|
24 Nov 04 - 04:15 AM (#1337369) Subject: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: pavane Just a thought - to distinguish between different Guests without compromising their anonymity. As it is possible for the server system to obtain some information about the origin of Guest postings, could they not be assigned sequence numbers automatically? It would just require a lookup table of perhaps URLs? Postings could then be shown in the form Guest,00123 |
|
24 Nov 04 - 04:18 AM (#1337373) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond They are time stamped... is that not the same thing? Or do you mean for instance, that Guest172365 would always be Guest172365??? In which case how is that different from making up a 'user name' and 'joining' Mudcat? |
|
24 Nov 04 - 07:18 AM (#1337480) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow As I understand it the idea would be that it'd happen automatically - if they didn't pick a name, they'd have a number assigned to them. Good idea, if it's practicable - but I have a feeling it might not be. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 08:15 AM (#1337529) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: RichM Cut to the chase: As in many other online discussion groups, allow ONLY registered members to post. Guests would be free to read, but not participate actively. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 08:21 AM (#1337533) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST,Russ An automatic numbering system for GUEST posts might only be useful if the GUEST consistently logs in from the same ip address. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 08:53 AM (#1337568) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow Well, it's always easy enough to get round that stuff by using a different computer, or just a different browser I think. But I doubt if many would bother. The argument for making the Mudcat accessible without registering is that newcomers may feel a bit cautious until they have tested the water. And that probably applies especially to people coming in with a musical question. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 09:58 AM (#1337608) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond "allow ONLY registered members to post" Ya... but that'd make sense... and then it wouldn't be Mudcat... "newcomers may feel a bit cautious until they have tested the water" Right... and the whole point is you get to 'test' by observing as a guest rather than just having any goof who can 'sign in' and post whatever they want... But we all know that the people running this place don't want Mudcat to be like that... so it won't be... |
|
24 Nov 04 - 10:07 AM (#1337618) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: pavane Clinton - yes, the guest would keep the same number if using the same IP address. The idea is that we can tell in most cases if it is the SAME guest posting or a different one. Agreed that changing to a different machine will defeat it, but would many people go to these lengths to fool the system? They still remain anonymous, which is the main thing for the guest. This might (or might not) deter trolls. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 10:13 AM (#1337621) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond "yes, the guest would keep the same number if using the same IP address." That would require a 'cookie' same as signing in, so what's the diff? "would many people go to these lengths to fool the system?" My experience online shows that no... and the ones that might, certainly won't do it for very long... " This might (or might not) deter trolls." You have to -want- to deter trols in order to actually deter trolls.... |
|
24 Nov 04 - 10:29 AM (#1337644) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: PoppaGator Nothing will defer trolls. Doesn't bother me; I find 'em amusing. A guest-numbering system would only need to be consistent within a given thread, as far as I can see. In other words, a given individual might be GUEST2 throughout Thread A, and elsewhere the same person could be GUEST1 every time he/she appears in Thread B. This would be more desirable for members and for readers in general than a system of universal, permanently assigned guest-numbers, because, in the context of a thread, it would be easier to keep guests 1, 2 and 3 straight in one's mind than to remember and differentiate among guests 2354, 4267, and 672 if they were to appear scatttered throughout a thread. (Are there three of them? five? two?) |
|
24 Nov 04 - 10:32 AM (#1337648) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace There are no doubt members who post from two different addresses using two different names. Don't see how it would work. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 10:40 AM (#1337658) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Once Famous Trolls are fun. Just check out the Yahoo forums. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 10:42 AM (#1337661) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Schantieman None of us have to use the same user name every time if we don't want to. Nothing to stop us setting up as a different user. But anonyms (is that a word?) wouldn't anyway. Hmmmm.... Steve |
|
24 Nov 04 - 10:50 AM (#1337671) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: treewind Numbering by IP wouldn't need a cookie, but it would require the Mudcat server to store information about IP address vs. numbers. A waste of resources on users who can't be bothered to register! Even then, there'd be no consistency. Using the same conmputer on a dialup link can result in a different IP address each time you connect. Even a broadband connection may not keep the same IP address for ever. Max has always allowed guest postings on principle. Just remember that any GUEST posting, being anonymous and untraceable, does not have to be taken seriously. I believe IP addresses are logged - that's different. It enables a particular connection to be traced back at least to the originating ISP. Not that I can see much practical use for that... Anahata |
|
24 Nov 04 - 10:53 AM (#1337676) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: mack/misophist No system is perfect. The one used to label reader's comments at osnews.com is as good as any. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 12:09 PM (#1337787) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST,Paul Burke I don't register because I find the format of Mudcat too cumbersome for everyday use- once a thread gets beyond half a dozen postings, it gets difficult to tell who is saying what to whom. So I only drop in once in a while, and only browse the threads I have time and patience for. And for such small usage, I can't overcome my antipathy to registering with anyone, so if I have to register, I probably won't bother at all. Who'd miss me anyway? |
|
24 Nov 04 - 12:16 PM (#1337794) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bill D No problem, Paul..you used a name, and even though no one 'knows' it is real, or where you are, it is easy to respond to you and keep an 'identity' in mind. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 02:35 PM (#1337950) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Davetnova Guest postings are important to keep. This is a very small worldwide community and sometimes things need said that need to keep a degree of anonimity. If there's serious trollimg/guesting/malicious stuff going on it gets caught quite quick. Guesting may be annoying but it is something that a lot of people NEED! |
|
