 sj |
||
|
||
Objectionable Material
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: steve t Date: 04 May 98 - 04:56 AM Whoops! Looks to me like all future posts should be directed to the thread "Objectionable Material - the sequal" which is already 19 posts long. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: steve t Date: 04 May 98 - 04:54 AM Numbers instead of names on government messages? That's just a sign of obsolete computer systems. Modern designs can handle both simultaneously. Too bad about Congo River, eh? "Blow, Boys, Blow" has developed a slightly homoerotic conotation that's killed a good song. Time for a parody?
|
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: GaryD Date: 03 May 98 - 11:57 PM Hello again..it's good to see all the erudite inputs on the subject are still going, & I guess it's about time to cloud the issue with some silliness of mine again...Just a couple thoughts...Joe, I like your concept of signing names instead of numbers... I can forsee a spooky time when we all will become numbers instead of names to someone. For example maybe in the future I will be known as "568964216" instead of Gary.. but this, of course would be pretty long for people to deal with.. then maybe they'll just have to call me "56" for short..then I'll be known by my nicknumber!... As for the following, seeing as how there are so many of you out there who are fond of the "F" word...you might as well know of the origin of it. According to one of my English Professors, it is a legal term (Perhaps Bill in Alabama can confirm..) Anyway, when minors were arrested for illicit sexual relations, it was put down in the books: "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge"..So there you have it..if you take the first letter of each word, you will discover how it was abbreviated (though the periods are now missing between the letters) As a matter of fact the whole subject is about missing periods, of one sort or another... Sorry people..couldn't resist! Gary |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Moira Cameron Date: 01 May 98 - 12:44 AM Whether I sing something that might be considered "Objectionable" depends a good deal on my own comfort level--how comfortable I am personally with the message and intent of the song, and how comfortable I am with a given audience. For example, I love the Leon Rosselson Song, "Stand Up For Judas". I am perfectly comfortable with singing that song for myself, and maybe I would be comfortable in a song circle situation among people I know. However, to sing it in front of a larger audience--well, I'm simply not confortable with that. Perhaps I'm just a wimp! Or maybe I'm just overly sensitive to other people's responses. The irony is, I believe in applying a little 'shock therepy' to audiences once in a while (I just don't seem to have the gumption to do it that often myself). I really admire other performers and artists who can do it and don't seem to mind the controversy they may start. Personally, when I am faced with something that is objectionable,I try to either take it with a grain of salt, or, if I am unsucessful, I try to learn why it makes me so upset. Sometimes I categorize something--whether it be a movie, a song, a play, or a piece of art--as 'good' simply because it succeeds in provoking me. Of course, sometimes complete and utter trash can be provocative. Great discussion, by the by. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Apr 98 - 02:17 PM Marc & Pete - interesting observation about signing the end of messages, isn't it? It certainly changes the tone of a message to put your name at the end of it. The government computer system I work with on the job identifies me as "S91-9863" and people are supposed to look in a directory if they want to know who I really I am. As far as I can tell, I am the only one of 700 employees who puts my name and phone number at the end of every message. I also try to add a touch of humor. I've learned that management does not appreciate either the name or the attempt at humor - it's much easier to control employees if you don't let them communicate with each other. They haven't stopped me, though. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Murray Date: 28 Apr 98 - 03:45 AM Pete--the point about "twenty fucking five to one" is that the word [not used in its "real" meaning] has the force of an intensive, i.e. what a more genteel (tho still vulgar) tongue would call "bloody". It makes 25 to one seem quite mild and almost meaningless. But put in your intensive, and it becomes many times more strong than the pale "straight" language. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: MarcB Date: 26 Apr 98 - 06:04 PM Peter, Yeah, but it's so alliterative with "five":) Joe, thanks for notes on signing. It occurs to me that I sign my name at the end of the post because the one in the message block seems more impersonal, simply the system doing its job as opposed to me claiming my thoughts. Marc
