Tech: Distinguishing between guests

Subject: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: pavane
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 04:15 AM

Just a thought - to distinguish between different Guests without compromising their anonymity.

As it is possible for the server system to obtain some information about the origin of Guest postings, could they not be assigned sequence numbers automatically? It would just require a lookup table of perhaps URLs?

Postings could then be shown in the form Guest,00123

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 04:18 AM

They are time stamped... is that not the same thing?

Or do you mean for instance, that Guest172365 would always be Guest172365??? In which case how is that different from making up a 'user name' and 'joining' Mudcat?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 07:18 AM

As I understand it the idea would be that it'd happen automatically - if they didn't pick a name, they'd have a number assigned to them. Good idea, if it's practicable - but I have a feeling it might not be.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: RichM
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:15 AM

Cut to the chase:
As in many other online discussion groups, allow ONLY registered members to post.

Guests would be free to read, but not participate actively.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:21 AM

An automatic numbering system for GUEST posts might only be useful if the GUEST consistently logs in from the same ip address.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:53 AM

Well, it's always easy enough to get round that stuff by using a different computer, or just a different browser I think. But I doubt if many would bother.

The argument for making the Mudcat accessible without registering is that newcomers may feel a bit cautious until they have tested the water. And that probably applies especially to people coming in with a musical question.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 09:58 AM

"allow ONLY registered members to post"

Ya... but that'd make sense... and then it wouldn't be Mudcat...

"newcomers may feel a bit cautious until they have tested the water"
Right... and the whole point is you get to 'test' by observing as a guest rather than just having any goof who can 'sign in' and post whatever they want...

But we all know that the people running this place don't want Mudcat to be like that... so it won't be...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: pavane
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:07 AM

Clinton - yes, the guest would keep the same number if using the same IP address.

The idea is that we can tell in most cases if it is the SAME guest posting or a different one.

Agreed that changing to a different machine will defeat it, but would many people go to these lengths to fool the system?

They still remain anonymous, which is the main thing for the guest.
This might (or might not) deter trolls.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:13 AM

"yes, the guest would keep the same number if using the same IP address."
That would require a 'cookie' same as signing in, so what's the diff?

"would many people go to these lengths to fool the system?"
My experience online shows that no... and the ones that might, certainly won't do it for very long...

" This might (or might not) deter trolls."
You have to -want- to deter trols in order to actually deter trolls....

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: PoppaGator
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:29 AM

Nothing will defer trolls. Doesn't bother me; I find 'em amusing.

A guest-numbering system would only need to be consistent within a given thread, as far as I can see. In other words, a given individual might be GUEST2 throughout Thread A, and elsewhere the same person could be GUEST1 every time he/she appears in Thread B.

This would be more desirable for members and for readers in general than a system of universal, permanently assigned guest-numbers, because, in the context of a thread, it would be easier to keep guests 1, 2 and 3 straight in one's mind than to remember and differentiate among guests 2354, 4267, and 672 if they were to appear scatttered throughout a thread. (Are there three of them? five? two?)

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:32 AM

There are no doubt members who post from two different addresses using two different names. Don't see how it would work.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:40 AM

Trolls are fun.

Just check out the Yahoo forums.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Schantieman
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:42 AM

None of us have to use the same user name every time if we don't want to. Nothing to stop us setting up as a different user. But anonyms (is that a word?) wouldn't anyway.   Hmmmm....

Steve

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: treewind
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:50 AM

Numbering by IP wouldn't need a cookie, but it would require the Mudcat server to store information about IP address vs. numbers. A waste of resources on users who can't be bothered to register!

Even then, there'd be no consistency.
Using the same conmputer on a dialup link can result in a different IP address each time you connect.
Even a broadband connection may not keep the same IP address for ever.

Max has always allowed guest postings on principle. Just remember that any GUEST posting, being anonymous and untraceable, does not have to be taken seriously.

I believe IP addresses are logged - that's different. It enables a particular connection to be traced back at least to the originating ISP. Not that I can see much practical use for that...

Anahata

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: mack/misophist
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:53 AM

No system is perfect. The one used to label reader's comments at osnews.com is as good as any.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 12:09 PM

I don't register because I find the format of Mudcat too cumbersome for everyday use- once a thread gets beyond half a dozen postings, it gets difficult to tell who is saying what to whom. So I only drop in once in a while, and only browse the threads I have time and patience for. And for such small usage, I can't overcome my antipathy to registering with anyone, so if I have to register, I probably won't bother at all. Who'd miss me anyway?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 12:16 PM

No problem, Paul..you used a name, and even though no one 'knows' it is real, or where you are, it is easy to respond to you and keep an 'identity' in mind.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Davetnova
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 02:35 PM

Guest postings are important to keep. This is a very small worldwide community and sometimes things need said that need to keep a degree of anonimity. If there's serious trollimg/guesting/malicious stuff going on it gets caught quite quick. Guesting may be annoying but it is something that a lot of people NEED!

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From:
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 04:00 PM

I use one system. If the Guest IDENTIFIES him/herself, I pay attention. If there is only GUEST with no further information, I will usually ignore the posting.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST,Peter from Essex
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 05:45 PM

Why not make the "from" field mandatory when posting as some other boards that permit guest posts do. It would at least force the guest to enter a label which would allow the post to be referred to.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bert
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 06:01 PM

It would be fairly easy to hash an IP address into a number that could be appended to the GUEST label.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: treewind
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 06:09 PM

Yes, but it wouldn't mean anything. A later GUEST with a different IP might be the same, and two GUESTs on dialups to the same ISP at different times could get allocated the same IP address. And what good would it do anyway?

