - 24 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM.

Here it is again:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."


FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively.


After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times - and yet Shaw still attempts to convey the idea that no correction was ever made, which of course is a downright lie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

You expounded the theory that it was due to cultural implants.

I gave other reasons for possible over representation.

It's all in black and white, Keith.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:45 AM

How to make up shit. Here goes:

Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014.

That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Keith on Mudcat, one week later.

The Guardian [sic] last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM

Dave, you gave reasons why the over-representation might not be real.
My only case was that it was real, which proved to be true.

No explanation for a real over-representation had been given when I reported those views that had been in all the media at that time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:26 AM

Sounds like a cop-out to me terrikins, I would think most people would consider it in the same way.

Perhaps if you had any real concern for the professor, as you claim to, you might give him some constructive advice about his racial implant theory.


PS You could look up the definition of professor, it does have more than one meaning.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:15 AM

but I could never see a reason in debating dishonestly

But this is not a debating forum, Jim. It is a discussion forum. How do I know that? Teribus told me! So I suppose the rules of debate do not apply. Apart from when someone wants to win...

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM

Duel?? Quick before Steve of the double standard picks you up on it. It should be dual Raggy.

But no dual standard at all.

Your question WAS:

Raggytash - 24 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM

"Care to tell us what you actually think about the professors cultural implant theory?"


I asked what I thought to be a fairly reasonable question Raggy, i.e. "Which professor would that be Raggy?"

Still waiting for an answer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM

" yet you let your own pass and those of Jim Carroll "
Which lies and inaccuracies would they be Teribus?
You've nit picked and semanitised on unimportant points whenever you've found yourself in a corner - rat-at-throat technique - but you have at no time caught either of us out in a deliberate lie
You usually refer to things you can't handle as "made up shit", (including researched and documented evidence), then ride off into the sunset, as you have with Keith's obscene theory and your own moral high-ground for Britain's indigenous perverts, but you have never found me lying nor, to my recollection, Dave
Lying is posting something, denying you posted it, then blaming it on some non-existent "expert" or "real historian"
Plenty of that on this forum, but not from this quarter.
I don't count myself a particularly truthful person; I occasionally bend or side-step the truth to save the feelings of others, but I could never see a reason in debating dishonestly - certainly not publicly - it is pointless and it has a nasty habit of blowing up in your face, as Keith is discovering now.
Lying in discussion is for those who are here to "win" something - go count how manyy times your running-mate has claimed to have won, or declared "you lose", when you have a few months to spare
You, on the other hand, contantly attempt to pass off your own quite often archaic and jingoistic opinions as facts; you refuse to substantiate them and when you are challenged, you try to bully and bluster your way through rather than lose face - a combination of insecurity and ignorance.
Can we make another appointment for the same time next week and we'll continue this asession?
I have another patient in the waiting room !!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM

Ha, with friends like that, Teribus...😂

When I've paid for a paper I tend to read articles in it. Duh. I read articles from contributors to inform myself of the various views abroad on topical issues. My Dad is an expert on WWI and has given many talks on it. From what I hear from him I'd say he takes a far more measured view than you with your Blimp-like, little Englander king-and-country angle. Pity you feel the need to do that, because you do have an eye for detail, I'd be the first to admit. But none of this makes me an expert. I am far from being that but it doesn't mean I can't take an interest and read the bloody articles! And my memory is perfectly good enough to get my antennae a-twitching a week after I've read something then see something about it that doesn't chime. The above rant from you is typically unfocused. Let me try again to concentrate your mind. It really is a quite simple: Keith told us in a thread separate from the one you're using to defend him that "the Guardian" stated that Taylor's book was "fraudulent." Both parts of that in quotes are one hundred percent inaccurate. Why do you suppose Keith thought he could get away with that? Yes he'd copied and pasted the thing a week earlier into a DIFFERENT THREAD! He hoped no-one would remember that or bother to go back to check. His agenda was that he wanted us to think that both books had been "rubbished" (his word). They were not recent works by living historians and the whole thrust of his argument was that such works didn't count. Had I not spotted what he'd done the error (aka lie) would have stood forever. As for me, I had never heard of the two books in question until I'd read the Guardian piece. I still haven't read them. I was not "using them to make my case which Keith then demolished." My sole focus was the deliberate misrepresenting of the piece. As you rightly point out, he had already quoted the extract in full (in another thread!!), AND mentioned the article again, so how come he got it so badly wrong unless he'd done it deliberately? You defend this deceitful behaviour by dismissing a clear attempt to mislead as "just a passing reference." Is that really the best you can do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM

