 sj |
||
|
||
From Max: State of the Union Address
|
|
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 04:21 PM "Clinton, it isn't necessary for you to understand WHY" One never really understands HOW until one also understands WHY.... It's not FINE either.... I am honestly curious.... Cause the more we understand about people, the better off we are.... Understanding I.D.I.C. is one way to really get a decent handle on it all.... I know -I- have made my point... I am inviting others to please make theirs..... Partially because I hate to misunderstand someone... And BTW, if you're going to insult me at least have the stones to not try to hide it behind a smile.... |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Big Mick Date: 12 May 06 - 04:21 PM A concept that took me a great deal of time to get I learned at a forum on racism. In an oversimplified form it basically says that it doesn't matter what the intent was, if the recipient takes it as racism, then it is wrong. I did much soul searching to come to realize that this means it is incumbent on me to want to understand others pain. It meant that if I truly want to continue to evolve as a decent human being, then no matter what I meant I owe the apology for hurt caused by my words and actions. I think that something along those lines is what Wes is referring to. Please let us get back to the discussion thread was started for. It is about what we need to do to right our ship and start our way back to the proper course. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Janie Date: 12 May 06 - 04:16 PM Clinton, it isn't necessary for you to understand WHY words hurt other people to understand their statements that words DO hurt them. You express very clearly that words, and what other people say to you does not bother you. Fine. Others have clearly expressed that what other people say can have the power to hurt them. That's fine too. You have made your point. Don't be a Shambles Jr. :>) Janie |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Bill D Date: 12 May 06 - 04:13 PM I'll bet 27¢ that some little setting in Art's browser is keeping those cookies from 'sticking' after being set. If I were closer to the Midwest, I'd drive over there, test my theory, and sing Art a song in return for the nice things he's done for me..*grin* What browser are you using Art? Let's solve this. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 03:59 PM "unless you've lost a newborn...." How do you know I haven't?!?!?! You don't.... And well, pain is pain is pain.... everyone goes through it.... What I don't understand is even if you have, why oh why would you empower some wanker on a cruddy little internet messageboard to be able to harm you with such!?!?! How can it matter a tinkers cuss what MG says or how he says it?!?! It isn't even real! Heart? All kinds of heart... it's the seriousness attached to some levels of discourse here that I find impossible to understand.... Do people take everything that everyone says so seriously?!?! |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 03:51 PM I wasn't going to make any requests on this thread, but there is one I would like to make. It has saddened me greatly to see Art have to keep posting as a guest, and to not be able to access his PMs. Is there anything that can be done to help him restore his cookie? Any assistance anyone can give him to help him do so? |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: MMario Date: 12 May 06 - 03:48 PM Amen, Amen, amen. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Big Mick Date: 12 May 06 - 03:47 PM Not in a million years, Art. I would rather put up for a thousand posts from the worst of the worst than to lose one post from you. You are really the essence of the place, as much as any who have graced its pages. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 12 May 06 - 03:30 PM Max, this is a needed thread. It is much better than the condom one I began once to try to make, in a round-about way, a few of these same points you raise. Thanks for saying these things. I do wish I could do more for you and Camsco. Situations here dictate our ability to give of now, so, please, just know that I truly appreciate this place you have made. It rivals Middle Earth in it's complexity. The interplay between good and bad -- hobits and orc creatures is here to delight and appal as well. In the past I've heard power ironically defined as "The extent to which one can inconvenience others!" A few here were illustrating that rather graphically in recent times. I am not proud of the fact that I sometimes lowered myself to their level in order to, both, refute their logic, and, also, strive to hurt them back. I'm sorry for that. I still look through the threads and post when something I have can add a bit of light on a certain topic. ------ Also, I'm only a "guest" because the 'cat computer won't recognize my membership even though I'm actually logged in. -- I generally use my real name even though I'm a guest. But if I must be kept out because I am a guest, well, so be it. All the best to you folks. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: open mike Date: 12 May 06 - 03:28 PM hey, no fair issuing ethnic slurs about the Visigoths even they had codes and laws--http://libro.uca.edu/vcode/visigoths.htm "you who are on the road, must have a code, that youi can live by..." I hope that this discussion can lead to some boundaries being established here for the place becoming more user friendly and welcoming. thanks to all who make efforts to establish and keep the peace here. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: katlaughing Date: 12 May 06 - 03:19 PM In case you haven't seen me say so before, Max, count me as one of the ones who would like to see an end to Guests being able to post/start threads in the BS section. CH, unless you've lost a newborn and been ridiculed by someone like MG, I don't think you have a clue as to how Wesley has been effected by such. Show a little heart, willya? kat |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: dick greenhaus Date: 12 May 06 - 03:19 PM Just a couple of (I hope) unargumentative points. If anyone wishes to make use of it, CAMSCO Music accepts VISA,Master and Discover cards, and will pass all contributions on to Mudcat. If there's a reasonably competent low-level programmer out there who's willing to spend some time--I don't think it should be a great deal of it--working with me, we can come out with a significant upgrade of the Digital Tradition (maybe 1000 new songs) in a reasonably short time. Please PM me if you have any interest. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: gnu Date: 12 May 06 - 03:19 PM "... Contributions and Auction average about $50 per month,..." $600 a year? Kendall said, "Max for King!" Well, he already is. So, I'll nominate the lad for Sainthood. $600 a year? Cheap bastards! Cough up some coin eh!!! Just a little while ago, there was a thread or two asking for a buck or two each. Just a buck or two! The person that started these threads was called nuts. I am now comprestanding why. Cheap bastards! |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 03:18 PM "Shall we define some number of offences permitted" Everything worth really doing is going to offend some wanker or other Mighta been Billy Conolly said that..... "If there is any principle of the Constitution" The American Constitution has NOTHING to do with this place.... Unless Max decides it does.... |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: beardedbruce Date: 12 May 06 - 03:04 PM aside to Joe: "Because it's a disagreement with ideas more than a personal attack (although I suppose personal attack is involved), and because nobody complained about it. Yes, I suppose it could be more civil, but I don't think I would call this a blatant personal attack. If Beardedbruce complained about it, I would have deleted it - but he didn't." I did not complain because I copied it in its entirety to a NEW thread, as I considered it off-thread, but worthy of a reply, and replied to the factual challanges in the new thread. THAT thread was removed, because the title of "Arne's Arguement" was considered too offensive. To all: I believe that freedom of speech is best defined by Justice Holmes. I do NOT have a problem with censorship APPLIED EQUALLY to those who cross some defined line- BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT HERE. Is Martin offensive? Yes. Is Shambles repetitive and verbose? Yes. But others here are, as well. Shall we define some number of offences permitted, then remove the offenders? Look around at your friends here and ask who would be left. "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree but freedom for the thought that we hate." --- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. US v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 655 (1928) |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 03:01 PM "Having been one of his targets I know how painful that was" In all honestly and curiosity, I don't understand why you allow it to BE so painful... |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Helen Date: 12 May 06 - 02:54 PM I agree with Amos' 12 May 06 - 01:42 PM post. As an example, I and others were subjected to merciless bullying some years ago by a "guest" who was actually a member. It came out, through his own confession, that this person was a highly respected contributor to the Mudcat musical knowledge base but that he had succumbed to baser instincts and was anonymously and viciously attacking other Mudcatters. (This was NOT Gargoyle, and Gargoyle was wrongly blamed for much of the viciousness at the time.) Having been one of his targets I know how painful that was, and I stopped contributing to any threads because I felt vulnerable and very upset. When I found out that he wasn't just a Guest with no psychological investment in the site, but that he was a valuable Mudcat member that upset me even more, because I knew how much he had contributed to Mudcat. Due to his sociopathic behaviour, I lurked for many months and eventually got up the courage to start posting again. My addiction on this site is for searching