BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls

Subject: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: gnu
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:40 AM

The title of this thread is taken directly from the FAQ thread for new members (click on the second button from the right on the nav bar at the top of the page).

In the FAQ thread, Joe wrote, "I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it many times more: the best way to deal with both flamers and trolls is to ignore them. Give them silence, and they'll go away. They feed on attention - don't give it to them."

When Joe wrote, "...I'm sure I'll say it many times more...", he was understating.

I'm not asking for discussion and I won't post to this thread again, except to refresh it so it stays on the board for a few days.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 09:04 AM

Actually that wisdom is found in many threads and posts, gnu. Joe distilled the conventional wisdom down to a very succinct piece of wisdom. Your post and PM speak volumes and I agree. By way of explanation, there are many of us from the really neat days of Mudcat. We get so angry over certain folks that take pleasure in tearing down the thing that we were part of building, the thing that has spawned so much good, and so many friendships. And eventually we break and start attacking. Sometimes I look at my own posts and wonder what the hell I am doing, yet I watch these folks keep up what they do and I get angry and respond.

I was thinking about starting a thread like this, but I am glad you did. I have pretty well decided to ignore all provocation and ignorance, and just go on with my normal posting. I am not going to respond to certain posters at all.

My wish is that others will quit responding as well, but given how hard this will be for me, I know it is too much to ask of others. I have seen one of these monsters even make light of one of the most personal tragedies that a person can suffer. But they do these unspeakable things in order to receive a response. I am not going to give them what they want.

That is not to say that when something is untrue I won't respond. It certainly won't stop me from engaging in debate on issues. But those people whose goal is to feed on making people dance won't get sustenance from me.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 09:31 AM

I said it a long time ago, but...

I think that the reason it is so easy to fall into the trap of responding to flames and trolls is that it is so hard to develop a mindset, an understanding, that doing nothing is doing something.

If you can get your mind around the idea that the worst thing that can happen to anyone posting on a forum is NO RESPONSE (there is even a thread currently -- one of dozens such threads -- lamenting being the death of a thread -- creating threads to which nobody responds)....anyway, if you can get your mind around how much it bothers you when nobody responds to your posts, then you might begin to be able to resist the temptation to respond to a troll. NOT responding is getting revenge. Nothing bothers a troll more.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Alba
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 09:59 AM

I also was reading the FAQ section that made it clear how to deal with said persons. I too thought about posting it on a Thread but.....

I too understand the irresitable urge to go in after Person/s have verbally abused People that over the Years you have come to know and respect and in a lot of cases became very good Friends with.
When the target of the venom is yourself and the post is based on Lies it is very hard not to rebuff the slime that created it.

Some of things that have been posted lately have been so nasty that I question the mental state of the Poster/s and the cruelty attached is just bewildering!

I miss so many of the longtime Members who have just given up trying to start threads that were always truly interesting/hilarious/touching and who now have virtually stopped posting. That to me is the saddest part of all:>( Thankfully though some still do....phew..thank goodness)

I am, and will continue to be convinced the DNR is the only way to allow the Mudcat to move beyond the Vicious attacks and the cruel abuse of Membership that certain Person/s find such pleasure in.
That is my personal approach but sadly I think that as the times have changed, the need to address certain issues/posts differently on the Forum is here. It goes with the climate in the outside world. The Time are truly changing..(nod to Bob D)

That decision, of course, is not mine to make...I am a member not a Moderator and can understand the difficulties attached to this!
In my early days on the internet I found myself in a site called "the Fray". I was shocked at the abuse there and quickly left ( keep in mind I am a Glasgow Wumin and it takes quite a bit to raise my heckles.....Honestly). However now, somedays at least, it seems the Cat is even nastier than the worst days on that particular site!!!

I will of course keep coming to the Mudcat. There are too many great Musicians, Writers, Friends, kindness, support and freely given Education for me not to. Somedays though it is difficult to see the Woods for the Trees....so to Speak.
On those Days....well.......shudder

There are too the MANY People on the Cat really to mention that I have come to care about over the Years.
To the Friends that have become a part of my daily Life because of this Place...I love Ya...
I just hope that any newcomer doesn't take the impression of this place from the Flamers/Trolls that would stop them from joining

If I can be base for just a second I say F***k these sad B******s who find pleasure in dishing out S**T and painful remarks to get their mini ego trip.

Do Not respond.....regardless......the effort is fruitless and just think of the songs/stories you could be writing by channeling that energy elsewhere:>)

Love to all of you that I have had the honor to meet here over the Couple of Years I have been around, may our Friendships grow and flourish and may the negative energy shrivel and die...allowing the Cat to grow into an even stronger Forum than before...I sincerly hope a solution to this is found soon. Sorry to rabbit on but...if it is in your heart let it sing...:>)
..and harm thee none
Brightest Blessings                     
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM

Well said, John Hardly.

However, in my experience in this particular forum (and I participate in other much better moderated forums than this one), the responders are a worse problem than the original flamers and trolls. IMO, the forum owner and his proxies (ie Joe Offer & the clones) are the true guilty party here. They are the only ones with the power to change the atmosphere in the forum through forum moderation. Those who post here as members and guests simply don't have that power. So the whole argument of self-control is misleading and manipulative. It rewards the bad behavior of the "in group" while demonizing guests, all in a ploy to make people not notice the man behind the curtain who claims to be the Great and Powerful Oz.

No matter how much or often the thinking is reinforced by the forum authorities here that guests are the problem, it has always been the members that have refused to get in line and behave decently, and the forum owner and moderators who have refused to do the job of judicious moderation of those members. That is the dynamic that has dragged this place down into the gutter it has become--protecting and allowing people like Martin Gibson to keep posting here, and protecting and allowing the members to respond to posters like him angrily, just to prove how right on they are in "defending the forum" or "pointing out what a jerk he is" etc ad nauseum.

In any other reasonably moderated forum, people like Martin Gibson are simply cut off, along with stupid and idiotic "angry response" posts by people with anger issues (like Big Mick).

Of course, the hordes will come crashing in here to flame my post now, because I've named names and criticized the forum owner and his authoritarian proxies. So be it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:07 AM

Well said, Jooddarlin' and Mick. Thanks gnu.

DNR - as a medical acronym ala the recent tragedy in FL or as "do not respond" they both work for the Trolls & Flamers

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:09 AM

But high quality judicious moderation works much better, and makes for a high quality discussion forum.

Ignoring trolls and flamers doesn't--it just makes the shit you have to wade through to get to the good stuff, deeper and more odious.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:15 AM

Hi Guest. You are right. Most of the problems are caused by the self ordained Royalty here like Big Mick and some others who cannot deal with the fact the others have different opinions than theirs and express them differently.

Sometimes the radicals just can't deal with something more radical than themselves.

Maybe they set the tone themselves with their philosophies and when they are told that it can come across like bullshit in a way that has impact, they just freak out.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:18 AM

You fool no one, Martin. No one.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:22 AM

Can't fool a fool, Guest

Can't deal with it? DNR.

I will still write my opinions anyway and you know you will read them.

I've long said that I have no ego for discussion or debate. It's not worth my time here.

But ones like you should always know that there is a different opinion that can be stated stronger and with more feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: jacqui.c
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:22 AM

I have got into the habit of simply scrolling past posts put up by a certain number of people as I know that it is likely that they will be offensive and will not add anything to the thread discussion.

I feel sorry for the type of person who lives such a joyless life that their main form of entertainment appears to be upsetting others anonymously. These people are basically cowards, throwing out insults in an area where they feel safe from retaliation and I agree that DNR is the only sensible way to deal with them.

Why give them the recognition that they seek? I would hate to see the Mudcat deteriorate into some sort of pissing contest between idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:29 AM

But those people whose goal is to feed on making people dance won't get sustenance from me.

If only this was finally going to be true.....*smiles*

Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:33 AM

Here, here Shambles!

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:53 PM

Hey flamers and trolls...you have a whole thread dedicated to you.
Why?
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:59 PM

Let he and she who have not sinned, Georgiansilver. That post of yours is troll bait, pure and simple.

See what some of us mean? No, of course you don't.

You don't believe you could possibly be part of the problem, do you? The trollers and flamers are always "those people" you assign blame to indiscriminately, without any critical view towards who is truly at fault for the state of the forum today.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:17 PM

I suggest that everybody "take the pledge."