Pretty much the points I was making back in 2011, Iains.

Thanks anyway

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:51 AM

D the G
a starting point.

2012 stats the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/12/police-stop-and-search-black-people
and


http://thinkethnic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Policing%20ethnic%20minority%20communities.pdf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:49 AM

Oh dear, Mr. Corbyn and his party sure have some......er...."interesting" friends and followers: The Palestine Solidarity Campaign of Jew hatred


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM

Duel standards to the fore again I see Terrikins. It is OK for you to refer to myself as Raggy, although my chosen pseudonym is Raggytash, but it is not OK for me to refer to the professor.

I take you do don't actually agree that there is an implant in Pakistani culture to abuse.

Good, there's hope for you yet. It's a pity you don't have the courage to have a quiet word with the professor.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM

You said no other theory was discussed, Keith? Did not take long to find this. I am sure there were others on that thread and in the papers at the time as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:26 AM

But in 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.


That is indeed a very alarming statistic. I assume it is verified, Keith? But are we working on the same basis that in the 70's and 80's most youths involved in stop and search operations were black? I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?

Genuine curiousity on my part - No axe to grind. Hopefuly valid questions to ask but I don't know if anyone here is qualified to answer:-(

DeG


DtG
Being the Spanish David el Gnomo at the time :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM

Which professor would that be Raggy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM

You've nailed it Teribus and your conclusion is one that that I arrived at some time ago myself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM

Care to tell us what you actually think about the professors cultural implant theory?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:03 AM

" I had no interest in them and had never heard of them. But what I did know is that I'd read the article in the Guardian and spotted a discrepancy in Keith's quoting from it on the 16th." - Steve Shaw

So let us get this firmly fixed in our minds shall we Shaw.

1. You say that you had no interest in works of Taylor or Clark and had never heard of them.

2. So disinterested were you in them in fact that on the 16th December 2014 you read something on a thread and instantly recall to mind an article in the Guardian from the 9th December???

3. If you weren't interested why read the article and what was it in the article that lodged itself in your mind to the extent that your recall of that week old article that you could spot a discrepancy centred on the omission of one word?

There are two words Shaw that describe that "explanation" of yours Shaw - one is "Bullshit", the second is unbelievable"

Are you saying that you did not post to this thread extensively? You did not bring up in discussion"cherry-picking historians", you did not bring up in discussion "peer review of the work done by historians" - No interest my arse Shaw.

"Do you think that it's fair to expect anyone who read the thread containing the lie to think "Oh, hang on a sec, I wonder whether Keith happens to have quoted the piece in full in an entirely different thread?" - Steve Shaw

You have got to be joking Shaw! The extent that you and your pals "stalk" and "mob" Keith A from thread to thread? The WWI was No Mans Land thread was riddled with your posts along with those of the other usual suspects as was the "I'm not an historian but..." thread. It is a damn sight more plausible explanation than the one you offered about somehow remembering word for word the wording from a very long article that you'd read a week previously FFS.

As for your contention related to Stand alone threads" - what are they when they are at home Shaw - All the WWI threads were interconnected as they only came into being due to you and your pals getting them shut down as you lot were being made to look more and more idiotic.

