 sj |
||
|
||
The Mudcat clique??
|
|
|
Subject: The Mudcat clique?? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 00 - 04:27 AM As sometimes happens, The Mudcat is accused and perceived, usually by those that feel outside of it, as being a clique.
Would you wish to challenge that perception and if so how would you go about this? Bearing in mind that in reality a clique is more of a feeling than a concrete entity and that if someone, on the outside, feels that such a thing exists, then it probably does. Clique: An exclusive set of associates.
If such a clique was considered undesirable on The Mudcat, how could you demonstrate that it did not exist?
More to the point how could you demonstrate and reinforce, that it WAS a clique, if that was considered desirable?
Such things are recognised as desirable by some, which of course, is why we have a word for it. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: alison Date: 27 Jul 00 - 04:39 AM Rog.. why do you keep starting these? you know it'll start another "we're not a clique" "oh yes we are" fight.... I thought we weren't doing too bad at the getting back to music threads recently.... slainte alison |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jul 00 - 04:44 AM exclusive is the key word. It's virtually impossible to be exclusive in this kind of setup, fortunately.
The speed with which newcomers can become old-timers here is remarkable, part of the time warp effect under which when that people lament about "the Good Old Days", it can turn out they mean six months ago. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: GUEST,Hilary in NZ Date: 27 Jul 00 - 04:46 AM How can I demonstrate a clique does not exist? Easy... I will now press the Submit Message button on the other side of the earth......... |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 00 - 06:15 AM Rog.. why do you keep starting these? you know it'll start another "we're not a clique" "oh yes we are" fight....
If it does do that, there is obviously an issue to sort out and discuss.
I ask the questions because I would like to know and consider the answers.
Not everyone attracted to the Mudcat is interested or feel that they can contribute much to the music threads. Almost everyone who is attracted here can contribute to threads where the subject IS The Mudcat. If there is disagreement, so be it…….. It is surely possible to deal with that civilly and without name-calling. The thing that probably worries me more is that there will be no disagreement. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Gervase Date: 27 Jul 00 - 07:39 AM I couldn't agree more! |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: GMT Date: 27 Jul 00 - 07:44 AM I certainly feel that, sometimes, I'm apart from what is going on at Mudcat. But, I'm fairly new here; don't spend as much time here as many established members; don't have time to read everything and don't know everyones names. However I've found Mudcat to be a friendly place. I've never been slighted but I have been ignored on occasion. I've had questions answered, words and chords supplied and I've posted some in return. I've had a video of a broadcast I missed sent to me in the best spirit of Mudcat (thanks micca)and I've been made happy and sad (not at the same time) by the posts I've read.
At 46 (last week, so I'm one of those July birthdays) I don't really want to join a clique but I'd be happy to join an association of like minded and likable people. Is that the Mudcat ? I think so. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: kendall Date: 27 Jul 00 - 08:10 AM A native Mainer was sitting on his porch. His brand new neighbor stopped by to get aquainted. Native says, "Where you from?" new neighbor told him. "What was it like back there?" native asked. "Nice town, real good folks, I'm going to miss that." replied the new neighbor. "What's it like here?" asked the new neighbor. "You'll find it pretty much the same here." said the native.
