Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: kendall
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:12 AM

What's important here is context and intent. I was raised in an era where people did not use that kind of language out of respect to others peoples sensibilities. Now, it seems like no one cares about anyone but themselves, they have no respect for anyone INCLUDING themselves.
I never heard such language until I went into the service at the age of 19; where I listened to other servicemen use the most foul language at each other, and thought, "Someone is about to get hurt" but as it turned out they were just trying to gross each other out. Teenagers!
Interesting that those guys came from large cities, and many of them were foul mouthed, homophobic, anti semetic racists. By and large, the country boys were more careful about their language.
On the other hand, I learned a lot of new words in those 4 years.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:29 AM

One thing is for sure. The hostility factor towards John would be much lower had he not been a newbie to a forum that despises newbies who post controversial things. Don't want to rock that complacency boat.

I am not all offended by the use of the 'naughty words'. But I'm deeply offended by the sexist nature of these crap songs, and can't for the life of me figure out why anyone thinks they are so valuable they must be "preserved". Ditto for racist crap songs.

However, the Mudcat impulse to censor that which 3 people don't like offends me even more. But it doesn't matter, because this place has an arbitrary censor in Joe Offer, who is so bloody inconsistent about the application of his personal censorship rules, it can make your head spin watching what he deletes, and what he doesn't.

If it makes you feel any better John, I too have been censored here for using the word fuck in a thread title. I was censored because I am an anon poster. The cries for you to be censored are because you are a newcomer. If you were "one of the gang" people would be defending your right to post here, instead of yelling at you to go home to your website, and stop offending them and their friends' dainty sensibilities.

As usual, Joe Offer is deciding not to censor that which he has previously censored. But Joe is a sexist jerk, even though he is quite beloved here in the forum. I'm guessing you will be safe enough to post here. But why the fuck would you want to come here for legitimate research is beyond me. This isn't much of a resource, and is rarely used by legitimate scholars anymore. Some here claim it has been used as such in the past, but I remain unconvinced about that. The DT is a bloody mess of a database, and the people here are really nothing more than a bunch of opinionated amateurs, posing as the real deal.

Good luck with your research here in Mudcat into the crap songs traditions.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: alanabit
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:21 AM

Something Joe is very consistent with, is the posting of his name and the willingness to identify himself with his posts. Anonymous cowards who spit venom here are not always afforded that respect.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Dani
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM

I concur with what Rita said. Dash the titles, adults can go where they want and read and post what they want, libraries and patrons are happy, kids are 'safe', sure!

Dani

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:41 AM

BTW guest - hate to shoot your theory out of the water but John is not a particularly new poster.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 10:15 AM

Guest 9:41, John appears to be new to the people who don't recognize him though, so that makes him a newbie in their eyes, doesn't it? Stupid technicalities not withstanding, of course. Here is John's posting history.

Yes, technically he has been posting since last July. However, nearly every single one of his posts to this forum involves the sexist machismo songs of the good ole boys. Perhaps he chose to raise the ante this week by posting with thread titles containing the 'naughty words' to draw attention to himself?

The first thing I did when I saw his thread titles this week was click on his name to see what his posting history was here. It is nearly exclusively with obscene sexist material.

Yawn. Why do any of you give a shit? The guy is obviously obsessed with hanging onto his penis with one hand, while he posts sexually explicit stuff with the other.

Welcome to the internet.

"Legitimate research" my ass.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST,Declan
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 10:38 AM

I have no strong objections to any words in thread names per se. But I have been denied access to this site in my workplace for over 3 years now because of the use of certain words in thread titles. Joe says in his initial post on this thread that he doesn't regard this as much of a problem. However it is to me. I would say that this will become more of a problem as employers, libraries etc become more conscious of the risk of being held responsible for innapropriate content held on their computers. These filters are not intended to keep out sites such as Mudcat per se, but the use of words conisered profane will lead to many filters denying access to the site.

So a bit of consideration for others who want to use the site would not go amiss. And if we are all adults we shouldn't need censorship - just behave responsibly.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: kendall
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 10:58 AM

Joe doesn't like personal attacks. I don't like personal attacks. Most of us don't like personal attacks. Adjust.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:45 AM

Thanks to George Carlin for the 7 deadly words...sh*t p*ss c*ck c*nt c*cksucker motherf*cker and t*ts! Th*re. I f*el so m*ch b*tter!


But nevermind the sexual references.

What really annosy me is all those contractions!
All those apostrophes! apostrophies? apostrophe's?
Arghh...there's another one!

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:13 PM

Gee, I thought Joe was quite consistent. It's just that people don't understand him. As kendall says, Joe doesn't like personal attacks. Martin Gibson still doesn't understand that, and still thinks he's being censored for crude language. Many of his personal attacks involve crude language, but it's his combat that gets him censored.

