 sj |
||
|
||
More terrorism casualties: GUESTS
|
|
|
Subject: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: bseed(charleskratz) Date: 13 Sep 01 - 01:53 PM I check in this morning wanting to see the response to my last night's posting defending an anonymous "GUEST" who had been called a flamer, but who was responding appropriately--if contentiously--to the various Mudcat discussions of Tuesday's horrible events, only to find that the thread was missing, as were all other threads initiated by GUESTS, possibly including some Muddies posting from a computer which didn't open up to their cookie. I reset my cookie, not wanting to be rejected without one. Not only were there no threads started by anonymous guests, there were no GUEST(Muddie at work) threads or GUEST--Mary or any GUEST: anyone know lyrics? threads. I haven't yet opened any threads to find out if all GUESTs have been deported or merely denied the right to originate threads, but I'm pretty distressed by this assault on free speech here at (of all places) the Mudcat Cafe. Yes, flaming is a problem, and yes, emotions have been high, but long time members have been guilty of flaming (apology eagerly accepted, M-C, and sorry for bringing that particular item up in one of the excised threads--I hadn't yet read the apology) and I hope that they are still with us, and we all were guests at one time or another--that's where we all come from, with the possible exception of family members who start posting from parent's or sibling's or lover's accounts. Please, for the sake of the soul of the Mudcat, let's not be the first to ban free speech, let's not insist upon loyalty oaths from newcomers before we listen to them. --seed I see below that bseed has figured most of this out, but I thought I'd add something at the beginning of the thread to make things clear. You can't do a user search and find messages posted by GUEST - the GUEST tag is outside the "from" box, and isn't covered by the search. If a guest leaves the "from" box empty, that message will not turn up in a user search. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: kendall Date: 13 Sep 01 - 01:59 PM Free speech is one of our most valuable rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled that No one has the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The question is, do these posts by flamers rise, (or sink) to this level? |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Sorcha Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:04 PM Not true, seed. I just logged out, clicked New Thread. Put x in the thread title box, and got a text box. I did not, however, click submit, I just closed off line, then re set my cookie. There are also lots of posts in the threads by any number of Guests, both with and without names. Let's not make it any worse than it is, OK? |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: GUEST,Celtic Soul Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:05 PM I have no idea if this will make it through if indeed "Guests" have been nixed from posting, as I am posting from my work puter on my break. What I would like to say is that, freedom of speech is not being hindered if such is the case. If the "Guest" feature has been altered, all one need do is join, and say what they want. The consitition mentions nothing about the freedom of anonymous speech. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: MMario Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:07 PM seed? don't know what's wrong with your listing - but I have quite a few threads on mine that were started by guests. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: M.Ted Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:08 PM I am not sure that you are right, b--I just finished reading LEST WE FORGET: USA AGRESSION which was started by a non-handled GUEST, still there--I had trouble accessing the main server, though, so I am using ragtime-- |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: GUEST Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:12 PM --seed, Your sentiments and intentions are appreciated. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Burke Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:24 PM I've also even found an (at work) guest. Maybe if you'd been logged on you could trace yourself & find your original message. I remember reading some messages signed --seed & seeing responses. Probably somewhere in one of the 6 American Attacks threads. Do you remember which you posted to? |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: bseed(charleskratz) Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:41 PM Right you are, folks. I shot from the lip again, something I am prone to do. I didn't find the "Lest We Forget" thread highlighted in my list as I usually do on threads I'd read within the last 24 hours, even though I had read it again after posting to it. I was reacting in part to the way that GUEST had been greeted, and I just wasn't thinking straight, too soon after waking up, and I'm a pinhead. --seed |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: MMario Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:49 PM nope; just human - something we all need to be reminded of occassionally - |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: nutty Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:53 PM bseed - you don't get the highlighting if you come in on a different "engine". I've been using www.mudcat.org all day ....tonight I can't get in on that so am using www.ragtime.mudcat.org ..... as a result none of the threads are underlined although they are all there |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: SINSULL Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:54 PM seed - I have lost a roll of paper towels and the TV remote at least fifteen times inthe last two hours. Just not functioning well. You're not a pinhead just human. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: M.Ted Date: 13 Sep 01 - 03:04 PM Sinsull, In times of stress, I also loose the remote repeatedly--having an extra remote doesn't help, it just means I am looking for two of them-- |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Mark Cohen Date: 13 Sep 01 - 03:12 PM I don't lose my remote. It has a gizmo on it that beeps when I push the button on this little box I have right...uh...here.....ummm.... Aloha, Mark (feeling very human these days) |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Jim Dixon Date: 13 Sep 01 - 03:13 PM Frankly I would love it if a new policy were put in effect so that GUESTS couldn't start threads, except maybe "Lyr Req" threads. Certainly all the non-music posting by GUESTS lately have been 99% crap, and likewise the replies to them. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: wysiwyg Date: 13 Sep 01 - 03:46 PM seed, this is the inevitable result of being gone too long from Mudcat. You'll have to start back in Newbie Schoool now. *G* ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Liz the Squeak Date: 13 Sep 01 - 03:49 PM I have to phone my mobile from the house phone to find where I put it, and vice versa..... it's called CRS - Can't Remember S.....tuff. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 13 Sep 01 - 03:52 PM uh Liz, the vice versa, do you have to call your home phone to find out where it is? *G* |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Maryrrf Date: 13 Sep 01 - 04:16 PM I hate to say this, but I'm almost at the point where I think only registered members should be allowed to post. Very few of the "guest" postings are useful, informative or, for that matter, even remotely connected with music. Most of them are flamers. It's very easy to register, you don't have to reveal your real name when you post - so how does that limit anybody's free speech? If you can't even put a nickname behind what you say, is it really worth saying? The only problem I can see are mudcatters who post from work and who can't keep their cookies there. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Troll Date: 13 Sep 01 - 04:24 PM Who's human? I resent that. troll |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Jeri Date: 13 Sep 01 - 04:43 PM Funny how we just had a massive thread (or maybe it was a couple of them) in which lots of people said the best way to get rid of trolls was to ignore them. I think quite a few of those people must have changed their minds recently. For my part, I'm beginning to not only ignore trolls but the people who continuously respond to them. I guess I'm just sensitive to, or sick of the arguing, one upmanship, or one-line blurting (talking AT people rather than WITH) of opinion, and would much rather read discussions. I think there might have been one last Thursday. (No, I'm not entirely sick of sarcasm yet.) I also know I'll sound like one of those "back in the good old days" posters, but just about every thread here turns into some sort of an argument. It gives me the impression that people dislike or downright hate other people, and actually enjoy being around those they seem to hate. Sorry, but I can remember when this place seemed to be made up of friends who argued sometimes, not of combatants who sometimes were friends. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: GUEST Date: 13 Sep 01 - 04:44 PM I'm with Maryrrf on this one. A large percentage of "Guests" posts just cause trouble. We don't need that. All they have to do is make up some kind of nickname. I'm for a members only forum. If you don't have the balls to make up a name what good are you ? |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Burke Date: 13 Sep 01 - 05:03 PM GUEST, that's an interesting opinion. Lost your cookie? I find I'm better at ignoring the troll threads & there are a lot of guest inquiries. They just tend to be asking for words, get an answer & maybe a comment or 2 & quickly drop down the list, so we don't focus in on them. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: GUEST,Les B Date: 13 Sep 01 - 05:52 PM Sorry, I disagree about banning Guest appelations. When I'm at work, my computer will say "Guest," when I'm at home I'm registered. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Jeri Date: 13 Sep 01 - 05:57 PM Burke, that's that sarcasm I'm not sick of yet. Or an attempt at irony, depending on how you view it. Oh good - another flame war about the evils of guests. These always draw a big crowd and many people seem to find them interesting. And we haven't had one of these for what? A week, maybe? Much too long! I'm afraid I don't have anything new to add, so will just go wash my windows or something. I look forward to reading all the original and insightful contributions others are sure to make, though. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Sorcha Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:00 PM Seed, honey, we know you're not a pin head...and I have a lot of respect for you. I hope you did not think my post was impolite, disrespectful, etc. I meant in the "Sorry, but I believe you are mistaken" mode, ok? |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: SINSULL Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:16 PM Liz, I am impressed. You really know your home number? Never calling myself at home, I rarely remember it. DOH! |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Jeri Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:23 PM SiINS, it's easy - you just write a little note and try to remember where you put the note. If you put it in your purse, you only have to remember where you left your purse. If you have trouble with that, stuff the note down your bra. If you can't find that, phoning home might not be such a great idea, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: CarolC Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:46 PM I want to come out in the open and state my opinion on this. I'm sorry if anyone doesn't agree with me, but it is my opinion.