for information for people on the 'Net, i.e. being a frustrated librarian. My best moments here are those when I found a song or album or other info which someone was searching for and I was happy to help. So I don't have a lot of money to donate but I try to help out with info requests. Unfortunately my financial situation for the last 10 years has been very pressing and I haven't been able to donate $$ but I have used the Auction and I will search again for some other items to put in there. When my finances stabilise - I am hoping this will happen very soon - I will donate $$. I decided long ago, here, to not give the vicious posters the satisfaction of an argument. Now I send them positive thoughts and ignore them, but it doesn't mean that I don't feel hurt or upset by some of the things they say. Thanks, as always, Max and the other helpers, and all contributors to the knowledge base, and sharers of information. But thanks especially to the Mudcat community, warts and all, for a great place to be. Helen |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 12 May 06 - 02:53 PM Max, thanks for citing the costs. A balance sheet, published at regular periods, would be a useful reminder. My donation MO will go out today (refuse to use paypal). I am surprised at the carping at Joe and the clones. Their advice and corrections have always been helpful. Bullshit comments from 'cute' guests are posted to threads from time to time. Too bad that it is difficult to edit them out, without comment. They turn off serious contributors. As suggested above, some guidelines are needed. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Ebbie Date: 12 May 06 - 02:43 PM For the record: Among the things I value the Mudcat for is when I post asking for information about a performing group that is in line to be in the local area. The response is immediate, informative and to the point. In the past year I have also posted asking for infomration on starting a folk club. Again, the response was informative, encouraging and to the point. The Mudcat is like the Internet itself. When I'm doing research, I can find quotes, pertinet books and speeches, addresses, in hours - sometimes minutes - that would take me days at the library. Just so the Mudcat- I would be able to find information on performing groups and on starting folk clubs but the Mudcat is fresh information, loaded with personal experience and fast. This facet of Mudcattism is distinct from the buzzing of conversation and subject topics and people I love to hear from. Thanks, y'all. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 02:37 PM "He just thinks he's a Viking." That's more just a daydream conceit than anything else.... "Tyler Durden" Holy crap that movie blew.... (are we far enough OFF topic yet?!?!?! LOL ) |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 02:34 PM "Clinton you'll forgive me if I'm wrong" Nothing to forgive Goik.... Everybody is wrong sometimes... especially give how easily things get misunderstood out here in text-only-land..... No blood, no foul eh.... "you sound like someone who cares a lot, and has been hurt a few times" Find me a human being that doesn't apply to! LOL Life is NEVER a bed of roses, unless you're also including the thorns.... I suspect that in the grand scheme of things, I've had it WAY better than most people.... (I've never had someone I was supposed to be able to trust try to put anything up inside of me against my will, for instance) "stop trying to get your retaliation in first" Not something I've ever done..... granted my level of discourse here is likely more abrupt, direct and guttural than some here might like.... "Oh well", is what I say to them.... |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 02:34 PM Clinton you'll forgive me if I'm wrong, but you sound like someone who cares a lot, and has been hurt a few times. So you have now adopted the 'Hurt them before they hurt you' strategy in life. Naw. He just thinks he's a Viking. Or Tyler Durden. Not sure which. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: John MacKenzie Date: 12 May 06 - 02:27 PM Clinton you'll forgive me if I'm wrong, but you sound like someone who cares a lot, and has been hurt a few times. So you have now adopted the 'Hurt them before they hurt you' strategy in life. Don't worry we don't want to get past your armour, we just don't want you clanking it under our noses at the slightest excuse. Please don't take it the wrong way if I advise you to stop trying to get your retaliation in first, and go with the flow. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 02:25 PM "Expect a bung when I return from holiday" Is it just me, or does that sound more like a threat than anything else?!?!?! LOL |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: pdq Date: 12 May 06 - 02:24 PM Maybe Max can explain why crap like the following post can be found on Mudcat every day. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments From: Arne - PM Date: 10 Apr 06 - 05:05 PM BeardedBruce: It does not matter how many times I point out that THE UN DECLARED, in the final report required by UNR1441, that Saddam HAD NOT COMPLIED. You misspelled "allege". ;-) You're right, it doesn't matter. Your assertions aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. What does matter is whether the UN "declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441", and that they didn't do (much less authorise military invasion as the "serious consequences" that should ensue if Saddam was in fact declared to be in material non-compliance with UNSCR 1441 [which he wasn't]). Slender reed to hang 2300+ dead U.S. soldiers, maybe a trillion is U.S. money, and an Iraq in total shambles and a far greater threat to U.S. security and interests than it was, on. You have no shame, Brucie, defending the indefencible here. If there is a god, your soul will burn in hell. You will keep saying that , "IF" we just gave him enough time, he would have complied. He was complying. No one (at least no sapient person) thought the inspections and verification could be done instantaneously. Even those that were taken in by the U.S. "garbage, garbage, and more ga...." -- ummm, sorry, they were calling it "intelligence -- and as you point out, that included quite a number of folks in Europe and elsewhere before the inspections began, decided after the inspections were turning up zilch that the most prudent course was to let them have more time to complete the process and then assess what the next course of action should be. This included El Baradei and Blix, of course, who, while initially given some resistance from Saddam, thought (correctly) that they could finish the job withough getting hundreds of thousands (including mostly civilians) killed. IF I believed that you had any interest in the truth, the discussion might be worthwhile- If you ever meet up with truth in your peregrinations, Brucie, you should try to strike up an acquaintance. I've provided links in my last long post proving you to be a liar or a moron. As it is, you have never given me any of the "STATEMENTS" that support what you say happened-.... I just gave you a passel of links, dear Brucie. You totally ignored them. ... just comments that it looks like, someday, maybe, he might have given the UN some of what it required. Ummm, what was "required", Brucie? In the grand scheme of things, not a damn thing! Saddam didn't have any WoMD. How's Saddam supposed to comply in 'turning over any WoMD' and "disclosing his secret weapons programs' when he doesn't have any. They gave a report (as required) that was pretty much accurate ... but the U.S. tossed it of as garbage (while the U.S. "intelligence" was the real "garbage") and wouldn't accept that answer. The U.S., on manufactured and shoddy evidence, presented a picture in front of the U.N. about all kinds of nefarious programs, none of which existed. That would be perjury in a court of law, Brucie. The U.N., rightly so, remained sceptical of the U.S. crapola and took a "wait and see" attitude. It is my opinion that the U.S., rather than letting themselves be shown to be fools or worse, quickly decided to attack knowing that it was all based on a lie. Only problem with this strategy was that they needed to find at least enough old WoMD still around to make for a superficially plausible case for starting hostilities ... and/or they needed to "free" Iraq so that people would forget about the WoMD rationale and say "well, it turned out for the best anyway, so let's just ignore the false pretenses. But neither of these things came to pass, and Dubya managed to make a complete SNAFU of it just like he's done with everything else in his miserable life. He deserves to be tried and convicted of crimes against humanity. It is clear you can't read the text of UNR1441, nor the report that it mandated. Nonsense. I can read both. But Blix doesn't get to call in the Air Force. As I pointed out above, it is the prerogative of the U.N., in deliberation and decision by its member states, to decide what should happen if UNSCR 1441 was not being heeded (and based on how and how substantially it wasn't being heeded). Blix's reports of some non-compliance, resistance, or non-co-operation in some areas has to be taken as a whole, particularly when Blix's latest reports were indicating substantial improvement in compliance, and when Blix himself pleaded for more time to finish the job. If you think, like Dubya, that any hint of non-compliance (and failure to kiss Dubya's a$$ as well) is sufficient reason to go to war, then you, like Dubya, think that war is the first option and not the last despite Dubya once again recently spewing the outright lie than war ... and the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers ... is the last alternative. Just a FYI, Brucie: The American public ain't buying it any more, and there will be hell to pay for the maladministration here. Say, you never answered my question: Seeeing as Israel is in non-compliance with many U.N. resolutions, is it perfectly OK for anyone to attack them any time they want? Now, if you want to keep at spewing the same old 'talking points' PLEASE OPEN ANOTHER THREAD. I tried to, but was informed it might be insulting to you, so it was removed. My, my, my, Brucie. Got caught wid' yer pants down, eh? LOL. Cheers,