And Joe does remove personal attacks when he finds them, but doesn't go out of his way to look for things to censor. Joe is here for the music.

Joe doesn't usually like foul language, and doesn't use anything stronger than "shit" in his everyday speech, but he objects far more strongly to the euphemizing of said foul language. If Joe is quoting somebody who says "fuck," Joe says "fuck."

Joe has an extremely strong objection to the sanitizing of folk music, especially in a folk music forum. He may find rugby songs distasteful, but he will fight to ensure that they continue to exist.

Joe is hesitant to do any sort of censorship at all, but he knows it has to be done at times. He does delete foul language from thread titles when it appears to be there simply to provoke people - but not when it serves a legitimate purpose like identifying a song by title.

But in this circumstance, Joe is in a quandry, and is open to discussion. I'd like to see John Mehlburg come up with a solution - one that doesn't compromise our study of folk music too extremely.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:52 PM

Pornography:

Obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit.

(These supposedly "traditional songs" meet this criteria quite well.)

But do they, Lin? The killing flaw in your argument is "artistic". I am one of those whose 'artistic' appreciation extends as far as "I may not know anything about art, but I know a good picture when I see one!" For example, I can respect the artistic ability of Picasso. I know that he could paint & draw with a very high degree of skill. On the other hand, I find the work he is famous for extremely ugly. If that's art, I don't want any.

Nevertheless, I would not dispute his right to be called an artist. Then there's Tracy Emin. According to modern art appreciation, I am probably a caveman, a philistine, a... whatever... Because, I'm sorry, I cannot see any any artistic merit in someone's unmade bed. No matter that she's had an abortion, no matter what pretentious claptrap she spouts to justify said unmade bed. Still, I can acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, I'm missing something... So who are you to dismiss someone else's judgement as having "little or no artistic merit"?

As someone who has written the odd piece of doggerel (be it masquerading as lyric or poetry), as someone who is both musician & storyteller, I can look at a bawdy song & may appreciate the technical aspects of it. I might think the content is crap, but equally I might still see merit in the wordplay; or the rhythm, alliteration, whatever it may be. No way do I get the right to dismiss a song as "not traditional", "pornographic, not bawdy", however you please.

If John thinks he can get genuine & worthwhile input here, then good luck to him. If I feel disgusted by it... that's my problem, not his. If you're so avid that John can be contacted via his own site, then contact him via his own site to relay your personal disgust. If enough others do the same, he seems inteligent enough to get the point. Otherwise...

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:58 PM

Yay Joe! Who, despite a number of attacks on him, despite my own (expressed) opinion of him being a bit soft, I cannot see a better alternative to! (Joe will now duly cringe at the thought of winning, not least at being merely least worst option! ;-) )

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:05 PM

Thanks for clarifying for me that this is really a pissing contest between the boys, there Raedwulf. Yay for you too!

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:09 PM

If these words in thread titles (and elsewhere on our forum) result in even machine automatically blocking folk from access to The Mudcat - it is enough reason not to do it yourself.

It is not enough to PREVENT (in any way, except by setting the example) others from doing it.

However The idea of starting a thread and having a title (especially on the music-related section) that objects to another poster by name and invites others to make personal judgements - is perhaps just as serious and this practice should perhaps be discouraged.

In fact it would be a good idea to try and avoid publicly making any personal judgements - about or to fellow posters. Most of us love to judge and gossip about others - very few of us like to judged and gossiped about..........

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:15 PM

I was raised in an era...

With all due respec' Cap'n, we hain't allus old as... ;-)

Interesting that those guys came from large cities, and many of them were foul mouthed, homophobic, anti semetic racists. By and large, the country boys were more careful about their language.

A very interesting statement. Note that kendall doesn't claim that the country boys were any better than their urban counterparts, just more careful abouty their language... No dig at kendall intended, but if you stop & think about it, this is a fair indicator of human nature on more than one level.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:19 PM

Guest - go crawl back under your stone until you can find a name for yourself, eh?

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:26 PM

My point is simply that, like it or not, these "objectionable" songs are pretty much the only songs that we have anymore that only exist, and are only transmitted, in the oral tradition-if you've ever heard this song, it is because you were there in the room when it was sung--that fact, if no other, makes them really, really, important for academic researchers.

You may be completely disgusted by material that some gastroenterologists study, but that doensn't mean that the work isn't important--

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:28 PM

To nutty and others of his/her ilk:

I will agree with you when you can provide a definition for "traditional" and "folk music" that everyone who posts on Mudcat or any other folk music site can agree on.

Until that time, if you don't like it here start your own site with the rules you want.