|
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Pete M Date: 26 Apr 98 - 04:23 PM Thanks MarcB for making explicit some concerns that I have also had about my, and societys', anmbiguity and downright contradiction in views of what is "acceptable". I'll have to think a bit before replying in any consistent fashion, but just a couple of random thoughts: Pogue lyrics - "...a drunken fuck on a Saturday night" I cannot see as being offensive since it is a good descripton using the word as a noun in a context in which it is the most appropriate word; ie good English. The far more common use of "fuck" as an adjective "..twenty fucking five to one" is to me merely white noise - meaningless. If you need to "swear" to make a point, then as Ben Elton has pointed out, the words are only effective as a full stop, not commas. Joe, I take your point about the vagaries of email packages, I note that my name has been ommitted from the "From" field in the past, but I, as do you and most contributors, always "sign" the message anyway. Pete M |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Apr 98 - 04:02 AM Well, Dean - if you're not registered, or you're working from a computer that doesn't have your registration "cookie," your name is not automatically entered in the "from" box - and it never enters automatically if yours is the first message posted. I find that in cases where my name isn't entered automatically, I have a hard time remembering to enter it. So, I think that the anonymous posters simply forgot to post their names. Thinking that way gives me a much more kindly attitude toward their anonymity. Besides, it makes me feel smugly superior..... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Dean Newman Date: 25 Apr 98 - 09:28 PM Wow! Wonderful assortment of viewpoints. Well stated opinions. Obviously a higher quality of folks than I find on some sites. I've enjoyed the comments from even those with whom I disagree. I concur with the feelings some of you express concerning the anonymous postings even when I agree with them. If they have something in which they believe strongly enough to type a message, they should identify themselves as believing in themselves. If all the message blanks work as mine does, one has to deliberately delete the "From:" space to avoid including their name in their post. Is this not so? |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Tim Jaques tjaques@netcom.ca Date: 25 Apr 98 - 03:40 PM The full version of Congo River would probably offend most people nowadays. I see even the version in the database leaves out the objectionable verse. Not that it matters, because no-one ever sings it. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Frank in the swamps Date: 24 Apr 98 - 05:06 PM Remember when some rapper called "Ice T" or "Ice Cube", I don't remember which, did a song called "Cop killer" a while back? All the pol's got bent out of shape and actually got the record co. to cut the song from the album. I borrowed the cassette off of a buddy and listened, it was a GOOD song. Not really my bag, but a groovin' bit of heavy metal type rant. What really pissed me off was all the posing by public figures (I won't mislabel them "leaders") about encouraging violence among youth. A three minute pop song will make 'em go postal, but prime time television and cinema violence is ok? I guess you can't get much campaign advertising on cd's. Now that's objectionable. Frank. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: MarcB Date: 24 Apr 98 - 04:23 PM Heyall, Just got around to catching up on this thread(which started out great and somewhat shifted focus:) A great subject. A few of my thoughts, internal conflicts , etc. First though my endorsement of the "more than lyrics" notion of this site. I chime in primarily because it feels good to be connected to a group of folks who seem to share a love of the songs and some sensitivity to the earth, its peoples, its history and traditions. I sing this music because it is more than its lyrics, it has a direct connection to and is is a vibrant reflection of this earth, its peoples, its history and traditions. If I could speak many more languages I would sing many more traditional songs, I just happen to have been wired with a fondness(and geneaology) that favors trad English/Celtic etc. stuff. My point being simply that conversations around the music, philosophy, intent, boundaries, etc. are just as fun and important as the songs themselves. Back to objectionable. In another eway community we had a similar discussion centered around jokes and humor. In my soul search at that time I discovered some interesting internal contradictions which I'm not very happy about, but there they are, and they also apply to my approach to what I sing. One of those contradictions is that I tend to judge objectionable on a WIT scale. That is, it can be pretty crude, but if I find it