Very commendable that "lies" and "inaccuracies" so incense you that you feel that they must not be allowed to go unchallenged - yet you let your own pass and those of Jim Carroll - you are a lying two-faced hypocrite and you have just been exposed Shaw.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM

"No it was not. Believing it does not make it my opinion."
Don't be stupid Keith - of course it does
And it was your invention
Please don't continue saying you believed it whan nobody else said it - you are only digging yourself in deeper
You might porove nme wrong by linking to such a statement, but you have refused to do so since you first made the claim
Time to put up or fess up
It's all your own work - be proud of it like a true creative artist should
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM

Ta.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

Dave, the thread you just told me to look back at!
"Muslim Prejudice"

(Unless you download early, before 7am, you can only get a page at a time.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM

The day following the post you keep referring to.
It was never my "hypothesis."

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM
Lox, how can you claim I am making a racial hypothesis?
I am not making it,
and it is about a culture within a racial group.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM

Telling me which thread are you talking about would help...

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM

Dave,
Yes there was. We were discussing it and other theories were proposed. Look back at the thread.

I have looked.
When I posted that view no other explanation for the over-representation had been suggested.
If that is not true, produce one that was posted before.

Jim,
Read what you wrote Keith - it was your opinion and your invention.

No it was not. Believing it does not make it my opinion.
I said repeatedly at the time that it was not my opinion.
Read what I wrote.

My diagnosis was not my opinion. I was shocked by it, but I believed it.

The coming of storm Doris was not my opinion, but I believed it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM

"No. It was not my opinion."
Read what you wrote Keith - it was your opinion and your invention.
Down in plain English for you and everybody else to see.
""but only because of the testimonies......"
So it wasn't your opinion "because of the testimonies" - sorry, too usy to work that one out
There were no testimonies - you invented those as well - that's why you refuse to reproduce them.
"That was the only theory about at the time"
It was not a "theory" - it was your invention
Scum like the National Front and B.N.P. had been peddling that shite anbodt Muslims, Blacks and immigrants in general, but only a few crazies took them seriously
Maybe they were your "experts" - waddya think?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM

When I posted that view there was no other explanation being discussed by anyone.

Yes there was. We were discussing it and other theories were proposed. Look back at the thread.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:26 AM

Dave, I said,
"Dave, when I quoted that view it was the only one being reported by the media.
Even later when other theories were put forward, they came from us not media reports.
That prevailed until long after the thread closed. "

Your Guardian piece came two years after the thread closed.
When I posted that view there was no other explanation being discussed by anyone.

Jim,
What a stupid lie after saying "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
Are you mad?


No. It was not my opinion. I was in no position to hold one.

Read the rest of my sentence. I believed it "but only because of the testimonies......"

That was the only theory about at the time, and its proponents were well placed to know the facts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM

"Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame?
Have you none ake?
Keith's "implant" theory is the kind of shire Mengele and his like set out to prove about the Jews
"Teribus has adequately illustrated what a heap of trash you all are."
Teribus illustrated nothing other than his own extremism, he made claims about Keith's Implant theory and then wisely pissed off when he was asked to substantiate them, now he's back with a load of links that have nbeen tried, tested and found wanting
You make one of your hit-and- run sorties, and no doubt will piss of when asked to verify what you say.
"I just can't be arsed getting involved in a pointless exercise."
There you go - what did I say?
If you scumbags believe that the Pakistani culture is implanted to rape underage women, produce your proof.
You have the official figures from the Department of Justice, you know the minescule numbers involved in these crimes - who knows, maybe Mengele left something behind him in his research papers that were intended for the Jews but can be applied to Muslims
Racist scumbags, the nasty little trio of you
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM

Not really Iains but beside the point anyway. My question was addressed to ake.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM

How strange

BBC News today. Is Malmo the "rape capital" of Europe?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:52 AM

Try again

Link


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM

Link

Interesting article about sexual offences in Sweden, doesn't seem to support the racist rants we get here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM

The same question could also be asked of you mr gnome.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:06 AM

And your comment adds what to the discussion exactly, ake? Apart from showing you up as a sycophant who's only interest is jumping up and down on the sidelines when you see a fight.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:03 AM

Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame? Teribus has adequately illustrated what a heap of trash you all are. You have no real interest in honest discussion at all, which is evident from your

continual practice of subverting threads which you feel set you in the wrong.

