BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?

Subject: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Termagant
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:27 AM

Leper perhaps?

Or maybe 'nigger'.

And I use that loaded word with caution. But it does seem to fit, since 'guests' here are treated as if they were African Americans in the Old South.

At any rate, 'guests' have been demonized here, and marginalized in a way that has resulted in them being treated like a parasitical, malignant class of foreigners, here for the sole purpose of spoiling the clubhouse atmosphere among some certain members.

Like some other guests who have spoken up recently in the guest bashing threads, who have stated in those threads that they refuse to join Mudcat as members as a matter of principle (because of the way guests are treated here), I too choose to post as a guest for the same reason.

For me, the rewards of membership simply don't outweigh what I see as liabilities of being a member of an elite club. That just ain't my style. But then, I don't belong to a local church or country club either.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:05 AM

'GUEST'- Mudcat euphemism for...guest. If they don't crap on the floor, they are all part of the family.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:20 AM

no problems with guests - major problems with people who come and and trash the place as anonomously as they can.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Morticia
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:31 AM

ahem........don't feed the troll, peeps....

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 09:15 AM

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 09:27 AM

Aw Morty - why not throw them the odd tit-bit (a bit like dropping "chum" when you're shark fishing) - perhaps they'll all consume each other in their feeding frenzy. If not it'll probably keep them off other threads - perhaps we should have a "GUEST" permathread.

I have posted as a GUEST -

(1) Before I actually joined Mudcat - then I gave my e-mail address as a name.
(2) Since I became a member, for "artistic" and I hope humorous reasons.

The only time I have posted as an anonomous GUEST is when I've forgotten to reset my cookie after (2).

I would hate to see GUEST postings prohibited, both because it would preclude (2) and also because it would allow new members a chance to "dip their toe in the water" as I did in (1).

I have NEVER seen a GUEST treated badly just because of their status and I am certain that a GUEST's posting would never be removed on those grounds. I have seen many examples of GUEST postings which have provoked criticism and deletion due to their content - do you object to that Termagant ?   

I have recently had a couple of my postings (and I don't even use a handle) deleted because a Joeclone didn't realise that I knew the catter concerned and that the banter was not likely to be taken seriously. The UK folk scene is after all rather more tight-knit than the transatlantic one, and what would seem a spiteful remark to a stranger is often only fun between friends.

Perhaps GUESTs should consider why they wish to remain anonomous.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:07 AM

In case one has never read any of the infinite number of threads on this topic, what is sure to follow in succeeding posts will be a rehashing, retrolling, and reflaming of everything that has already been said as well as it can be said, as often as it can be said, and as misunderstood and mischaracterized as possible.

But hey, it's another day, so here come the "usual suspects" to repeat history. Vuja de! [Deity or social priciple of choice] forbid we should pass on the opportunity!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:01 PM

Another thread for people exhanging insults and recriminations?

Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some folks need to get a life...

Some of my best friends are Guests..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:08 PM

Some of my best guests are friends, Jerry.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM

Some more thoughts on the subject.

As you shall sow - so shall you reap.

My comment about a remark being taken as a joke by a friend, but sounding like an insult to a stranger is perhaps pertinent also, because an anonomous guest will always be a stranger.

If you use your anonimity as a sort of firewall then surely it should work both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:22 PM

I guess the last couple of 'guest' threads got too friendly and funny and cute, so someone had to start another with the 'right' degree of nastiness.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 01:19 PM

It's actually a euphemism for "fellow enthusiast".

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Bill Buethe
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 01:58 PM

But with insulting and derogatory thread titles (started by one of the well-liked members)like this:

On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings

just what did all of you expect?

The thread (not the only one of it's kind in recent weeks, I might add) is still going strong at nearly 150 posts, mostly from members saying how much guests suck, while admitting that 'some guest posts' are OK.

If some of you could just step back, and try and see how this forum page looks when a guest who has never been here before clicks on it, you might begin to understand what some of guests are talking about.

I may not agree with Guest Termagant's approach in the opening post of this thread. But I don't disagree with the sentiments expressed in it either. I started lurking here over the Xmas holidays, at the suggestion of another lurker. I've been waiting all week for things to improve, figuring people were flaming over the holidays because of kiddies being home from school.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 02:33 PM

you're in the wrong threads...lurk in the music threads.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 03:28 PM

That thread Bill Buethe linked to is actually fairly friendly at present; if the title is read in conjunction with the opening post by Thomas it is clearly a bit tongue in cheek. It could have been better phrased, as Thomas has posted to say.

For the umpteenth time, there is NO HOSTILITY TOWARDS NON-MEMBERS. There is impatience at people coming in as UNNAMED GUESTS. And also at anybody (member or non-member) who posts in a way designed to hurt other people, especially when they use the GUEST mechanism as a way of doing this.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 03:44 PM

My experience, FWIW. Some time back when I wanted advice and support in my attempt to stop smoking, I started as GUEST: nicwit. Essentially, I was soliciting advice that would not be affected by anyone's knowing me personally. The response was as I had hoped, enthusiastic, helpful and understanding. Whether it was the subject matter or the fact that I used a guest name, or that it was the true nature of Mudcat coming through, I'll probably never know. But it was what I needed and hoped for and more. I'm now in my eleventh week of freedom from tobacco -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: alanabit
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:21 PM

You have given yourself a name Termagant. That means we can reply to you and compare posts made with others under that name. That you eschew the priveleges of membership is your own business. You have not chosen to make spiteful or contentious comments and then hide behind anonymity. No one has any quarrel with that. Welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,YES A GUEST! Maeve Slattery
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:33 PM

ON THE SUBJECT OF GUESTS. I POSTED THIS REPLY TO (THOMAS THE RHYMER). HE STARTED THE THREAD - 'On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings', and what follows was my posting to him.