witty then I don't find it objectionable. If it is just crude(nudge, nudge, wink, wink) then I find it offensive. Now I thought Sandy's opening bit was rather cute and not at all objectionable. But then I'm pretty thick skinned when it comes to religion, even though I'm a practicing Christian. I had an interesting experience at a meeting last week. They were discussing apocryphal stories about Jesus, most of them feeling these were either acceptable or interesting. I described "Bitter Withy", a song that really tickles me and just feels so right as an attempt to understand the dilemmas in contemplating Jesus as a real boy(and the tradition from ancient practices, which we too quickly dismiss, to early Christianity). Anyway, as I related the lyrics I saw their eyes grow bigger and knew that I'd pushed these good people into a territory they were not at all comfortable with. The notion of Jesus as a possible murderer of other children was just too awful to them, or even contemplating the notion. Now it's not that I think Jesus would necessarily have done such a thing but it's a logical extension of the notion of a divine adolescent with supernatural powers and human tendencies. And intriguing to contemplate. So, on the religious plane, for example Bitter Withy is a part of my repertoire and I do sing it sometimes for shock value, sometimes for educational purposes, and sometimes because it is just a good song. On another note, I find it very interesting that we are generations of shantey singers who sing versions of shantey's and foc'sle songs that are extremely tamed down, mostly due to publishing restrictions, as if the tame versions were the authentic oral tradition. Hooey. And yet most of us would be hard pressed in most settings in which we find ourselves, either with audience or fellow singers, to sing many of them in the way they were probably originally sung. Though I've often contemplated producing an "Uncensored Shantey Sing" concert. Which brings up another thought. Songs that I find myself having a harder and harder time singing, even if they're clever, are songs about violence to women, Dick Darby, for example, or Wee Cooper of Fife(not that those two are necessarily clever). Even with Rambling Sailor, one of my favorite songs, I usually wind up doing Nine Times a Night or the Kangaroo, right after to balance the equation. This has not to do with my attitude toward the SONGS, but stems some deep feelings I have about the treatment of women, and dehumanizing of people in general. Just my stuff. AND to put it in some perspective, I would never censure or even refuse to enjoy someone else singing these songs in a set just cuz they didn't have the same reluctance as me. Also, I do think there is a general degeneration of thought and language that has and is occuring in our civilization which does disturb me(no, I don't find Married with Children, or Beavis & Butthead amusing, even though I know they're satire) and I think in time it leads to a coarsening of discourse and relationships. So I'm not fond of the use of a lot of profanity or sexual innuendo. But I do sing "Johnny Be Fair" and night visiting songs without blinking an eye. (and isn't it interesting that I have difficulty singing songs about wife-beating but don't have much trouble singing songs about one-night stands that leave the poor lady pregnant and alone while the father traipses across the world - excuse me while I go sing the Kangaroo again:) On the other hand, there are some songs, including a bunch of Pogue songs, that I love and rarely can sing because of the preponderance of "fuck" in the lyrics. And dammit, the word WORKS. Take "Bottle of Smoke", a song I love because the poor sod actually wins at the track and gets to change his life. I've tried and tried but there is no phrase that carries the lyric and descriptive weight of "like a drunken fuck on a Saturday night". Or even of "twenty fucking five to one". Sometimes I just mumble something when I really want to sing them. And finally as regards to postings. When the basis of the community is mutual respect, admiration, common interests, sensitive awareness, good intent, caring, wit, etc. Like this one is. Then let everything come. Because of the foundation we should be able to trust people to have good intentions when they right and to expect people to "deal" with what they find objectionable. And should sign their names or at least a moniker. As I recently said in a similar discussion on that other eway community, the eway is a free, living medium by NATURE. To make it less through control or censorship is to necessarily debase it. The prevalence of this medium will force us all to confront the awesome terror inherent in TRULY FREE EXPRESSION, a notion we prattle about but rarely want to actually engage in. We are accustomed to picking our environments and companions much more narrowly, to avoid differences. It requires one to be able to handle