Later, another new neighbor moved in on the other side of the native. They also fell to talking. I cant believe anyone would be so dense as to not get the point here, but, I'll explain if you dont. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Gervase Date: 27 Jul 00 - 08:28 AM Nice analogy, Kendall. Or, to use the old desert one... I'd rather have anyone inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in! |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: GMT Date: 27 Jul 00 - 08:53 AM Depends which way the winds blowing Gervase ! |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Gervase Date: 27 Jul 00 - 09:00 AM I'm a lazy sod - just part the tent-flap half an inch and I'm away! And does this mean that we now have to have blue cliquey things here? |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: SDShad Date: 27 Jul 00 - 09:03 AM I've heard that one told in the form of a Russian proverb, Kendall (young man on the way to new village looking for work stops and asks wizened old holy man who sits by the side of the road what people are like there), but it works in any "language." Like any community, you get out of Mudcat what you put into it, I think. I've gotten new friendships and new insights on music, and hope I've occasionally provided them to others. Chris |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 00 - 09:06 AM "if someone, on the outside, feels that such a thing exists, then it probably does" I could not disagree more. The perceptions of a person frequently have absolutely no connection with the reality of a situation. Nothing, repeat, NOTHING we can do, say or attempt will prevent some people from feeling that a "clique" exists. A person may feel that there is a clique which is excluding them; but the reality could well be internal feelings of inadiquecy, inability to communicate, inability to share, lack of interest in subjects, etc. etc. etc. Unless there is INTENT to exclude, a clique cannot exist. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: sophocleese Date: 27 Jul 00 - 10:14 AM MMario, I don't think intent is necessary. Failure to provide conditions in which some people can feel free to participate will exclude without intent on the part of others. People who have fought hard to gain wheelchair access to various buildings discovered this. The important test is what happens when someone makes a complaint. If the response on the part of Mudcat is to say "Whoops! Okay lets see how we can fix this problem and let you in." then the Mudcat is not intending to exclude. However if when a problem comes up the response is to trivialize the complaint, blame the complainer or simply ignore it then the Mudcat is trying to exclude. I think that former accusations of cliquishness and hierarchy have been met with the second response which has infuriated me at times. Complaints have often been met with "If you don't like it, leave!" Which indicates a hardening of the intellectual and social arteries. There have been some nasty flames and trolls I agree, but there are also those who seem sometimes to post anonymously because they don't feel comfortable saying negative things about the Mudcat under their own names. That's an indication of cliquishness to me. I think one of the unstated rules of Mudcat has been that you cannot say unkind things about the Mudcat without getting a lot of rather silly posts basically saying "The Mudcat is fine because I think it is, therefore the problem is with YOU and your expectations of the place." I think the Mudcat should relax a little and understand that often those who are saying these things want the Mudcat to be a great place, are frustrated when it falls short, but haven't given up enough to walk away in disgust. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Irish sergeant Date: 27 Jul 00 - 10:17 AM In the time I've been a mudcatter, I haven't noticed a clique. I don't see the intent. Keep in mind that just because someone thinks there is doesn't make it so. Hey, there are still flat earthers around! Kindest reguards, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Ebbie Date: 27 Jul 00 - 10:25 AM When I first started lurking- long before I posted- I felt that there was a core of mudcatters who all knew each other and who sent each other private- meaning exclusionary- notes, referring to events and subjects on which I had no clue. Soon, as I started looking forward to reading various one's postings, I realized that I was beginning to know them. Obviously, many 'Catters do meet on occasion but the actual familiarity for most of us comes more from the revealing nature of ongoing communication than it does in meeting face to face. So how can it be a clique? Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Mrrzy Date: 27 Jul 00 - 10:27 AM Hmmm - what makes you think that we have a word for it because it is seen as desirable? I quote here: Such things are recognised as desirable by some, which of course, is why we have a word for it. [emphasis mine] Surely we have words for anything we RECOGNIZE, whether we find it desirable or not... diptheria comes to mind as a counter-example. Thread creep, I know, but if we can segue into a discussion of what things get words for them (what was that thread - They Have A Word For That?), it might turn into a lot of fun... |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Rick Fielding Date: 27 Jul 00 - 10:51 AM It's never seemed like much of a clique to me. Groups tend to form (and then unform) because of specific interests, but that's hardly exclusionary. I think a number of folks who feel strongly about the power of "group healing", exchange e-mails, but that was only because a few others felt uncomfortable with the concept. For most, I don't think it was a big issue either way. I constantly exchange personal messages on technical music things with about five or six people. Nothing "closed" about it, just a lot of stuff (more than needed on the main forum) about 13th chords and Riley Puckett's fingerpick. Strikes me that a "clique" doesn't welcome interested newcomers. Surely that's never been the case here. It's come up a few times because because folks surface and appear to be everywhere for a few days...naturally the folks they know best on the forum chip in with "you bet" and "that goes for me too" etc. It looks like a clique, but if you wait a bit, the demographics change....constantly. The most visible "cliques" are when folks get totally frustrated at the anonymous flaming, but that goes away (temporarily) as well. Many of my friends are involved in computer-nurd or stock-trading discussion groups. THEY'VE got cliques! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Kim C Date: 27 Jul 00 - 10:55 AM All I can say is, I just showed up one day, and nobody told me to get lost. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:00 AM Whatever word is used, if a person or group is not actively being excluded but feels as if they are, the feeling engendered, would be pretty much the same as if they were.