I must say I don't know why anybody doesn't register. It doesn't cost anything, in any sense, and whethre you like it or not it gains you credibility if you post, as has been proved by earlier remarks.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 06:21 PM

"Anonymity" is a complete red herring in this context. Everybody is as anonymous as they want to be, and that would apply just as much if people had to put something in the "from" box, or if something was put there in any case, if they failed to fill it in.

PoppaGator's suggestion of a GUEST numbering system, that just applied within a particular thread, strikes me as a common sense way of enabling people to have rational conversations in threads where more than one otherwise nameless GUEST have posted. If it can be done without involving major surgery I think it should be introduced without delay.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Ed.
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 06:30 PM

This conversation has been had, in various forms, on literally hundreds of threads. There is never any consensus.

It's Max's site, and he does, for better or worse, what he sees fit.

Why is there such a problem in accepting that?

The only reasonable answer to this question, is "if you don't like it here, start your own site"

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 06:46 PM

"Everybody is as anonymous as they want to be"

There is no such thing as anonymity on the internet....

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Fliss
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 07:04 PM

Ive been listed as a GUEST on one occasion even tho I always stay logged in... ie dont log out when I leave the site.
f

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 07:06 PM

I'm completely anonymous. Not one of you knows my name is Amy... hahahhaha!










Oh, crap...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 07:06 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:13 PM

Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as anonymity in the world. But for practical purposes there is. The basic protection of anonymity is that virtually no one really gives a monkey's who we are.

Pop down your local library and log in there on a shared computer, using an online e-mail address - that's pretty good anonymity.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:25 PM

You spelled Army wrong.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: hesperis
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:48 PM

Adding a validation to the form field to make guests put something as their name, even * or whatever, is possible. Max had to add the GUEST in front of anonymous posts already.

One person could still put a ton of different names into the box... but at least it would have some identifying name.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bert
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:56 PM

Well said Ed. That's just how it is.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 09:42 PM

A lot of MBs require that one attach an email addy to ones 'user profile', and it must be a real, non-online email addy... so no hotmail... no yahoo... nothing but the 'officail' email addy that comes from your ISP....

and if you don't answer a confirmation email, your membership request never gets processed...

Sure cuts down on the jerk factor on the MBs....

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 11:47 PM

The style of "cookie" authentication within MC is archaic at best.

If .... someone elected to create chaos ....they could become
McGrath of Harlow
in the crumble-bumble of a cookies' nibble.

The old-fashioned - open-source configuratio del slimeo gato - eliminates it has a challenge. NO ONE - will "score points."

The minnions are at bay...

Let sleeping dogs rest through the Winter Soltice.

Sincerely,

Gargoyle

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Snuffy
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 08:35 AM

Sir jOhn from Hull - this not a spelingf site!

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 08:46 AM

Dammit Snuffy, I was angling for that line.

Guests are fine by me. I was guest once and may well be again. I really don't see why it matters about who posts what and under which (or no) guise.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 10:34 AM

Is it possible to detect MAC numbers from the data stream on connection? At leasdt that way you'd know which computer even if the user might change.

But it is clear that the Mudcat President is not a control freak and won't be lured into being one.

A

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 01:17 PM

"The style of "cookie" authentication within MC is archaic at best."

You could easily say that of the WHOLE MC...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 02:06 PM

Some of us actually tend to like "archaic".   Back to the Future!

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 02:19 PM

Don't be scared of progress MGoH... the future is NOW!

LOL

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 03:30 PM

Progress is a good idea only when you are headed in the right direction.    And "the right direction" is determined by where you want to go.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 03:34 PM

Go? I think we're already there...

Heh

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 04:22 PM

That's more or less what I meant by saying I quite like "archaic".

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 09:57 PM

Can we have archaic and eat it, too?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 11:14 PM

Be careful with that joke Gerry... It's an antique....

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 11:59 PM

Good fucking lord. Why does this come up all the time. Let it go.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 01:11 AM

Maybe it comes up all the time, because people here have issues with it...


So how about YOU let it go?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 03:59 AM

Don't tell 'em your name Pike.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 12:34 PM

The problem of following an online conversation (which is all a thread is) for those with attention deficits which they obfuscate by claiming guests are the problem, is software driven, not identity driven.

Then there are the guest identity issues insecure and paranoid Mudcatters like Big Mick, a Mudcat clone, exploit constantly, in order to carry on their personal vendettas against other forum users like myself. He frequently uses my ISP in a hilarious attempt to "out" me in threads maliciously. So there is that nasty problem with the people who run this place who have been abusing their power too. Max usually just cuts off your access for a couple days when you criticize him. We have clone katlaughing to thank for the debacle that is the user name log-in fiasco with "members and guests" because she and the other Mudcat royals were so appalled when people they had dissed in the forum started posting nasty shit under their screen names. And then there is Joe Offer who is an asshole unto himself when it comes to this petty tyrant shit.

It's all ridiculously childish, but you learn a lot about the Mudcat royals and regulars by paying attention to who goes off the deep end on this shit, and makes it personal. That is what the Mudcat is all about. This place is troll paradise. Some of you might have noticed the "no personal attacks" only applies if you are well connected to the Mudcat royals. If you are not one of their forum pets, then the Martin Gibson and brucie trolls of the world can make all the personal attacks on you they want. The Mudcat royals only censor attacks on themselves and their pets, or censor and bully those they have a personal vendetta against.

Like a said, the whole "follow the conversation" issue has nothing to do with the member/guest user log-in. It is a software fix, that Max will never make because he has no intention of ever upgrading the software for the forum. He lost interest in that sort of thing years ago.

Which reminds me, it's about time for the Mudcat royals to start another fundraising drive for Max. The server is going down with regularity again.