We try to keep the peace around here, but we don't want to review every post - and we do expect people who participate in political discussions are not going to be overly sensitive when the discussions get heated. This is certainly a lively and impassioned message, but I really don't see it as objectionable. We don't want to censor that heavily. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: fat B****rd Date: 12 May 06 - 02:23 PM Thank you Max, Expect a bung when I return from holiday. All The Best from Charlie. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 02:20 PM Alloow me to readdress something just cause I think I mighta not been as clear as I ought to have been.... And misunderstands happen all too easily in this text-only medium..... "Libel is a crime because words can, and often do, cause real damage to peoples' lives: their reputations, thence their abilities to make a living, etc." Sure... in SOME contexts.... The forum here at Mudcat is NOT one of those situations.... |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 02:14 PM I said that... it wasn't a suggestion that Mudcat should follow that exact course, but yes that some acknowledgment or Contributing Member perk be offered.... If we weren't using stone age software, one message board I post at, if you contribute to site costs, you get to use an Avatar and Sig File.... if you don't you don't..... Just by way of example |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: artbrooks Date: 12 May 06 - 02:09 PM Someone earlier suggested that, like public radio stations, Mudcat give away coffee cups or t-shirts with contributions...and I apologize if I didn't get that right, since I'm too lazy to go back and look for it. I/we contribute to 2 local public radio and 2 on-line streaming music programs, and all give the choice to opt-out of premiums so that the entire donation goes to station operations. The cost varies with quantity, of course, but even the cheapest premium costs close to $10 when postage is considered. Personally, I'd rather the Cat get the whole thing. If I want a t-shirt, I'll buy one (and I did). An acknowledgment PM would be nice, though. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 02:04 PM oops.... "Contrary to what some people want to think about it, it's NOT your best friends living room where you can feel safe and let all your guard down...." And let me suggest this, if you WANT it to be, you better have one BIG FK of a bouncer working the front door... cause the Visigoths WILL stream through the place unless you stop them! LOL |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 02:01 PM "the benefits of allowing themselves to feel in the moment far outweight the benefits" Walking around with your heart on your sleeve is NEVER a good idea.... Nor do I appreciate the implication that because I don't sport such adornment, that my emotions are somehow buried or less accessible.... On the contrary, my emotions are exceedingly mature and accessible... Including an ability to recognize where emotional reactions to negative stimuli come from, and how to CHOSE to not allow such to occur.... " they choose to be open to the communications of others" Where have I ever NOT been open to the communications of others? (o.k... if yer a New Age DLD, I dismiss you, mostly cause I'm sick and tired of dealing with your delusions... but that's a special case! LOL) On the contrary ALL my posts in this thread (Just to be specific) have been about OPEN and direct communication, full of 'heart' and what-have-you.... 'makes the user less aware, less in communication, and less capable of understanding" I think the only people who would say that are the heart-on-the-sleeve types who have no concept of a different way of being... as I said above, I 'did my time' as a 'bleeding heart'.... I'm glad to be quit of it.... But this becomes digression..... Even if you ARE a 'H-o-y-Ser', you MUST realize that not everyone is.... you cannot expect that the world is going to change because you have talked yourself into thinking you bruise easily.... The onus is on YOU to deal....to cope.... just like everyone else is doing.... To quote George Carlin, "The world doesn't change because you put up a sign" "That's an awful hard price to pay for feeling like an island" Again, it's a question of perspective.... This is not the real world... this is just cyberspace.... Contrary to what some people want to think about it, it's NOT your best friends living room where you can feel safe and let all your guard down.... it's more like standing out on a crowded, busy, big-city street.... If one can't handle that fact, maybe one should log off and go back to knitting or something.... "within their comfort zones" Their 'comfort zones' are their concern, just as mine are mine... and mine alone.... Personal responsibility |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: The Shambles Date: 12 May 06 - 01:56 PM It was a simile Roger! You may know this (as my