The main function of the Diogenes persona here has been to gadfly the resident foul-mouthed abuser. This, unfortunately, merely gives him something to respond to, and it obviously gives him great pleasure (attention, any way he can get it).

Therefore, to deny him this, and in the hopes that others will henceforth pay him no heed so that he will find himself cut off from that which sustains him, I feel that my existence here is counterproductive. Therefore, I cease to exist.

I spread myself upon the wind and fade into the ether.

I'm going

going

>}POOF!{<

gone. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:19 PM

Blather blather blather...

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM

MUDCAT VOW

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:15 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior) Don't let the door hit you on the way out Dog-Breath.

Anyone know who's going to win in the final four?

Go Illinois!!
Anyone know who's going to win in the final four?

Go Illinois!!

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:23 PM

Now, how did I know he was going to say that?

Farewell forever -- Diogenes

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: RichM
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:30 PM

GUEST (27 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM) has expressed it well; it's time that the mudcat owner and his minions get off their collective asses and ban jerks like the foul mouthed Chicago buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:31 PM

"it's time that the mudcat owner and his minions get off their collective asses and ban jerks"

It'd be a pretty lonely place if that was the only criteria for banning...

But yes I agree... any other message board worth its salt out here in the world wide waste is moderated... Why not mudcat?

We've read Joe say, time and again, he doesn't want the job of Moderator... So give it to someone who does...

What's the point of having rules if they're not going to be enforced?

And while yer at it, fix/upgrade/CHANGE the POS chat app!
:-P

heh

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:14 PM

Rich M

Why not ban all books you don't like, either?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:31 PM

I suspect that the self-defined limits of author's responsibility taken on by Max (and Joe) is to build the forum mechanism as best they can. The responsibility fo evolving a culture here is that of each individual. Each of us builds with what he has. Some build with simpering self-pity and some with scathing flames and derogation of others. Some use four-syllable words and some use four letter words. Each of us is branded by the language we post by; once that Submit button is hit, we've added our piece to the commons and it reflects who we are, or at least who we were, whether we like it or not.

Demanding more intervention is much less interesting than exploring how each voice can raise the general tone and increase the ratio of harmony to dissonance.

Even the Supreme Court believed that redeeming social value was a fair criteria to use in dampening the freedom of speech against what was seen as abuse.

I would suggest that the challenge to you is to see how much redeeming social value you can add in every sentence you write, whether through creative humor, compassion, erudition, literary style or anything else that adds value to others in the community.

I have an opinion that this excludes intentional stupidness, which strikes me as intellectual porno; but that may be just me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM

Are Shatner threads intentional stupidness, Amos? Or on-going whining about governement? That can be intentional stupidness. Get my point?

And "intellectual porno" is also something judgemental. Otherwise, some of what you say makes some sense.

There will always be a reason for someone getting pissed off about something or someone.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:37 PM

Yeah, Martin - but for what you say here, you could get arrested if you said it in public. You are not a nice person or a civilized person, and I can't imagine that anybody likes you for behaving the way you do. Sooner or later, you will get what you deserve.

As for the rest of you who insist on your "right" to respond to flamers and trolls, you just make the situation worse. As long as there are Mudcatters willing to feed the trolls, the trolls will flock here - and we have only limited means of dealing with trolls if we can't get the cooperation of Mudcatters.

OK, now that I've told everybody off, I suppose I can expect to be condemned for speaking the truth.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:52 PM

"and we have only limited means of dealing with trolls"

What's wrong with or so hard about deleting posts and banning IP addys???

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:01 PM

Someone has to go in and read all of that crap and decide to delete it or not, Clinton. The more trolls decide to inhabit Mudcat, the more work for the clones.

SRS

Some days I think I'd rather clean sewers than have to go through the junk MG posts here.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:49 PM

The crude dude from Chicago would be making a good point were it not for his personal attacks. It is my opinion that we edit the nastiness out of all his posts, leaving only the content that deals with the issue at hand. That, of course, won't happen. I am prepared to follow the guidelines we have. One of those is to not respond to nastiness, not feed the trolls. I will no longer fight back with any type of namecalling, but I will respond to the substantive parts of the dialogue and refute what I disagree with.

As a clone, I am supposed to delete personal attacks. Anytime anyone uses personal attacks in a post, I will delete it. Of course that means that I will honor the same rules, regardless of whether it is Shambles, MG, whomever.

One thing does occur to me. We waste no time expressing our righteous anger at MG, GUEST of the great North, and Shambles over their posts. In thinking about this today, it occurs to me that is a waste of bandwidth. Why don't we begin to chastise those who respond, and ignore these people? Seems to me that if we create a culture of ignoring, as has been suggested so many times, and develope a culture of telling folks that we don't respond to trolls here, that we would be far ahead.

Just some rambling thoughts..........

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 05:52 AM

I've been reading these posts, and have coime on a bit of a preoblem.
How do I define a troll?

There are some members who see every one who disagrees with their point of view as a troll, especially over big subjects like politics, sexuallity, religion ect
As far as Martin is concerned, he likes to wind up those he perceives to be pompous or hypocritical.
I've been on the receiving end on quite a few occasions, but I dont get angry, in fact if Martin pulls me up about something, I always take another look at what I've written and have often found it to be crap.

I think being more understanding of one another rather than banning people who dont behave as we would like them to is the way forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: kendall
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 06:21 AM

This is a great site. It has become a valued part of my hobby, and I hate to see it degenerate into a pissing contest. For once I agree with with Clinton Hammond; deleting posts will stop the nastiness.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 07:43 AM

The worst flamers are Joe and the clones--no, I take that back. Most the clones don't play the flame game anymore. It's pretty much down to Joe and Mick who do the flaming--hell, they even name their favorite targets, right here in this thread. The two of them are the worst forum moderators I've ever encountered in my years online, bar none.

Mudcat--one big, miserable, dysfunctional family.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: jacqui.c
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:00 AM

I am now in the habit of scrolling past the posts of certain contributors without even thinking about reading them. For me those people do not exist. In the real world they are people who I would avoid anyway, in view of their attitude and behaviour and I can see no reason to do anything different here. They have given me no reason to think that they can contribute anything that I might find of benefit to me.

As has been said on so many occasions - if these people are shunned by everyone who finds their behaviour unacceptable they will, eventually, moderate their behaviour or leave the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:25 AM

I've met Mick and Joe. They are both fine fellows, and, the control of personal attacks is probably going to get even more restrictive. (And, about time too)

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:27 AM

I don't doubt they are fine fellows. They do, however, suck as forum moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:33 AM

What complicates things with DNR is that sometimes a response, or a response to a response opens up something you want to discuss.

Avoiding geting into threads started with evident flaming or trolling intent is not that hard - but when a good thread gets invaded by someone intent on stirring things up in a damaging way, there still may be a discussion going on you want to join in with.

What I try to do these days is, once I have identified someone as a person who is more likely than not to be a troll or a flamer, I try to go right past them, and itnore their existence. And if I ever want to respond in any may to something they have written, for example when it has been picked up by someone else, who has with something to say, I find it's easy enough to avoid making any direct referance to the T or F.

Unnamed GUESTs generally go on my list of posts to be scrolled past unread. That may mean I miss some interesting posts that aren't intended as destructive, but if we use the same name as some extremely nasty people, an inevitable consequence is that we are likely to get confused with those extremely nasty people.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: kendall
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:51 AM

So,as far as trolling and flamming go, what is the difference between a Guest and a person who uses a made up name?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:51 AM

Wise post, Kevin. There are times when I get so disgusted that I decide to give them a dose of their own salts. It is a silly response and I won't be doing it anymore. One has to be careful that they don't come what they hate. That is what GUEST above is referring to, and I feel there is some validity to it, at least when it comes to me. I simply am not going to respond to these folks anymore.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:52 AM

I find myself somewhere in the middle as regards editing of the posts (by the "clones", many of whom are anonymous).

It wouldn't bother me so much except for the fact of having had a post deleted before (complete with an accompanying, scolding email).

I wouldn't mind if y'all went back through my entire history (it's open) and note that, though I'll get into some pretty heated discussions here, I have never posted what I think most would consider a "troll" post.

But a clone thought so.

I do wish this forum was moderated, but I fear that if it were moderated (even more than it already is), the shared ideals of the clones would most probably cross the fine line between "moderating" and "censoring".