Just don't expect anything to get fixed around here for the price of your donations though. Or to receive any thanks from Max for donating.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 12:49 PM

"Some of you might have noticed the "no personal attacks" only applies if you are well connected to the Mudcat"
I have received PMs that say pretty much the exact same thing... and then 'begged' me not to say anything in public... So I will mention no names... (not that it matters, or can be too hard to guess....)

"he has no intention of ever upgrading the software for the forum"
Given how ancient and unwieldy it is, can you blame him? It's like the Win3.1 version of a message board... (Actually that's kinda insulting to Win3.1) If that bothers you that much, well, no one MAKES you post here... and no one MAKES you donate money...

So full in the knowledge that no matter how much money people throw down the hole in cyberspace that is Muscat, no matter how many pointless threads get started asking for simple and easy improvements, one either has to take this place for what it is (And what it's always going to be until the last server farts out in the basement, and it's gone for good) or you can find somewhere else to post...

There are more than a few other message boards out here in cyberspace...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 12:53 PM

Give that boy a spotlight...

....................

In fact the suggestion that people who don't pick a name or number or sign in should be given one is not one that has been made before, ir if it has I haven't seen it. The same goes for the variant in which that would just apply to individual threads, which, if practicable, should leave everyone relatively happy.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: treewind
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 01:04 PM

The software's been changed many times in the 3-odd years I've been here. Allowing unregistered posters is a policy decision, not a software problem that needs fixing. I'm sure changing it would be trivial.

As for complaints, cliques, royal familes etc: Mudcat, like most other stuff on the web, is worth at least what you paid for it. It's a totally idiosyncratic personal creation. If you like it, stay and enjoy. If you don't, you're free to go. And you're free to start up something better if you care. Some have tried, with varying degrees of success.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 01:08 PM

Then you are blind, McGrath. There are scads of threads in which people piss and moan about the guest user log in. You are one of the most vocal pissers and moaners of the lot, I might add.

Hell, Google currently has a new email software it is beta testing that threads your emails, and the Usenet software has been using the threading software (which I don't find much more useful than Mudcat's actually) for decades. Some forums have a slick software, some like Mudcat don't.

But people need to educate themselves enough about the technology they use day in and day out, to know the problem here isn't with the identity of guest log-ins without anything in the From line. As others have noted here, there is the date and time stamp to distinguish between posts from guests, which most people are just too lazy be bothered with using. But even if every single post had a cookie to identify the forum user, it still wouldn't solve the poorly organized way threads are displayed here, which is what really makes it difficult to follow threads, especially the long ones.

As Clinton points out, you either takes it or you leaves it. Max ain't gonna upgrade nothin' no more.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: John Routledge
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 01:08 PM

Ed (24thNov 6.30pm)

I can accept your post in it's entireity.

That is not really the issue though is it.

The real question is "Why is the site run the way it is.?"

I leave others to ponder for no answer will be forthcoming

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 01:18 PM

Thanks for the validation, Clinton. So few people have taken on the Mudcat royals and their loyal minions, for fear of being ostracized, harrassed, bullied, and censored by Joe and the clones, it's pretty much a joke at this point, isn't it?

I mean god, the Mudcat royals and loyals emotional maturation levels are stuck in high school clique mentality it is hilarious to watch, and can, if you're bored, entertaining as hell to stir up.

Like shooting fish in a barrell, as I've said for years. Pathetically predictable, these folks.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 02:34 PM

And you 'slagging' on them from behind your 'paper bag mask' isn't any better Guest...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 02:36 PM

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the effin kitchen...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 03:53 PM

But you've got to appreciate, Blissfully, that "out of the kitchen" means having to endure not being paid attention.

The actual suggestion that people should be able to continue to vote without registering as guests, and without selecting a name or number, but that an automatic marker should be inserted distinguishing them from other people who are doing the same thing in the same thread - that is not one which has previously been put forward.
................................................

Quite why anyone should enjoy "shooting fish in a barrel" is a puzzle. Proverbs generally have some realtiion to real life - so, has anyone ever actually done that? I'd have thought it'd be extremely difficult to do without getting very wet and very likely injuring yourself - for example by achieving that other proverbial triumph, shooting yourself in the foot.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: hesperis
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 04:11 PM

I'm sure some guests don't realize that it would be nice if they put a name in... and some members have lost their cookies and didn't realize they weren't signed in.

A simple javascript form validation would check the guest name box, pop up a notice if it's not filled out, and only allow the post to go through if there's something in the box.

Then we'd have guests who just post "1" or guests who think to themselves "Oh, duh, I should add a name so that people can recognize my posts" and if that guest wants to be anonymous, well, he can just put in "anonymous". It's done on other forums and it works. Sure, "GUEST, anonymous" might not always be the same person, but a lot of people would choose a handle and stick with it. Then they won't get scared away by guest abuse from current members, and might actually register.

There's absolutely no need to require registration unless you want to.

Easy.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 04:23 PM

I try to steer clear of the interpersonal feuding that goes on hereabouts, and to maintain an ironic distance when I do venture into BS-land. Fortunately, I'm usually able to find the ongoing pettiness more amusing than distressing. Nonetheless, sometimes it's hard to remain completely uninvolved.

The only part of this discussion that concerns me is this: sometimes, at the bottom of a longish thread with a half-dozen or more messages from GUEST, I would prefer to know whether more than one person has been participating under that ID; if so, I would prefer to be able to distinguish between the arguments of one guest and another. That's all. That's it.

I actually prefer this old-fashioned forum software to that currently in use on other sites I know. Here, I can navigate through the messages almost as quickly as I can read them, and can see more text at a time when I scroll up and down to check out some previous posting.

