BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary

Subject: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 08:57 PM

Now that Tom Ridge has decided to resign to spend more time with his family (that's beltway-speak for take a job at ten times the pay with some outfit who wants to say they have a former cabinet secretary working for them), and Dubya's first choice for Ridge's replacement got shot down faster than an unregistered ultralight over Falluja, the job of Secretary of Homeland Security is up for grabs. Who better to fill the job than our own Joe Offer?

Yes, just think about all the thankless hours Joe has put in through the years deleting SPAM and racial slurs and posts from Gargoyle and Martin Gibson. Joe has done an outstanding job of protecting us from harmful outside influences. And he's done an even better job of protecting us from ourselves! The choice is obvious! Joe's the man!

Sure, he'll need to work on a few things like inciting paranoia on a nation-wide basis and kissing Dubya's ass, but those are skills that can be learned in a hurry. And with guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld to learn from it won't take a guy like Joe long at all.

So, whatta ya say, Joe? Do we toss your name into the ring? Just think, only four years and you can spend more time with your own family and just be rollin' in dough.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 08:59 PM

Joe would not be a good homeland security chief.

Too much fucking shit gets by him and I wouldn't want to take the chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 09:02 PM

But he types really well and I hear he makes great coffee. Absolute requirements in a Secretary.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: beetle cat
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 09:03 PM

well.. just as long as i get his current job...
heh just kidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 09:12 PM

Joe has way too good a sense of humor to survive long in DC. Spare him!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 10:56 PM

Joe already worked for the gummint...he's far to wise to do it again....
......................but, if we can install a 'delete' button for stupid political statements as part of the deal, I'll take the job!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 11:08 PM

Word on the street is that Junior is gonna offer the job to his cousin, Osoma...

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 11:26 PM

Why not? The fox is in charge of the chickens everywhere else in the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: open mike
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 01:22 AM

and vampire is in charge of the blood bank.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 02:22 PM

Fist of I ron tempered by common sense - works for me. Ready for the Beltway, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 05:32 PM

Security demands that he NOT live in DC. Let him stay were he is and telecommute (you don't think that he flies to PA to work on the 'Cat, do you?).

Better yet, let him relocate to Pocatello, Idaho and bring the whole Department with him. We need the jobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 05:16 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 06:58 PM

Gee, I don't know if I should love Bee-dubya or hate him for starting this thread.

Martin's right - we haven't been doing a very good job of keeping the peace around here, and Martin's is the first head that should roll. There has been far too much animosity on this site lately. I know it's nice to honor freedom of speech and all, but nice people just don't feel comfortable relaxing here when there's nastiness all around.

I know some people say that we should be able to have a good time standing in waist-deep shit here if we just don't look at it - but that just doesn't seem to be practical.

So, we've been agonizing about it, and haven't come up with a solution we like. I've been doing home-schooling with my 9th-grade stepson, and we just finished the section on the Reign of Terror. Maybe we need a Reign of Terror to bring peace to Mudcat. Pene Azul can be Robespierre, and I can be Marat. Trouble is, Robespierre met his fate with the guillotine, and Marat was stabbed to death in his bathtub by the lovely Charlotte Corday.

Homeland Security?
No, thanks. Not me.
Not even at Mudcat.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 07:04 PM

Is Jeri the lovely Charlotte? Scary thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 07:07 PM

You don't wanna be Marat anyway, Joe. The reason he was in his bathtub was because it was a medicated bath and he had contracted some kind of hideous skin disease he was treating.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 08:56 PM

Poor old Marat, in you we trust
You work 'til your eyes turn as red as rust
And while you work
They're on your track
The boots on the stairway, the door thrown back....

Whatever you say say nothin'
When you talk about you know what
For if you know who should hear ya,
You know what you'll get
They'll take you off
To you know where
For you wouldn't know how long
So for you know who's sake
Don't let anyone
Hear you singin' this song....

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 09:11 PM

Well, if you roll my head, Joe than so be it.

I could plead with you not to but I won't.

Though the ones who have made me their adversary would be pleased, the friends I have made here would not.

Your "Guests" who log out to cause trouble are your biggest problem, I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 10:56 PM

it's not a matter of naming "the biggest" problem...if you are a constant problem, that would be enough for censure. There are a lot of folks here who simply cause NO problems, but you, Martin, seem to think that 'registering' and being obnoxious under a consistent name (with your real name well-hidden, of course) excuses any amount of baiting, gratuitious nasty remarks and sarcastic ridicule of anyone YOU decide is not up to your standards.