As it currently exists, though I represent a minority voice (by a very large margin), I am at least almost always allowed to post as I wish -- this, despite the fact that, of the clones I am aware of, all disagree with my POV.

And there are safeguards built in. If I were to get edited on a regular basis (instead of the one embarrassing time), I would fire off PMs or emails to everyone I know here, and I bet that kind of discriminatory editing wouldn't happen so quickly again.

To be honest, the one function that I have trouble believing isn't availible to us here is the ablity to edit our own posts. EVERY other forum in which I participate allows it. It's amazing how that one simple function aids civility. You can...

1. change your mind and clarify or soften what you've said (sure, we could proof-read better, but accidents can and do happen). When these unitentional flames are left to stand, they have a tendency to recycle with each recycling of the thread.

2. So much of the acrimony that arises here is the oligarchical nature of a group of anonymous "clones" who, though I usually have no problem with, seem arbitrary. This acrimony is further exacerbated by the makeup of this forum -- the majority of whom have VERY (extremely?) egalitarian world view. They don't take well to being "lorded over".

3. As a creative person, I hate having my creativity cramped by the lack of this function. I bet I'm not the only one so frustrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:57 AM

Some named posters or posts with a name contribute no relevant or pertinent information that I can use, but it doesn't stop me from reading their posts because in the future that same named contributor may write something useful. I'm reading for content, not identity. I couldn't care less who writes it, as long as it's useful to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:57 AM

John, there is absolutely no problem with heated discussion of a topic. In fact, that is a good thing. For me, the line gets crossed when it turns into a personal attack. I have crossed that line myself, and I regret it. It comes when one gets so disgusted with the same inane question over and over, or the horrible personal comments. But that is no excuse. One should not resort to this stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 09:01 AM

That was not the "line crossed" in the post of mine that a clone deemed "delete-worthy". I didn't make a personal attack. You know me better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 09:59 AM

Guest 8:57 is right,this should be a place to exchange ideas, not some big happy family.

I enjoy reading posts from folks of all persuasions, and if I dont agree with them I write back and offer my ideas.

It would be a pretty boring place without the "bad boys"...and girls, so lets leave things as they are.
I,ve found that even the meanest sounding poster can show his or her better side with a bit of effort on our part.

I'm surprised at McGrath having a list of people he avoids..Whats the point?...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 02:13 PM

Well, evidently some people value accountability over content. They want to know if the person who directed them to the lyrics for a particular song in one post is the same person who said "Screw you" in the next. So what if it is? To some people it matters. It's a value decision - one which people obviously have a right to exercise.

Seems to me like a moot point though, with all the security vulnerabilities, identity theft etc. A reader can't be 100% sure that a member who has an established moniker and a history attached to it is who he/she says he/she is, so to me it doesn't matter whether a poster has a name or not. What matters to me is if the content of the post is useful. If it says "Screw you," I exercise my value judgement and ignore it.

Continuity can be maintained any number of ways, not the least of which is by referring to the post with a date/time stamp, which I find a lot less confusing and cumbersome than trying to keep up with the posting history of member X.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 03:34 PM

Meretricious argumentation--the probability of Jerry Rasmussen or myself or Mick or Azizi being the author of posts bearing our respective names is very high. The probability of anyone knowing who you are in any sense of the word is very low. The fabric of communication is made stronger by certainties that a communication session with a known being is occurring. Usually I can tell who you are from your style but that's much less reliable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 03:56 PM

But Amos, I don't care who Member X is, I don't care what Member X's posting history is, and I don't value what Member X says more than any other person at this website.

For those of us who value the content of the post, and not our personal emotional reaction/relationship to the poster, that is all that matters to us.

We fully understand many members and guests with consistent identities come here because they have personal relationships with other posters who use this forum. That's fine for you. But it isn't for me.

I don't want people to know my identity, and I don't want to know yours. I don't care if you believe you can recognize me from my style or not, because I don't care if people recognize me, my style, any personal information I have or have not divulged in this forum, etc.

I just plain don't care. I don't value any relationships here, because I haven't got any relationships here, and I don't want any relationships with anyone here. I'm the same way in the other forums I frequent. For me, online chat isn't about developing relationships. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 04:33 PM

You don't go through the hardships of an ocean voyage to make friends...

You can make friends at home!

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM

That you do or do not care is not the point. You pretend to be communicating while clearly preferring to conduct one-ended diatribes.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 04:47 PM

Thank you Guest 4:33! Exactly my point. I work in a school with 2200 students, have wonderful friends and family in my 3D life.

Amos--ROTFLMAO.

Whatever, dude!

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST, GEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM

A definitive work on the subject: The Subtle Art Of Trolling. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Regular sans cookie
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 06:35 PM

Strangely enough, it#s really easy to 'DNR' until the remark made is about you.

tuff shit guests, it ain't gonna make me leave in a snit, it just shows you up to be the morons you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,MvcGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 06:41 PM

what is the difference between a Guest and a person who uses a made up name?" said kendall up there.

"Unnamed Guest" was what I said.   Right now I'm posting as a GUEST because I had to come in through a Mudcat backdoor, because the front door wouldn't open, as sometimes happens.

When people come in as an unnamed GUEST, without any kind of label, they are in effect using the same name that has been used by some really very nasty posters indeed at one time and another - just click on the GUEST at the head of a post and have a look. Nasty enough that I personally have decided that I'm ignoring them, the way I would a tiny handful of other names. In the process no doubt I miss posts by people who aren't like that, but have some reason of their own for doing it. That's a shame.

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

"any other message board worth its salt out here in the world wide waste is moderated... Why not mudcat?" - Clinton Hammond.

I've never come across a message board which is a patch of the Mudcat, and I've looked. The decision to do without "moderating" - or rather, to have as little as can be managed (even if the Shambles might dispute that) is, I am sure, one of the crucial reasons for this.

And if there really are these message boards out there which manange to be as good as the Mudcat can be at its best, but with moderating that doesn't mess with that, let's be having them.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 09:30 PM

Folks, I've really enjoyed Amos' CD. Good job-!--And mine will go out to you soon---probably tomorrow.

Thanks again!!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 10:56 PM

" I've never come across a message board which is a patch of the Mudcat"

I visit ALL kinds of MB that leave this place sucking wind... if it wasn't for the occasional ON Topic Thread, and some of the people here, this place, with it's crappy hard/software, and it's idiotic 'anti-moderation' stance could nibble my bum...

We need FolkAlley.com to host a message board, and this place'll dry up like a dog turd in the hot sun...

For instance, no other message board I visit was DOWN all damn day today...

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 11:51 PM

Thanks, Art! I am honored.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 01:48 AM

Is any other message board you visited run by a family man from his basement for no monetary gain?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Partridge
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:36 AM

Some people are so full of their own self importance. I feel a little sad for them. Its not the way to win friends and influence people. Its almost as if they want to be disliked - why is that? I really don't know

Pat x

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 06:10 AM

I suspect in some cases they may be people who feel constrained in their daily life to be all agreeable and affable and courteous, and feel a need to have somewhere to put off the mask and let out the unpleasantness that builds up.

Which would be balanced maybe by other people for whom it's the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 07:59 AM

"Meretricious argumentation--the probability of Jerry Rasmussen or myself or Mick or Azizi being the author of posts bearing our respective names is very high."

Really? When Mudcat is down and you come in through the back door, it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:06 AM

As a clone, I am supposed to delete personal attacks. Anytime anyone uses personal attacks in a post, I will delete it. Of course that means that I will honor the same rules, regardless of whether it is Shambles, MG, whomever.

Perhaps before you start - you could provide some evidence of any past abusive personal attacks by me upon anyone or of examples where I have responded in kind - to abusive personal attacks upon me or to any other obvious provocation?

And before you impose any new deletions - you could go back a delete all the many abusive personal attacks that you (Joe, Catspaw etc) have made upon me and others? This should keep you busy for a while.

Good job that most of us do still just about manage to retain a sense of humour.....

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:22 AM

He didn't actually accuse you of making personal attacks Shambles. And you don't. He just said the same rules apply to everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:26 AM

Strange how some personal attacks still slip through the net, but only when they apply to certain people.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,rumanci
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:28 AM

To Guest, Amos 7:59 a.m.
maybe not - if you choose to hide behind somebody else's name but the point is that the style, the phrasing, and the vocabulary let alone the content are mostly unique to their source - much tougher to copy that isn't it ? - as you've just proved !
rum

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:38 AM

He didn't actually accuse you of making personal attacks Shambles. And you don't. He just said the same rules apply to everyone.