I hope it will be of interest and I am a guest and do not mean to be smart but am offended. I don't see the big deal with becoming a member, if I feel I have something of interest to say or info to supply, I like many GUESTS do it.

Dear Thomas the Rhymer,

I can't see what your problem is. From my experience of reading all kinds of posts by GUESTS for a very long time, (and have only posted a couple of offerings myself), I honestly have to say there are many valuable and informative people (GUESTS) contributing to MUDCAT.

Indeed MUDCAT is all the richer for it. If you wish, I will give you but a few examples relating to subjects in which I along with many MEMBERS have had an interest.

Is it possible that somewhere along the way a GUEST put you in your place or knew what they were talking about. Has the ego been harmed?

Regards from a GUEST Maeve Slattery

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:34 PM

I suggest we lobby the US federal government to form a committee to investigate how we can make Termagant happy. If the government will not do so, then we can all get mad at them instead. :-)

Or...we could reward Termagant with an honorary membership and a free Mudcat T-shirt....or a free copy of William Shatner's book "Get A Life" (it's a great book and soooo appropriate in this case!).

Thomas the Rhymer's thread is clearly a joke (if you actually bother to read it, that is...), as is this discussion as well...but this one has so far not been nearly as funny. With a little work though, I think it can be made almost as funny, so let's get to it!

I love GUESTS, and I think we need even more of them. They make Mudcat much more eclectic, and they allow those who long to squabble endlessly about practically nothing at all to really enjoy themselves "to the max" (if you'll excuse the expression).

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:57 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:11 PM

Maev - you still seem to have this idea that there is some kind of antagonism towards non-members. It just isn't true. People who choose to post as GUESTS may be non-members or they may be members playing silly games. When people have suggested that it might be better to change the rules so that people cannot post as GUESTS, that is what they are thinking of. (And that isn't going to happen, we know.)

Most of the time, it seems pretty clear, non-members who post as GUESTS use a name of some sort to go along with GUEST, as you did just now. That's only friendly - GUEST,YES A GUEST is a perfectly fine pseudonym.

A handle, however arbitrary or even temporary, makes it easy to respond to a post and to agree with it or disagree with it, or thank the poster for something they have posted. Not using any kind of name makes all that needlessly difficult, become the only way of distinguishing between one unnamed GUEST and anther is to go back and copy out the date and time of their post, which is very clumsy.

If anyone has a lot of time to waste, click on GUEST at the head of a post from an unnamed GUEST, and see all the previous posts by all the other unnamed GUESTS. I don't particularly recommend doing that, but reading through a collection of the posts we've had might explain some of this.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:44 PM

Obviously the members must like to bicker with guests because these numerous guest threads get a lot of posts and attention, grow larger, and morph into other related Guest Threads.

As I am sure it has been previously stated in many ways before, quit taking the "bait" from the Guest chums if you want these ridiculous threads to cease. Obviously you don't want them to end because you add to the flames and must really enjoy them. If you did not reply it would all end.

I am ashamed that I even read this thread and parts of other Guest threads. Drivel Dirt is hard to resist, isn't it?

Bicker on, let the feeding frenzy grow, because that is apparently what the members want by continuing to post the same junk time after time in this and similar threads.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:49 PM

You're absolutely right, guest. For God's sake, DON'T post here again!!! I certainly don't intend to...nor would anyone with a modicum of good taste and anything useful to do with their time.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:58 PM

Just because I had a bit a spare time, I went and counted and categorized the posts in the "On the Cowardly Nature of Guest Postings" thread. This is, of course, entirely subjective and is subject to discussion and disagreement.

I counted 147 posts, and likely missed a few. Of these, 20 were solidly pro-guest. This includes the ones, and I think it was well over half, who differentiate between "named" guests (enthusiastically welcomed) and anonymous guests whose only intent is to create dissention. This is not my distinction, but is specifically stated as such in these posts. There are 10 who oppose guests under any circumstances; interestingly, 2 of these are guests.

21 comments are neither pro nor con on the issue of guests, but are simply snide...call them flames if you'd like. Most of these, 16 of the 21, are from guests (either named or unnamed). The most typical of these comments is on how the vast majority of postings in the thread indicate how much members hate guests.

Most of the posts, 96 of the total, are essentially in the nature of conversation...one person, member or guest, making an essentially polite response to something someone else said.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:59 PM

My favorite Guest is Edward A.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Tremclad
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 06:18 PM

Guests who are opposed to Guests under any circumstances are an interesting lot. They are either agents provocateurs or members of a club so exclusive that the notorious "inner clique" that is rumoured to fester at the heart of Mudcat would wilt before its awesome grandeur and crawl away in humiliation.