It's sad, because you know enough about music and instruments and have enough wit to be simply a sharp-edged, clever, interesting participant...but you choose, under a cloak of anonymity, to make remarks that few others, even 'guests', stoop to. Even those who regularly go toe-to-toe with you seldom get into serious disputes with anyone else!

Yeah...there are a 'few' souls here who are sorta amused or just DISlike the same people as you, but those who appreciate your style are WAY in the minority.

I'll confess, I simply do no understand, and probably never will, why anyone goes to such lengths to instigate trouble and turmoil. You seem to suggest that those who know 'you' in Chicago as a musician never see this side of you. WHY the hell, then, are you letting some nasty part of you loose in cyberspace?

Ever since the internet/WWW got in the hands of 'common folk' 10 or so years ago, we have seen personalities pop up in newsgroups, chat rooms, etc., that take astounding amounts of some sort of twisted pleasure or satisfaction in doing and saying stuff that would get their butts whipped if they said it to someone nose-to-nose!

If 27 Mudcatters visited Chicago and accidently showed up at some place you were playing music, would you continue to insult them face to face once you realized who they were?

Must be a Masters thesis in Psychology there somewhere.

I give up....don't know why I bother. I have MET maybe 100 or so of the folks who post here, from Joe and Max and Pene on down, and we mostly LIKE each other...but when we are not 'buddies', we at least avoid nasty confrontations by keeping to topics that are safe, and not going out the way to get in someone's face.

(I don't get my soapbox out like this just everyday, 'cause it almost never does any good....maybe I just like to see a reasonable opinion in print...)

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Dec 04 - 03:18 AM

Now, Martin, when you're standing up there at the guillotine, I want you to remember that I like you. But yeah, if you keep acting like you've been acting, your head oughta roll. You could be a lot nicer, and you know it.
Nothing personal, though.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Dec 04 - 03:53 AM

Tom Ridge and David Blunket resigning so close to each other? A pair of the most authoritarian 'internal security' ministers/secretarys the US/UK has ever seen? It can't be a coincidence...

   When they swop jobs to strenghten transatlantic ties, be scared, be even more scared than you are now. Joe Offer or even Martin Gibson would be less worrying...

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 04 - 04:15 AM

Friends, Martin? Name one...

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Dec 04 - 02:19 PM

Martin, when you came here I welcomed you. Had I known how you would act, I would not have. I had hopes for a decent curmudgeon to keep the place real. What we got was a person who is obnoxious and uses vile language at the drop of a hat. It is a discussion forum, but the first time anyone takes issue with your positions you resort to nasty filth. I just don't see the point of that. You are not disliked as much for your positions as you are for your language and the nasty persona you take on. And I invite anyone who thinks you are a decent sort to post here.

Other than Joe, I am the only mudelf who has identified him/her self. Were it my choice, I would not have let you go this long. As it is, I look for your posts and if they are nothing more than a personal attack, I delete them. I would have closed the Kwanzaa thread long before it was. But I knew Joe would get to it.

You could be a very important part of this place if you would keep it to your opinion. I even like it when you poke at the sacred cows. But when you go vulgar, and attack others for their opinion in a vile way, you make me believe that you are not of much worth. Aggressively defending ones views in plain talk is fine with me, in fact I do it all the time. Being a nasty, vulgar person is not.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 09:37 AM

Regarding the recent turn this thread has taken: The answer is so simple, and in spite of its obviousness, has been stated numerous times. Regardless, the solution has been ignored, which, if you apply the rules of logic leaves no one to conclude anything other than...?? You can take it from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 01:16 PM

I suppose you're right. I imagine what you think is that the first thing we should do is bar unregistered people from non-music threads, and strictly control behavior in the music threads. Then we should delete the memberships of our regular troublemakers, or at least suspend them temporarily. Either that, or we could do a 100% review on unknown people and troublemakers before their messages post.

Is that the "simple answer"?

We still don't want to do that. It tends to kill the spontaneity that has kept us alive and vibrant all these years.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Justa Picker
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 01:41 PM

We still don't want to do that. It tends to kill the spontaneity that has kept us alive and vibrant all these years.