I can't understand how Mr T or Keith can summon up the patience to deal with you

After one of his usual responses to me, Jim tries to goad by inferring that I cannot answer his misrepresentations, insults and downright lies.......well, that is not the case as his allegations would be simple to refute ...but time consuming.
I just can't be arsed getting involved in a pointless exercise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:46 AM

Looks like my first paragraph was the one that got away, proofreadingly-speaking.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:42 AM

Why thank you, Teribus! You saved me hours of work which I was just about to embark on this sunny morning. Of course, all your dredged-up quotes posts are absolutely correct, though you forgot a the one from Keith that claimed that his misrepresentation of Wheatcroft's words was only him "speaking generally."

Strangely this was studiously ignored by those who were of the opinion that Taylor's and Clark's historical works were totally relevant and equal in detail to works written later using much more detailed information from much wider sources and from a greater number of perspectives.

And who were these people who "studiously ignored," blah blah? Not me! I had no interest in them and had never heard of them. But what I did know is that I'd read the article in the Guardian and spotted a discrepancy in Keith's quoting from it on the 16th. That was my only focus. I certainly wasn't trying to make any case via those books about the war. Go and have a look! By the way, on the 10th in the other thread all Keith did was cut and paste, totally without comment or context, a tract from the Wheatcroft article. Little wonder that no-one engaged with it (not even you). Apart from a separate vague and inaccurate allusion to the article, claiming that the Guardian had rubbished the two books (completely untrue but hey), the next mention was in ANOTHER THREAD (!) and it contained the lie that Taylor's work has been called by the Guardian (untrue) "fraudulent" (untrue). You defend that as "clearly a passing reference to a previous quote."   That's like my stating that Charlotte Brontë described Alice going down a hole and meeting a pink elephant and saying that it was only a "passing reference" to Alice in Wonderland.

Do you think that it's fair to expect anyone who read the thread containing the lie to think "Oh, hang on a sec, I wonder whether Keith happens to have quoted the piece in full in an entirely different thread? Oh dear, I'd better just go and have a look round for it!" That is just nonsensical. The plain fact is that in a long, standalone thread the first mention of the piece was a lie. Something else you've forgotten to mention is that you yourself have acknowledged on occasion Keith's misrepresentation. Finally, had I not pulled Keith up on the misquote, it would have stood unchallenged, a lie, for ever more. You don't like that sort of thing and neither do I. Keith decided to back up to the wall and fight instead of immediately correcting himself. That is disreputable and it should inform everyone here as to his questionable trustworthiness in everything else he posts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

My point was quite a simple one teri,

The professor objects to people using information from some years ago against him but he is quite prepared to use similarly aged information in his racist rants against muslims.

To coin one of your favoured expressions sauce for the goose etc...





PS I did read much of your post, couldn't be arsed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM

Its a bit of a weird conversation - if you don't mind me saying. I'm sure you will. But that's mudcat.

I think you're talking in stereotypes....nothing is really quite as it seems.

A few years ago I was doing a terms supply teaching in in a big comprehensive school in Nottingham.

I went looking through the stock cupboard and came out with a set of An Inspector calls. You will recall the plot. A young single girl without family is reduced to poverty, prostitution and finally suicide by the actions of a selfish middle class family.

I'd taught the text in Derby a few years before and most kids go along with the plot of who is the mysterious Inspector - who turns out to be God, bringing the family to judgement.

However I was teaching a class of mainly Asian girls, and they seemed very quiet - and difficult to involve.

I mentioned this in the staffroom. One of the other teachers said to me - the subject is far too close to home. The red light district is round the corner from this school - half the kids in the class you're teaching, are already on the game.