The only way one can possibly even think of attaining to the moral and spiritual heights achieved by Guests who are opposed on principle even to other Guests is to resign from Mudcat (or arrange to get kicked out somehow) and then keep coming back here for years and years and years as a bitter disgruntled Guest who doesn't even like other Guests. This takes nerve, talent, and determination. I have only met perhaps 2 people with that kind of nerve, but I'm sure there are others out there waiting in the wings.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Joe_F
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 06:32 PM

It *may* just be a euphemism for "My f****** cookie crumbled again".

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:40 PM

G... ratuitous       G...iving       G...rand
U... rges            U...lterior      U...nknowables
E... specially       E...vasions      E...stablishing
S... urreptitious    S...ome          S...erendipitous
T... ypes            T...alkability   T...rials

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:56 PM

I wonder if Termagant is really Lepus Rex????? I'm really very curious and I wish he would enlighten us.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:07 PM

Or maybe you are, GUEST Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:56 PM

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:18 PM

Just in case people haven't read enough of this endless crap (and these are not the only threads dealing with this burning issue. Key-riced, it's more of a question on a FOLK MUSIC site, then WHAT IS FOLK!), take a look:

An Open Letter from Max to GUESTS

Posting as merely Guest

File anonymous guest complaints here

Apology from the Guest

How should we treat guests?

Proposed solution to Guest/Troll problem

Posting anonymously

BS: Anonymous GUEST thread

Getting fed up with guests

Anonymouse Posting

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:22 PM

Deja vu all over again one more time repeatedly. I fuc#in' love GUESTs. Come to Uncle Brucie and let me cuddle you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: jaze
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:25 PM

It seems hostility only happens when certain guests(and it seems there's a cohesive contingent lately)want to deliberately cause trouble. Most guests are polite and I think treated politely and even welcomed(I was). Surely the guests who are posting lately can see this. If you don't want to join-ok, if you don't want to sign with any kind of handle-ok, but don't start trouble. Seems fair enough.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Amergin
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:42 PM

I have seen many guests with legitimate questions treated as nothing more than trolls. It is as if some members of the so-called inner clique see the name guest and so automatically assume that poster has nothing to add, as if since it is a "guest" they are assumed to be trolling...well we all know what happens when you assume something don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:44 AM

Thank you Amergin, succinctly put. Treat each poster (Guest or otherwise) as the nature of the post deserves.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:07 AM

Aw c'mon folks. The GUEST tag was introduced to help people posting under the name of a member. Thass all. I personally object to those posting as GUEST with no other ID--responding to such posts is like standing on the top of a hill and hollering. GUEST plus any ID (and it certainly can be a nom de plume) is jes' fine.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:27 AM

I personally don't get the furore over whether people put a name to their comments or not. If someone anonymously makes comments with which you strongly disagree, by all means say so. If it looks to you like someone is merely trying to provoke reaction for mischievous reasons, how difficult is it for a rational adult to ignore?

wr.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 07:34 AM

Dick Greenhaus just now summed the key distinction very simply and very clearly: "GUEST plus any ID (and it certainly can be a nom de plume) is jes' fine. And it's been pointed out many many times before.

What puzzles me is why we still get these posts which confuse the matter by completely ignoring that crucial distinction. For example: "It is as if some members of the so-called inner clique see the name guest and so automatically assume that poster has nothing to add, as if since it is a "guest" they are assumed to be trolling..."

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:20 AM

I will contribute the 'same old crap' also.

Completely ignoring the obvious (from most quarters) has come to be the only acceptable course - for as long as everyone else appears to be ignoring the obvious - it is OK to jump on the bandwagon too.

Among other things, it is obvious and has been for some time that the original motive for introducing the Guest - no matter how well intentioned - has not solved the original problem and has created further problems (or rather we have created these).

Max hs made it clear that Guests (with a name or otherwise) will always be welcome to contribute the same as everyone else - so it is just a matter of us all (especially those with cookies) finally accepting this obvious fact and making everyone welcome as best we can - no matter what our personal preference may be. To concentrate on what is said rather than judge and speculate who may be saying it and why.

The forum is a mirror of our contributions and if we don't like what we see in the mirror - the blame is ours and there is little point in trying to blame the person standing next to you because your bum may look too big.

When you see a thread with a name such as this one (in the BS section) it is not compulsory to open it - is it? Is there really any point in opening it and making a contribution such as 'this is going to be the same old crap'?

The only way to ensure that it will be the 'same old crap' is for you to open it and post 'the same old crap' along with all the others also posting 'the same old crap'. The would appear to be some comfort to be gained from this process but little chance of any progress toward simply accepting the 'bleeding' obvious.

If you and I do not create such theads - do not open the thread or do not react to any obvious provocation if we do - the thread dies and along with it - the problem. Too simple?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Strollin' Johnny
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:20 AM

I'm confused. Can I post as GUEST, Strollin' Johnny, or have I got to bugger off? I don't join because I only have the opportunity to come to this site sporadically, not because I'm scared to be identified (some members know who I am anyway).

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:42 AM

OF COURSE YOU CAN You can post as GUEST, whatever-you-like, and you'll be welcome. If someone doesn't like what you post, they'll say so, butb they'll say that whether you are a GUEST or not.