The usual current-day interface with big wide pastel-colored margins, large type sizes, and bulky ID panels showing the contributor's handle, cartoon "icon," and (like in a high school yearbook) favorite quote, is much more cumbersome. Who needs all that bullshit? I much prefer being able to view more than one or two paragraphs at a time.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: John Routledge
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 04:32 PM

"..... longish thread with a half-dozen or more messages from GUEST, I would prefer to know whether more than one person has been participating under that ID; if so, I would prefer to be able to distinguish between the arguments of one guest and another. That's all. That's it."

Not an unreasonable request Poppagator. It would be an immense aid to intelligent conversation but if that is not what is required then as Ed and Joe said earlier - TOUGH

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Justa Picker
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 05:08 PM

I think the best solution is to eliminate all members here and make it a guest-only forum and you MUST be a guest in order to be able to post. Perfect.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 05:11 PM

Or just wait till the last Mudcat server crashes in the basement, and we'll be quit of the whole thing...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 06:27 PM

But if you did actually want to be "quit of the whole thing" Clinton, there is a much quicker way...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 06:57 PM

After you MGoH...   I never said I wanted to be...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 06:59 PM

My gracious! I wasn't aware till 'guest' and Clinton pointed it out, that I have basically wasted 8 years here in this sloppy, tedious, poorly designed site filled with losers and 'Royals' who merely pay homage to Max and stew in their own silly juices!

*sigh*...all that time I thought we were having fun and learning stuff. Well, it's good to be enlightened...I'd better to clear out of here and head over to those better sites, where folks of distinction share elegant discussions in a slick, modern interface.....ummmmmm....where did you say those are?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 05:44 PM

C'mon, now GUEST whom I constantly pick on, according to you. I call it responding in kind. You love to bully and ridicule, use vulgar language, and act superior. When someone gives you a taste, you cry and piss and moan. Take your meds, grab a Coke, sit your ass in the corner and smile. There ya go.

Mick

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 06:00 PM

Ya... but when -I- call it 'responding in kind', I get PMs from 'moderators'....

The COC (Mudcat has a COC right?) sould apply to everyone...

But that's off topic I guess....

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 06:16 PM

Gee, Clinton. I guess we must not have a COC. What's a COC? I stopped understanding acronyms when I was discharged from the Army. I suppose you mean Code of Conduct, huh? Yes, we have one very important rule that says we do not permit personal attacks. We expect you to follow that rule, too, Clinton.

And you're right, I don't feel obliged to step in and rescue people from personal attacks if they themselves are involved in combat. I don't want to see combat here at all, and most every message I see from you is combative. Most every personal message from you is combative, too. If you act like that, don't expect people to bend over backwards to do your bidding.

We do prohibit personal attacks and we do our best to control them when we see them, but we get no pleasure out of playing babysitter. No, Clinton, I'm not going to spend my time monitoring every message, just to make sure nobody says anything nasty to you.


-Joe Offer, petty tyrant-

This appears to be the usual complaint session from the usual complainers, and there's very little of a technical nature here - so I'm moving it down to the non-music area.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 06:21 PM

"I stopped understanding acronyms when I was discharged from the Army."

Given how prevalent they are in the world of computers and cyberspace, maybe you'd better 'slot that chip' back in Joe....

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 06:24 PM

And there ya have it... when the thread-drift slides into an area that MIGHT have HALF a chance at being a little bit critical, a perfectly good TECH thread is shuffled off to the BS section...

Which can only lead me to wonder, what oh what is someone obviously so afraid of?

But I guess that's also off-topic for this thread...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 06:43 PM

I can't see why anyone should see going to the bottom of the page as a mobve to second-rate status. It's much easier to follow sites down in the non-music end anyway, because there are far fewer of them.

It always seems to me that it's far better to respond to personal attacks in a relaxed and unexcited way, rather than leaping in all guns blazing. I'm sure that it must be far more annoying to the person doing the attacking when they get that kind of response. All dressed up for a battle, and nowhere to go with it.

The saying is "a soft answer turneth wrath away" - but the truth is it can be deadlier than that, it can turn it back on the person who has lost their rag. Sort of like a heat-seeking missile.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 06:45 PM

Obviously, I am afraid that this thread has nothing to do with music or technical matters. This is not the end of the world, but neither is it the end of the world to have a non-music thread moved to the non-music section of the Forum.

So, if I move a non-music thread to the non-music side of the Forum, don't have a cow.

-Joe Offer, Petty Tyrant Extraordinaire-

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: greg stephens
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 06:55 PM

Why not automatically allocate rea?ly offensive names to all GUEST posters. It would be pretty puerile, but I would find it mildly amusing if GUESTS ended up as "GUEST Tinius Dickus" or whatever. It might at least deflate some of the pompous drivel they serve up.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 07:01 PM

I think names like "Fluffy Wuffy" and "Bobbykins" would be a better idea.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 07:18 PM

oh, good...and maybe "Dyspeptic misanthrope" for a couple!

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 07:20 PM

GG pissed up a half dozen threads with his version of evil. I mentioned on one of his threads should it should be boycotted. That particular message was deleted within fifteen minutes. Life ain't always fair. I don't really care that it WAS deleted, because it is the domain of the folks who run the place, and I won't argue with that. And I think they try to make it fair for everyone.

However, two of GG's posts were beyond just bad language and that kinda thing. They were direct attacks on others. Cruel, evil and sick. I reserve the right to get equally cruel, evil and sick with people like that, and I will. Erase it as you must.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 07:30 PM

It isn't a question of having the right to respond to cruelty with cruelty, brucie, it's a matter of what works best.