24 Nov 04 - 04:00 PM (#1338026) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca I use one system. If the Guest IDENTIFIES him/herself, I pay attention. If there is only GUEST with no further information, I will usually ignore the posting. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 05:45 PM (#1338126) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST,Peter from Essex Why not make the "from" field mandatory when posting as some other boards that permit guest posts do. It would at least force the guest to enter a label which would allow the post to be referred to. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 06:01 PM (#1338150) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bert It would be fairly easy to hash an IP address into a number that could be appended to the GUEST label. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 06:09 PM (#1338162) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: treewind Yes, but it wouldn't mean anything. A later GUEST with a different IP might be the same, and two GUESTs on dialups to the same ISP at different times could get allocated the same IP address. And what good would it do anyway? I must say I don't know why anybody doesn't register. It doesn't cost anything, in any sense, and whethre you like it or not it gains you credibility if you post, as has been proved by earlier remarks. Anahata |
|
24 Nov 04 - 06:21 PM (#1338179) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow "Anonymity" is a complete red herring in this context. Everybody is as anonymous as they want to be, and that would apply just as much if people had to put something in the "from" box, or if something was put there in any case, if they failed to fill it in. PoppaGator's suggestion of a GUEST numbering system, that just applied within a particular thread, strikes me as a common sense way of enabling people to have rational conversations in threads where more than one otherwise nameless GUEST have posted. If it can be done without involving major surgery I think it should be introduced without delay. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 06:30 PM (#1338191) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Ed. This conversation has been had, in various forms, on literally hundreds of threads. There is never any consensus. It's Max's site, and he does, for better or worse, what he sees fit. Why is there such a problem in accepting that? The only reasonable answer to this question, is "if you don't like it here, start your own site" |
|
24 Nov 04 - 06:46 PM (#1338206) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond "Everybody is as anonymous as they want to be" There is no such thing as anonymity on the internet.... |
|
24 Nov 04 - 07:04 PM (#1338218) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Fliss Ive been listed as a GUEST on one occasion even tho I always stay logged in... ie dont log out when I leave the site. f |
|
24 Nov 04 - 07:06 PM (#1338220) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Blissfully Ignorant I'm completely anonymous. Not one of you knows my name is Amy... hahahhaha! Oh, crap... |
|
24 Nov 04 - 07:06 PM (#1338221) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond LOL |
|
24 Nov 04 - 08:13 PM (#1338276) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as anonymity in the world. But for practical purposes there is. The basic protection of anonymity is that virtually no one really gives a monkey's who we are. Pop down your local library and log in there on a shared computer, using an online e-mail address - that's pretty good anonymity. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 08:25 PM (#1338283) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull You spelled Army wrong. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 08:48 PM (#1338302) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: hesperis Adding a validation to the form field to make guests put something as their name, even * or whatever, is possible. Max had to add the GUEST in front of anonymous posts already. One person could still put a ton of different names into the box... but at least it would have some identifying name. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 08:56 PM (#1338307) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bert Well said Ed. That's just how it is. |
|
24 Nov 04 - 09:42 PM (#1338332) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond A lot of MBs require that one attach an email addy to ones 'user profile', and it must be a real, non-online email addy... so no hotmail... no yahoo... nothing but the 'officail' email addy that comes from your ISP.... and if you don't answer a confirmation email, your membership request never gets processed... Sure cuts down on the jerk factor on the MBs.... |
|
24 Nov 04 - 11:47 PM (#1338419) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST,.gargoyle The style of "cookie" authentication within MC is archaic at best.
|
|
25 Nov 04 - 08:35 AM (#1338698) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Snuffy Sir jOhn from Hull - this not a spelingf site! |
|
25 Nov 04 - 08:46 AM (#1338708) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Fibula Mattock Dammit Snuffy, I was angling for that line. Guests are fine by me. I was guest once and may well be again. I really don't see why it matters about who posts what and under which (or no) guise. |
|
25 Nov 04 - 10:34 AM (#1338784) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Amos Is it possible to detect MAC numbers from the data stream on connection? At leasdt that way you'd know which computer even if the user might change. But it is clear that the Mudcat President is not a control freak and won't be lured into being one. A |
|
25 Nov 04 - 01:17 PM (#1338934) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond "The style of "cookie" authentication within MC is archaic at best." You could easily say that of the WHOLE MC... |
|
25 Nov 04 - 02:06 PM (#1338981) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow Some of us actually tend to like "archaic". Back to the Future! |
|
25 Nov 04 - 02:19 PM (#1338992) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Don't be scared of progress MGoH... the future is NOW! LOL |
|
25 Nov 04 - 03:30 PM (#1339059) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow Progress is a good idea only when you are headed in the right direction. And "the right direction" is determined by where you want to go. |
|
25 Nov 04 - 03:34 PM (#1339065) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Go? I think we're already there... Heh |
|
25 Nov 04 - 04:22 PM (#1339099) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow That's more or less what I meant by saying I quite like "archaic". |
|
25 Nov 04 - 09:57 PM (#1339316) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST,Gerry Can we have archaic and eat it, too? |
|
25 Nov 04 - 11:14 PM (#1339343) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Be careful with that joke Gerry... It's an antique.... |
|
25 Nov 04 - 11:59 PM (#1339348) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST Good fucking lord. Why does this come up all the time. Let it go. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 01:11 AM (#1339370) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Maybe it comes up all the time, because people here have issues with it... So how about YOU let it go? |
|
26 Nov 04 - 03:59 AM (#1339469) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST Don't tell 'em your name Pike. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 12:34 PM (#1339810) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST The problem of following an online conversation (which is all a thread is) for those with attention deficits which they obfuscate by claiming guests are the problem, is software driven, not identity driven. Then there are the guest identity issues insecure and paranoid Mudcatters like Big Mick, a Mudcat clone, exploit constantly, in order to carry on their personal vendettas against other forum users like myself. He frequently uses my ISP in a hilarious attempt to "out" me in threads maliciously. So there is that nasty problem with the people who run this place who have been abusing their power too. Max usually just cuts off your access for a couple days when you criticize him. We have clone katlaughing to thank for the debacle that is the user name log-in fiasco with "members and guests" because she and the other Mudcat royals were so appalled when people they had dissed in the forum started posting nasty shit under their screen names. And then there is Joe Offer who is an asshole unto himself when it comes to this petty tyrant shit. It's all ridiculously childish, but you learn a lot about the Mudcat royals and regulars by paying attention to who goes off the deep end on this shit, and makes it personal. That is what the Mudcat is all about. This place is troll paradise. Some of you might have noticed the "no personal attacks" only applies if you are well connected to the Mudcat royals. If you are not one of their forum pets, then the Martin Gibson and brucie trolls of the world can make all the personal attacks on you they want. The Mudcat royals only censor attacks on themselves and their pets, or censor and bully those they have a personal vendetta against. Like a said, the whole "follow the conversation" issue has nothing to do with the member/guest user log-in. It is a software fix, that Max will never make because he has no intention of ever upgrading the software for the forum. He lost interest in that sort of thing years ago. Which reminds me, it's about time for the Mudcat royals to start another fundraising drive for Max. The server is going down with regularity again. Just don't expect anything to get fixed around here for the price of your donations though. Or to receive any thanks from Max for donating. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 12:49 PM (#1339826) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond "Some of you might have noticed the "no personal attacks" only applies if you are well connected to the Mudcat" I have received PMs that say pretty much the exact same thing... and then 'begged' me not to say anything in public... So I will mention no names... (not that it matters, or can be too hard to guess....) "he has no intention of ever upgrading the software for the forum" Given how ancient and unwieldy it is, can you blame him? It's like the Win3.1 version of a message board... (Actually that's kinda insulting to Win3.1) If that bothers you that much, well, no one MAKES you post here... and no one MAKES you donate money... So full in the knowledge that no matter how much money people throw down the hole in cyberspace that is Muscat, no matter how many pointless threads get started asking for simple and easy improvements, one either has to take this place for what it is (And what it's always going to be until the last server farts out in the basement, and it's gone for good) or you can find somewhere else to post... There are more than a few other message boards out here in cyberspace... |
|
26 Nov 04 - 12:53 PM (#1339831) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow Give that boy a spotlight... .................... In fact the suggestion that people who don't pick a name or number or sign in should be given one is not one that has been made before, ir if it has I haven't seen it. The same goes for the variant in which that would just apply to individual threads, which, if practicable, should leave everyone relatively happy. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 01:04 PM (#1339840) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: treewind The software's been changed many times in the 3-odd years I've been here. Allowing unregistered posters is a policy decision, not a software problem that needs fixing. I'm sure changing it would be trivial. As for complaints, cliques, royal familes etc: Mudcat, like most other stuff on the web, is worth at least what you paid for it. It's a totally idiosyncratic personal creation. If you like it, stay and enjoy. If you don't, you're free to go. And you're free to start up something better if you care. Some have tried, with varying degrees of success. Anahata |
|
26 Nov 04 - 01:08 PM (#1339843) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST Then you are blind, McGrath. There are scads of threads in which people piss and moan about the guest user log in. You are one of the most vocal pissers and moaners of the lot, I might add. Hell, Google currently has a new email software it is beta testing that threads your emails, and the Usenet software has been using the threading software (which I don't find much more useful than Mudcat's actually) for decades. Some forums have a slick software, some like Mudcat don't. But people need to educate themselves enough about the technology they use day in and day out, to know the problem here isn't with the identity of guest log-ins without anything in the From line. As others have noted here, there is the date and time stamp to distinguish between posts from guests, which most people are just too lazy be bothered with using. But even if every single post had a cookie to identify the forum user, it still wouldn't solve the poorly organized way threads are displayed here, which is what really makes it difficult to follow threads, especially the long ones. As Clinton points out, you either takes it or you leaves it. Max ain't gonna upgrade nothin' no more. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 01:08 PM (#1339844) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: John Routledge Ed (24thNov 6.30pm) I can accept your post in it's entireity. That is not really the issue though is it. The real question is "Why is the site run the way it is.?" I leave others to ponder for no answer will be forthcoming |
|
26 Nov 04 - 01:18 PM (#1339848) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST Thanks for the validation, Clinton. So few people have taken on the Mudcat royals and their loyal minions, for fear of being ostracized, harrassed, bullied, and censored by Joe and the clones, it's pretty much a joke at this point, isn't it? I mean god, the Mudcat royals and loyals emotional maturation levels are stuck in high school clique mentality it is hilarious to watch, and can, if you're bored, entertaining as hell to stir up. Like shooting fish in a barrell, as I've said for years. Pathetically predictable, these folks. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 02:34 PM (#1339907) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond And you 'slagging' on them from behind your 'paper bag mask' isn't any better Guest... |
|
26 Nov 04 - 02:36 PM (#1339909) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Blissfully Ignorant If you can't stand the heat, get out of the effin kitchen... |
|
26 Nov 04 - 03:53 PM (#1339963) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow But you've got to appreciate, Blissfully, that "out of the kitchen" means having to endure not being paid attention. The actual suggestion that people should be able to continue to vote without registering as guests, and without selecting a name or number, but that an automatic marker should be inserted distinguishing them from other people who are doing the same thing in the same thread - that is not one which has previously been put forward. ................................................ Quite why anyone should enjoy "shooting fish in a barrel" is a puzzle. Proverbs generally have some realtiion to real life - so, has anyone ever actually done that? I'd have thought it'd be extremely difficult to do without getting very wet and very likely injuring yourself - for example by achieving that other proverbial triumph, shooting yourself in the foot. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 04:11 PM (#1339974) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: hesperis I'm sure some guests don't realize that it would be nice if they put a name in... and some members have lost their cookies and didn't realize they weren't signed in. A simple javascript form validation would check the guest name box, pop up a notice if it's not filled out, and only allow the post to go through if there's something in the box. Then we'd have guests who just post "1" or guests who think to themselves "Oh, duh, I should add a name so that people can recognize my posts" and if that guest wants to be anonymous, well, he can just put in "anonymous". It's done on other forums and it works. Sure, "GUEST, anonymous" might not always be the same person, but a lot of people would choose a handle and stick with it. Then they won't get scared away by guest abuse from current members, and might actually register. There's absolutely no need to require registration unless you want to. Easy. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 04:23 PM (#1339980) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: PoppaGator I try to steer clear of the interpersonal feuding that goes on hereabouts, and to maintain an ironic distance when I do venture into BS-land. Fortunately, I'm usually able to find the ongoing pettiness more amusing than distressing. Nonetheless, sometimes it's hard to remain completely uninvolved. The only part of this discussion that concerns me is this: sometimes, at the bottom of a longish thread with a half-dozen or more messages from GUEST, I would prefer to know whether more than one person has been participating under that ID; if so, I would prefer to be able to distinguish between the arguments of one guest and another. That's all. That's it. I actually prefer this old-fashioned forum software to that currently in use on other sites I know. Here, I can navigate through the messages almost as quickly as I can read them, and can see more text at a time when I scroll up and down to check out some previous posting. The usual current-day interface with big wide pastel-colored margins, large type sizes, and bulky ID panels showing the contributor's handle, cartoon "icon," and (like in a high school yearbook) favorite quote, is much more cumbersome. Who needs all that bullshit? I much prefer being able to view more than one or two paragraphs at a time. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 04:32 PM (#1339987) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: John Routledge "..... longish thread with a half-dozen or more messages from GUEST, I would prefer to know whether more than one person has been participating under that ID; if so, I would prefer to be able to distinguish between the arguments of one guest and another. That's all. That's it." Not an unreasonable request Poppagator. It would be an immense aid to intelligent conversation but if that is not what is required then as Ed and Joe said earlier - TOUGH |
|
26 Nov 04 - 05:08 PM (#1340028) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Justa Picker I think the best solution is to eliminate all members here and make it a guest-only forum and you MUST be a guest in order to be able to post. Perfect. |
|
26 Nov 04 - 05:11 PM (#1340034) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Or just wait till the last Mudcat server crashes in the basement, and we'll be quit of the whole thing... |
|
26 Nov 04 - 06:27 PM (#1340077) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow But if you did actually want to be "quit of the whole thing" Clinton, there is a much quicker way... |
|
26 Nov 04 - 06:57 PM (#1340095) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond After you MGoH... I never said I wanted to be... |
|
26 Nov 04 - 06:59 PM (#1340099) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bill D My gracious! I wasn't aware till 'guest' and Clinton pointed it out, that I have basically wasted 8 years here in this sloppy, tedious, poorly designed site filled with losers and 'Royals' who merely pay homage to Max and stew in their own silly juices! *sigh*...all that time I thought we were having fun and learning stuff. Well, it's good to be enlightened...I'd better to clear out of here and head over to those better sites, where folks of distinction share elegant discussions in a slick, modern interface.....ummmmmm....where did you say those are? |
|
27 Nov 04 - 05:44 PM (#1340744) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Big Mick C'mon, now GUEST whom I constantly pick on, according to you. I call it responding in kind. You love to bully and ridicule, use vulgar language, and act superior. When someone gives you a taste, you cry and piss and moan. Take your meds, grab a Coke, sit your ass in the corner and smile. There ya go. Mick |
|
27 Nov 04 - 06:00 PM (#1340753) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Ya... but when -I- call it 'responding in kind', I get PMs from 'moderators'.... The COC (Mudcat has a COC right?) sould apply to everyone... But that's off topic I guess.... |
|
27 Nov 04 - 06:16 PM (#1340763) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Joe Offer Gee, Clinton. I guess we must not have a COC. What's a COC? I stopped understanding acronyms when I was discharged from the Army. I suppose you mean Code of Conduct, huh? Yes, we have one very important rule that says we do not permit personal attacks. We expect you to follow that rule, too, Clinton. And you're right, I don't feel obliged to step in and rescue people from personal attacks if they themselves are involved in combat. I don't want to see combat here at all, and most every message I see from you is combative. Most every personal message from you is combative, too. If you act like that, don't expect people to bend over backwards to do your bidding. We do prohibit personal attacks and we do our best to control them when we see them, but we get no pleasure out of playing babysitter. No, Clinton, I'm not going to spend my time monitoring every message, just to make sure nobody says anything nasty to you. -Joe Offer, petty tyrant- This appears to be the usual complaint session from the usual complainers, and there's very little of a technical nature here - so I'm moving it down to the non-music area. |
|
27 Nov 04 - 06:21 PM (#1340765) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond "I stopped understanding acronyms when I was discharged from the Army." Given how prevalent they are in the world of computers and cyberspace, maybe you'd better 'slot that chip' back in Joe.... |
|
27 Nov 04 - 06:24 PM (#1340768) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond And there ya have it... when the thread-drift slides into an area that MIGHT have HALF a chance at being a little bit critical, a perfectly good TECH thread is shuffled off to the BS section... Which can only lead me to wonder, what oh what is someone obviously so afraid of? But I guess that's also off-topic for this thread... |
|
27 Nov 04 - 06:43 PM (#1340780) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow I can't see why anyone should see going to the bottom of the page as a mobve to second-rate status. It's much easier to follow sites down in the non-music end anyway, because there are far fewer of them. It always seems to me that it's far better to respond to personal attacks in a relaxed and unexcited way, rather than leaping in all guns blazing. I'm sure that it must be far more annoying to the person doing the attacking when they get that kind of response. All dressed up for a battle, and nowhere to go with it. The saying is "a soft answer turneth wrath away" - but the truth is it can be deadlier than that, it can turn it back on the person who has lost their rag. Sort of like a heat-seeking missile. |
|
27 Nov 04 - 06:45 PM (#1340783) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Joe Offer Obviously, I am afraid that this thread has nothing to do with music or technical matters. This is not the end of the world, but neither is it the end of the world to have a non-music thread moved to the non-music section of the Forum. So, if I move a non-music thread to the non-music side of the Forum, don't have a cow. -Joe Offer, Petty Tyrant Extraordinaire- |
|
27 Nov 04 - 06:55 PM (#1340787) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: greg stephens Why not automatically allocate rea?ly offensive names to all GUEST posters. It would be pretty puerile, but I would find it mildly amusing if GUESTS ended up as "GUEST Tinius Dickus" or whatever. It might at least deflate some of the pompous drivel they serve up. |
|
27 Nov 04 - 07:01 PM (#1340795) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow I think names like "Fluffy Wuffy" and "Bobbykins" would be a better idea. |
|
27 Nov 04 - 07:18 PM (#1340807) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bill D oh, good...and maybe "Dyspeptic misanthrope" for a couple! |
|
27 Nov 04 - 07:20 PM (#1340810) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace GG pissed up a half dozen threads with his version of evil. I mentioned on one of his threads should it should be boycotted. That particular message was deleted within fifteen minutes. Life ain't always fair. I don't really care that it WAS deleted, because it is the domain of the folks who run the place, and I won't argue with that. And I think they try to make it fair for everyone. However, two of GG's posts were beyond just bad language and that kinda thing. They were direct attacks on others. Cruel, evil and sick. I reserve the right to get equally cruel, evil and sick with people like that, and I will. Erase it as you must. |