As for people who insist on posting as GUEST without any kind of pseudonym (however temporary), nobody can stop them, but it's an unfriendly thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:50 AM

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical over 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist today." -- Thomas Sowell

McGrath, why is it unfriendly? the fact that you have a nickname and post here, does not identify you to me at all. I submit that any contradiction, or opposite opinion expressed here as a "Guest" invites outright indignation and invective from certain members, and that is downright rude and offensive too.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 10:25 AM

Unfriendly for reasons which have been spelt out so many times before that it seems pointless to repeat them. Basically because it causes inconvenience to other people, GUEST Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:50 AM.

Guests-with-pseudonyms receive exactly the same response as anyone one else when they say something anybody else disagrees with - except that it is only possible to respond in an open thread, since the PM option is closed out.

Since posting as a GUEST without a handle of any kind is perceived as an unfriendly act, it sometimes gets an unfriendly and suspicious response. This is not always justified, but click on GUET at the head of such a post and the reasons for this soon become clear.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 11:54 AM

I use a fake, goofy name so you know who's posting.

It really shouldn't matter if I do or not, as Martin Gibson only exists here, and when I leave this site, he no longer exists.

When I come back, so does Martin. Now you have to determine is it the real me posting or me posing as Martin Gibson. Are we one and the same?

Maybe sometimes, and sometimes not.

Such is the opportunity.
Such is the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Strollin' Johnny
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:15 PM

Thanks McGrath, that's what I'd hoped you'd say. Maybe it's time I joined..............
Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:29 PM

It matters if you use a consistent handle in a thread because it's simply human nature that people talk to people, not individual posts. If you're going to leave a one-off message in a thread, it doesn't matter as much. If you're going to have a conversation, it's a problem.

The membership thing prevents people swiping someone else's name and pretending to be them. If you join, no one else can use the same, exact handle. If you remain a GUEST, they can, but it's up to you to decide if that matters. Strollin' Johnny, please refrain from buggering off, whether you join or not. I like your chorus songs! (Read on, read on; another thread...)

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:37 PM

Are we having a semantic disagreement about the word "identify"? I don't think we all mean the same thing.

To me, "identify" at Mudcat simply means to have some hope of a clue that a remark addressed to someone by the name they used in their post, may actually be received by that person. Knowing who they are IRL, or where they live-- that's a much more serious use of the term "identify."

I think a lot of us mean just that we can identify someone (as if across a crowded room) who we may have passed a casual remark with in the kitchen, for the purpose of making more conversation on the same or another topic.

Beyond that, who can identify anyone, really? :~) How do I know my husband, for example, is really who he says he is and not an imposter posing as a person of that name? :~) I've seen enough victim-movies to know we can't ever be REALLY sure-- best we can do is what makes sense in the moment, with as much trust as appears to be sensible given the situation and the history (or lack of same) with an individual. It's not about legality-- it's about relationality*.

~S~

* The manner of dealing with connections of persons, groups, or nations, for example in social, business, or diplomatic matters.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:12 PM

Our forum is not a crowded room or any other form of conventional communication and the attempt to impose the normal conventions will fail and has failed.

Sure it would be nice if folk here were all polite - and helpful to know who you are talking to but it is not at all helpful to state that it is unfriendly not to use a name. That may be your honest opinion but there are many opinions all equally valid.

You could argue that it is just as unfriendly to insist that someone does use a name - if they clearly do not wish to do this. This is what is known as free choice.

Max has allowed posters to contribute using any name they wish (or none) the only thing that (in theory anyway) that now can't be done is to use the name of a member and pretend to be them. So whatever would would prefer that other posters did or did not do - we rather have to just accept that it is matter for them to choose and for you to chosse whether to reply to their posts.

No problem in pointing out the advantages but is it really helpful to accuse folk of being unfriendly - just because they do not agree with the way you may wish them to post?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: John Routledge
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:24 PM

It may not be unfriendly but it can often be unhelpful to post simply as guest

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:40 PM

John it may be unhelpful to struggle against a strong wind - but that the wind is unhelpful to your progress - is a fact that it is wise to accept.

Is is not a rather a waste of time and effort to hold strong opinions and pass judgements about things that you really cannot do anything about?

Even though there is no shortage of attempts being made to do this on our forum - no one can control what others post but we all have absolute control over our own postings. Perhaps setting an example in our posts - that others can choose to follow is what we should concentrate on?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 02:09 PM

The wind isn't a person, so "unhelpful" doesn't come into it. All of us who visit the Mudcat are people, and we can choose whether to do so in a way that is helpful to others or not. If people prefer to be unhelpful, that is up to them.

The fact that we have a right to do something doesn't in any way mean that it is the right thing to do.

That sounds very sententious in prose - that's the kind of reason I imagine that Thomas the Rhymer started the would-be verse thread (with the unfortunate heading).