resident stalker) but many who post mainly on the music section will not. Sadly so much hysteria has been generated and judgements encouraged about individual posters - and as it is generally thought there is no smoke without fire - many posters (and possibly Max also) will readily assume the worst. The truth is that the loss of one of two posters who are encouraged to be viewed as easy targets - as a response to the latest public witch hunts - will not have any affect on what is now seen by many as the unfair and counter - productive 'system' that has fed on and largely created all the division. This mainly by promoting the simplistic concept that any view posted that is not now in total agreement with that of our moderators - is judged to be an anti-Mudcat post. When all posters are once again treated equally and all are subject to whatever rules are clearly spelt-out - and when all posters are encouraged (by the example set) to concenterate on their own posts - there may be some hope of 'peace'. There is no hope if the same failed methods of selective imposition are permitted to continue unchanged........ |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Susan of DT Date: 12 May 06 - 01:47 PM Max - You also spend money on hardware for mudcat as things break or need expanding. What does hardware run you in an average year (as if there is such a thing)? You need money to cover that expense as well. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Amos Date: 12 May 06 - 01:42 PM Clinton: It might help to observe that not everyone has acheived your bullet-proof calloused state in life. Some people choose to desigg their way of being in the world with a little less armor, and a little more heart. This makes them vulnerable to lies and vicious remarks, because they choose to be open to the communications of others. They choose that because the benefits of allowing themselves to feel in the moment far outweight the benefits of being shut off, hard boiled and jaded. To people like that, the Mudcat is a gem of a place at first blush because most people who post here are thoughtful and considerate, and if they have confrontational things to say, they temper those remarks with humor and understanding so they do not come out barbed or cutting. One of the reason Martin failed as a memeber is because he exalted the notion of leather skinned tough-nosed insensitivity as though it were a great virtue. But it is not. It IS a survival mechanism, granted, but it is commonly a solution to pain and grief, and it is born in retreat and confusion. But whatever its genesis it makes the user less aware, less in communication, and less capable of understanding,. That's an awful hard price to pay for feeling like an island, or a rock. Deciding you cannot ever be hurt is a patch job, and does not address the REAL issues. Not only does it lower the life-quality of the person making the decision, it also breeds a kind of antagonistic, bullying tone in dealing with others, which makes the alienation self-reinforcing. It is not "maturity", it is just excessive self-defense. It should never be mistaken for true maturity, which is the ability to experience anything willingly, while caring enough to cause things that others can experience within their comfort zones (or perhaps a tiny bit beyond). I like you , based on your many valued posts, and I hope you bother to take the time to take this little essay on board. A |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Bill D Date: 12 May 06 - 01:33 PM " I also drive by car accidents without slowing down." LOL...so you're the one zipping by all the rest of us! |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: GUEST,sorefingers Date: 12 May 06 - 01:32 PM I can recall reading with amazement posts from the senior members ( above )when first I found the forum over ten years ago. I still find threads that I just read and read again, because as has already be said, they contain otherwise un-obtainable information on folkmusio/song. Thats just the way it was and continues to be. Now even if I have to search to find these threads and deal occasionaly with an internet obsessive person, it's fine by me. Even if I read the odd nutty thread while looking for something, that too is fine, because making the Muddie as moderated and regulated as some propose would likely drive off the few musicians that are still here. So with due respect I disagree with those on the opposite side of this issue. It is not fair at all that Max has to provide 50% of the costs of the Muddie. That is simply wrong, and must stop. (Sending of a donation today) If the Muddie would allow it, there's several on-line music vendors who's turnover is so high that donations should be no problem. Please let me see what I can come up with on that one. I know they may ask for advertising, but I am certain they would understand Max not wanting his site cluttered up with that kind of thing. Lets see. The other day I noticed an early Muddie poster who's writing I really enjoyed, post and depart. It reminded me of how fun this place can be and still is, on occasions. Get's