|
27 Nov 04 - 07:30 PM (#1340818) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow It isn't a question of having the right to respond to cruelty with cruelty, brucie, it's a matter of what works best. If you are in room with someone, there may be times when a fierce, even violent, response to a bully may be effective, at least in the short run. But in a forum like this, that can never be the case. |
|
27 Nov 04 - 08:21 PM (#1340848) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST,Unknown Comic |
|
27 Nov 04 - 08:31 PM (#1340854) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST,Fish in a Flatcask Is that thing loaded? |
|
27 Nov 04 - 08:47 PM (#1340861) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Joe Offer Brucie, I guess you and Clinton don't understand. You figure that if somebody like gargoyle or whoever makes an untoward remark, a volunteer should jump right on it and delete it. If that doesn't happen, you figure it's your divinely-bestowed right to throw some sort of tantrum. Then the thing escalates into chaos, and you and Clinton self-righteously blame the whole mess on the Mudcat moderators who failed to stomp on gargoyle. You seem to forget your own contribution. That whole scenario seems remarkably akin to a drunken barroom brawl where all the patrons blame the landlord for the damage they did themselves. We try to encourage free, intelligent, adult discussion here - and we try to avoid censorship and control as much as we possibly can. That requires maturity and discipline on the part of the people who participate in our discussions. Brucie, you say you should be able to say what you will and fight how you will, and that the moderators should delete your comments as they see fit. I'm sorry, but that's not practical. The only way to maintain the peace around here is for the participants to be peaceful. You and Clinton are the worst offenders. Maybe it's time you stop. You're not children any more. Maybe it's time you stop looking for a mommy and daddy to take responsibility for your behavior. The moderators are here to have a good time, not to babysit Brucie and Clinton and all the other children who can't seem to learn how to behave themselves. I'm here to study music, not to deal with this sort of pettiness -Joe Offer- |
|
28 Nov 04 - 01:29 PM (#1341238) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond "encourage free, intelligent, adult discussion here" What's the song then? "Two outa three ain't bad"... "You and Clinton are the worst offenders. " What-frigg'n-ever! If "Brucie" and I are the worst thing that ever hit Mudcat, then it's the luckiest site on the whole internet.... "moderators who failed to stomp on gargoyle" I have named no names at all in this sub-topic of the thread... nor do I claim that I've never needed to be moderated... I have suggested (requested) that things that I have posted in haste or overwraught be deleted... (or that I be supplied with the basic messageboard feature of being able to edit my own posts) But if yer gonna moderate me, then you gotta mod everyone... including the moderators... "The moderators are here to have a good time, not to babysit Brucie and Clinton" Bzzzt! Wrong answer Hans... I hate to rain on your parade, but ya it really kinda is... as sad as it is that they're needed, that's exactly what a moderators job is... to, ummm... 'moderate' I think is the term... Ask any other moderator on any other message board... that is EXACTLY their job... Sometimes it's easy... sometimes it's like herding cats... "take responsibility for your behavior" Ha! Coming from mods who don't mod, or only mod when they feel like it, that's rich! "a volunteer should jump right on it and delete it" So answer me this... why not then? Honestly, I quit caring what the mods and the 'powers' at mudcat do a long time ago... about the time when I realized that financial contributions do nothing to improve the site, or to even keep it at it's 'former glory'... I am only participating in this end of the thread now in the interest of discussion... I KNOW nothing is ever going to change here... But as above, there are things about the 'workings' of Mudcat that I have questions about... Those questions, for whatever reason, seem to cause you to bunch yer banana-hammock... |
|
28 Nov 04 - 05:46 PM (#1341420) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Whatever, Joe. You're the boss. No argument from me. However, Joe, ya know? |
|
28 Nov 04 - 05:49 PM (#1341423) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace "you figure it's your divinely-bestowed right to throw some sort of tantrum." Never siad that I don't think. What I DID say is that I will meet like with like. Unless maybe you want I should just play at the same kinda pissup GG does. Find someone at random and attack, right> Hey, if I do that, my post may or may not be deleted and the people who respond to me will receive the same lecture, is that it? |
|
28 Nov 04 - 07:35 PM (#1341502) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Amos From what I have seen, the worst offenders are not Bruce and Clinton, but Martin Gibson and his psychotic flock of anonymous passive-aggressive admirers. I might give Clinton a close second except he posted a picture of himself wearing a hat, revealing his civilized side!! :D A |
|
28 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM (#1341524) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace McGrath of H and Joe. You may both be correct in what you say. I will consider McG of H's remarks and also yours Joe. But I never have been all that civilized and I may be too old to change. We'll see. And I vehemently disagree that Clinton is such a bad guy. He has his moments; I've had a few of them myself. But so have many other people, however, the sickest puppy I have ever met on the internet has to be GG and a certain nameless Guest. That's my opinion. |
|
28 Nov 04 - 08:25 PM (#1341541) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bill D brucie & Clinton..especially Clinton...you are missing the real point of Joe's post...which is...the fewer probelms to moderate, the easier it is to DO a minimum of moderating. If everyone 'reserves the right' to "give as good as they get" and little spats are going on on multiple threads, etc., then it is easy for moderators to miss some! Damn it, Clinton...the fact that Joe has the title .."job"... of chief moderator here, does NOT mean that he is paid and on call 24/7!...nor any of the other JoeClones!...They are not here to follow the horses and elephants in this parade, cleaning up all the droppings. If the pettiness, name calling, complaining, trolling, bickering...and just plain refusal to sit down, shut UP and let certain subjects drop were to diminish by 87.437%, (except for the GGs and Martin Gibsons and a couple of guests who will ALWAYS go out of their way to be trouble)....we could ALL study more music and talk about civil stuff....like recipes for Artichoke pie and where to find a good used car..... Go back...*READ* what Joe said again...carefully....the part about "The only way to maintain the peace around here is for the participants to be peaceful.".... |
|
28 Nov 04 - 09:09 PM (#1341573) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Bill... No Moderator IS paid or on call... But every other messageboard I frequent have made sure they have enough mods that it's likely that if there isn't always someone around, there very likley will be someone along soon... otherwise what's the point of having them at all? "They are not here to follow the horses and elephants in this parade, cleaning up all the droppings." Ummm... ya it really is... "The only way to maintain the peace around here is for the participants to be peaceful." A nice ideal, but so is global brotherhood and peace... and while we're at it, I want a pony... I know the powers at Mudcat WANT the world to be a certain way... but it simply ain't... |
|