If you are in room with someone, there may be times when a fierce, even violent, response to a bully may be effective, at least in the short run. But in a forum like this, that can never be the case.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST,Unknown Comic
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 08:21 PM

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST,Fish in a Flatcask
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 08:31 PM

Is that thing loaded?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 08:47 PM

Brucie, I guess you and Clinton don't understand. You figure that if somebody like gargoyle or whoever makes an untoward remark, a volunteer should jump right on it and delete it. If that doesn't happen, you figure it's your divinely-bestowed right to throw some sort of tantrum. Then the thing escalates into chaos, and you and Clinton self-righteously blame the whole mess on the Mudcat moderators who failed to stomp on gargoyle. You seem to forget your own contribution.

That whole scenario seems remarkably akin to a drunken barroom brawl where all the patrons blame the landlord for the damage they did themselves.

We try to encourage free, intelligent, adult discussion here - and we try to avoid censorship and control as much as we possibly can. That requires maturity and discipline on the part of the people who participate in our discussions.

Brucie, you say you should be able to say what you will and fight how you will, and that the moderators should delete your comments as they see fit. I'm sorry, but that's not practical. The only way to maintain the peace around here is for the participants to be peaceful. You and Clinton are the worst offenders. Maybe it's time you stop. You're not children any more. Maybe it's time you stop looking for a mommy and daddy to take responsibility for your behavior.

The moderators are here to have a good time, not to babysit Brucie and Clinton and all the other children who can't seem to learn how to behave themselves. I'm here to study music, not to deal with this sort of pettiness

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 01:29 PM

"encourage free, intelligent, adult discussion here"
What's the song then? "Two outa three ain't bad"...

"You and Clinton are the worst offenders. "
What-frigg'n-ever! If "Brucie" and I are the worst thing that ever hit Mudcat, then it's the luckiest site on the whole internet....

"moderators who failed to stomp on gargoyle"
I have named no names at all in this sub-topic of the thread... nor do I claim that I've never needed to be moderated... I have suggested (requested) that things that I have posted in haste or overwraught be deleted... (or that I be supplied with the basic messageboard feature of being able to edit my own posts)   But if yer gonna moderate me, then you gotta mod everyone... including the moderators...

"The moderators are here to have a good time, not to babysit Brucie and Clinton"
Bzzzt! Wrong answer Hans... I hate to rain on your parade, but ya it really kinda is... as sad as it is that they're needed, that's exactly what a moderators job is... to, ummm... 'moderate' I think is the term... Ask any other moderator on any other message board... that is EXACTLY their job... Sometimes it's easy... sometimes it's like herding cats...

"take responsibility for your behavior"
Ha! Coming from mods who don't mod, or only mod when they feel like it, that's rich!

"a volunteer should jump right on it and delete it"
So answer me this... why not then?

Honestly, I quit caring what the mods and the 'powers' at mudcat do a long time ago... about the time when I realized that financial contributions do nothing to improve the site, or to even keep it at it's 'former glory'... I am only participating in this end of the thread now in the interest of discussion... I KNOW nothing is ever going to change here... But as above, there are things about the 'workings' of Mudcat that I have questions about... Those questions, for whatever reason, seem to cause you to bunch yer banana-hammock...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 05:46 PM

Whatever, Joe. You're the boss. No argument from me. However, Joe, ya know?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 05:49 PM

"you figure it's your divinely-bestowed right to throw some sort of tantrum."

Never siad that I don't think. What I DID say is that I will meet like with like. Unless maybe you want I should just play at the same kinda pissup GG does. Find someone at random and attack, right> Hey, if I do that, my post may or may not be deleted and the people who respond to me will receive the same lecture, is that it?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Amos
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 07:35 PM

From what I have seen, the worst offenders are not Bruce and Clinton, but Martin Gibson and his psychotic flock of anonymous passive-aggressive admirers. I might give Clinton a close second except he posted a picture of himself wearing a hat, revealing his civilized side!! :D

A

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM

McGrath of H and Joe. You may both be correct in what you say. I will consider McG of H's remarks and also yours Joe. But I never have been all that civilized and I may be too old to change. We'll see. And I vehemently disagree that Clinton is such a bad guy. He has his moments; I've had a few of them myself. But so have many other people, however, the sickest puppy I have ever met on the internet has to be GG and a certain nameless Guest. That's my opinion.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 08:25 PM

brucie & Clinton..especially Clinton...you are missing the real point of Joe's post...which is...the fewer probelms to moderate, the easier it is to DO a minimum of moderating. If everyone 'reserves the right' to "give as good as they get" and little spats are going on on multiple threads, etc., then it is easy for moderators to miss some!

Damn it, Clinton...the fact that Joe has the title .."job"... of chief moderator here, does NOT mean that he is paid and on call 24/7!...nor any of the other JoeClones!...They are not here to follow the horses and elephants in this parade, cleaning up all the droppings.

If the pettiness, name calling, complaining, trolling, bickering...and just plain refusal to sit down, shut UP and let certain subjects drop were to diminish by 87.437%, (except for the GGs and Martin Gibsons and a couple of guests who will ALWAYS go out of their way to be trouble)....we could ALL study more music and talk about civil stuff....like recipes for Artichoke pie and where to find a good used car.....

Go back...*READ* what Joe said again...carefully....the part about "The only way to maintain the peace around here is for the participants to be peaceful."....

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 09:09 PM

Bill... No Moderator IS paid or on call... But every other messageboard I frequent have made sure they have enough mods that it's likely that if there isn't always someone around, there very likley will be someone along soon... otherwise what's the point of having them at all?

"They are not here to follow the horses and elephants in this parade, cleaning up all the droppings."
Ummm... ya it really is...

"The only way to maintain the peace around here is for the participants to be peaceful."
A nice ideal, but so is global brotherhood and peace... and while we're at it, I want a pony...

I know the powers at Mudcat WANT the world to be a certain way... but it simply ain't...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 10:53 PM

"A nice ideal, but so is global brotherhood and peace"

not equivilent situations....I could do a LONG post explaining the logical fallacies, but I'm tired and you'd just say "I don't agree"

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 11:30 PM

Yer probably right... and well, YOUR opinion is SOOO much more valid than mine...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 12:09 AM

So, let me get this straight.