Maybe it is not sufficient, just not to exclude, maybe it is necessary to TRY and clearly demonstrate that there is NO exclusion? Or that there is in fact nothing to be excluded from?
The use of words like 'gang', 'inner core' and the production of (short) lists of individuals considered to be worthy of a mention, does not in my opinion, clearly demonstrate this. I feel that this contributes, in no short measure to the alienation that produces some of the strange behaviour that is witnessed on the forum from time to time. It certainly supplies most of the ammunition. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:07 AM Roger - the fact that someone "feels" excluded doesn't make a dang bit of difference unless there is intent to exclude. ESPECIALLY when there is active "reachout" going on. Otherwise it is just in their imagination, and no one, anywhere, is obligated to cater to the delusional fantesies of others. (Note...I am NOT talking about disabilities here or other special needs, where there is sometimes an obvious but overlooked need in order to include. Now if the disabled are DELIBERATELY excluded, that's another story) |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Peter T. Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:08 AM Gee, I was told to get lost, and came here! yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Mbo Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:14 AM Yeah, stop being such friends! |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Amergin Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:17 AM I was driven from a few boards to here.... |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Wesley S Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:18 AM People will tend to see in other people what is already in their own hearts - in other words - "Wherever you go - There you are !" |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: kendall Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:27 AM Right on Wesley..We do create our own reality. And thats gospel. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Jeri Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:41 AM Kendall - man, are you good. People see whatever they look for. If they look for evil intentions and somebody to make a scapegoat of, they will find these things, even if they aren't there. If you want an enemy, you will make your own. If you want friends, that's what you'll find. Seems to me it's not the nature of Mudcat that makes those two very different things happen. Paranoia, even of a very mild type, feeds on itself. A person thinks there is some sort of secret society out to get him. After a while, that person will push people he perceives as being part of the society away, or attack them. The people will become hurt, and possibly turn on the slightly paranoid individual. They may even come to resemble a secret society. He creates the thing he most fears. The only thing we can do is refuse to let ourselves be turned into a mob by one person. We can't do a damned thing about the enemy seekers. They have been/are/will be with us always. It's a good thing they don't have to live here, and can go off somewhere else to begin the process again with a whole new bunch of unsuspecting people. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: sophocleese Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:52 AM Hmmm... Is all rascism merely in the heads of those who are "suffering" from it? Is all sexism merely in the heads of weak-brained women? We all do a lot to create our own reality but we get help from others as well. That's experience moderating gospel. MMario, I guess the speed with which someone decides that a complaint springs from a delusional fantasy rather than experienced virtuality can indicate the possible presence of a clique. Perhaps the idea that the Mudcat is outgoing, nonbiased and inclusive is a delusional fantasy. Relativity has a lot to do with it. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: paddymac Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:52 AM "Mudcat" is a series of programs that enable its users to join in on whatever topic interests them in the forum, use the DT and most other elements of the system, and to join or not join and have access to yet other features of the system. All that is required for access to the Mudcat is a computer. Based on posts, peoople come here via computers at home, work, school, public libraries, and probably other places (like semis) that don't occur to many of us. As Kevin noted above, the word "exclusive" in the definition of clique just doesn't fit a place like Mudcat. Now, if the notion of a "clique" applies at all, it can only be in the hearts and minds of those who post, and it can only be discerned by what they post. So, if anyone is concerned about possible clique-ishness at Mudcat, I suggest that they look first in the mirror, and then look at what and how they post, and think about how your readers might interpret your words. Then act as you deem appropriate for you, but don't seek to lighten your personal guilt burden (real or perceived) by foisting it off on others. Have a drop of the crature and lighten up! |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 00 - 11:59 AM The mudcat is not, has not been and hopefully never will be exclusive. With out that feature it cannot be a "clique". therefore if it is percieved as a clique the perception is delusional. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 00 - 12:05 PM The only evidence I have seen on the mudcat of "cliques" or cliqueish behavior is the attempts by anonymous persons to drive others away. However, those they have been attempting to drive away are the ones that others claim to be a clique. The few persons I have seen/heard accused of clique-ish behavior are in point of practice welcoming helpful individuals. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: sophocleese Date: 27 Jul 00 - 12:26 PM MMario, there are different ways and means of exclusion. The physical way would be some mechanism whereby people are incapable of logging on, but other forms of exclusion exist. Look at any school yard where all the kids are playing. Nobody is physically prevented from being in the playground but some of them are excluded from the other's games. "She's too bossy!" "He looks funny." "He doesn't understand how we're playing." "She always wants to be the princess." Your statement that the Mudcat is not exclusive needs some backing up. The mudcat can exclude easily on the basis of ignoring posts from various people; something that has been admitted to by several mudcatters. It can exclude by ridiculing or attacking everything a poster says; the basis of some of the concerns that people have had about the effect of flamers in the forum. Mudcatters can refer to specific other Mudcatters frequently without seeming to notice other newer members. No disrespect intended towards Big Mick but a lot of people have talked about Big Mick and what a wonderful person he is etc, but since I've been posting he hasn't posted an awful lot. How much do you have to post before someone starts mentioning your name? Conversations can be started on one thread and continue into other threads without a great deal of regard for what the threads are about which leave the people interested in the subject of the thread feeling a little bemused and wondering what's going on.People can and are defended on the basis of who they are but not necessarily on the basis of what they say. Allan C. did a great job of fingering a feeling when he started the lively thread about killing threads. Clearly there is a feeling sometimes among people that they are ignored or excluded. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: kendall Date: 27 Jul 00 - 12:31 PM No one has accused ME of being a nice guy. Does that mean I'm not in the clique? |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 00 - 12:32 PM How many people would admit to being part of a clique? Even ones that do exist (like private clubs) do not so because they only wish to exclude. They are only interested in what they wish to create and have little or no concern for what they exclude. Does a sculptor consciously exclude the pieces of stone that do not fit their design? He has little or no interest in them, their eyes are on the prize only. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 00 - 01:05 PM My point is that a "clique" DOES consciously intend to exclude. I am not saying that there are not some people who interact more often then others, nor that there are some people who are more visible then others. That happens in any grouping of more then a few people. Nor do I deny that some people may FEEL they are being ignored or excluded. I just don't believe that it is true often enough to be a viable feeling. I have seen people posting in what appears to be an irate tone becuase their question hasn't been answered in a few minutes. Does this show they are being ignored? No, it only shows that no one posted an answer. Most likely the reason was that either no one who logged on had the answer, or for one reson or another was unable to post an answer at that time. And even when some people may be conscously ignored, THAT does not make the remainder a "clique". For example, I have not been flamed, with the exception of one minor comment that was quite obviously intended to be an insult, though I have to admit I haven't the foggiest idea what was meant. Does that make the people who HAVE been flamed a clique? No. does that make the people who are flaming a clique? No, because as far as I know they all claim to be acting independently. Does it make me feel excluded and overlooked? yes. Is this a valid feeling? Who knows? Say that the MudCat has a high proportion of opinionated, narrowly focused, intense, emotional, driven people and I will agree. Say that it has "cliques" and I will disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jul 00 - 01:06 PM A clique, as Rick pointed out, is a group that seeks to include only whom they want and will exclude all others. We do not have cliques here. What we have is a variant on the opposite. We have people who seek to stop others from having free discussion with anyone who chooses to take part. We also have people who seek to rename spirited discussion to alienating others. The facts are that in any kind of human interaction there will be those that feel alienated. When one looks and doesn't see anyone trying to exclude others, then the alienation is probably caused by the insecurities of, or the different values of the person feeling the alienation. Bottom line here? Mudcat is a community that doesn't seek to exclude anyone. It is what it is. If you like what it is, or want to be a part of the discussion/debate, then fair enough. If you don't think it is for you, then you should look for a place that suits your needs. There is nothing exclusionary about that statement, but someone will certainly try to make it into something. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: GUEST,Barry Finn Date: 27 Jul 00 - 01:22 PM One thing I'd like to know Mick. How come you're not working right now. Barry, who's on lunck break (he, he) |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: GUEST,MikeF Date: 27 Jul 00 - 01:36 PM I'll tell you who is in this clique: It is Kendall, and The Shambles, and Big Mick, and Amergin, WesleyS, Jeri, GMT, Gervase, Rick Fielding,Sophocleese, MMario,paddymac, Kim C, McGrath of Harlowe, SDShad, MBo, Mrzzy,alison, Irish seargent, Ebbie, Hilary in NZ, and Peter T- |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 00 - 01:39 PM Mike - you forgot yourself! you're here |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: katlaughing Date: 27 Jul 00 - 01:54 PM Oh, yeah, right and me and Spaw, Micca, Mortee, and Cletus, and the Reg boyz and Sorcha and all them others, we gots our own club and you can't be innit! Nayah, nayah, nayah Hey ya'll meet me at the secret thread in twenty minutes...be sure you remember the password and don't tell anyone!! A suggestion: if you want to accuse someone of something then just say so. The constant innuendos or casting of aspersions is disruptive and unsettling, esp. for new people who may be wondering about their first postings' reception and who try to read between the very obscure lines to fgure out if they should be paranoid and cave into your censorship efforts. Viva La Mudcat! Dammit, in all its modes and imperfections!