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Bill Buethe
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 02:50 PM

Imagine this:

An initially enthusiastic newcomer (especially a young person) to this site posts politely and in the most friendly of manners, but without filling in the 'from' blank, innocently and/or inadvertently. They are then flamed, called any number of nasty names, and then receive a stern lecture for doing it. When this baffled guest then has the further audacity to ask 'why is this happening' they are told by certain sanctimonious members that their failure to put something/anything in the 'from' line is interpreted as an act of hostility here, and that they (the now confused/alienated/pissed off guest) are behaving in a way that those certain sanctimonious members have decided is unfriendly and impolite.

As others have mentioned, it is your forum, members. It mirrors the participants. I can tell you from very recent personal experience, my first week of visiting here and lurking DID NOT leave a good first impression. And yes--I am one of the guests you treated just as I have described above.

I am interested in the subject matter here (folk music and singer songerwriters specifically), but the jury is still out whether I'll spend much more time here because the ambience really ain't all that great. If it isn't bitch threads (see BBC Hogmanay special thread in the music section, for instance), it's guest bashing threads. That tells me there are likely too many curmudgeons to make the place pleasant, much less tolerable for someone like me who DOES place a high value on treating others well. I just don't see that happening here.

As I said, my perceptions is that of a newcomer and outsider. I'm sure those who have been here for years or months may see it differently. Or maybe they just have a higher tolerance to white noise than I am accustomed to online.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 03:22 PM

one learns to treat the old timers here the same way you treat trolls and flamers, you ignore their rants and gripes and petty likes & dislikes, contribute what you think is meaningful yourself, or of interest, or humerous, & search very carefully for any shred of material of substance among all of the 'I like you' 'I like you back' 'I don't like you' 'I don't like you back' drivel that passes as amuseument for many here who have too much time on their hands and not much else to do, it seems.

I asked to have my membership removed after a period of particularly nasty personal attacks against me for questioning the quality and seriousness of the information stored here. Previously, I never bothered to 'reset my cookie' when I was a registered member because 'WHO CARES?' only really fragile egos it seems to me, need to be identified so they can be stroked. If what you have to say is of help to some, great. if not, so what? there are some people who post here, (I won't call it a community, because it doesn't function as one, as I define it.) who I have a great deal of respect for, and love even. Others I could live without. I sign my postings, for the most part, an occasional unknown guest if it's a stupid joke, but there is no real reason to be identified at all. If every posting here was just from Guest, what real difference would it make? the info posted would either be of some use or interest or not. many people seem to use this forum as thier own public chat room, which is tiresome to me, I don't see the need or use for them, I have friends I talk to regularly, don't feel any frisson of excitement to 'connect' to people online, but if that's your thing, enjoy! reading through the list of so-called music threads, at least 30-50% of them should be in the BS bin as well, they contain no music or almost nothing related to music. so, Guests, look around, keep an open mind, you'll get a feel for the most egregious offenders among the 'Members' and avoid them, they may eventually ignore you and your postings as well, but who cares? it is a flawed universe running on entropy. hop aboard!

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 03:25 PM

When I first came here, everyone, member or not was greeted with a "Hi, welcome to the Mudcat Cafe!" Many of us still try to do that when we answer a first request by a newbie or a guest.

A meaningful and hotly debated subject about First Impressions covered the word "nigger" being in a thread title. THAT's the kind of thing that concerns me when a casual guest might stop in.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,I could be anyone, even Bill Buethe...
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 03:40 PM

But Bill, there is a considerable possibility that this whole fiasco was started long ago and has been perpetuated since by a mere handful of pyschologically ill former members of this very site who had to leave because of their own bad behaviour...and who now pose as a variety of "Guests" under a variety of names (or no name at all) just in order to prove to the whole world that this site is really as awful as they would like everyone to believe it is.

Such people would be happy to cause ill feeling between members and Guests if they possibly could, and would be willing to go to some lengths to do so....including making posts from both sides of a bitter argument, just to stew things up even more!

Consider also that I could just have posted as "Guest, Bill Buethe", have said various nasty things about whomever I pleased...and there would be nothing you could do about it!

If, however, I post as a member then it's not possible for someone else to steal my name and post here supposedly as me...and it's clear that it is me who is speaking.

Makes a good argument for being a member, doesn't it? I have a recognizable face.

I also visited as a Guest at first, and joined up as a member within a few days, because it made it more clear to people who I was, and it protected my identity on this forum from then on as long as I choose to stay here.

The fact that I am now posing as a Guest, though, means...I could be anyone...even you. That's the whole problem with it. You simply don't know who you're dealing with.

Hostile posts generate hostile responses, regardless of who makes them. And if, as a newcomer and Guest, you get the odd hostile response from a member keep in mind that anywhere in the real world as well as on Mudcat Cafe there are some people who will misinterpret what you're saying on some occasions, specially if they don't know you and don't know where you're coming from. Part of growing up is getting over the idea that everyone in the world is always going to be nice to you. You've got to roll with the punches as they come. I did (everyone wasn't nice to me when I first arrived here, but many were), and I joined the forum knowing full well that not everyone on it would always be perfectly agreeable from my point of view.

Now the question is...who the heck am I? Since I posted as a Guest, you will probably never know. But it's no big deal, really. It's just the Internet, where you can find anything under the sun if you look for it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 03:56 PM

It doesn't happen like that Bill. Typically, someone posting like that on a one-off basis, would either find that people ignored the lack of a handle, or there might be a suggestion that it would be a good idea to add one.