People can say things they want; do personal attacks, but if ya respond to that attack you are feeding the flame. It seems something like blaming the person who got attacked because they fought back. I just don't get it. I really don't get it. People like GG can flame whoever they want and that's OK. Bugger all happens to them. But the people who respond get the lecture about social responsibility. Is THAT it? So, we should let the bad stuff be posted and stand, say nothing and continue on as if nothing happened. Is THAT it?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: PoppaGator
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 01:15 AM

Who the hell is GG?

If I'm going to waste my time and energy reading through all this gossip, the least I can ask is to know who's being dissed!

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 01:22 AM

It's really quite simple: if a troll tries to provoke a fight and nobody responds, the troll gets bored and goes away. Trouble is, it's almost inevitable that some self-righteous prig is going to take the troll's bait and turn the remark into a brawl. Guess who are the two biggest suckers in this forum, the two most likely to bite on the trolls' bait. Believe me, those who self-righteously bite the bait are much harder to deal with than are the trolls themselves.

If a troll tries to provoke something, I can delete his message when I get to it. If it becomes a brawl, I have to mutilate an entire thread or delete the whole thing to stop the mess. In the process, a good discussion may be ruined.

And I'm sorry, I'm much rather help people with music questions and learn things about music in the process. This forum is operated by volunteers, and it's paid for by volunteers. Max makes up the difference from his own pocket, so there's never extra money for significant improvements. We do it for fun, for the love of folk music, and because we like the people we meet here at Mudcat. We don't do it because we enjoy settling petty squabbles.

And you, Clinton and Brucie, are the pettiest of the petty.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 01:26 AM

In other words, ignore the flaming guests, and post to the threads that are interesting and productive. As opposed to continuing a meaningless squabble, when that's all the guests really want anyway...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 08:46 AM

I'd suggest the worst trolls, flamers, and self-righteous prigs at this point are NOT the guests.

Let us name names of members who routinely flame others, and who routinely respond in kind:

Martin Gibson
brucie
Clinton Hammond
McGrath of Harlow
Gargoyle
Amos

And at any given time, the individual members who have wrangled with the above for entire threads. They come and go. But you can always count on it from the above.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 08:51 AM

People who state themselves as "GUESTS" are not to be taken seriously.
THE END

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 12:21 PM

Mc G of H? Amos? They don't even come close to belonging on that list. GUEST: Your head is 'up yer arse' on them.

Joe: Sorry to have upset you. I deservedly wear sack cloth and I will bow to your admonitions real soon.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Cluin
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 12:32 PM

Are we back to the anti-Guest crap again? Kee-ryst, it's like a big turd that won't flush. There's always a great wailing and gnashing of teeth every couple of months or so.

Guests are here. Not everybody wants to join or can join; maybe they post from work and can't use cookies. Often it's an unnamed guest that provides useful information--information we might not have gotten if they were forced to register their name first or provide some other qualifier to identify themselves. The bulk of guests contribute constructively. The few that troll and flame incessantly are easily ignored. We all forget to do that sometimes, often by choice.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 12:56 PM

There are things that distinguish The Mudcat Cafe from other forums and sites. These are the things, for good and bad, that make it unique and successful. Joe and I have disagreed over the years as to what is appropriate and what is not. It is good that neither of us has the ultimate say as to what happens here. My understanding of Joe's view is that if he had a completely free rein, he wouldn't have anywhere near as much non music chatter. My view is that the discussion of the issues of the day is what spawns what we know as folk music. If I had my way, there wouldn't be any unregistered GUESTS. I would not allow multiple personalities, to the extent that I could control them.

The whole issue of whether or not one can distinguish between GUESTS is a non issue. Rick Fielding could tell you who was who without ever looking at a name. I can identify GUEST whom I often battle with purely on the basis of the syntax and issues. It is ridiculous to spend so much time discussing the obvious.

Mudcat is what it is. Max made up his mind long ago that that is the way it will be. Everyone of us wishes we could change certain things, but depending on who you are talking about, it is different things. That demonstrates the wisdom in Max's decision as to how it will be. And it seems to have worked because you are all still here. I get just as tired of cranky comments from folks that are stodgy about "it should be music only" as I do with those that respond to every post that they disagree with.

Get over it, the lot of you.

Mick

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 03:42 PM

"Maybe it's time you stop looking for a mommy and daddy to take responsibility for your behavior."

Not at all Joe. Just let the posts stand then. And you too should have a look at the duplicate set of values YOU express. The split values wherein you say two wrongs don't make a right but the second wrong is wronger. Jaysus.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 03:44 PM

Two wrongs don't make a right... but three rights make a left...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 04:12 PM

Yes, CH. We've gone over that bit...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 04:32 PM

While I disagree with brucie in his belief that it can ever be useful to respond in kind to flamers on the forum, more especially to those without names, I wholly agree with his comments ( 28 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM) about particular posts.

The ones he was referring to (I take it) were viciously cruel, were aimed at someone who had done nothing to deserve such an attack, and were in fact libellous. It was clearly desirable that they should be removed from the forum without delay.
..............................

Big Mick is (maybe) a lot better at identifying the different nameless GUESTS than I am. Though there ain't no way to be sure is there?