me to thinking why some posters aren't worth the effort even though their English is perfect. Perhaps some folks are addicted to their own Grammer, a sort of Grammeritis? So on behalf of The Secret Muddie Blues Pickers & Chicken Bone Chewing Club, bad spellers unincoprorated, The Grammer Butchers Guild and others who miss Cleigh O'Possum/other characters, I say, set up a membership payment plan, complete with auto debit etc. Then even though the site remains open to all, those of us who can easily afford $50.00 annualy would be paying for all of the deficit? How about it? Before I leave this to the censors, thanks Max and Joe and the Clones, you are doing a fine job. On that note of commendation, and on behalf of all those who are too busy to be here, can Muddie open a Video board as well?, where those of us who really do play music can harp on about it there and perhaps start something that puts Muddie into the lead in inovation again? |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Bill D Date: 12 May 06 - 01:27 PM oh, I DO hope Shambles and Max sort out...privately...such rules and standards that are relevant! If Roger gets clear guidelines, and still is dissatisfied with management...including the dreaded anonymous moderators, he needs to make a decision. Max's post of 9:56AM seems to say that moderators will continue. We do not need another 5-6 years of nagging....even with no naughty language, it wears on us all. (from the general figures about $$$$, it seems that it wouldn't take a great deal to raise the income to a sustainable level. If half the regular posters did a minimum every year, those dozen stalwarts could ease off a bit.) Bill D *still contemplating his own strategy* |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 01:26 PM Oh ya... that was 100..... (Just to be pedantic, shouldn't this thread be in the BS section?? LOL) |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 01:25 PM Not at all.... NOTHING you say here is ever going to affect my real life.... Unless I allow it to... Not only because I won't let it, but because this place has no such power.... |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 12 May 06 - 01:24 PM Hey, Max: Thank you so much for this thread. We all needed to hear from you. For starters, I'll send some money via paypal TODAY. I have to agree that threads about the appearance of a musician at a local club (unless maybe it was Mississippi John Hurt :-) don't make any sense to me. If I was traveling and wanted to know what was going on, I'd just PM a couple of Catters in that area and get far more information than all the little three or four posting threads on local events. Part of the reason why the music section looks so top-heavy with UK is the local announcements. I don't think of this place as Uk'ers or Usa'ers. There are a million threads that aren't place specific... If a thread asks about burning CDs from cassettes, or favorite movies, the responses aren't dependent upon which country that you live in. I must admit that if I don't have a lot of time, I tend to skim the music section because so much of it is specific to a locality. That seems stupid of me, as my primary reason for coming in here is music. Sometimes, music gets lost in the shuffle. I left here once because of all the obscenities and thread kidnapping that was going on, but came back to look for those things I can enjoy on here. And there are still plenty. I tend to pass by the Shambles threads as I know that they are endlessly repetitive and a waste of time (this sentence is suitable for cut and pasting, Shambles.) I also drive by car accidents without slowing down. Most of all, Max, I will show my appreciation with some money. Maybe you should consider at least an Annual fund-drive just to remind us to support you... Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: BuckMulligan Date: 12 May 06 - 01:23 PM Libel is a crime because words can, and often do, cause real damage to peoples' lives: their reputations, thence their abilities to make a living, etc. I can lie about you all day long to your friends and family and coworkers, and no doubt many of them won't believe it, but sooner or later someone will, and then someone else, and pretty soon you become a person about whom many folks have doubts. And who knows, you may turn into one of those doubters. It's fine to think you're strong enough so that my words could never hurt you, but that attitude simply belies immaturity & inexperience. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 01:19 PM "Try walking a mile in someone elses shoes for a change." I have walked a mile in those shoes.... That's WHY I have the callouses I do so that -I'm- not so tenderfooted.... It's a harsh, violent, crude, insulting world.... If you chose to leave the safety of your own little cave (For real or into cyberspace) you have to accept that there are going to be people around who say/do/think things you don't agree with, or might even find VERY offensive.... You cannot change THEM... it's up to YOU to change how you react to such people.... "Like water off a duck" is my best suggestion.... Cause otherwise I have to ask, why elect to give someone who is offensive to you the power to hurt you???? (Off the top of my head, that's something I reserve only for the people I know and love, cause I know they wound use it unless they absolutely have to.... strangers on the internet? I don't know them from Adam... why would I give them ANY power over me? do you see where I'm coming from??) "but I won't waste my breath." So, you're just here to hurl abuse, and not discuss anything? A prime example of the sort of vitriol that is poisoning Mudcat currently..... 