What you need to decide once in for all, is whether you want this place to be a CREDIBLE music resource (in which case you may attract and keep musically-knowledgable members to contribute) or one big cacophony of plasma-venting arm chair psychologists, their would be patients, and the cyber versions of Regis and Kelly, and everthing else in between.

No musicians that I know or have tried to direct here, take this place seriously as a music resource and therefore refused to join.

Therefore is this place to be a music resource or a bingo hall?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 02:32 PM

Justa, we are friends, and good ones, but we have many fine musicians that stay here. There are some who do not.

This place is a very fine resource for general and specific knowledge. Ask anyone who never inhabits the BS sections. They can find history, technique, lyrics, chord structures. It is inhabited by the likes of Jean Ritchie, Frank Hamilton, occasionally Arlo, yourself, Rick Fielding, Glen Reid, Jed Marum .... I could go on and on with Irish, English, Scottish, US, Canadians, etc. It is only in the bottom of the page areas that this stuff happens. In my opinion Max's attitude is the right one, with a little tweaking. But not much. If we just want it to be another music forum, then it won't last long. Having an area where we can talk about controversial issues is an important thing. I have been inspired on a number of occasions to write about the subjects we are discussing.

Where it my decision, I would probably be a little harder on MG and GUEST (you know which one) where it comes to the nastiness. But not their views. Martin clearly has a pro Israeli view of the Mideast. He could, if he chose to, be an articulate spokesperson. But his personal nastiness gets in the way. GUEST often is eloquent in the defense of and promulgation of, the "progressive" left position. But the attempts to belittle folks, often with vile language, gets in the way.

The system we have isn't perfect. But it is unique. We attempt to allow the unlimited debate without intervention. This often means that threads can get heated, but that is the way of it when we live in a world that seems as partisan as ours does. Nothing wrong with that. But when it goes personal, or just plain vulgar, that is where we step in. Some folks don't like having arbiters making that decision. Fair enough, but the decisions are always reviewed by others to maintain some sense of fairness and objectivity. Do we always get it right? Nope. Is our intent to try and be fair? Yep.

Should Joe Offer be Cabinet Secretary for Homeland Defense? Yep, but only if the homeland you are talking about is The Mudcat Cafe.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 03:05 PM

I lurk and post mostly below the line. But I have posted above as well, when I feel that I really do have something to contribute. I agree with Big Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 05:02 PM

Hey, after being told by guests that I was full of shit and called many anti-semetic things and had my family ridiculed, I decided it was more fun to select my friends here very carefully.

There are some real nice people and there are quite a few total assholes.

I've just having the pleasure of telling some of the complete assholes what they don't want to hear.

At the same time, I've enjoyed contributing to the music threads my extensive knowledge.

Big Mick, I don't have or want to be Israel's spokesman here.

You spend way too much time on how to deal with someone who is outspoken. I've been super nice to the people that I want to be and I have the PMs and friends here who know it. At the same time, there are a couple of real pseudo intellectual goons here who have had their itty bitty feelings hurt because someone has the balls to tell them that their ideas won't play in Peoria.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 06:39 PM

That wasn't the simple answer Joe (re your post).... You of all people should've known the simple answer, as I could probably research and quote numerous posts by none other than you (and a few others) in which you encouraged people to exercise the 'simple' answer...

And as people don't follow the advice - well, there must be a reason why people choose to ignore a solution to a 'probem.' For some it could be that they don't see it as a problem (i.e. if it doesn't bother you, it's not a problem). For others, it could be something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 07:18 PM

I suppose the 'simple' answer, Guest, is to ignore the posts that upset or anger? It ain't easy to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 11:02 PM

There is a major difference between being outspoken and being abusive. I've fired back at Martin Gibson a lot, and I probably shouldn't have done it, but at least when I did, I tried to give people a laugh in the process (granted, at Marty's expense). I do it the same way I handle a heckler, which is what he usually acts like. I've tried to extend an olive branch on a couple of occasions, but all I got in response was obscenity and abuse. After all this time, I'm afraid I'd have trouble regarding Martin Gibson as anything other than a tasteless joke.

Is that my fault? Not that I can see. I enjoy a good discussion. Even a good argument. Provided the debate at least makes a nod toward reasonableness and there is a level of civility about it. I've had some vigorous exchanges with Doug R, for example, but even though each of us thinks of the other as a political idiot, at least there is a measure of respect there. I would love to talk to Doug face to face, maybe over a nice bottle of Charles Shaw shiraz. As I understand it, his life has been dedicated to music in one form or another, and I think we probably have a lot to talk about apart from politics (and politically, I think there's a chance I could actually convert him—how crazy is that!!???!).