|
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jul 00 - 01:55 PM You don't have to intend to exclude people in order to exclude them in practice. That obviously true.
But just because you feel excluded doesn't mean you are being excluded. It might be just the way you are feeling, and the way you interact with other people.
If you post stuff, and nobody seems to respond to what you post, that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy of people who are turning their back. Most of what we all post gets no direct response.
Some people here seem to generate a sense of being someone you've almost met, and that's down to a lot of things - what they actually post over a variety of topics, how they respond to other people, how other people respond to them.
If you get interested by a post someone makes, you can click on their name, and up comes a list of all te stuff they've posted before, with links to the posts - so it's easy to get a sense of wherre they are at, if you want. Then, when they have a picture in the Mudcat resources, that makes it a little bit easier to get the sense that there is a real person at the other end.
And the thing is, none of things are in any way exclusive. You don't even have to register as a member totake an active and welcomed role here (though it's clearly a good idea to do so, if you can). You don't have to come from any part of the world. Race, class, politics - no restrictions exist. You don't even have to share the same language - there's that little "translate" button next to every post.
If the Mudcat is a clique is a most remarkable variety of clique - it is an Open Clique. The only requirement in coming here is that you want to come here, and the only requirement for staying here is that you want to stay here. (In this way being different from pretty well any other gathering of people - schools, workplaces, churches, even folk clubs. Noone ever gets dragged here and held here because they've got a friend or partner who wants to be here.)
|
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: dwditty Date: 27 Jul 00 - 01:56 PM Aw sh*t, I didn't make the clique again. I'm not giving up though. I'm going to go right on reading and hearing the things I want here and leave the rest to those who want it. I can tell you from experience, though, that anytime I have reached out to Mudcat as a group or to individuals through PM, I have always been well received. It seems to me that anyone who asks to be part of any of the goings on around here is automatically included. Now where was I...Oh yeah, I just noticed that 'Spaw insn't included in the clique, or Art, or Kat, or Bert, or Max, or........Maybe the real cliques are those that are not in the clique. dw |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 27 Jul 00 - 01:56 PM Just a bit puzzled Shambles. Are there really people here who are not interested in the music threads and who have nothing to contribute to them? If so, then perhaps we are in danger of forgetting why Mudcat exists at all. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: SINSULL Date: 27 Jul 00 - 02:01 PM Poor Bill and Allen. They dragged their butts from one end of Mudcatland to the other and still aren't part of the "In" crowd. I'll bet they don't care either. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Jim the Bart Date: 27 Jul 00 - 02:13 PM Tell me this - if there's no clique, why all the references to the "blue clicky thing"? I rest my case. As a matter of fact I'll just rest it here in the corner for a while, as it is quite a load Cheers! Bartholomew Who thinks the Mudcat's just fine - but what does he know? |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Jeri Date: 27 Jul 00 - 02:26 PM Sophocleese: "Hmmm... Is all rascism merely in the heads of those who are "suffering" from it? Is all sexism merely in the heads of weak-brained women?" No, of course not. The first thing that's needed to identify an "ism" is an accusation. Someone who says "it happened to me." Then you need some reasons why people think a group of people are racist or sexist. "They did/said this." It helps if there's more than one person making a complaint, and it helps if there are objective (to whatever degree possible) witnesses. Then you still have to figure out whether the accuser has misjudged something, is looking for a fight, or whether the accused is an "ist." We don't have any accusations here to work with, just people talking about what they think other people feel. I'll discuss this as a "what if" situation, but I'm not that concerned about "other people." I'd pay more attention to "I feel, this way, and the reason is ___." As far as "The Mudcat" being