I had always thought that the 'rules' did apply to everyone but Mick has accused me - at one time or another - of just about everything. *Smiles*

Instead of implications and threats such as this being posted - it would be good to see some credit given to those that have managed for so long - to do what some have found so difficult.

Those that have been setting the positive example on our forum of not mounting and encouraging abusive personal attacks or responding in kind to obvious provocation - will welcome all later converts to the cause with open arms. From time to time however - they may be tempted to point out when or where our freshly enlightened ones stray from the path.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:41 AM

Clearly, we've all noticed that in Mudcat there is one set of rules for Max, Joe, and the clown clones making personal attacks upon whomever they wish...

and the rest of the forum.

Except Martin Gibson, of course. He seems to hold a special place in the heart of Joe Offer. Perhaps Martin is really Joe's alter ego?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 10:18 AM

I wasn't trying to copy anyone's style, rum. It remains to be seen whether that can be done, granted.   

Amos' statement was paradoxical under the circumstances, as proved by the 7:59am post, and the frequent times Mudcat is cookieless/down.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 10:34 AM

It should be obvious that the back-door condition of the Mudcat is an aberration, not the case in point.

If the Mudcat were differently designed, all this trash-talk would be different, and if pigs flew...

Guest consistently denies and refuses the assertion that communication with a known source is better communication than trying to penetrate the generalized stupor of obsessive anonymity.

Obviously, a profound difference of opinion exists on that score; additionally she has a principled objection to having an identitiy; she not only wants the privelege of being anonymous, she wants the privilege of being anybody, effectively being invisible while still issuing her tomes of analysis and apparently expecting anyone else to care what they say without some viewpoint to include in the understanding.

In my world view all communication has a source, disguised or otherwise, and that source is part and parcel of the communication, and part of the truth. Guest's approach leaves that piece of the truth absent, requiring the reader to take on the burden of understanding adulterated with the false nature of generalized source. This is a form of metaphysical falsification which, to my view, makes the dialogue different, worse and more difficult. It makes the messages unpalatable from the outset each time she posts.

But it is certainly her right. Especially under our current architecture.

And my right is to consider it obsessive and neurotic. Which I do.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 11:33 AM

I just plain don't care. I don't value any relationships here, because I haven't got any relationships here, and I don't want any relationships with anyone here. I'm the same way in the other forums I frequent. For me, online chat isn't about developing relationships. Period.

I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,CAH
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 11:49 AM

"the back-door condition of the Mudcat is an aberration"

Bull

"my right is to consider it obsessive and neurotic"
Some say the same about you mate...

:-P heh

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM

How can you tell so effortlessly whether a post coming from a nameless GUEST emanates from a he she and it or a they, Amos?

I sometimes wondered whether there was some other motivation to the practice than the wish to get up the noise of other people, and even asked on occasion. That was when I read the posts involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 12:38 PM

..and some people answered, but that must've been about the time you quit reading posts from nameless GUESTs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 12:53 PM

In my experience, this qualifies as an extra long downtime- that is, by the front door. But since we can come in by means of an alternate door, I don't see what the problem is. I understand that in using this entrance it is easy to forget to sign one's name- hey, I forget most of the time- and we don't have access to PMs and the Chatroom but we are in and communicating. In the past, I went through acute withdrawal pangs, obsessively checking to see if maybe, just maybe it had come back. Now I am sanguine.

I truly do think that those of us who cannot live with the Cat's vagaries should think of opening and maintaining their own forum. I would check it out routinely- as I do the Annexe- and I think a lot of us would.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 01:03 PM

McGrath won't be reading this either. How many times can he whinge on about nameless guests. Kerist. I scroll past his posts in the hope I will avoid his constant Meldrewishness on the anon topic.

Get over it man. Not everyone uses this place like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

"Not everyone uses this place like you do."

And that right there is one of the most important lessons every Mudcatter needs to understand...

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 01:15 PM

Oh and if anyone did want to try Ebbie's suggestion and couldn't run their own system, I found this a couple of weeks ago and suggested it to someone else who was running a folk related board that was cluttered with adverts.

I don't know how he does it but he appears to be hosting 100 plus boards on his own equipment and relies on donations to keep running. There is no charge and no ads and phpbb is a pretty good system.

There has been a bit of downtime lately as a new server has been installed but at the moment, I would assume other than that, he is reliable.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 01:20 PM

100 plus... I see 200+ in music alone!

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 01:23 PM

Amos has been having a reasonably intelligent and meaningful exchange without knowing anything about the "identity" of the poster behind the exchanges. I don't see how tagging these exchanges with a "name" other than GUEST would make them "better." (GUEST,Amos 29MAR05 10:34am). More intimate, perhaps. Of what value is it to a discussion to know that a certain contributor's favorite color is blue, for example? It adds nothing to the discussion. It just makes the poster a little more familiar to the reader.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 01:36 PM

You may wish it were so, Guest, but like a ship with her name painted over, you have other signatures which give you away -- the sound you make passing through these waters is different than other vessels, as any good sonarman can tell you! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM

But the best part of all this is trippin' with Amos, who thinks he can recognize all us anon guests!

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:22 PM

Betcha Amos cain't reckanize me. Betcha he'd be the furst t' admit it, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:31 PM

"Dealing with Flamers and Trolls"

Give 'em a wee kiss on the cheek, pat on the bum and quarter to make a phone call.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:49 PM

Yes Guest at 2:22. He probably thinks you're just pretty swave for such a neat posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM

One Guest said:

"I don't want people to know my identity, and I don't want to know yours. I don't care if you believe you can recognize me from my style or not, because I don't care if people recognize me, my style, any personal information I have or have not divulged in this forum, etc.

I just plain don't care. I don't value any relationships here, because I haven't got any relationships here, and I don't want any relationships with anyone here. I'm the same way in the other forums I frequent. For me, online chat isn't about developing relationships. Period."

clinton Hammond said:

"Not everyone uses this place like you do."

And that right there is one of the most important lessons every Mudcatter needs to understand... "


This is where it's at for me folks. I am a folk, country, and bluegrass musician who was drawn to this site. Most of the politics here am somewhere between 0 and 180 degrees from and I have no problem telling you so with impact. I don't come here for relationships and ass kissing and I have successfully separated real life from this and other Internet forums.

If you don't want to, fine with me, but I don't have to conform to what you conceive as a perfect world because it just isn't. I think Bush Bashers, droll English folk singers, and fat, bearded over-the-hill American folk singers suck.

But there are other types here who don't.

Sorry, I never claimed my opinion was humble. Nope, I am not Joe's alter ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 03:52 PM

Nope, yer right. Cain't figger it for the life o'me!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Ralphie
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:11 PM

Americans.....Huh!

If they didn't exist, you'd have to invent them.

Now people...time to sleep.

I promise we'll resume again tomorrow

Sleep Well

Ralphie

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:15 PM

MG is a fake. He is a thirty year old white male. He'll be 31 in June.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:34 PM

Hmmm....so the logic gets a little convoluted at this point. Guest,Amos (29MAR05 - 10:34am ..if that was really you) claims a name makes communication better, but he can recognize an anonymous poster fromhis/her style anyway, so - the name point is rather moot, don't you think?

If Amos already knows who I am, tagging these posts with a moniker is just a waste of keystrokes, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:03 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)Guest of 4:15 PM is a fake.

She is really a bull dike who wishes she had male genitalia. She will be 64 in June.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:10 PM

I am a fake. I am a bull with female genitalia. I will be 29 in September. Good game good game.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,I am the guest who is not a bull dike becaus
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:11 PM

bulls have balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 06:07 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)So do lesbians with strap-ons.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:30 PM

I just heard about another interactive site in which your behaviour can get you voted out. How about that, folks?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:33 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)Who cares? Go hang out there and behave with all of the other good little whiners. I am sure this place is much more entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:41 PM

Nice try, MG. How'd you finally get out of the teeshirt business? Have you gotten a new cat, yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:44 PM

No, our cat is 10 and is a sweetie. Never was in the tee shirt business. [bleep] (for antisocial behavior)Did you finally give up being a pimp?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:50 PM

You misunderstood me, MG. I was suggesting that we should adopt that same policy here. Say, 5 negative votes and you are out.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:02 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)That's not a public forum. It's a forum for assholes only who only hear what they want to hear. This place is the best format for saying what you want to say.