But when a failure to see eye to eye on some issue comes up, Martin Gibson makes no attempt at rational discussion, he immediately turns into an abusive smut-mouth. And he seems to think that he is merely being "outspoken." That kind of "outspokenness" in a face to face discussion could very easily lose him a mouthful of teeth. But here, of course, he hides behind a pseudonym, which he claims is not the "real" him. I disagree. I think that, under the veil of anonymity, not having to fear a punch in the mouth, he lets the real him come out.

I like Mudcat's free form. I wouldn't like to see Mudcat turned into a closely moderated forum, nor would I like to see people banned. But unfortunately, people like a GUEST or two, and Martin Gibson, are driving good people away. This is not unlike Gresham's Law. Debased money drives out good money. And the same thing seems to be happening with people. I received an e-mail this morning from a good friend whom I put onto Mudcat a few years ago. He has made some major contributions to Mudcat, both financially and in threads that he's started and posted to. He e-mailed me to let me know that he is sick and tired of Martin Gibson's disruptiveness and abuse, he doesn't find Mudcat very enjoyable anymore, and he has decided to withdraw. He also e-mailed several other people to tell them the same thing. And I know a couple other people who are no longer frequenting Mudcat for the same reason.

I don't plan on allowing Martin Gibson to drive me away. But I will say that Mudcat is not as enjoyable as it used to be and has generally slid in quality quite a bit within the past year. A lot of it has to do with a very few people who apparently don't know how to behave in civilized society driving out those who don't want to put up with the foul mouthed personal abuse they find here.

I'd say the message is pretty clear.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: GUEST,Not a fan of Martin Gibson
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 11:20 PM

Martin Gibson is a major reason why I was warned to stay away from Mudcat and why I really don't contribute much anymore.

It's shame that a site would let one person abuse so many other members so blatantly and for so long without even a small public attempt to reign him in. No doubt some private exchange has probably taken place but his scatalogical posts have not abated, if anything..they are more frequent than ever.

The way I see it, if Mudcat and Mudcatters (not all mind you but many defend his right to 'speak" if you call the braying he does "speaking") adore him and his potty mouth so much..it says something about them personally.

You are the company you keep or the company whose right to abuse others you defend vigorously.


Enough about Trolls with names

Why doesn't dumbeeya just get it over with and name Arnold S. as his HSA..you know he wants to.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 12:25 AM

Don, in this case, the heckler owns the show.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 01:52 AM

I've a suggestion...draft Martin Gibson for Homeland Security Chief and then he won't have time to post foul-mouthed replies. Instead, he can hassle people like Cat Stevens when they try to fly in the USA.

He can have fun putting all the Mudcatters he disagrees with on The No fly List.

It's a dream job for him, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 03:46 AM

Well, our Guest hasn't chosen to reveal the ultimately simple solution to our problems, so I guess we'll have to keep guessing. As Ebbie says, ignoring posts that upset or anger ain't easy to do. As I said above, it's hard to have a good time standing in waist-deep shit here and just not looking at it. I've been in houses like that, where the people tell me not to mind the dog shit on the floor because the puppy's having a bad day.....and then I suppose they wonder why I turn them down when they offer me food. And then the dog coughs up dinner, and it's all over for me.

There has been a definite change in tone here at Mudcat in the last year, an ongoing tone of animosity that has been much stronger than it ever had been before. We've had flareups before, but we've never had so many people who seem to see the animosity as worthwhile recreation. Picker's right - this is not the way to maintain a reputation as a credible Website.

I met Niamh Parsons at a house concert a couple of months ago, and I was surprised that she knew right away who I was - but the first thing she talked about was all those awful people who cause all that nastiness at Mudcat. I wonder how many others we've scared out of active participation.

So, yeah, I think we need to do something to put an end to this, to make Mudcat a peaceful place where people can disagree (or agree) respectfully and logically. I just wish we knew how to make that happen.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 05:45 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 05:56 AM

Ebbie knows the solution. The best solutions are not always easy to implement.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Justa Picker
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 03:10 PM

"I just wish we knew how to make that happen."

Oh come on now.

Have you considered resigning?
What about all the Joe clones lining up with you
and resigning together -- unless the aloof one makes
the necessary changes to restore this site to CREDIBILITY.
Would THAT capture his attention?