anything - nice, welcoming, cliquish, confusing, whatever - it can't. The Mudcat only exists as a place, not an entity. It's the people who come here who make it what it is, and we're a bunch of individuals. The very fact we have different opinions on this issue and aren't afraid to discuss them must mean something. The fact we'll take the same side as someone on one issue, then argue against them on another must mean something. The fact that whenever a baffled new person asks "What the heck are you guys talking about," they get several informative friendly answers must mean something. I've known folks who feel like they're on the outside of a certain circle. They're given invitations to parties, others have tried to be friendly and welcoming, but they still feel there's a clique and they wouldn't be welcome. There are people around who can't tell the difference between a bunch of friends and a clique, and they'll always remain outside of the circle because that's where they prefer to be. And some inside the circle will be pointlessly wondering what they did to alienate the person. There are sub-groups of the main Mudbunch. Some of us live near each other. Some correspond by personal messages or e-mail. That started because one person sent another a message. If you're feeling like an outsider, and don't want to, a PM to somebody. Tell them you agree/disagree with something they've said. Ask them a question. Send me one - at least it will get me to shut up in here for a minute or two :-) Until I graduated from high school, I was always the kid other kids made fun of. First, buck teeth, then pimples. Add in a bit of ADD weirdness. I know what being on the outside is like. Most of the folks I've met in this group seem like that one kid who risks the wrath of the pack, and goes over to talk to the lonely kid in the playground - ESPECIALLY the ones most often accused of being in a clique. Whatever this place seems to others, I've gained a lot of confidence and lost a lot of self-conciousness from being here. I'm hanging around with a bunch of friends. Come into the circle, if you'd like. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Jul 00 - 02:30 PM Ebbie's first impression was: When I first started lurking- long before I posted- I felt that there was a core of mudcatters who all knew each other and who sent each other private- meaning exclusionary- notes, referring to events and subjects on which I had no clue.
KimC said: All I can say is, I just showed up one day, and nobody told me to get lost.
GMT's post gave a first impression also.
Ebbie stayed long enough to change her first thoughts (thankfully). I do not think that I would have, if those had been my first impressions. I wonder how many others form similar impressions and don't persevere?
It would be interesting to hear more first impressions. For that is probably the only way to know how The Mudcat is perceived.
I am sorry for excluding all the female sculptors, in my last post. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: MMario Date: 27 Jul 00 - 02:37 PM d*mn. Bartholomew has found us out.... Now we will force him to wear a thousand hats and eat ooblick |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Jeri Date: 27 Jul 00 - 02:40 PM Kat, methinks MikeF would have named everyone if he hadn't got tired of typing. MMario, you feel left out because you haven't been flamed? OK, you long-haired, unaccompanied singin' guy who dresses funny at work! Take that! Sorry for going on so long in my last post. It's got to be the longest I've written. |
|
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique?? From: Mbo Date: 27 Jul 00 - 02:41 PM My first impression: WHoa! Since when did the Digital Tradition get a discussion board? Hmm, interesting topics. Hey, people are requesting lyrics & chords here! Wow! Maybe if I ask if anyone has the lyrics to "Is Ar Eireann Ni Neosfain Ce Hi", someone might put them up here for me! Cuz I can't tell WHAT Cathy Jordan is saying, and I NEED this song! I posted my request under my real neam. 45 minutes later, PJ Swan answered, saying that it was a small world, because she was just learning to play that song from her bodhran teacher. She posted the lyrics, and I said "WHOA! This place is GREAT!!!" And I knew I was here to stay. The next day I registered as Mbo. Little did I know then how much this place would change my life. I found something more special than mere words can describe here. I don't think that would have happened if I had stayed on at my job as Matthew The Celtic Answer Man over at the Thistle & Shamrock website. "Thank you for your smile, you've made it all worthwile for us." --Matthew Richards |
| Share Thread: |