GUESTs are far from being the only people who exhibit destructive behavior in this forum. GUESTS are far from being the only people here who flame and troll. Are we concerned with eliminating bad behavior, flaming, and trolling? If we are, then we, as members, need to spend a lot more time monitoring our own behavior.
Also, it's almost as easy to start a membership specifically for the purpose of starting a troll thread as it is to post as a GUEST. And this appears to be done on a regular basis. See the 'Are veggies prats' thread for a good example of this.
Conversely, I have seen many thoughtful and constructive posts from GUESTS. I would not like to see people being prevented from contributing just because they have not logged on as a member.
I agree with those who have stated, repeatedly, that the way to deal with trolls, whether they are members or not, is to not respond to them. If you respond to them with flames and rancor, you are as guilty as they are. And if you get your jollies out of baiting them, you are a troll yourself.
It looks to me like some people think that bad behavior is perfectly ok for everyone except GUESTS. That's a hell of a double standard. I think such people are more concerned with power and control than they are with wanting people to behave appropriately.
Distructive or hateful behavior is distructive or hateful behavior, regardless of whether or not you are a GUEST, a member who is not well known, or a well known and popular member. If it's inapropriate for one, it's inapropriate for all. Rant off. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: sophocleese Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:57 PM Thanks CarolC, for voicing my opinion so distinctly. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: heric Date: 13 Sep 01 - 07:24 PM >>>>Certainly all the non-music posting by GUESTS lately have been 99% crap, . . . <<< I like this one, but it is a little too crudely stated, lacking finesse. A better example came from a thread yesterday: "I don't usually agree with guests. . . " Note how the latter phrase is more subtle, less harsh on the ear, and yet conveys the same sentiments, the same senselessness, the same permeating antagonism which discourages fresh input from "guests." I call these "catterisms." They amuse me only slightly, because they are a discredit to the hard work put in by the site operators. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Jim Dixon Date: 13 Sep 01 - 08:20 PM Gee, I thought I was being kind by not saying they were 100% crap. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: CarolC Date: 13 Sep 01 - 08:37 PM Jim Dixon, I would like to draw your attentin to these two posts... Subject: RE: National Day of Mourning From: GUEST Date: 13-Sep-01 - 05:38 PM We're having a day of mourning here in the UK too - though I don't really know what that will mean. One thing is that we're having a 3 minute silence at 11am. We quite often have 1 or 2 minute silences, this will be the first 3 minute one I know of.
I for one will observe it with great sadness, and thoughts for you all. Subject: RE: National Day of Mourning From: GUEST Date: 13-Sep-01 - 05:45 PM There is an emoticon for crying... :~( |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: GUEST,OSAM BIN LADEN Date: 13 Sep 01 - 08:45 PM SEE THE ASSHOLES JUMPING FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WINDOWS , LMFAO , AND THEN IT FUCKIN FELL OMG ! |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: bseed(charleskratz) Date: 13 Sep 01 - 08:52 PM I stupidly start a thread not knowing what I'm talking about and the responses are about equally split between people stating opinions about the only thing I said in my original post which made sense and--ta dah!--pure thread creep, of which I am very fond, and for which I was subjected to endless flaming by our most notorious Mudcat chauvinist. I love this place! --seed |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 13 Sep 01 - 08:54 PM My Dearest and Most Honorable Mr. Seed
Once again...We are indeed, agreed. Sincerely, Gargoyle |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Jim Dixon Date: 14 Sep 01 - 08:11 AM CarolC: I have read your posts, and slept on it, and I conclude that you are right. I am guilty of some of the same hostility I criticize in others. The "99% crap" and "100% crap" remarks were exaggerations, as well as unnecessarily crude. But other than that, I can't think of anything I have said recently that I ought to retract. If you are aware of anything, please let me know. I'm afraid I can't trust my own judgment any more. I think I will probably retire from the field of controversy for a while, and stick to music threads until I can see things in a better perspective. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: CarolC Date: 14 Sep 01 - 08:44 AM Jim Dixon, I understand how you feel. Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: GUEST Date: 14 Sep 01 - 09:41 AM Geez, CarolC - you continuously and consistently make sense, even in these stressful times when most people's rationality is being tested severely. If you could figure out how to put it in a bottle and market it to the masses, you could probably give Bill Gates a run for his money, literally speaking... Only one thing remains a mystery - a small but unexplainable chink in your armor: why would a rational person choose to play an accordion? (just joking, of course)... Best wishes to you. Please go easy on the tranqs - |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Paul from Hull Date: 15 Sep 01 - 09:33 AM Refresh |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: CarolC Date: 15 Sep 01 - 10:00 AM GUEST, do I? I guess it would be nice if I could make a little money off of it. It might be fun to see Bill Gates run, too. Anyway, I never said I was rational. So I guess I'm exempted from the 'accordion clause' of the Rational Persons manifesto. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Mr Red Date: 15 Sep 01 - 01:43 PM If we didn't have a problem with anonymous animosity (that easy for me to say) after this week then I think we would soon be taught it. The level of censorship on Mudcat seems to be about right, enough to prevent the proceeding degenerating into a textual brawl, and light enough to give us all room to ignore those we want to shun. Who can tell if it is fully visible, but it feels it I think we should pat ourselves on the back here. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: heric Date: 15 Sep 01 - 02:11 PM Mr. Red: Maybe I should work on a more polite way of saying it, becaue 95% of you deserve a pat on the back. Censorship is fine (by me), shunning or ignoring is fine if it comes naturally, rather than as the result of hundreds of posts, but the low level antagonism and hostility towards guests who haven't earned it is palpable, and it's a shame. You've heard the complaint from several newcomers. Anyway, other than apologizing to Mr D. for stating it in a smart-alecky way, I am dropping the subject because it doesn't deserve the time in the light of the enormous emotional burdens we are all currently carrying, some much, much more than others. |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Sep 01 - 03:43 PM I see a few proposals for a members-only forum. I don't want to see that, and I don't think Max would ever do that. The Mudcat Cafe forum was established as a supplement to the Digital Tradition - to answer requests and to receive submissions of lyrics. From there, it developed into a general folk music discussion forum. Over the last three years, it has become quite a social club, with a very active group of "regulars" who enjoy each others' company and spend a lot of time here. All the social stuff is nice, I suppose, but I think it's very important that we don't neglect our original purpose. If somebody wants to come here to ask for information, I think it's essential that we keep our doors open to them. I don't have to provide identification to ask for information in most publis libraries - I don't think we should require identification for people to come to Mudcat to ask for music information. On the other hand, I think it's an abuse for people to join discussions on a regular basis and not identify themselves in some way. It's a natural, human thing for people to want to know who they're talking to. If a person posts anonymously, he/she identifies with all others who have posted in the same way. We've had a lot of bad experiences with anonymous guests lately, so it's only natural for us to link unnamed guests with the others. People aren't asking visitors/guests to register if they don't want to - all that's needed is to fill in the "from" blank for the messages they post, and to use the same name every time they post. Guests can use their own name or a pseudonym, but their use of the name should be consistent. If people want to speak without identifying themselves, they they should be prepared for the natural, human reaction many Mudcatters have for them - uneasiness. I added a comment to bseed's first message at the top of this thread. You may want to take a look at it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: More terrorism casualties: GUESTS From: Justa Picker Date: 15 Sep 01 - 04:33 PM Joe I have the utmost respect for you, Jeff and Max regarding EVERYTHING you do here, and I think the three of you already know that. I think as an "experient" the forum should go members only for say a 3 month trial period. By members only, I mean that members have all posting privileges and the other benefits of membership currently enjoyed. Guests, on the other hand have "read-only" access to the threads. They can still use the DT and the forum to do searches for info they need, and they can send personal email requests for more specific info, using the e-mail addresses listed in the Resource section. I know, this won't happen, but just want to put my $0.02 in for posterity. |
| Share Thread: |