We had a thread soem time back where for a spell everyone came in as a nameless GUEST. It didn't last all that long, but long enough to demonstrate why such the forum is dependant on the rest of us using labels.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 06:17 PM

Kevin, i agree with you. bruce was responding to someone who was bullying a parent of a child with a disability. i would never put bruce in the barrel with people here who kick heads for the sake of it.

i have never seen bruce initiate conflict here. but yes, he does respond to it, and yes, like kevin I too disagree with bruce in his belief that it can ever be useful to respond in kind to flamers on the forum.

and yes I wholly agree with his comments ( 28 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM) about particular posts.

i also got upset with that guest, on a related post, and lost my cool. and why? because the issue was very personal to me. and i believe that is the same issue for bruce.

i guess for me, i want to think that i can come to this forum, and not see people with disabilities, or people who are parents of children with disabilities, put under attack. just as i dont want to see racism etc.

i admire Kevin and the incredibly calm way he has responded to that guest. but all of us here arent always so together. Joe, please have some understanding on this one.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 06:25 PM

i said yes, like kevin I too disagree with bruce in his belief that it can ever be useful to respond in kind to flamers on the forum.

but that didnt stop me responding to the guest on that immigration and disability issue.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 06:35 PM

Do we really want this forum to be all about the recipe for artichoke pie and the price of used cars?

For once I agree with Mick. Discussion of the big issues by a cross section like Mudcat has a real bearing on the music.

Discussion of Religion, politics, war ,relationships, the're all big issues and provoke big reactions,and so they should, this music is still alive and kicking and is defined by how we live our lives..Ake

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Justa Picker
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 09:32 PM

This thread is a perfect example of why this forum begs for moderation. :-)

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 09:36 PM

Well, it is now at any rate

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 09:37 PM

And moderation could just make it one of the most boring sites on the Internet.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Cluin
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 09:40 PM

Those were the days, my friend
We thought they'd never end...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 10:56 PM

Brucie says:

Joe: Sorry to have upset you. I deservedly wear sack cloth and I will bow to your admonitions real soon.

Now Brucie, if you had left it at THAT, you would have won me over. I'm a sucker for humor.
But then you went back to whining, and lost whatever ground you gained.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 10:57 PM

Well, THAT outcome wasn't surprising...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 11:01 PM

I will not sleep well tonight, Joe.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 11:03 PM

I hope so, Brucie...

; )

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 11:30 PM

"But then you went back to whining, and lost whatever ground you gained."

I wasn't whining. I was bitching. There is a subtle difference. The post to which you refer with the above statement is one in which I mentioned, very politely, that Guest had his head up his arse.

So, are YOU whining or are you bitching?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 11:30 PM

In case you didnt read my comment here Joe, here it is again.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: freda underhill - PM
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 06:17 PM

Kevin, i agree with you. bruce was responding to someone who was bullying a parent of a child with a disability. i would never put bruce in the barrel with people here who kick heads for the sake of it.

i have never seen bruce initiate conflict here. but yes, he does respond to it, and yes, like kevin I too disagree with bruce in his belief that it can ever be useful to respond in kind to flamers on the forum.

and yes I wholly agree with his comments ( 28 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM) about particular posts.

i also got upset with that guest, on a related post, and lost my cool. and why? because the issue was very personal to me. and i believe that is the same issue for bruce.

i guess for me, i want to think that i can come to this forum, and not see people with disabilities, or people who are parents of children with disabilities, put under attack. just as i dont want to see racism etc.

i admire Kevin and the incredibly calm way he has responded to that guest. but all of us here arent always so together. Joe, please have some understanding on this one.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 11:31 PM

Piss on it. Don't matter.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 11:39 PM

Consider it pissed...

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 11:45 PM

Joe,

I don't want to get into a slaggin' match with you. You have helped me a number of times with problems to do with the 'cat: how to do things, find things, locate material, etc. Therefore, have the last word with my blessing and I won't be addressing anything else to you on this thread.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 03:14 AM

Yes, Freda, I read your remarks the first time you posted them in this thread.

What bugs is that I hear something like this, time and time again:

Mudcat lets so-and-so flame all they want, so I have to protect myself and give the flamers what they deserve.

This is outrageous!!! How can Mudcat allow people to post anti-Semitic remarks like that?

And so on, and so on, and so on.
Mudcat doesn't permit that sort of stuff at all - people just do it, and we do what we can to control it without censoring every message before it's posted. Some of it gets past us - but that doesn't mean we permit it.

It's kind of like saying that the US and UK permit crime, since crime exists in both countries. And since it's OK for other people to commit crimes, then it must be even more OK for me to commit crimes, since I'm such a righteous and deserving guy.

My basic point is that we've asked Mudcatters over and over again, to leave the trolls alone so they'll get bored and go away, and so we can deal with them quietly if we need to. I don't care how nasty and obnoxious they are - leave them alone. Don't take their bait.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: freda underhill
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 07:19 AM

This thread was originally about distinguishing between guests, but has come back again to members and how we effect each other.

You're doing a difficult job Joe. when you express your frustrations, it has more weight than when someone else does. I guess the disbility issue was what got me into this thread, and i will wander off again.

all i can say is thank you for working at keeping this forum going, thanks to Kevin Mcgrath for all his posts, which I have always found to be great reading, to Brucie for making me laugh, and to Amos for being brilliant.

best wishes

freda

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 10:18 AM

Joe, no matter how much you try, you are never going to stop people replying to things you don't think they should reply to. If you could, you'd at least be able to stop yourself.

People see things differently - one person's 'troll' is another's interesting and thought-provoking post.

People have to believe they're doing something they shouldn't before they want to stop. They might very well know they're doing something they're doing something you don't think they should do, in which case, it's your problem.

If what those people say is somebody else's problem, and that somebody else has no ability or right to stop them saying it, well...it's still somebody else's problem.

All comes down to a control issue, and the frustration borne of trying to control something you can't, whether it's GUESTs posts or anybody else's. If you want to argue, fine, but nothing will change.