'would it be too much to ask to have the Shatner threads banned forever......?" Oh please... don't TEASE me like that!!! LOL |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Wesley S Date: 12 May 06 - 01:11 PM "to viciously attack someone in the secret places of the heart" NO ONE CAN HURT YOU ONLINE UNLESS YOU LET THEM...... Clinton - Try walking a mile in someone elses shoes for a change. You have NO empathy skills whatsoever. None. I could go on but I won't waste my breath. Maybe it's been asked before but when we send in a check for Mudcat support are they considered tax deductable gifts ? Max - thanks for the Mudcat. Now - would it be too much to ask to have the Shatner threads banned forever......? Oh well. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: wysiwyg Date: 12 May 06 - 01:11 PM Max, it is VERY good to see you here again. We need to be able to converse with you just a tad more often, if you can spare the time. Your vision for Mudcat grows dim when we don't hear it afresh from time to time. It doesn't have to be a thread if you prefer not to turn a simple message from the site originator/publisher into a debate.... a column from time to time would do so much good and make a place where you could address whatever pending concerns and trends are current at any given time. As for me, I can do three things. 1. I can ask a Mudcat donation more explicitly when people come to stay at my house on their way to events like the Getaway, and put my time and work hostessing these on the block for Mudcat. We'd thought about not hosting these any more, for a variety of reasons, but as long as we are in this house I can and will continue it. 2. I can PM folks I used to know pretty well. I think people DO pop in from time to time to see what's happening here, remind them how much I and others enjoyed them, and be available if they have questions about new site features, customs, etc. 3. I can post the garbled Spirituals Permathread as a new thread so the garbled one can be deleted, if that is a good thing to do (please advise directly or via Joe/Jeff). All the best to you and yours, ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 01:03 PM What Lynne said about guests! |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: MBSLynne Date: 12 May 06 - 12:59 PM I can't see much difference between stoping guests from starting threads and stopping them from posing either. They still cause just as much havoc...if not even more, because if you see a thread heading that looks as though it's going to be contentious and aggressive, and you can usually tell, you can refrain from opening it, but I've seen many good, innocent, humorous, reasonable threads, including some I've started myself, turned to yet another battle ground by anonymous guests. I feel a tad guilty about not contributing to the Cat, but at the moment it really isn't financially possible. Sorry. I will do what I can when our finances are on a better level. Love Lynne |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Clinton Hammond Date: 12 May 06 - 12:56 PM Perspective MMario... WORDS can never hurt anyone.... Unless you let them.... libel is only a crime because people chose to ALLOW words to hurt them.... And think they need to be protected.... Or at least compensated.... and well, it's not like LAW has anything to do with Mudcat.... LAW is for the real world... this is cyberspace.... there is a BIG difference.... |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: Áine Date: 12 May 06 - 12:51 PM Hey Max, I've been MIA for months now because of all the problems and upset. I always checked in at least once a week to see what was going on, and I've seen how (beyond) nasty people have become. I'm so glad that you've come down from Olympus and have given everyone the 'oh grow up' speech that has been needed here for so long. I truly hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears. I, too, have been lax in sending contributions to the Mudcat. Consider that situation rectified. Hey, what better place to give my bellydancing tips to, heh? ;-) All the best, Áine |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: John MacKenzie Date: 12 May 06 - 12:51 PM It was a simile Roger! G. |
|
Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: CarolC Date: 12 May 06 - 12:51 PM It's good to see this thread, Max. I will be looking around the house for anything that might be appropriate to put in the auction (cash will have to wait until we get finances more under control). |
| Share Thread: |