Just think, maybe you will continue to have people misunderstand you and you will get kicked out.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:10 PM

Actually MG lives in Calcutta and makes his living doing body piercing for upper-class teenagers from a little 8 x 10 four-bit store front.   He just comes here to practice his English, using lines from porno and sado-maschistic films he has borrowed from the bootlegger stall next door. He has a wife who weighed 150 when he married her but now weighs 250, and has given him four small children all under the age of ten. He wanted to be a ricksha runner but he couldn't pass the physical. MG's real name is Rapu. He goes barefoot and drinks mint tea.

Ask me how I know all this?


The same way he knows all the scurrilous things he saus about others. He just knows 'em.

It's kinda like having an invisible rabbit, only one with body odor and bad manners.

:D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:15 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)Anus, you want to start again, I'm ready.

As far as Calcutta goes, never been there. As far as your CD goes, at least one Mudcatter sent me a PM and said you sound like a goat braying along with a Glenn Yarbrough record.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:26 PM

Yep, Martin, you've got me pegged.

But you are wrong. So is Bush. And the old term "USERY" ought to be brought back even though it was said to be a no-longer-working terminology for the excesses of run-away capitalism and corporate greed. The things you love about America are anathema to about 50% of this country. Bush, you and your cohorts are the reasons so many of us sincerely humane people grieve profusely while the real and important values of the last century have been aborted with the live baby that was the many positive aspects of Socialism.

And I need no shock verbage to see or say what you are. Your own pronouncements highlight your every failing.

Love,

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:33 PM

Martin's just a misinformed rabbit, like Amos says(what's the latin word for rabbit...)very funny Amos....what an image. Actually, Martin is learning but he is so young yet...

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:35 PM

Art

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)
Your live baby of socialism in the country highlight why you will always be a failure. Your baby was killed by common sense and values that this country was founded on.

You are a square peg in a round hole.

But everyone knows that at this point you are just a callous, bitter man and you are just pining for what thankfully never happened.

China would be a good place for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:41 PM

And Nazi Germany would be a good place for you

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 09:47 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled long ago that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is not freedom of speech. So, you don't get to say whatever you want to say. Only people who suffer from Turetts Syndrome get away with outbursts of filth. Hmmm, maybe that's your problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 10:54 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)I'm not yelling fire, moron.

I'm yelling that you are just bullshit.

Take that to court, pal.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:20 AM

Perhaps this "antisocial behavior" can first be defined for us - before we also fall foul of it?

Or does this only apply to certain posters?

---

I have some choice words for you, Shambles, but I don't think I'll say them.
If you can't figure out an answer for yourself, I think all I'll say is

No Comment

This has not been done before at Mudcat, and I don't like doing it. However, I am convinced it is necessary.
I hope the person targeted learns his lesson soon.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:18 AM

Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
Requires that we keep self-control
So if that is too much then
It's best not to touch them,
Not even with ten-foot long poles.
For those Trolls and those Flamers
Are sometimes the same as
The people who call
For the heavens to fall
And for vengeance to come from on high.

So it's better perhaps
To be sensible chaps
And to wander on by
With a tolerant sigh,
And in time (who can say?)
They may go on their way,
Or else they'll remain,
Settle down and complain
At the next lot of Flamers and Trolls.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Stu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:41 AM

Sorry for being thick, but is that bleeping done by Joe?

I thought everyone had found a way of formatting their posts with colour - seems like a good idea but could end up with Mudcat looking like a migraine.

For my two penneth, I think offensive posters show their true colours when they post and most people see through it. Some of these posters are capable of reasoned and intelligent argument, even if I personally find their views a tad unpalatable.

This is an excellent site and far from a dysfuntional family in my opinion, but merely a reflection of the societies we live in, and here we all are dealing with it as best we can.

I love the varied opinions, snippets of wisdom and advice on bouzouki chords.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:01 AM

Nothing new here, except the methodology used. Personal attacks not allowed. Calling someone a "cunt" or suggesting to a bereaved parent that their baby died in their arms and it was their fault, simply are not allowed.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:17 AM

I, too, have been labeled as a troll on more than a few occasions. I think it really has to do with what you believe and how you state it. In this little web community, you have a lot of people that think and believe in a certain way. That's fine. But when somebody comes in and defies that way of thinking, then automatically they are labeled as a "troll" or "flamer."
It could be a way to dodge the really tough questions and not have to answer them. I don't know. It may be that there is no way to argue effectively against a point that someone has made so a troll label is thrown out and everyone migrates towards another topic to take the pressure off of everyone else. That seems to be the popular method shown around here lately.
Martin, from time to time, has posted some brilliant messages and he gets his message across by using sarcasm and actually trying to put the problem into perspective. Even Amos, from time to time, lists some pretty thought provoking posts. Everybody posts in their own style and what they think will work best and communicate what they are actually trying to say. To label someone as a troll or flamer is to take the easy way out and ignore the topic at hand.


It's really a sad way to live.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:57 AM

SH, I have never thought of you as a troll. But then you never use the language and vile references that this other one uses. Are you of the opinion that when one disagrees with you it is OK to refer to them as a "cunt". Do you feel that the essence of debate and discussion is to reference a lost child and blame the parent for the death? I am happy that we have conservative posters, it gives me someone to debate the issues with. In fact, some have actually changed how I view certain subjects. But this vile man goes beyond any norm of decency, and acts like it is just shock language. It is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:14 AM

Oh god. Are we supposed to be impressed that Martin Gibson's posts are being censored for "antisocial behavior"?

Why not be a real man and just block the fuckers ISP?

Answer: you need another bully on the block to make your own (and Big Mick's) bullying of forum users look better.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:41 AM

I don't think it would be that hard to find actual examples of susu's hubby being labeled a "troll" here. I'm almost postive that I've read at least somebody referring to him that way.

And the point he makes it true none-the-less. There are trolls and then there are those who are called trolls simply because it is easier than trying to argue with their well-reasoned and presented, but divergent posts.

I've not only seen other "conservatives" come and go -- each suffering the label "troll" while, conversely, have observed as we have abided the anonymous poster from Minnesota simply because they present the majority (liberal) opinion here.

I know that the opinions here on the mudcat are not monolithic -- but they are strongly one-sided in this regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM

GUEST, I am not the one editing those posts. I support blocking the ISP as well. I understand why it is being done, and it is nothing more than what has always been the case. Funny how a person can come to this place, use the most horrible language available, cause almost unbearable sadness to a person suffering the worst loss imaginable, and you defend that person and call us bullies for saying that it must end. I have never hid behind anonymity and I don't intend to start. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Anon from MN
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM

John Hardly, the Mudcat liberals hate me because I'm much farther to the left than they would like anyone to be. Which in their mind, puts me right alongside the conservative Bush/Bircher/Calvinist types.

I agree that Susu's Hubby has sussed out the forum dynamic for labelling people trolls and flamers, though.

As I've said for a long time, the problem here is two particular forum moderators are bullies. When you have bullies in positions of authority, you get a dysfunctional dynamic, like we have here.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:49 AM

Sorry, John, but I have to strongly disagree with you when you say, we have abided the anonymous poster from Minnesota simply because they present the majority (liberal) opinion here.

I am as liberal as they come, but NOT narrow-minded and not on any kind of one track agenda. In fact, liberal to me, means to be open to other points of views. Note, I didn't say I have to agree with them or like them, just be open to listening/reading them.

The poster from Minnesota is none of what I would consider liberal. They are just someone who knows how to copy and paste what they think of as the "party" line and have a small-mindedness about anything divergent. So...that poster certainly does NOT "present" my liberal opinions. For that, one need only go back and read my op/ed pieces in old copies of the "Liberal Opinion Week."

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:49 AM

fancy words, MN, that a simple examination of the forum will show are not factual. You have not been censored, but you have been challenged on your points of view. You act as though you are tough and controversial, but when you are challenged on your views, you whine about bullies. I believe you are an ivory tower liberal. Full of finger pointing, short on ideas. Susu's Hubby has a philosophy that flies in the face of many here. There is nothing wrong with that. But when one starts moaning because the majority disagree with your views, that is just whining.