You cannot have it both ways.


The solution is so simple that I completely fail to see why this decision is just so damned gut wrenching.

4 rules.

1. No guests are allowed to POST. Period.
You MUST be a member and provide a valid email address.

2. No politics.

3. No religion.

4. The BS section belongs in its own completely separate forum (and not on the same page as the musical content). Common sense dictates what posts are to be deleted and what users are to be banned if they are unwilling to change their posting habits..


Just how friggin' hard can this be?

And where is it decreed that Max has an obligation to uphold the 1st
ammendment, on a privately owned forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 03:37 PM

Well, I suppose that's one solution, Justa. Can't say I like it. If I'm a first-time visitor looking for lyrics to a song, I'd be unlikely to post a request if I were required to register. Still, we could allow posts from unregistered people to go through a volunteer before posting, much like we do for our links page. I think that would stifle our spontaneity a bit, though.

As for obligations to uphold the first amendment - I think Max just believes in free speech. I think we need to be very careful with controls. If we control too strictly, this place could lose its life and become a homeland for pedantic ninnies.

Besides, many of us like talking about religion and politics, and religion and politics are often intertwined with our music. You want to ban religious and political songs, too?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: GUEST,Quasimodo
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 03:39 PM

When some guest said that he didn't want to register because he wanted to stay anonymous, a Mud-elf responded that Max can always find out the IP address of anyone who posts, whether he's a guest or not. If he can do that, can't he use something like a spam-blocker to block posts from chronic troublemakers?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 03:42 PM

Justa picker, you've absolutely got it right.

Get rid of the BS section completely and do not allow it to co-exist in the music section. Make this a music forum only.

There are no flaming guests calling one a bastard Jew in the music section.

There is no one calling one a Nazi in the music section.

There is no one calling anyone a bigot in the music section.

I am registered with a valid email address. Whether or not I ever use it, it certainly is valid and I only occasionally look at it to clear out all of the spam.

Don Firth is quite the louse for saying he is not as guilty as I am. I also have brought much humor to this forum and no I have not appreciated being the butt of his jokes. And I have defended myself for it. In fact, I feel that I have defended myself for everything. What seems to be the problem is that I can just plain out insult someone back with better impact and with more colorful language and expression. Anyone can say shit, fuck or whatever and many do. Perhaps I can do it just better. I have had my family insilted. I have had my religion insulted. I challange anyone here to count just how many times Don Firth has instigated trouble with me here. How many times I havbe posted AFTER him in response to his nastiness. I would also like a count made as to how many times I have responded to an insult by a Guest.

I have no problem with getting rid of the BS section. I would continue to post to the music section as I have with questions and answers or comments and I would not care. The ones who would care it seems are the pseudo intellectuals like Amos and Don who have a voice like me pointing out that their ideas don't jive with anyone who is not a far left wing radical liberal.

Get rid of Guests. No one poses as a Guest. You must a screen name.    The regular posters here who sign out to become abusive is really your problem and you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 03:50 PM

Marvin: "The regular posters here who sign out to become abusive is really your problem and you know it."

That REALLY makes me want to sign out and abuse you. So far I have resisted the urge.

Eddie

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 03:56 PM

Eddie

I'm sure you already are one of them who has.

It's a pretty big club, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 04:07 PM

This whole free speech issue is a crock.....and that's from a card carrying member of the ACLU. There is a responsibility that goes with "rights"........You don't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

I think we need to let things alone for the most part, but take action immediately against those who are simply being disruptive for the sake of theur own amusement. Flush 'em. I get weary reading the back and forth BS over how this place works or how it should. Any answer given can be trounced easily by even the dumbest troll and then we go along and try to explain his next objection....and the next...and the next. Just delete the post and if it becomes a regular thing, flush the membership. Sure they come back but simply do it again......flush 'em. They need a reason? Act like NASCAR. NASCAR has rules somewhere but the always use only one....."Actions detrimental to stock car racing" and THEY decide what actions ARE detrimental to stock car racing. People argue about it, but NASCAR doesn't play.

Why do we play with these idiots? Just say their actions are dtrimental to The Mudcat Cafe Forum and flush 'em. Anyone logging on as a member must have a legit e-mail....no yahoo crap. We can still alooow Guests but if the post is out of line or over the top, delete it as detrimental to the Forum with no further explanation.

