None of these comments should be taken in
any way that is considered personal. They are observations only which are being written to provoke examination and discussion of this issue.

I have a problem with the pledge. Who is to make the determination that one is flaming? Is flaming equal to disagreement on an issue with someone? With who? Does that mean that lively, civil discussion of controversial music, subjects, and issues that spawn music is considered flaming if someone doesn't like it? It seems to me that the important piece of the pledge is the first paragraph. I think my friend Roger was being a bit tongue in cheek with the rest. I have learned that his intent is always honorable and done out of a love of the Mudcat. But the reservations I have with the issues I have raised are real. It seems to me to be another side of the same coin that TTCM appears on.

This pledge does serve one very important purpose. It causes us all to think before we respond to those whose desire to make the Mudcat over in their own image. My own PERSONAL pledge is to simply not acknowledge the posts that, in my own opinion, have no value or do not further my study of the music and the issues that spawn it. I started advocating that long ago. That is a logical extension of the philosophy of not responding to posts or not participating in threads that don't interest you or which you have objections to. That is what will cause the pea brains to disappear. Creating a public vow will simply lend itself to the argument that we are elitist.

Big Mick