MG is a different kettle. If you can't see that, then you are blind.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:51 AM

Oh yes, let's censor the swear words too. Let's make "foul language" a Mudcat decency standard. That will make it all better.

It isn't Martin Gibson's use of vulgar language that is the problem with Martin Gibson. He could just as easily be an abusive bully without using foul language, as you and Joe Offer have so ably demonstrated over and over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:57 AM

There you go. Don't deal with the substance, just whine. Same old, same old. Read the post again, this time for comprehension. Martin's language is part, but the larger issue is what he attacks, such as the parent suffering the loss.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:57 AM

Bullshit I haven't been censored. Max has personally blocked my IP, when I've challenged his authority, and pointed out the emperor has no clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:58 AM

And I swore at him too. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:21 AM

I guess I should be more clear. I do see examples of conservatives (political or religious) being labelled as "troll". To that extent, at least, I agree with susu's hubby. It's a fact.

What's unclear, but I feel is true (so it may be little more than my pespective) there is less likelihood that someone from the left is likely to be labeled a "troll" merely for their point of view as is the case with a conservative.

This, coupled with the fact that, of the clones that I know, they are, to a (wo)man, liberal. Given that conservatives are more likely to be called "trolls", who do you honestly think stands the greater likelihood of being censored by a clone?

And what that leaves us to decide is -- do the clones act on the same kind of inequitable perspective (as does the general mudcat population) about who is trolling (conservatives) an who is not (liberals).

I got a "you are trolling, John" email from a clone. I took great offense at a thread (a few years ago) that asked the question "Are Missionaries Terrorists". I have MANY friends -- doctors, engineers, dentists, contractors, who spend full or part-time in the third world as missionaries giving of their time and labor to make the lives of those less fortunate more comfortable.

What's more, the "Are Missionaries Terrorists" thread was started anonymously. That was corrected later in the thread -- but what's germane to the discussion here -- that correction (the anonymous poster came forward) occurred AFTER this action against me was taken by the clone.

The thread angered me. But rather than respond with anger to a trolling thread -- that's what we generally call a thread like that -- started by an anonymous poster -- and we've pretty much agreed that we don't respond to those threads, I instead started a thread with the intent to show the absurdity of the "terrorist" label/accusation of the trolling thread. My thread was "Is Television terrorist" and I posted something about horrible TV shows.

The clone kept the truly trolling, anonymous thread in tact and deleted mine and sent me an email and a PM scolding me for "trolling".

I'm not saying that the whole incident didn't work out for good. In fact, it ended up being one of the best threads that the mudcat has ever produced ... but that doesn't change what I still think was a very strange inequity -- an inequity that still colors how fair a "shake" I think I would be likely to get if the forum became even more censored.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:32 AM

Anonymously, in the best tradition of fearful passive-aggressive whinery.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:33 AM

Genuine trolls aren't people with unpopular opinions, or who lose their temper in the course of discussion, I suggest. They are people who say things which they believe will provoke discord or anger, and with the specific aim of sowing discord and provoking anger. Nothing to do with having any specific beliefs about the actual issues or controversies they choose to dabble around in. The phrase that sometimes gets used as a kind of triumphant sneer when this succeeds is "like shooting fish in a barrel".

Flamers on the other hand probably do have some kind of beliefs, but they think that the way to express this, when confronted by people who disagree with them, is to launch into full attack mode, which in some cases can mean foul-mouthed and personal attacks which go way over any reasonable limits, as cited by Big Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:40 AM

"Genuine trolls aren't people with unpopular opinions, or who lose their temper in the course of discussion, I suggest. They are people who say things which they believe will provoke discord or anger, and with the specific aim of sowing discord and provoking anger."

I agree. I am merely questioning whether that is the working definition by which the actions of the clones is dictated.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,joeclone
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:38 AM

John Hardly, for myself and at least 3-4 of the other clones I know of, I'd say we are more likely to do just the opposite of what you think... we go out of our way to make sure we are as unbiased as possible when looking at offensive postings. In fact, when I see one by someone whom I know I have a less than favoarable opinion of, I refer it to Joe or Jeff, rather than take any action myself. In other words, most of us bend over backwards to be as non-judgemental as possible.

I think it is important that folks remember joeclones came about BEFORE folks could preview their own postings and our primary duties were to delete duplicate postings and make corrections in links and other mistakes, most times at the request of the poster. Since the preview function has been added there really hasn't been a whole lot for us to do.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 11:12 AM

th nk we should censor all the 's.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,another clone
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:17 PM

I have thought for sometime we should {BLEEP] really offensive posts (those that are both vulgar and personal)like many of MG's, but waited for guidance from Joe.

There is no sense to such behavior, and I hope this sends a message that argument and disagreement are one thing, while nastiness for its own sake is bad for the forum: even worse than moderate censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:47 PM

There is a huge difference between saying that someone's ideas are full of shit and telling them that they personally are full of shit. The first one I would allow and the the second one I would delete. And I thought that was a Mudcat guideline - if I've misunderstood someone please inform me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:49 PM

Except for those screaming about censorship, coming into Mudcat today is like inhaling fresh air for the very first time after being born into this world of polluted air and water and degraded environments---and that is all I've ever known. I'm with Kat and Mick and Joe. But I've advocated for more serious forms of site moderation for several years. I appreciate the changes.

ART THIEME

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:53 PM

Over the last three years or so, I've tended to stay away from discussions about flamers and trolls and abusive posters, because I have had some ambivalence on this subject. But I find myself one hundred percent behind Joe and Mick on this one. There is such a thing as going too far, and in my opinion, that line has been crossed.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

My apologies. I said, in the initial post : "I'm not asking for discussion and I won't post to this thread again, except to refresh it so it stays on the board for a few days."

Little did I know.

I started this thread for two reasons only. First, in hope that members and guests who had not yet read the FAQ's would do so. Second, that it might serve as a reminder to those who have read the FAQ's, myself included. That's why I said I wasn't looking for discussion. Obviously, I was not clear in my intentions and I am saddened by the fact that my good intentions have spawned another thread of discord. It's almost as if I was a troll.

I also said I wouldn't post to this thread again. Under the circumstances, I felt I should say something to explain why I started this thread. If anyone takes umbrage because I have broken this vow, well, rough ass, as we say up in the backwoods.

Again, my apologies.

Sincerely,

g

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:07 PM

In my not so humble opinion, if you don't know what is acceptable and what is not, you need to go somewhere and grow up. Your lack of impulse control should not be our problem, and if you need to crap in the sand box, get your own sand box.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM

Absolutely. The line has been crossed. I wouldn't want to be misunderstood in that regard. I just don't want to see the measures necessary to deal with the truly vile being construed to apply to me (again).

I understand that I'm here by the owner's good graces. I have no basis of ownership or membership upon which to make my appeal, so I make it on the basis of an appeal for fairness.

Mostly though, this thread is reminding me (as it should -- a good thing) that if this stuff matters too much to me, it is probably because my own participation here has tipped away from what I enjoy -- creative writing and music -- and toward passions of belief that I really don't NEED to be sharing. I which case, my bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,katlaughing coming through the backdoor
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:16 PM

gnu, no need to apologise, imo...this has helped to define, once again, some important points.

THIS is just for you, in case you missed it.**bg**

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM

katlaughing... NOW!!! There's the breath of fresh air I'm talking about! And Dave's post is excellent as well (I didn't have time to read much further, but I will). That's the "Café" I know. If you can't ignore 'em, Eminem 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:56 PM

Of course, post at 02:40 PM was from shitforbrainsgnu. Forgot to sign in at the back door. My bad.