So really the idea that somehow Asian girls are totally off limits can't really be true. And being a sexual predator is not exclusive to one particular racial group.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM

Death by C&P?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM

Raggytash - 23 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM

Isn't it strange that you object so much to old threads being used to support arguments against yourself castigating Steve and Jim for going back to 2011 and 2014 but you are quite prepared to use examples from these times to support your racist rant against Muslim men.


Tell me Raggy what was the subject of the thread that Jim Carroll harks back to 2011 and dredges up everytime he finds himself getting trounced on a thread with a completely non-related subject? Similarly what was the subject matter of the bone that Shaw has got firmly gripped in his teeth that causes him to hark back to 2014 to dredge up like Jom?

Then you find it strange that, to refute what is being said, the person subjected to these attacks goes back to those threads and that subject matter - what an utterly ridiculous comment to make.

Still it has clarified some points on both subjects:

1: Jim Carroll - "Muslim" Implant

Jim has always deliberately confused religion and culture. He thinks, incorrectly, that they are the same thing. They most certainly are not. His greatest secondary objection has been that he claimed that no sources were given and no names were supplied. Now we have:
- Comments by Jack Straw
- Guardian article from 2014
- A 2011 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
- Comments by Mohamed Shafiq, chief executive of The Ramadhan Foundation. Article ref - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9252003/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Mohammed-Shafiq-the-campaigner-who-stood-up-to-the-abusers.html
- Comments by Mr Karmani. Article ref - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/the-oxford-child-sex-abuse-verdict-highlights-a-cultural-problem-but-not-a-specifically-muslim-one-8616370.html
- Suppression of news coverage. Article ref - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11699179/Report-about-Asian-grooming-gangs-was-supressed-to-avoid-inflaming-racial-tension.html
- Daily Mirror 2014. Article ref - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-grooming-scandal-tearing-4508666

Now Jim will not do any research into any of these references, he always steadfastly refuses to look at any perspective of any subject about which he already has his mind made up about. He is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most bigoted and intolerant members of this forum who has to continually resort to gross misrepresentation, pure invention and lies to fuel his arguments.

2: Steve Shaw - Geoffrey Wheatcroft Article

Here is a little sampler -

Steve Shaw - 23 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

"Yes, I'll sort you out later over your Wheatcroft farrago when I have a minute. Gird your loins. It's not about past historical posts, Keith. It's about what kind of man you are."


I will save you the trouble Shaw. This goes back to 2014 when there were numerous threads on the forum related to the First World War. As the "Usual Suspects" were getting hammered by fact, logic and reasoning they hit upon the tactic of getting threads closed so much argument was transferred from one thread to another.

First mention of Wheatcoft's article was given by Keith A of Hertford on the 10th December 2014 (The day after the article appeared in print in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" and here it is:

: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.


Direct quote of what Geoffrey Wheatcroft had written and the very first mention and introduction of it to the forum it is perfectly accurate. Strangely this was studiously ignored by those who were of the opinion that Taylor's and Clark's historical works were totally relevant and equal in detail to works written later using much more detailed information from much wider sources and from a greater number of perspectives.

Next mention we get of Wheatcroft's article is in another WWI Thread running simultaneously with the WWI, Was No Mans Land thread with the same people involved hashing over the same ground.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

Ridicule because he is incapable of supporting his views except by digging up long dead historians.

He should read again how Clark and Tayor were scathingly dismissed in the Guardian this week.


The "he" being referred to here by the way is Steve Shaw.


Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM

Jim, I have been linking you to quotes from historians for over a year.
Denying that shows either stupidity or desperation.
I could sit down for half an hour copying them on to one of these threads, but no doubt you would deny it all over again.

There are several already on these threads anyway.
And, still none from your side.

Al, it is so sad that you never had a chance to know those family members.
An older cousin to my father died in France too.

They went out, willingly in the vast majority of cases, to save Europe and Britain from a cruel invader.
Their leaders were not incompetent fools, but no-one knew how to fight such a war.