28 Nov 04 - 10:53 PM (#1341632) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bill D "A nice ideal, but so is global brotherhood and peace" not equivilent situations....I could do a LONG post explaining the logical fallacies, but I'm tired and you'd just say "I don't agree" |
|
28 Nov 04 - 11:30 PM (#1341646) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Yer probably right... and well, YOUR opinion is SOOO much more valid than mine... |
|
29 Nov 04 - 12:09 AM (#1341678) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace So, let me get this straight. People can say things they want; do personal attacks, but if ya respond to that attack you are feeding the flame. It seems something like blaming the person who got attacked because they fought back. I just don't get it. I really don't get it. People like GG can flame whoever they want and that's OK. Bugger all happens to them. But the people who respond get the lecture about social responsibility. Is THAT it? So, we should let the bad stuff be posted and stand, say nothing and continue on as if nothing happened. Is THAT it? |
|
29 Nov 04 - 01:15 AM (#1341708) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: PoppaGator Who the hell is GG? If I'm going to waste my time and energy reading through all this gossip, the least I can ask is to know who's being dissed! |
|
29 Nov 04 - 01:22 AM (#1341710) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Joe Offer It's really quite simple: if a troll tries to provoke a fight and nobody responds, the troll gets bored and goes away. Trouble is, it's almost inevitable that some self-righteous prig is going to take the troll's bait and turn the remark into a brawl. Guess who are the two biggest suckers in this forum, the two most likely to bite on the trolls' bait. Believe me, those who self-righteously bite the bait are much harder to deal with than are the trolls themselves. If a troll tries to provoke something, I can delete his message when I get to it. If it becomes a brawl, I have to mutilate an entire thread or delete the whole thing to stop the mess. In the process, a good discussion may be ruined. And I'm sorry, I'm much rather help people with music questions and learn things about music in the process. This forum is operated by volunteers, and it's paid for by volunteers. Max makes up the difference from his own pocket, so there's never extra money for significant improvements. We do it for fun, for the love of folk music, and because we like the people we meet here at Mudcat. We don't do it because we enjoy settling petty squabbles. And you, Clinton and Brucie, are the pettiest of the petty. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Nov 04 - 01:26 AM (#1341711) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: chris nightbird childs In other words, ignore the flaming guests, and post to the threads that are interesting and productive. As opposed to continuing a meaningless squabble, when that's all the guests really want anyway... |
|
29 Nov 04 - 08:46 AM (#1341940) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST I'd suggest the worst trolls, flamers, and self-righteous prigs at this point are NOT the guests. Let us name names of members who routinely flame others, and who routinely respond in kind: Martin Gibson brucie Clinton Hammond McGrath of Harlow Gargoyle Amos And at any given time, the individual members who have wrangled with the above for entire threads. They come and go. But you can always count on it from the above. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 08:51 AM (#1341949) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: chris nightbird childs People who state themselves as "GUESTS" are not to be taken seriously. THE END |
|
29 Nov 04 - 12:21 PM (#1342202) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Mc G of H? Amos? They don't even come close to belonging on that list. GUEST: Your head is 'up yer arse' on them. Joe: Sorry to have upset you. I deservedly wear sack cloth and I will bow to your admonitions real soon. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 12:32 PM (#1342211) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Cluin Are we back to the anti-Guest crap again? Kee-ryst, it's like a big turd that won't flush. There's always a great wailing and gnashing of teeth every couple of months or so. Guests are here. Not everybody wants to join or can join; maybe they post from work and can't use cookies. Often it's an unnamed guest that provides useful information--information we might not have gotten if they were forced to register their name first or provide some other qualifier to identify themselves. The bulk of guests contribute constructively. The few that troll and flame incessantly are easily ignored. We all forget to do that sometimes, often by choice. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 12:56 PM (#1342235) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Big Mick There are things that distinguish The Mudcat Cafe from other forums and sites. These are the things, for good and bad, that make it unique and successful. Joe and I have disagreed over the years as to what is appropriate and what is not. It is good that neither of us has the ultimate say as to what happens here. My understanding of Joe's view is that if he had a completely free rein, he wouldn't have anywhere near as much non music chatter. My view is that the discussion of the issues of the day is what spawns what we know as folk music. If I had my way, there wouldn't be any unregistered GUESTS. I would not allow multiple personalities, to the extent that I could control them. The whole issue of whether or not one can distinguish between GUESTS is a non issue. Rick Fielding could tell you who was who without ever looking at a name. I can identify GUEST whom I often battle with purely on the basis of the syntax and issues. It is ridiculous to spend so much time discussing the obvious. Mudcat is what it is. Max made up his mind long ago that that is the way it will be. Everyone of us wishes we could change certain things, but depending on who you are talking about, it is different things. That demonstrates the wisdom in Max's decision as to how it will be. And it seems to have worked because you are all still here. I get just as tired of cranky comments from folks that are stodgy about "it should be music only" as I do with those that respond to every post that they disagree with. Get over it, the lot of you. Mick |
|
29 Nov 04 - 03:42 PM (#1342353) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace "Maybe it's time you stop looking for a mommy and daddy to take responsibility for your behavior." Not at all Joe. Just let the posts stand then. And you too should have a look at the duplicate set of values YOU express. The split values wherein you say two wrongs don't make a right but the second wrong is wronger. Jaysus. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 03:44 PM (#1342357) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Two wrongs don't make a right... but three rights make a left... |
|
29 Nov 04 - 04:12 PM (#1342377) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: chris nightbird childs Yes, CH. We've gone over that bit... |
|