Though what can happen, in a thread where other people have been posting as GUEST nakedly, is that when another GUEST posting without a handle turns up someone may assume that it's one of the previous handleless GUESTS - that of course can mean that a perfectly innocuous remark can take on quite a different meaning.

The only way to try to check whether one posting from GUEST-without-a-handle is from the same person as another or not has to involve the rather absurd process of quoting dates and times.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 03:59 PM

Guest Bill Kennedy, you are so right on.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 04:03 PM

Kevin the wind is a fact - no ammount of our personal judgements expressed about how unpleasant the wind may be - will ever stop it blowing or change the direction of it.

No ammount of our personal judgements expressed here about how others should post - will change the fact that this and whether to use a name or not - is a matter for them. God only knows how many of these judgements we have all made over the years - to very little effect.

You can only make the choice of how you post and hopefully that will be a good example that others may then choose to follow...or they may not. If they don't - it will just be another fact that we will all have to accept.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 06:10 PM

No matter how long you talk to the wind it can never effect how it blows. It's not a matter of choice. People might seeem like that, but they aren't. They do have choice.

"GUEST" is not a person. But everyone posting as "GUEST" is, with the capacity to listen to what other people ask them, and change their minds, if they so choose. I think it very likely this has happened, for quite a number of people who used to post as GUEST without a label. I've noticed a number of people who have indicated that they used to do that but don't any longer.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 07:01 PM

An initially enthusiastic newcomer (especially a young person) to this site posts politely and in the most friendly of manners, but without filling in the 'from' blank, innocently and/or inadvertently. They are then flamed,

As one of those members who is anti- anonymous trouble-making GUEST, welcome Bill Buethe! You're not anonymous. Even if you were deliberately s***-stirring, we could at least talk to you knowing that we were (probably) dealing with the same person in each post.

As to your hypothetical scenario, I've never seen it happen. Anyone that posts in a polite & friendly fashion reaps what they sow. I have NEVER seen any other response.

McGrath has said it time & again. I've said it in other threads, as have many others - the issue is with Guests who make antagonistic & controversial posts whilst hiding behind complete anonymity.

There is a classic example of an anonymous guest being persuaded to adopt a handle - Dreaded Guest! I think he's a nutball. I suspect most of the MC members that ever read his posts would agree. Nevertheless, he's a welcome part of the Mudcat community (I haven't seen a post from him for a while & I kind of miss the loony!). We may not agree with him, but we can talk to him, same as we can talk to you, becuase there is something to identify him (& you) by.

Remember this - the Net is the most anonymous medium possible. It doesn't matter that I don't know your name (I could, frex, be talking to a stranger in a pub), but not only do I not know your name, I cannot see your face or hear your voice. Hell, I can't even hope to identify your handwriting! The adoption of some sort of handle (which you have done) is the absolute minimum courtesy due to other users of the board.

Remember this - many other boards work only on a membership basis. This is not a must here, but is it so great a discourtesy to ask that people grant us this courtesy?!

Shambles - IMHO, you are wrong *AGAIN*. You are making tendentious arguments for the sake of making noise. Oh, and semmingly because it gives you the chance to have a sideways grouse about your favourite pet peeve. You are a bore. Apart from yourself & one utterly anonymous Guest (surprise, surpise), no-one has 2 seconds for your point-of-view. Do everyone a favour & give it a rest, will you?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 03:43 AM

Remember this - many other boards work only on a membership basis. This is not a must here, but is it so great a discourtesy to ask that people grant us this courtesy?!

Yes.

For as you point out this forum does not work on a membership basis.

Max does not require posters to use a name and appears not to consider it a discourtesy for guests not to use one. If he now does require this - then that change should be made clear.

Until then the word 'US' therefore includes anyone who posts - not just those who would judge and wish other posters to do, as THEY require.

If you mean by the word 'US' (and I suspect that you do) - those who have cookies - surely how guests are treated by the membership is a test of that membership? The membership has responsibilities as well as rights.

Would it not then our duty as members to always welcome guests and their choices?

Is it really very 'friendly' to keep insisting that guests conform to rules that do not exist?

The request for others to use a name has been made many times - but it remains just that - a request. If folk do not wish to use a name - that must be their choice and if you expect them to respect your choices - you must also accept their choice.

How would you respond if 'THEY' (the guests) asked (or rather kept insisting) that you to give up your membership to post on equal terms with them? Would that also be a discourtesy?

Encouraging and making personal judgements and just wishing or demanding that others do as we require, will not solve this issue. Freedom of expression means that others have the same freedoms as you and I do. On our forum - this may be a difficult concept but it is one well worth defending.

This horse has been well and truly 'led to the water' - whether the horse drinks or not - still remains a matter for the horse.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 02:50 PM

People who are polite will usually be treated well. That ain't a law, but it is a reality. Ya walk in another person's livingroom and spit on the floor, you may just get yer ass tossed out. That ain't a law, but it is a reality. Although I am relatively new to the Mudcat, it has been my experience that the folks here are friendly and kind. So, encountering the odd asshole now and then doesn't turn me off the 'cat. I actually traded some neat back and forth with a guest who seemed gruff but really wasn't. Will Rogers was mostly right, but it helps if ya take the time to look for the good in people (that's a general philosophical statement as opposed to an admonition directed at anyone). Basically, people are good, and if the price of interacting with all those good people is having to tolerate the occasional idiot, it's a small price to pay.