There were as many views afterwards as there were survivors, but from 1918 to about 1930 they overwhelmingly believed the war to have been right and Haig and the leadership worthy.

After that Lloyd George got his knife into the now dead Haig, and class war advocates denigrated the officer class with powerful propaganda.
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."


Clearly a passing reference to a previous quote that Steve Shaw immediately seizes on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:10 PM

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

I wish to pursue this statement. Give me the Guardian link please.


BUT STEVE YOU'D ALREADY READ THE ARTICLE QUOTED IN FULL BY KEITH A SIX DAYS PRIOR TO YOUR REQUEST ABOVE IN THE "WWI NO MANS LAND" THREAD.

Nevertheless you got the following responses 48 minutes later.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: Steve, here it is again.
"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war


This is the SECOND time that the article has been quoted on the forum in full by Keith A of Hertford. But good ol' "nitpicking" Steve starts worrying it, even although Keith A has responded to everything Shaw asked of him.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:19 AM

Hmm. Interesting that you link to an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft (who basically seems to disagree with everybody about everything). Couple of points, Keith. You fibbed when you say he called AJP Taylor fraudulent. He doesn't like his stuff, for sure, but that was not a word he used against him. Still, it's asking a lot to get you to be accurate, I suppose. Incidentally, you implied that it was "the Guardian" that said he was fraudulent. It wasn't. It was a Guardian columnist. The Guardian, more than most papers, invites opinion from a wide spectrum. Slightly iffier even than that is you choice of Wheatcroft in your support in the first place. I mean, have you read what he has to say about Israel, Keith? If you haven't, gird up your loins, old chap, you won't like it. Another case of Keith's cherrypicking here?


Taking "nitpicking" to new heights but here is how Keith A responded

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."


Now I make that just over one hour that it took Keith A to acknowledge that he had made an error and correct it and THEN knowing what a pedant you are Shaw he further corrects himself three minutes later by posting:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively.


Keith A then posts

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:35 AM

I do not do "fibbing" Steve.
I was just referring back to that quote .
If you had read it when I first posted it just days ago, you would have seen the whole paragraph, and with a link so it could be seen in context.

So I was
[not] being scrupulously honest, but I naturally abbreviated when I posted a reminder about it.

Perfectly reasonable explanation for the omission, especially when you consider the degree of thread "stalking" being done against Keith A by Shaw, Carroll, Raggytash, Greg F, and the Muskets, as shown by Jim Carroll jumping in to take up the baton.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:36 AM

"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively"
I suppose there's as much chance getting linked to this as there is to all your other "historian" claims!!
Jim Carroll


Gives you an idea of how much Jom keeps his finger on the pulse doesn't it, as the link Jom is asking for had already been posted on this very thread by Keith A at 17 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM. However Keith A very courteously points this out and provides Jom with the information and link he requested.


Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:53 AM

I gave the link just a couple of hours ago, and also when I first gave the quote a few days ago, but just for you Jim, here it is yet again!

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war


By now the "stalkers" are beginning to feel a bit foolish, Keith A has now posted or linked to the entire article THREE times and he has acknowledged his error. We were then subjected to them dropping "Cookies" and becoming anonymous "GUESTS"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 01:36 PM

Naughty naughty, Keith.

KA of H - "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent.""

The actual quote -

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

KA of H "I do not do "fibbing" Steve."

No, you don't do you Steve. The article did describe the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent didn't it. As everyone can see. Errrr


Keith A then states the clarified position (to any sentient human being) by posting:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM

The Guardian.
"AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "


MAKING IT FOUR TIMES WHEATCROFT'S TEXT HAS BEEN FAITHFULLY QUOTED BY KEITH A OF HERTFORD - Not good enough for our team of "stalkers"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
...
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM
...
Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM
...
Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

Honest and accurate, unlike you people.