29 Nov 04 - 04:32 PM (#1342397) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow While I disagree with brucie in his belief that it can ever be useful to respond in kind to flamers on the forum, more especially to those without names, I wholly agree with his comments ( 28 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM) about particular posts. The ones he was referring to (I take it) were viciously cruel, were aimed at someone who had done nothing to deserve such an attack, and were in fact libellous. It was clearly desirable that they should be removed from the forum without delay. .............................. Big Mick is (maybe) a lot better at identifying the different nameless GUESTS than I am. Though there ain't no way to be sure is there? We had a thread soem time back where for a spell everyone came in as a nameless GUEST. It didn't last all that long, but long enough to demonstrate why such the forum is dependant on the rest of us using labels. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 06:17 PM (#1342513) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: freda underhill Kevin, i agree with you. bruce was responding to someone who was bullying a parent of a child with a disability. i would never put bruce in the barrel with people here who kick heads for the sake of it. i have never seen bruce initiate conflict here. but yes, he does respond to it, and yes, like kevin I too disagree with bruce in his belief that it can ever be useful to respond in kind to flamers on the forum. and yes I wholly agree with his comments ( 28 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM) about particular posts. i also got upset with that guest, on a related post, and lost my cool. and why? because the issue was very personal to me. and i believe that is the same issue for bruce. i guess for me, i want to think that i can come to this forum, and not see people with disabilities, or people who are parents of children with disabilities, put under attack. just as i dont want to see racism etc. i admire Kevin and the incredibly calm way he has responded to that guest. but all of us here arent always so together. Joe, please have some understanding on this one. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 06:25 PM (#1342527) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: freda underhill i said yes, like kevin I too disagree with bruce in his belief that it can ever be useful to respond in kind to flamers on the forum. but that didnt stop me responding to the guest on that immigration and disability issue. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 06:35 PM (#1342542) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: akenaton Do we really want this forum to be all about the recipe for artichoke pie and the price of used cars? For once I agree with Mick. Discussion of the big issues by a cross section like Mudcat has a real bearing on the music. Discussion of Religion, politics, war ,relationships, the're all big issues and provoke big reactions,and so they should, this music is still alive and kicking and is defined by how we live our lives..Ake |
|
29 Nov 04 - 09:32 PM (#1342710) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Justa Picker This thread is a perfect example of why this forum begs for moderation. :-) |
|
29 Nov 04 - 09:36 PM (#1342716) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond Well, it is now at any rate |
|
29 Nov 04 - 09:37 PM (#1342719) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Once Famous And moderation could just make it one of the most boring sites on the Internet. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 09:40 PM (#1342725) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Cluin Those were the days, my friend We thought they'd never end... |
|
29 Nov 04 - 10:56 PM (#1342784) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Joe Offer Brucie says:
But then you went back to whining, and lost whatever ground you gained. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Nov 04 - 10:57 PM (#1342786) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: chris nightbird childs Well, THAT outcome wasn't surprising... |
|
29 Nov 04 - 11:01 PM (#1342787) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace I will not sleep well tonight, Joe. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 11:03 PM (#1342788) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: chris nightbird childs I hope so, Brucie... ; ) |
|
29 Nov 04 - 11:30 PM (#1342801) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace "But then you went back to whining, and lost whatever ground you gained." I wasn't whining. I was bitching. There is a subtle difference. The post to which you refer with the above statement is one in which I mentioned, very politely, that Guest had his head up his arse. So, are YOU whining or are you bitching? |
|
29 Nov 04 - 11:30 PM (#1342802) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: freda underhill In case you didnt read my comment here Joe, here it is again. Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: freda underhill - PM Date: 29 Nov 04 - 06:17 PM Kevin, i agree with you. bruce was responding to someone who was bullying a parent of a child with a disability. i would never put bruce in the barrel with people here who kick heads for the sake of it. i have never seen bruce initiate conflict here. but yes, he does respond to it, and yes, like kevin I too disagree with bruce in his belief that it can ever be useful to respond in kind to flamers on the forum. and yes I wholly agree with his comments ( 28 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM) about particular posts. i also got upset with that guest, on a related post, and lost my cool. and why? because the issue was very personal to me. and i believe that is the same issue for bruce. i guess for me, i want to think that i can come to this forum, and not see people with disabilities, or people who are parents of children with disabilities, put under attack. just as i dont want to see racism etc. i admire Kevin and the incredibly calm way he has responded to that guest. but all of us here arent always so together. Joe, please have some understanding on this one. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 11:31 PM (#1342803) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Piss on it. Don't matter. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 11:39 PM (#1342810) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: chris nightbird childs Consider it pissed... |
|
29 Nov 04 - 11:45 PM (#1342815) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Joe, I don't want to get into a slaggin' match with you. You have helped me a number of times with problems to do with the 'cat: how to do things, find things, locate material, etc. Therefore, have the last word with my blessing and I won't be addressing anything else to you on this thread. Bruce M |
|
30 Nov 04 - 03:14 AM (#1342934) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Joe Offer Yes, Freda, I read your remarks the first time you posted them in this thread. What bugs is that I hear something like this, time and time again:
This is outrageous!!! How can Mudcat allow people to post anti-Semitic remarks like that? Mudcat doesn't permit that sort of stuff at all - people just do it, and we do what we can to control it without censoring every message before it's posted. Some of it gets past us - but that doesn't mean we permit it. It's kind of like saying that the US and UK permit crime, since crime exists in both countries. And since it's OK for other people to commit crimes, then it must be even more OK for me to commit crimes, since I'm such a righteous and deserving guy. My basic point is that we've asked Mudcatters over and over again, to leave the trolls alone so they'll get bored and go away, and so we can deal with them quietly if we need to. I don't care how nasty and obnoxious they are - leave them alone. Don't take their bait. -Joe Offer- |
|
30 Nov 04 - 07:19 AM (#1343037) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: freda underhill This thread was originally about distinguishing between guests, but has come back again to members and how we effect each other. You're doing a difficult job Joe. when you express your frustrations, it has more weight than when someone else does. I guess the disbility issue was what got me into this thread, and i will wander off again. all i can say is thank you for working at keeping this forum going, thanks to Kevin Mcgrath for all his posts, which I have always found to be great reading, to Brucie for making me laugh, and to Amos for being brilliant. best wishes freda |
|
30 Nov 04 - 10:18 AM (#1343202) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Jeri Joe, no matter how much you try, you are never going to stop people replying to things you don't think they should reply to. If you could, you'd at least be able to stop yourself. People see things differently - one person's 'troll' is another's interesting and thought-provoking post. People have to believe they're doing something they shouldn't before they want to stop. They might very well know they're doing something they're doing something you don't think they should do, in which case, it's your problem. If what those people say is somebody else's problem, and that somebody else has no ability or right to stop them saying it, well...it's still somebody else's problem. All comes down to a control issue, and the frustration borne of trying to control something you can't, whether it's GUESTs posts or anybody else's. If you want to argue, fine, but nothing will change. If it's somebody else's problem, let them deal with it. If it's your problem, either do something effective or forget about it. |