Hatred has no place on this site, but then, it shouldn't have any place in the world, either. Having said that, I'll shut up now.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 03:14 PM

"If someone has a right to do something, because it's not outlawed, that means that noone has a right to ask them not to do it" - that just doesn't stand up logically.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,For sure...
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 03:43 PM

In other words, handsome is as handsome does. Works for me. Try walking in some restaurant, bar, or club in any town and getting mouthy and hostile with a bunch of people who've never heard of you before. They might take it from a friend, but they won't take it from a stranger. What do you expect would happen? It's safer to do it on the Internet, though, which is why it's so tempting for people who enjoy stirring up trouble.

It's kind of like yelling insults at unknown people on the other side of a river under the dark of night, as I recall doing once or twice when I was a kid... :-) You never expect you will actually have to deal with those people face to face. Don't try it with dogs, though, because they will remember your voice flawlessly and put the bite on you if they ever get a chance to! I know this also from direct experience.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 03:50 PM

Max may have the right to outlaw things on his website, you and I do not. That may, or not be logical but it is the way it is - as I have been informed many times.

If he chooses not to ask guests to use a name - is is not rather unfriendly, unhelpful, or discourteous of other guests to keep on insisting that their fellow guests use a name or to claim that they have any right to require it of them?

And to state that fellow guests are being "unfriendly", "unhelpful" or "discourteous" for not using a name?

Is it not a bit like being invited to a party and appointing yourself a 'bouncer' - standing on the door and insisting that fellow guests are atired to your dress code?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 04:04 PM

Right there "for sure" - and it's not a matter of people claiming it's some kind of crime to be mouthy. Advising a stranger that they are behaving or talking in a way that gets up people's noses can be a friendly thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 02:37 PM

As for people who insist on posting as GUEST without any kind of pseudonym (however temporary), nobody can stop them, but it's an unfriendly thing to do.

All I am saying is that if you accept that nobody can stop them - is it really friendly to go on to state that posting without a name is an unfriendly thing to do?

Having said that, I agree with all of the arguments as to why using a name may be sensible. I only think that to keep on making these type of judgements about the way other's post - is not really very friendly and is counter-productive - if you accept that to use a name or not on our forum - is entirely a matter for the poster and that we are ALL guests..........

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 03:58 PM

And the point I'm making is that unnamed GUESTS aren't really "they" - each one is an individual, who for all one knows might be a new arrival who's never been here before, and has therefore never been asked to add a handle to their GUESThood.

Every post GUEST without a name is in effect seeking to be treated as a post from a GUEST without a past.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 06:51 PM

"tendentious" .... learned something.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 06:59 PM

I know...it's a euphemism for "Paris Hilton".

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: pdq
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 07:18 PM

Methinks some have confused the "nom de guerre" with the "pomme de terre".

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 07:52 PM

. . . and the "un de wear".

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 08:09 PM

Gu'est-ce Que C'est Que Ca? Ca c'est la guestion!

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Angelique
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 09:10 PM

Cette discussion est une tentative délibérée d'insulter les français! Je ne la tolérerai pas. Vous êtes tous qui va être très désolé, je vous promets cela. Vous êtes une foule peu sensible et rustre des morons. Cochons anglais! Vous méritez de rencontrer un destin affreux!

- Angelique

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 11:18 PM

I caught only bits and pieces of that..but it didn't sound too complimentary.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,fly on the wall
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 11:53 PM

The translator renders it as:

This discussion is an attempt deliberated to insult the French! I will not tolerate it. You all are that which will be very sorry, I promise that to you. You are a not very sensitive crowd and lout of will morons. English pigs! You deserve to meet a dreadful destiny!

Sounds like Angelique is about ready to storm the Bastille to me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 11:57 PM

The author threatens to click his thumbnail in our general direction....

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 01:52 AM

Forums/Discussion Groups

A little more evidence.

The above thread is a sad example of what can happen here now, when the question of 'who is posting and why' becomes more important than what is said. And a general paranoia and the fear of being 'had' requires our self-appointed guardians to use and justify the very tactics they feel they are entitled to combat when these are used by others. This is sad when the thread could just have been ignored or the question just answered.

The identity of the guest creating the thread was not really important as the question (confirmed by Kevin in this thread) was a perfectly good one and could well have just been answered. This would have deflected any possible ulterior motive of the poster and would have resulted in a more edifying example than this one - of how a guest posting is treated by some of our members.

Is not a little more self-restrait and imagination required now - if our guardians are not to play right into the hands of the one or two guest/troublemakers that pester our forum from time to time?

Is this linked thread not a perfect example of how to make a big unsightly mountain out of an ant hill?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Angry Mole
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 06:29 AM

I must protest at that remark about ant-hills. It has always been molehills that people try to make mountains out of.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 09:02 PM

There's a storm in the Bastille?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 11:51 PM

How many regular posters ( Posters, NOT Members) have looked at this post and thought "For God's Sake , WHY?" I know I thought that at first and said to myself -This is best left alone. However it is one of those nights when sleep is not an immediate option, so here is my twopennorth.