You made BOTH statements Keith and I honestly and accurately pointed out that said specifically The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Which you did. It is there in black and white for everyone to see. OK, fine, you did then change your mind but only because you were challenged by Steve Shaw. You still said the Guardian described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Why even try to deny it when you so obviously made the statement? You are doing yourself no favours at all.


Now just to "nitpick" what our anonymous GUEST states here Keith immediately corrected his mistake at 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM - When did he then repeat that the works of both were "fraudulent" after that time?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:00 AM

My original reference.
The link had been provided earlier that same day.

Keith A of Hertford- PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."


THE FIFTH TIME THE PASSAGE BY WHEATCROFT HAS BEEN POSTED BY KEITH A OF HERTFORD

The following was moved to the thread by a Mudelf as he/she thought it belonged - It is an observation from a third party on the exchanges - The emphasis and passages highlighted in bold are by me.

Subject: BS: I am not a Mudcatter, but...
From: GUEST,Gervase - PM
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:07 AM

Dropped in to look for some lyrics after a lengthy absence. Made the mistake of looking below the line. Bloody hell, this place has turned into a festering pit of ignorance, bile and personal abuse, hasn't it? Maybe those of you who hang on here haven't noticed it, in the same way a frog doesn't notice the water in the pan getting hotter, but - take it form me - the Mudcat looks pretty nasty!
And just to add my two penn'orth, KeithA is quite correct in his assertions. Trouble is, the veil of maudlin sentimentality and ignorance which clouds the issue is more seductive than the truth.
Yes, The Great War was unpleasant, yes, the casualty rates were horrible, almost as bad as earlier wars. But nine out of 10 do those who marched off to war came home, and those who did said it had to be done. The victory of 1918 was hard won, but ultimately so successful that Hitler was inspired to base his blitzkrieg on it.
That's all Keith is trying to say, but the sentimental shroud wavers of Willie McBride seem determined to shout him down.

Not for nothing is the stereotype of a folk-singer that of a bore with his finger in his ear.


What this provokes from Shaw are a number of nasty personal attacks on GUEST,Gervase that I can post if anyone thinks it would serve any purpose in showing up Shaw for the type of man he is, but this post is already far too long.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:38 AM

"No. I just said I believed it, "
You put it up - you have never produced anybody else saying it so it is your invention
It is an obscenely extreme racist suggestion
"It was never my opinion"
What a stupid lie after saying "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
Are you mad?
You have been given the official figures for Muslims convicted of sex crimes yet you still insist that there is a "massive over-representation"
You are a sad, disturbed individual
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM

Dave, when I quoted that view it was the only one being reported by the media.

Oh, what a surprise...

Even later when other theories were put forward, they came from us not media reports.

How about this one from The Guardian?

Some snippets for you

Figures suggest Asian men are disproportionately involved, but law enforcers and those in child protection say it's not so simple

...

A more credible link, says one senior source involved in bringing the criminals to justice, are their occupations. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said the demography of certain areas and the makeup of the night-time economy explained the over-representation of Asian offenders.

...

Meanwhile, group grooming is a small part of the sexual abuse threat facing Britain's children. Some of those working in protecting children from sexual abuse worry that the wrong message is being given about who poses dangers to children from the media coverage of "Asian grooming gangs".

They say the biggest dangers are not just on the street, but online, and the totality of abuse shows far more white people are perpetrators



Plenty more there as well.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 03:57 AM

Jim,
Your case was a cultural implant

No. I just said I believed it, and only because of all those prominent testimonies.
It was never my opinion. I had none, except that there was an over-representation.

Rag, I have said nothing about sex offences in general, just that one specific crime, and I was right about it.

Dave, when I quoted that view it was the only one being reported by the media.
Even later when other theories were put forward, they came from us not media reports.
That prevailed until long after the thread closed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 04:05 PM

It was not the only theory at all. There were all the others I mentioned and more besides. All of which you chose to ignore in favour of 'cultural implants'.

So, since 2011 eh? How about since 2001? Or 1991? Or before Muslims were demonized?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 28 March 5:33 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.