|
30 Nov 04 - 12:30 PM (#1343348) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond "asked Mudcatters over and over again, to leave the trolls alone" And well, obviously that doesn't work... when will you folks consider trying something that might? |
|
30 Nov 04 - 12:37 PM (#1343361) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bill D "Do we really want this forum to be all about the recipe for artichoke pie and the price of used cars?" *grin*...I take it it wasn't clear I had my tongue FIRMLY in my cheek there..... and I say once again...READ Joe's posts, closely...and think about the import. And ask yourself what YOU do......... |
|
30 Nov 04 - 12:43 PM (#1343366) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: McGrath of Harlow People have to believe they're doing something they shouldn't before they want to stop. Just because we think we shouldn't be doing something isn't in itself a strong enough reason for us to stop doing it, as often as not. |
|
30 Nov 04 - 12:47 PM (#1343372) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Jeri No, Kevin, it's not. |
|
30 Nov 04 - 12:49 PM (#1343376) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: freda underhill how can I think at 4.45 am? andthen how can I stop thinking at 4.45 am? |
|
30 Nov 04 - 03:44 PM (#1343550) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Wait until 4:46 and go to sleep. |
|
30 Nov 04 - 04:05 PM (#1343579) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Once Famous Who else wants to join Guest's exclusive club of Brucie, Amos, McGrath, Clinton Q. Hammond, Gargoyle, and yours truly. I am just so honored! You guys, stick with me. We'll have a great time here. See ya around, fellas. Maybe on the next thread, even. |
|
30 Nov 04 - 04:12 PM (#1343585) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Clinton Hammond I would never want to be part of any club that would have someone like me as a memeber! LOL |
|
30 Nov 04 - 05:05 PM (#1343643) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Once Famous I'm sure Amos is running for Canada. |
|
30 Nov 04 - 05:27 PM (#1343666) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: akenaton How did Brucie manage to get lumped in with you reprobates?? Can I join?? |
|
30 Nov 04 - 10:00 PM (#1343882) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST Freda you missed brucie's train the number is 4:40 the place is Paddington try again on Der Fuer's B-Day and be sure to bring de sister Maryjane |
|
30 Nov 04 - 10:07 PM (#1343892) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: freda underhill huh? |
|
30 Nov 04 - 10:09 PM (#1343896) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Once Famous Ake, you're hired. Get on board and be prepared to tell it how it is! Put on your politically incorrect utility belt. |
|
30 Nov 04 - 11:10 PM (#1343951) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST Most pets are not permitted to feed at the table.
Most pets accepts scraps off the floor.
Most pets repeat performances - when they are able.
If ever there were a dish of troll spoils begging for more...
Sincerely,
Quite a brillant idea putting the feeding-pen in the lower corner - out of sight - after a week - it just remains a putrid den of troll-regurgitation .... so if a dog returns to its vomit....what does that make of a troll, a dog, a brucie, or a gargoyle that returns to this thread? |
|
30 Nov 04 - 11:11 PM (#1343952) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Hey, Golgart. How ya doin'? |
|
30 Nov 04 - 11:18 PM (#1343957) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Outta curiousity, are ya back in the States or still in Germany? |
|
01 Dec 04 - 03:10 PM (#1344651) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: akenaton Oh brilliant!!....Thanks Martin , now I can start flamin all the right wing fascists, holier than thou christians, P C arseholes, boring old farts, sanctimonious pseudo-intellectuals...and that still leaves 90% for next week .Ake |
|
01 Dec 04 - 03:24 PM (#1344668) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Once Famous Ake, I knew that you would catch on quickly. |
|
01 Dec 04 - 09:19 PM (#1344969) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bill D but what about us commie-pinko,left-wing, tree-hugging, spell-checking, logic-quoteing, folk-purist snobs? |
|
01 Dec 04 - 09:28 PM (#1344978) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace You are all those things, Bill, but ya gilded the lily about being a spell checker. |
|
02 Dec 04 - 12:36 PM (#1345572) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Bill D the lily will survive "quoting " |
|
02 Dec 04 - 02:32 PM (#1345599) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace lol |
|
02 Dec 04 - 11:48 PM (#1345969) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST,Khalil Ginran Leave Me, My Blamer Leave me, my blamer, For the sake of the love Which unites your soul with That of your beloved one; For the sake of that which Joins spirit with mothers Affection, and ties your Heart with filial love. Go, And leave me to my own Weeping heart. Let me sail in the ocean of My dreams; Wait until Tomorrow Comes, for tomorrow is free to Do with me as he wishes. Your Laying is naught but shadow That walks with the spirit to The tomb of abashment, and shows Heard the cold, solid earth. I have a little heart within me And I like to bring him out of His prison and carry him on the Palm of my hand to examine him In depth and extract his secret. Aim not your arrows at him, lest He takes fright and vanish 'ere he Pours the secrets blood as a Sacrifice at the altar of his Own faith, given him by Deity When he fashioned him of love and beauty. The sun is rising and the nightingale Is singing, and the myrtle is Breathing its fragrance into space. I want to free myself from the Quilted slumber of wrong. Do not Detain me, my blamer! Cavil me not by mention of the Lions of the forest or the Snakes of the valley, for Me soul knows no fear of earth and Accepts no warning of evil before Evil comes. Advise me not, my blamer, for Calamities have opened my heart and Tears have cleanses my eyes, and Errors have taught me the language Of the hearts. Talk not of banishment, for conscience Is my judge and he will justify me And protect me if I am innocent, and Will deny me of life if I am a criminal. Love's procession is moving; Beauty is waving her banner; Youth is sounding the trumpet of joy; Disturb not my contrition, my blamer. Let me walk, for the path is rich With roses and mint, and the air Is scented with cleanliness. Relate not the tales of wealth and Greatness, for my soul is rich With bounty and great with God's glory. Speak not of peoples and laws and Kingdoms, for the whole earth is My birthplace and all humans are My brothers. Go from me, for you are taking away Life - giving repentance and bringing Needless words. |
|
02 Dec 04 - 11:59 PM (#1345975) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Jaysus. It's Kahlil Gibran. Poor bugger forgot how to spell his name. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 12:06 AM (#1345978) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: GUEST holy creaps - it is Bruce and he's forgotten he's a grown-up "man." |
|
03 Dec 04 - 12:10 AM (#1345982) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Wow. Great rejoinder. On par with your usual. Now, go to sleep before mummy finds you at the computer past your bedtime. Go, little boy, go. Night, night. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 12:27 AM (#1345987) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace creaps? It's a piss poor English teacher who can only find one way to spell a word, right, GUEST? |
|
03 Dec 04 - 12:28 AM (#1345988) Subject: RE: Tech: Distinguishing between guests From: Peace Or do you still teach English? |