Ya know, recalling an old thread like that minds me of the time I transgressed when I called mousethief "pussy whipped". I thought nothing of it, except that I thought I was being humourous, but I was wrong... WAY wrong. I did take offense to the slapping I got and might have responded poorly but a 'Cat PM'd me to explain why this was a transgression of epic proportion. I apologized once I understood. Again, that's the Café I know... allowing someone to save face by educating them as to "why" rather than trashing them. Of course, if they don't listen, trash 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,jacqui.c
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:17 PM

I have tried educating one particular 'Catter who has a habit of launching unwarranted personal attacks of a malicious nature. Last time I sent a PM to that person the only response I got was ' Blah, blah, blah. Some people just seem to be incapable of getting the message.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:27 PM

yep, jacqui...once they get that mindset, it's a hard thing to cure.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:27 PM

But at least when we use a name and are able to be sent PMs we can be sent a message - and as gnu reminded us just now, that's one factor that sometimes can stop the downward spiral. And even when we react badly to criticism to start with, that isn't necessarily the end of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:58 PM

Funny how a person can come to this place, use the most horrible language available, cause almost unbearable sadness to a person suffering the worst loss imaginable, and you defend that person and call us bullies for saying that it must end. I have never hid behind anonymity and I don't intend to start. The line must be drawn somewhere.

That you may not be a person that is in favour of capital punishment - it does not mean or follow that you are a person that supports, excuses or defends murder........Perhap this sort of accusation should not be made?

And just because you may be a person that now makes a lot of indignant noise about the terrible things one person might say to others on this forum - will not (without you taking other action to change your approach) make you any less of a bully.

Perhaps ALL this pointless and counter-productive personal judgement (both good and bad) of each other's worth to post - can cease to be encouraged? And the example now set - of just addressing or ignoring what is contained in the post?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:02 PM

CENSORSHIP ON MUDCAT LIVES

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:19 PM

so does anonymous baiting and carping

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:26 PM

so does brown nosing and spineless shuddering at someone's opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:33 PM

Well said, Martin. Stand up for your beliefs... the rights of your self, as well as others (with emphasis on the rights of others being equal to your own). Take that anyway you want. It's still true.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:58 PM

thank you guest.

A lot of that goes on here by the so-called Mudcat elite. They want this place to be a reflection of their whole far-left radical lifestyle and I am just so amused to not let that be so.

I guess that they would think that would be anti-social behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:06 PM

BTW, the post to Art only said that I was glad his socialist dream went down the tubes.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving anti-american and person of non-faith.

Sorry, Joe. had to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:09 PM

martin if you are representative of an american person with faith, no wonder your country is ridiculed by the majority of the sane world.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:45 PM

Is courtesy now considered to be especially characteristic of the far left? And discourtesy is something cherished and defended as an vital aspect of neo-conservatism? Good.
........................................

I couldn't make much sense of that last post of Shambles. (Which is unusual.) Was he saying that the kind of behaviour cited in the quote didn't happen, or that it have was all right by him, or that while it was regrettable it didn't really matter, compared to the damage caused by people who tried to interfere with the freedom to say stuff like that?

I think that the word "bully" should be reserved for people who actually act in a way that is intended to hurt vulnerable people, as exempolified in that quote Shambles included. There are other words to use when we are complaining that someone is being over-controlling, but "bullying" is something else. It is not a word that should be cheapened by using it inappropriately.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:45 PM

"... the so-called Mudcat elite." *grin*...we've BEEN down that road.

"... their whole far-left radical lifestyle..." seems to me the right has had their say about anytime they wanted. We have whole threads devoted to their opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:08 PM

So what Bill D. So fucking what?


guest, don't worry. I don't think we care that much any more. We've watched some countries just go down the tubes further and further in Europe.

Gee, why are so many still banging down the doors to immigrate to the US every day still?

Could be because of the desperation and dead end in pathetic countries like yours, Guest. Like a place where you can speak your mind and not be arrested and executed for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:54 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior) I apologize to everyone on mudcat for the behavior of Martin Gibson, but it is not his fault.

It is mine.

Martin is a very loving person (in the literal sense) and after I visit him for a night, he is calm for several days. My work load has been too much for the last few weeks, and I have not had a chance to be with him.

I accept all blame for his being upset.

I'll try to get up there to see him sometime this weekend. Then I'm sure you will see a much more relaxed Martin Gibson.

Love you, Martin Sweetie...

Fred

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM

Where we are free to speak our minds, unless one is attending a Shrub public appearance:

Washington, DC - This morning, the Associated Press is reporting that the director of the Secret Service office in Denver is investigating claims that local residents were blacklisted from an public appearance by President George W. Bush in Colorado last week.

The investigation was opened on the heels of numerous published reports that the White House is adopting a tactic used by the Bush-Cheney campaign last year to exclude residents from otherwise public appearances by the President. Below is a DNC research document with the published reports of others who were blacklisted in the last seven weeks from Bush-led town hall meetings on Social Security.
White House Employing 2004 Campaign Tactics at Bush Events

During the 2004 campaign, the RNC ripped up tickets and removed Democrats and others waiting in line to see the President at private campaign rallies. This practice has now been copied by the White House, who now also screens those with tickets to see the President pitch his domestic agenda, including Social Security. The difference is that these recent Bush events are taxpayer-funded and should be open to the public.

February 3rd: Fargo, ND

40 People Barred From Bush Event in North Dakota; White House Says "List" Created by Volunteers. "Not everyone was welcome, apparently, at President Bush's speech in North Dakota yesterday. The Fargo Forum reported that a city commissioner, a liberal radio producer, a deputy Democratic campaign manager and a number of university professors were among more than 40 area residents who were barred from attending the Bush event. Their names were on a list supplied to workers at two ticket distribution sites." The White House "said the list may have come from volunteers; it did not come from the White House." [Washington Post, 2/4/05]

March 21st: Denver, CO

Two Men Removed From Bush's Denver Event.

"The man near the entrance of George Bush's nonpolitical, taxpayer-financed 'town hall' meeting Monday stopped Karen Bauer and Leslie Weise. He directed the two Denver women toward a man in a smiley-face tie. 'You've been ID'd,' the second man told them. Bauer and Weise were amazed. Hidden under their business suits, the members of the group Denver Progressives wore T-shirts that said 'Stop the lies.' Along with another Denver Progressives member, Alex Young, they planned to expose the T-shirts as the president talked about Social Security. … Soon, a stocky man with a shaved head, an earpiece and a red lapel pin arrived. He never identified himself as a Secret Service agent, but he did have a message. 'He said we were allowed to go in, but if we caused any problems, we'd be taken to jail,' said Bauer, a 38-year-old marketing coordinator." [Denver Post, 3/23/05]

Secret Service Said They Were on a "List" Provided by the GOP. According to Lon Garner, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Denver district, "his agents don't remove people from presidential gatherings unless they break the law. The Republican staff, on the other hand, may ask people to leave, Garner said. And like the Secret Service, they also wear lapel pins and earpieces.' Garner said he understood that Republicans had two names on a 'list.'" [Denver Post, 3/23/05]

Colorado GOP Later Confirmed that it was a White House Event; Nevertheless, GOP Organizers Told them it was a "Private Event." "More than an hour before the president arrived, Bauer, Weise and Young were ordered to leave the Wings Over the Rockies Museum. … 'The guy said, 'If the staff asks you to leave, you have to leave. This is a private event.'' It wasn't. Bush's Denver appearance probably cost taxpayers tens of thousands in jet fuel, room rent and personnel. 'This was an official White House event and not a political event,' Colorado GOP executive director David Wardrop explained." [Denver Post, 3/23/05]

Secret Service Now Investigating. "The U.S. Secret Service on Monday said it was investigating the claims of three people who said they were removed from President Bush's town hall meeting on Social Security last week after being singled out because of a bumper sticker on their car." [Rocky Mountain News, 3/29/05]
March 22nd: Tuscon, AZ

University of Arizona Student Had Ticket Ripped Up and was Denied Entrance to White House Event; Student Placed on "List". "UA Young Democrat Steven Gerner, a political science and pre-pharmacy sophomore, said he and three other Young Democrats had been waiting in line with their tickets for about 40 minutes when a staff member approached him and asked to read his T-shirt. Gerner was the only one of the four wearing a UAYD T-shirt, which read, 'Don't be a smart (image of a donkey, the Democratic Party symbol). UA Young Democrats.' Gerner said the staffer, who refused to provide his name, asked for Gerner's ticket and crumpled it up. The staffer walked away, returned in 20 minutes, and told Gerner his name had been added to a list banning him from entering the convention center for the speech." Gerner received his ticket from Representative Grijalva's (D-AZ) office and his name was printed on the ticket. [Arizona Daily Wildcat, 3/22/05, http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/98/118/01_2.html]