That happens ALL the time at another place I hang out. Threads disappear with no explanation as well as posts. ANd if you start a thread to question the decision, it disappears as well. The mods just don't play. Members get flushed and if they come back and try again, fine. They get out of line again and they're gone again!!! They get a warning by PM and often 2 or 3, but there is NO arguing with the moderators....period. Oddly enough, the site has tremendous traffic and everyone stays inline and pretty happy.

Think about it.....We're spending all this time talking and writing about it and why? There are but a few who cause problems! Flush 'em and let's move on. Quit trying to explain. This place has grown past the point where we can all just get along......Time to deal with the issues that growth has created and bring the place back to a site where we can argue issues and not about the workings of the site itself!!!

Let's just stop the crap now and move on....no other explanations needed and no argument will be answered.....just the way it is. Play nice or play elsewhere.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Justa Picker
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 04:17 PM

"If we control too strictly"

...since you've never had any real controls in place, ANYTHING is going to seem strict to you ...

If a guest posting a request for some song doesn't even have the common courtesy to join and then post (since it is free) then you have zero obligation to provide ANY guest with ANY privileges ... Doesn't have to be 'trick or treat' 365 days a year. The MEMBERS here should ALWAYS take precedence over guests.

Hey I like my neighbours but I still keep my door closed so that they and any other strangers who happen to be passing by, can't just walk into my house anytime they feel like it and spray paint graffiti all over my walls.

And no I wouldn't prohibit the posting of song lyrics pertaining to polticial or religious topics. I would just very tightly control the ensuing discussions of such to make sure every one is nice and civil because the history of this and other unmoderated forums has proven time and time again, that SOME people are incapable of policing themselves. THAT'S WHY THERE ARE RULES, in all societies. :-)
People NEED to be governed.

I would however prohibit the blantant discussions of politics and religion when IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH FOLK MUSIC.

I'm outta here and am chasing my tail now.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 04:17 PM

Define "nice."

Is it a religious or moral nice? Is it a smile with every arguement and no longer the ability to get so angry with someone that you can't tell them how you really feel?

Which four letter word is no longer "nice?"

Is it "nice" to post bawdy songs filled with sexual inneuendos or racist undertones?

Is "nice" one person's vision of tolerance?

Good odds you will never be able to anser those questions. I'd sure hate to see this place with a NASCAR mentality. Next thing is we'll have STP or oil company ads here.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 04:17 PM

An opinion from a senior member.

It ain't your call as to the subject matter. You are ignoring what gave this place the life it has to begin with. There are plenty of dried up old music forums out there. Usually they end up with the purists ridiculing those that aren't. They are boring and they come and go. If you need that, go find one.

Mudcat is a community. It is marked by an amazing willingness to help one another. It has many scholarly types who check in on a regular basis. It has a section for the discussion of all the nuts and bolts, good and bad, that mark any community. One has the ability to not participate, or participate, in any and all of it. It has a group of volunteers of various opinions that help to run it. And it has been successful.

One premise that I think is erroneous in this discussion. Folks state that the Mudcat isn't as friendly as it was. Horse pucky. We still have the same group of folks that we have minus a few. But we also have some that want the Mudcat to be what they want. Ain't your choice, guys. The Mudcat Maker (Max) has decreed what it is. The same rule applies as in the threads. If you don't like it, don't come. Simple as that.

For Martin Gibson to try and convince us that he is only defending himself is ridiculous. You came in here, first as a GUEST, and immediately began to tell us all what idiots we are. Then when people reacted to you, you take umbrage and use it for an excuse to be disruptive as you can be. You are not the first that has used this, but I would ban you in a hot second were it my choice.

Finally, the Mudcat is what we make it. I admit to getting caught up in this stuff from time to time. We are, after all, human. But the one thing that is different from the early days is respect. It is the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. That is in our hands, not Max's or some administrator.

The Mudcat doesn't have a problem, we do.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 04:23 PM

And I sure don't have one Big Mick. I didn't come in here as a Guest looking for trouble. I got it handed to me when I saw the exclusive fraternity that was closed to outside the box thinking here.

I joined to be my own person and to contribute.

Thanks to all of you for helping me to succeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 04:30 PM

Martin, your post indicates that this whole discussion has you thinking a bit. Go back and look over your posts from the first day. If you still think you don't have a problem, I think you are in denial.

I still think you could be the one thing that this place needs. A good, well intentioned, curmudgeon. Well intentioned is the operative term.