If it's somebody else's problem, let them deal with it. If it's your problem, either do something effective or forget about it.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:30 PM

"asked Mudcatters over and over again, to leave the trolls alone"
And well, obviously that doesn't work... when will you folks consider trying something that might?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:37 PM

"Do we really want this forum to be all about the recipe for artichoke pie and the price of used cars?"

*grin*...I take it it wasn't clear I had my tongue FIRMLY in my cheek there.....

and I say once again...READ Joe's posts, closely...and think about the import. And ask yourself what YOU do.........

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:43 PM

People have to believe they're doing something they shouldn't before they want to stop.

Just because we think we shouldn't be doing something isn't in itself a strong enough reason for us to stop doing it, as often as not.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:47 PM

No, Kevin, it's not.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: freda underhill
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:49 PM

how can I think at 4.45 am? andthen how can I stop thinking at 4.45 am?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 03:44 PM

Wait until 4:46 and go to sleep.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 04:05 PM

Who else wants to join Guest's exclusive club of Brucie, Amos, McGrath, Clinton Q. Hammond, Gargoyle, and yours truly.

I am just so honored!

You guys, stick with me. We'll have a great time here.

See ya around, fellas.
Maybe on the next thread, even.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 04:12 PM

I would never want to be part of any club that would have someone like me as a memeber!

LOL

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 05:05 PM

I'm sure Amos is running for Canada.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 05:27 PM

How did Brucie manage to get lumped in with you reprobates??




Can I join??

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 10:00 PM

Freda you missed brucie's train the number is 4:40 the place is Paddington try again on Der Fuer's B-Day and be sure to bring de sister Maryjane

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: freda underhill
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 10:07 PM

huh?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 10:09 PM

Ake, you're hired.

Get on board and be prepared to tell it how it is!

Put on your politically incorrect utility belt.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 11:10 PM

Most pets are not permitted to feed at the table.

Most pets accepts scraps off the floor.

Most pets repeat performances - when they are able.

If ever there were a dish of troll spoils begging for more...

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Quite a brillant idea putting the feeding-pen in the lower corner - out of sight - after a week - it just remains a putrid den of troll-regurgitation .... so if a dog returns to its vomit....what does that make of a troll, a dog, a brucie, or a gargoyle that returns to this thread?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 11:11 PM

Hey, Golgart. How ya doin'?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 11:18 PM

Outta curiousity, are ya back in the States or still in Germany?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 03:10 PM

Oh brilliant!!....Thanks Martin , now I can start flamin all the right wing fascists,   holier than thou christians, P C arseholes, boring old farts, sanctimonious pseudo-intellectuals...and that still leaves 90% for next week .Ake

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 03:24 PM

Ake, I knew that you would catch on quickly.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 09:19 PM

but what about us commie-pinko,left-wing, tree-hugging, spell-checking, logic-quoteing, folk-purist snobs?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 09:28 PM

You are all those things, Bill, but ya gilded the lily about being a spell checker.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 04 - 12:36 PM

the lily will survive

"quoting "

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 02 Dec 04 - 02:32 PM

lol

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST,Khalil Ginran
Date: 02 Dec 04 - 11:48 PM

Leave Me, My Blamer

Leave me, my blamer,
For the sake of the love
Which unites your soul with
That of your beloved one;
For the sake of that which
Joins spirit with mothers
Affection, and ties your
Heart with filial love. Go,
And leave me to my own
Weeping heart.

Let me sail in the ocean of
My dreams; Wait until Tomorrow
Comes, for tomorrow is free to
Do with me as he wishes. Your
Laying is naught but shadow
That walks with the spirit to
The tomb of abashment, and shows
Heard the cold, solid earth.

I have a little heart within me
And I like to bring him out of
His prison and carry him on the
Palm of my hand to examine him
In depth and extract his secret.
Aim not your arrows at him, lest
He takes fright and vanish 'ere he
Pours the secrets blood as a
Sacrifice at the altar of his
Own faith, given him by Deity
When he fashioned him of love and beauty.

The sun is rising and the nightingale
Is singing, and the myrtle is
Breathing its fragrance into space.
I want to free myself from the
Quilted slumber of wrong. Do not
Detain me, my blamer!

Cavil me not by mention of the
Lions of the forest or the
Snakes of the valley, for
Me soul knows no fear of earth and
Accepts no warning of evil before
Evil comes.

Advise me not, my blamer, for
Calamities have opened my heart and
Tears have cleanses my eyes, and
Errors have taught me the language
Of the hearts.

Talk not of banishment, for conscience
Is my judge and he will justify me
And protect me if I am innocent, and
Will deny me of life if I am a criminal.

Love's procession is moving;
Beauty is waving her banner;
Youth is sounding the trumpet of joy;
Disturb not my contrition, my blamer.
Let me walk, for the path is rich
With roses and mint, and the air
Is scented with cleanliness.

Relate not the tales of wealth and
Greatness, for my soul is rich
With bounty and great with God's glory.

Speak not of peoples and laws and
Kingdoms, for the whole earth is
My birthplace and all humans are
My brothers.

Go from me, for you are taking away
Life - giving repentance and bringing
Needless words.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 02 Dec 04 - 11:59 PM

Jaysus. It's Kahlil Gibran. Poor bugger forgot how to spell his name.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 04 - 12:06 AM

holy creaps - it is Bruce and he's forgotten he's a grown-up "man."

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 03 Dec 04 - 12:10 AM

Wow. Great rejoinder. On par with your usual. Now, go to sleep before mummy finds you at the computer past your bedtime. Go, little boy, go. Night, night.

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 03 Dec 04 - 12:27 AM

creaps? It's a piss poor English teacher who can only find one way to spell a word, right, GUEST?

Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests
From: Peace
Date: 03 Dec 04 - 12:28 AM

Or do you still teach English?