Me? I love this place - I'm staying!

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:37 PM

"...that fact, if no other, makes them really, really, important for academic researchers."

In what way? Obscurity doesn't make something important. Because it is in the oral tradition doesn't even make a song important. Especially songs like this, which are a dime a dozen.

But hey--if you can explain why this guy's collection of dirty ditties is so important to humanity that academics should spend their time and resources studying it, more power to ya. I remain unconvinced of the importance of anything he has posted either here or at his website.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: nutty
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:41 PM

Believe me ,observer , I won't be going anywhere.

Anyone who knows me knows how rarely I get involved in contraversy.

In this instance I happened to feel very strongly about what was being presented. This vulgar thread title was one too many IMO.
I was tolerant of Mr Mehlberg when he posted earlier in the week although I was very happy to see the thread that offended me disappear .
Could it be that because Mr Mehlberg got away with it last time , that he took our silence as aquiescence?
He knew this thread would offend some people but went ahead anyway.

This problem is not of my making but of his.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:47 PM

GUEST at 02:37 said:

"I remain unconvinced of the importance of anything he has posted either here or at his website."

That's not surprising. Most people with IQ's as low as yours appears to be (judging from the infantile level of your posts) would undoubtedly feel the same.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: nutty
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:51 PM

Who's the troll now????

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:22 PM

if those who argue for TOTAL openness and research cannot tell the difference between songs like "The Good Ship Venus" ,"Charlotte, the Harlot", "The Winnepeg Whore" and others which are interesting and well-crafted (and 'about' something) and the purely purile ditties under discussion, then I fear for the state of scholarship.

The examples I mention have plenty of explicit words IN them, but are way more than just an excuse to bellow dirty words. If you think the ditties John is currently 'researching' need preserving also, fine...I have no objection. Put them in the list as examples, but don't kid yourself that you will learn much about the history of bawdy songs by finding out that someone at BYU in 1963 also sang dirty words...(oh...wait...maybe if it was BYU, it might be important..*grin*)

I really find this statement by John Mehlberg to be sorta funny..." If I were to dash "---" expurgate the objectionable words, then there is a good chance I will never get to talk with the people who know this song."
1)such a tragedy!
2)oh, I suspect they'll find you---Google will lead them to your door!
3)and if Mudcat were NOT available? Go to any Hashers site and ask where they got their songs!

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:25 PM

I really don't like smutty songs, and I don't sing them. However, they and naughty children's songs are just about the only things that are still transmitted by the "folk process." Almost all other aspects of our culture are printed, broadcasted, and copyrighted. So, if you want to study the folk process in our current culture, ya gotta study dirty ditties.

That being the case, I think we should all think of "The Motherfuckers' Ball" as a sacred song.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM

(it's funny I have ended up in this position...if John Mehlberg were complaining that his SITE were being censored...even with a warning label, I'd be in the forefront defending him!)

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:31 PM

A female, here, siding with profanity...

Anyway, how does asterixing out letters in a word render it less offensive? It's still recognisable....f**k, s**t, p**s....?

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:40 PM

It would be good to hear from John Mehlberg at this stage. He put up this thread to gather objections - and he has. What is he going to do about them?

Will he for example choose to refrain from including profane words in titles, so as to avoid blocking 'catters accessing from work, libraries and generally systems with profanity filters?

John - over to you.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:57 PM

If I were John, I would think it a hoot to respond, "Fuck you. Fuck all you motherfuckers."

Or maybe, "F**k you. F**k all you motherf**kers."

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Ferrara
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:02 PM

Blissfully I. asks Anyway, how does asterixing out letters in a word render it less offensive? It's still recognisable....f**k, s**t, p**s....?

Simple. You have to stop and think about it (I do, anyway) to get the whole word. It doesn't hit you in the eye so to speak. So if you're not interested your eye can just move over it and away with no particular emotional reaction. And IMO the shock and (perceived) hostility factors are WAY lower in the versions with asterisks.

Plus the asterisks presumably won't trigger the sm*t filters.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Peace
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:47 PM

Wot are smat filters?

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:05 PM

Smat filters are filters that aren't very sma*t.
I'm not very sma*t, either. Somebody cited George Carlin's 7 deadly words as the following:

sh*t p*ss c*ck c*nt c*cksucker motherf*cker and t*ts

-is that a correct list?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST,G***t
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:11 PM

* t***k i*s f*****r t* a*****k o*t a*l w****s

e****t f*r t*e fucking s***r w***s

y*u o*d arse h***s

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:42 PM

well, THAT'S clear enough!

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 10:29 PM

It's all over now folks. The Mudcat powers that be have decided the Big John wins the pissing contest. You can all go home now.