Enough of this, I have a gig to get to.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 04:32 PM

Then again, the ones who say I have been disruptive should discuss this with the many who have told me that I have brought a breath of fresh air to this place.

If you have let me disrupt your life here, you are taking this way too seriously. Unless of course, you are freely admitting that this truly is what your life is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 04:34 PM

I am not in denial, Big Mick.

I just brushed my teeth, so I must be in dental.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 04:53 PM

No. I have not EVER posted as 'Guest' to speak to you, Marvin. So stop and think: What makes you tso sure that many members have done that to you? When you are wrong in one instance, don't you see that you may be wrong in other instances?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 05:13 PM

Martin - if people do battle with you, then I suppose they get what they deserve - not that I like seeing any battles here.

That's not what people complain about. It's the unprovoked attacks on people who were paying no attention to you at all, the sexual innuendos that come out sounding like leering threats - that sort of thing. Believe me, Martin, you are NOT an innocent victim here. I have seen people attack you when it wasn't warranted, but usually it's the other way around.

-Joe Offer-


By the way, there are very few Mudcatters who log off to post anonymously - and I haven't seen one who has done that to attack you. The anonymous people who attack you are our usual anonymous people. They find you easy prey.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 07:02 PM

Martin:

If I thought all your abuse was in self defense or even thought it was possible, I would never have taken you to task for it. I am really sorry, but I don't see it -- what I have seen is gratuitous abuse, over and over, in your posts, as though you were carrying out some battle that no-one else could see. Whatever the reason for it, I second Mick's suggestion as to reviewing your own posts. Seems to me, in spite of your unwarranted assertions about my viewpoint, that you aren't really doing credit to your own views by "defending" them like a Cheapside fishwife. What you seem to have, which I value highly, is a strong point of view. I just wish you could express it more fluently instead of resorting to abuse.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Dec 04 - 03:50 PM

Goons like you see vitually anything challanging to your pathetic ego as abuse, Amos.

And Joe, it's well been documented here seems that you stand up for your friends and favorite posters. I don't believe it at all about the attacking Guests. The style of writing is to similiar to some. The ones who I spar with are the ones with the bruised egos.

Again, excuse me if I can dish out a more forceful insult to one hurled at me initially.

I find the Guests even easier prey. You can really haul off on them and call them every possible name in the book and really not care. They get what they richly deserve. Other regulars have agreed with me on this and have also suggested to me who the sign-off guests just might be. So Joe, maybe it's just some of your closest friends here you are covering for.

Either way, it's no big deal for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Dec 04 - 03:55 PM

I think it might be illuminating if we each printed out every one of Marvin's posts. You first, Marvin.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Dec 04 - 04:10 PM

Eat dung, ebbie/eddie. You are not my judge. You are no one's judge. But you are quite a pathetic old woman for thinking that you are.

If you want to read my posts, please do. Many of you have already found them to be your true source of your life's focus. It's really quite laughable how much time you spend on them.

It's actually very gratifying. Makes me feel that you are all paying attention.

Thanks for reading this one, also!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Dec 04 - 05:29 PM

You're welcome.

Eddie

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 04 - 05:56 PM

*giggle*

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Dec 04 - 06:04 PM

And "The Beat Goes On"... (Sonny and Cher)

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Dec 04 - 06:30 PM

You're right, Martin. I've been criticized for sticking up for you and Gargoyle. You'll find documentation of that, but not much else.
Maybe I should be sorry I believed in you, that I thought people should give you more of a chance.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Dec 04 - 03:59 PM

Joe, it just kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 04 - 04:28 PM

Well dammit...I habv blundered into the "Martin Gibson-Takemine is Shite" thread by accident. I wabz sure thet this was for supporting Joe for a high office but it is just another music thread and Joe's got it in the BS section fore some reason. I would think thet the Kay Teisco-Silvertone would be a candidate obver the Martins and Gibsons, as they are fairly good guitars and not too shitey at all, unless left outside or near the stove for enny lenth obv time.

Joe, pleez move this outta the BS hellhole area and into the music section if you want my vote. I know, it iz hard to keep vigilante obver all this, but I am surprised this one got by you.

anonymously,
Tweed

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer f/ Homeland Security Secretary
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Dec 04 - 04:34 PM

I remember it being in the music section. Haven't looked at it for quite a while. Maybe it's time to go back and see the sawdust from all of those sushi boards.