It is not GUEST postings that are the problem at all - as has been ponted out earlier, GUESTS queries and comments are replied to in as
polite a manner as members queries are, provided they are polite and
worthy of a polite reply.

It is the postings from anonymous guests which are either rude or
inflammatory which get the impolite replies and frankly antogonise the
dare I say members. They are the ones that cause the trouble.

And the members who 'rise to the bait' and respond to the posts which are OBVIOUSLY only intended to cause dissension simply aid and
abet the 'cause' of the posters who only seem to have that end in mind.

Personally, I tend to ignore ANY anonymous post unless it has a pertinent query or comment regarding music or, if in the BS section
relates to something I feel I can add some information to.

A GUEST posting with a name of some kind attached to it gets more attention, as I can at least, have some idea who I am talking to. Off
the top of my head I dont think I have ever made a direct reply to an anonymous post, and never envisage this being neccessary, as there is far too much possibility of inciting more 'trollin' or 'flaming'. I was posting as GUEST Leadfingers for a while before I decided to join,
and since joining have,on occasion, been hauled over the coals by OLD
Catters and by Max and Joe for stepping over the line of politeness due to ignorance of existing situations regarding other members. This has got to be the only reason for an identifying label of some kind.
If you have an adverse comment about ANYTHING and dont want to be identified with that comment, then shut the hell up. If, on the other hand there is something that you feel requires a comment, why NOT identify yourself? At least any counters to your comment will be pointed in the right direction, and not just sent out at random.

As far as I am concerned, GUEST postings will be looked at as much as Members postings, and will be replied to, or ignored , depending
entirly on the content of those postings, and any replies will be as
much dependant on me knowing WHO I am addressing as much as me knowing wether I have something to say on the subject or not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 09:26 AM

Since this was written in the hope of winding up a thread on this which was getting a bit long in the tooth, I thought I'd post it here as well. It seems to me that people sometimes get so uptight about all this, as if arguments were the work of the devil and we ought to tiptoe round each other. So long as we are courteous about it, I can see no reason why we shoudn't feel free to air our disagreements in public.

Ballade of a nameless GUEST

This thread began with verse that rhymed,
but drifted into angry prose;
it seems a shame that just one time
we couldn't joust as friendly foes
and use our knack for words to weave
a web of various points of view
that aren't as different as we believe.
All friendly GUESTS, we welcome you.

Breached etiquette is not a crime,
that's true enough; and heaven knows
that in a scale of one to nine,
a nameless post ranks pretty low
when set against the ceaseless heave
of troubled times; that too is true.
So do not let these squabbles grieve.
All friendly GUESTS, we welcome you.

A rose by any name's as fine,
as Juliet told her Romeo,
but namelessness seems like a sign
that says more than it seems to show.
Perhaps we sometimes are deceived
and nameless GUESTS are friend not foe.
Best wear our heart upon our sleeve.
All friendly GUESTS, we welcome you.

GUEST with no name, I think that we've
Been arguing too long with you;
Nameless or not, no need to leave.
All friendly GUESTS, we welcome you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 02:23 PM

There's no use, of course
It won't convulse
We've checked the horse
It has no pulse.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 02:37 PM

If one looks at the three preceding posts, and the times they were posted, it is simple to discern it is MEMBERS--NOT GUESTS who wish to keep this thread going.

The last post from a guest was on 12 Jan at 6:29 AM...

It was left to linger at the bottom of the page, and had almost disappeared, when it was refreshed by MEMBER brucie at 9:02 PM, or 14 and one half hours later.

Which obviously then couldn't go by uncommented upon, since MEMBER Leadfingers felt incited to follow suit with a lengthy diatribe two hours later.

One would have hoped that would have been the end of it, but no.

The following morning, the thread was again refreshed by a wind up by MEMBER McGrath. When no guests rose to take the bait and refresh the thread, MEMBER Cluin followed up McGrath with a "me too" rhyme.

It is blatantly obvious just who is it that keeps beating the horse. Members who can't stick a sock in it and lead the damn thread die.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 02:51 PM

Jeez, nobody told me there was gonna be math involved. I woulda studied.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 03:03 PM

GUEST: So, in plain English, what's on your mind?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 07:08 PM

"It is blatantly obvious just who is it that keeps beating the horse. Members who can't stick a sock in it and lead the damn thread die.

In other words, stop beating that dead horse, because by doing so you are keeping it alive...

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 07:15 PM

Why would a Guest care whether or not this thread continues?

Unless they had a personal reason for attacking certain people here...and just couldn't resist siezing another opportunity to do so. Sounds like a disgruntled former member to me. If so, Guest is right...members of Mudcat ARE to blame, Guest included! :-) The reason you don't like this place, dear, is that it reminds you so much of yourself.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 07:24 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 07:32 PM

SSh. It's asleep!

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 07:47 PM

WHATTT????

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 07:50 PM

He said ssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 08:02 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 08:56 PM

Stop touching me!

Get over on your own side!

I mean it! Stop touching me!

MOM! DAD!

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 10:11 PM

Getcher finger off it,
Doncha dare touch it,
Ya know it don't belong to you.