Facility Administrators Said Orders Came from the White House; Secret Service Confirms that Event Organizers Were in Charge. "Kate Calhoun, TCC sales and marketing manager, said the venue's staff did not control entrance to the event, but said the Secret Service was taking tickets and exercising 'no discrimination whatsoever.' 'The venue does not issue or check or take tickets,' Calhoun said. 'It's coming straight from the White House - we rent them our space and don't get involved. It was a smooth operation from start to finish, and I did not see anyone denied entry.' Jonathan Cherry, Secret Service spokesman, said the Secret Service was not taking tickets at the event. 'The host committee controls who gets in and who gets out,' Cherry said. 'Secret Service agents are not ticket takers.'" [Arizona Daily Wildcat}

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:29 AM

I'm pretty amazed at all this. All I did try to say was that when the Soviet Union wanted to get rid of totalitarianism, they tossed out the many good aspects of Socialism with the baby and the washwater of Communism. --- The current president of the USA has seen the void left by the demise of some of the credibility of the left and is tossing out so many programs that the disadvantaged need here that it makes the landscape in this country rather ugly from where I sit watching it all go down--no matter what kind of chair I am utilizing these days. In the name of democracy, they are making the world safe for their brand of extreme capitalism, and that's about all. My feelings are my feelings just like the profane poster's feelings are his own. I do try to put my thoughts down here in this forum without bending folks out of shape, but I guess I've not succeeded in doing that.

The people I've come to enjoy, respect, like, and even love here at Mudcat are all those the offending one doesn't seem to appreciate much at all. Mainly, that makes me feel pretty good about myself though.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:00 AM

And why shouldn't Bush and his gang refuse to admit people who are not supporters? Compared to what they did in Florida, (eliminating thousands of voters) this is peanuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:07 AM

Kendalldarlin', it may be peanuts, but in the long run, I know you know, it adds up and most of these were PUBLIC functions. It is insidious and, imo, has long-ranging ramifications, as did the voting in FL whihc you mention.

Dear Fine Art, you SHOULD feel pretty good about yourself!Feck all to the naysayers, you've got Spaw's Posse in yer back pocket, pahdnuh!*BG**

luvyakat

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:47 AM

Yeah, sure do.....But I gotta' tell ya' Art, there are a lot of 'Catters getting down on Shambles real bad for posting the same stuff over and over. Now on that one, I stood up for Roger because if they make that into a big deal, then you and I are in big trouble around here!!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:02 PM

Ha!

another thread that turns into an anti-american, anti-Bush, anti-establishment thing.

It's all you liberally diseased know and think about.

Losers!

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:18 PM

Hehehe!! I don't know why, but that just cracked me up. I guess I am a loser because I must be losing it. Oh, MG. At least you have helped some of us pass the wind, er, ah, time.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 03:51 PM

"... liberally diseased ..."

does the AMA know about this? Can Johns Hopkins cure it? I wonder where I caught it...from reading rational writings, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:01 PM

Bill, you keep reading that real history stuff and whatever makes sense what do you expect to happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:06 PM

Bill D. you can be cured of it perhaps by getting fucked over by the ACLU.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:12 PM

You gotta be careful, Martin...the ACLU is a group that would take YOUR case if some raving, rabid, liberal bit you on the butt for speaking out.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:18 PM

I don't need the ACLU for that. I'd just find some bluegrass redneck to kick their butt.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:29 PM

FIND? You don't do your own butt kicking? hmmmmmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM

Oh, I'd pay someone younger and stronger. wouldn't want to hurt my hands that make such fine music.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:50 PM

oh, I see

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:52 PM

Yes, I believe they are capable. They would easily be able to stick all of their bows ups some old hippie's ass at once.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:57 PM

I had an invitation to join the ACLU but there is no way. Ever since they supported the Nazis "right" to march through Cicero Ill. a heavily Jewish community, I have avoided them. There is a difference between freedom and license.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:02 PM

Kendall, Cicero, Illinois is a corrupt western suburb with latinos and Italians fighting for power.

Where you are thinking of is Skokie, Il which is a northern suburb, heavily Jewish, adjacent to the heavily Jewish suburb where I live.

Skokie has had a large amount of holocaust survivors and children of such.

Just want to set the record straight. The ACLU it seems supports many Nazi causes over the years as well as just about everything else that is distatefully politically correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:23 PM

Kendall, that case was also handled by a Jewish ACLU attorney. The ACLU protects rights and not beliefs. It seems to be a hard concept to understand but it is the basis for the Constitution, BoR and the other amendments.

And far from being PI in the current sense, the ACLU is about as NON-PI as you can get. You have certain rights that come with responsibilities granted under the Constitution and they are yours no matter how distasteful your belief may be. It is also not surprising that the ACLU has a high percentage of Jewish membership because they have experienced first hand the tyranny of "and then they came for me."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:26 PM

Goodly words, Spaw.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:24 PM

As much as I despise Nazis, denying them the right to march in Illinois would have opened the door for others to be denied the right to march in Anytown, USA. That is the right that the ACLU was defending.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:sUf6EvfpKeMJ:www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii781111.html+Skokie,+Illinois,+ACLU&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:25 PM

Yes, I mis spoke, it was Skokie. Their "right" to march in that community was nothing more than the "right" to incite a riot. That, in my opinion is not a right at all. I'm as liberal as they come but I'll be damned if I would stand by and watch a bunch of ignorant pinheads persecute and intimidate Jews. They may have had a legal right to march, but surely not a moral one.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:54 PM

That's a very nice article brucie. Thanks for that link. It explains the entire situation about as simplistically as I have ever seen it. The last lines written by the judge at the very bottom are an excellent synopsis of why it pays to protect the rights of even the most rabid and distasteful groups.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:51 PM

Hey Kendall. Now if you just felt that way about the bunch of ignorant pinheads who persecute and intimidate Jews on Mudcat.

It's happening here, believe me.

Some of you should wear your armbands under your shirt, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:06 PM

Zzzzzzz.........

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:14 PM

Wesley, Jesus doesn't like stalkers.

He punishes them.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:29 PM

Nobody on Mudcat, pinheads or otherwise, persecute Jews, Martin. If you feel like you're being persecuted (which you are not, by the way), it's not because you are Jewish, it's because the decent people here are reacting to the fact that you are a thoroughly unpleasant human being.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:51 PM

I know the person posting under that name has repeately said that the character presented is a fictitious one, intended to get up the nose of people he (or she) doesn't like. What I'm not clear is whether that includes the alleged Judaism of that character.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM

Ha! what a riot!

Kind of like how I question the alleged intellectualism of quite a few here!

Guest, Observer, I will all so gently call you a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: kendall
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:01 PM

Examples Martin???

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:02 PM

Too many to name, but you know who I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:15 PM

Zzzzzzz......

SOS { Same old S*** }

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:44 PM

It's much easier for one to feel that he or she is disliked because of the group to which they belong than it is for them to accept that the fault lies solely within themselves.

A Parable (also a true story):—

I once knew a man who felt he was being discriminated against. We'll call him Ed. He said was an actor. Yet, he had never had any training as an actor. He had a small part in a high school play once, but since then he had not acted on stage, on television, or in the movies. Not once.

As proof that he was being discriminated against, he often cited the occasion when he auditioned for the part of Othello. Othello was a black man. Ed was a black man. He didn't get the role. The role was given to a white actor, who, of course, would have to wear dark make-up in order to look the part. The white actor, incidentally, had an MA in dramatic arts, with considerable additional training, and he had acted in several plays, including Shakespeare.

This was not the only reason he felt discriminated against, but it was something fairly specific that he could point to, which he did repeatedly. In life, he had cast himself in the role of "The Victim."

I was sitting in a restaurant in the University District one day, and in the booth next to mine sat Ed and a young black woman. He was regaling her with his usual litany of affronts to which he had been subjected. It began to verge on whining. At length, the young woman slid out of the booth and stood over him with her hands on her hips and said, "Ed, people don't dislike you because you're black. They dislike you because you are a complete jerk!"

She turned on her heel and walked out of the restaurant.

Submitted for your contemplation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: kendall
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 05:55 PM

Old Jewish proverb...If a man calls you an ass, you can ignore him. However, if TWO men call you an ass, get a saddle."

Subject: RE: BS: Dealing with Flamers and Trolls
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 06:40 PM

I think on that basis there are very few of who would not be wearing saddles by the time we are through... (Especially if "men" is taken to include "women", as I rather assume is the case.)