viewpoints, expression, language, feelings, etc. that are perhaps markedly different than one's own WITHOUT disengaging(and being centered enough not to be driven off-center. It has no true precedents because similar live gatherings of such a scale across the same geographic and social boundaries would be impossible. We are and will learn ways to cope with extremes that occur on the eway as we have in other mediums. But in this case, shutting them up, is not the answer because that constitutes an essential violation of the medium itself. Freedom is freedom. And personally I love it, even with listening to things that I don't agree with, like, approve of, etc. Listening doesn't require me to endorse, mimic, or anything else. Just hear. And hit the delete key if I choose(the other side of the efreedom equation). None of the above suggests that simply because we're visiting on the eway means we need to throw out notions of civility, respect, concern, courteous conversation, hospitality, communication responsibility, etc. The rule of thumb I use for myself when I hear, or overhear, eway conversations that I find difficult, is "what would I do if this were taking place in a live gathering? Would I confront the person? Intervene? Let it slide? Express my opinion or feeling? Nod politely?" All the above have been answers in different situations. But as a ROT it's worked well. More of a soapbox than I intended there, sorry. A truly final thought. When weighed against the pre-occupation with sex and innuendo, the violence and language, prevalent on most public mediums, including "non-fiction" news, the worst folk song we could throw out there would not even make a blip. Keep the faith. Marc B |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Max Date: 23 Apr 98 - 09:02 AM Ok, the site that bogged us down, but also afforded us the ability to upgrade everything is acumins. Without these guys, we would have never gotten the T1 or the new machine, so they deserve our thanks. They were nice enough to offer the Mudcat a 20% commision on the sale of their custom vitamins, which my team and I have been enjoying thoroughly for more than a month now. To check it out and to support the mudcat, go to http://acumins.mudcat.org. The vitamins are great, no kidding, and these guys are great. The regular site is www.acumins.com but if you go directly there we will not be regnized as the source of the sale. When you go to acumins.mudcat.org, you are forwarded to www.acumins.com with an identifyer on the end (I think 2323951). This tells them it's us and we get $$$. So everyone please go check it out, and tell your friends to check it out and put links on your pages and tell your friends to put links on their pages, and we should make pretty good coin. Just make sure to use the URL acumins.mudcat.org My intention is to put a button or icon or something on the mudcat to this site for fund raising. If anyone minds it let me know, but remember that dick and I and others do all this for free, and we spend a great deal of money to offer the mudcat and digitrad as a free service. Lord knows that contributions don't take us very far. The acumins guys were nice enough to offer us this oportunity and their product is good stuff. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Bill in Alabama Date: 23 Apr 98 - 06:52 AM GaryD: This thing is a hoax. There are only two COMMON words in the language ending in -gry, and they are both named in the preroration of the puzzle. This puzzle has circulated for years and, as Chairman of a university English department for the past 25 years, I have watched it grow and wane as it cycled through American folklore. There are, to be sure, a very few other words which end in -gry, but you can bet that they're not common. The last printed source which I read made the flat statement: "[T]here are no more common words which end in -gry." |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: GaryD Date: 22 Apr 98 - 10:48 PM I like that J., I'm glad you (to put it into the words of a former president), "Clarified, what you've already made perfectly Clear!", or as I use more often, "I know you think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure that you realize that what you heard was not what I meant!" Seeing as how I'm getting a bit silly with words, maybe you will forgive me for including the following puzzle that is driving me crazy.. Maybe some of you out there can solve this for me. A friend asked me to help. It goes: There are 3 words in English language that end in "gry" 1 is hungry, and another is angry Everyone knows what it means, everyone knows what it stands for, everyone uses them everyday, If you listen carefully, I've given you the third word. What is it? Anybody out there like word games? How about it.. thanks, Gary |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: J. Rose Date: 22 Apr 98 - 10:07 PM While I certainly object to that which is objectional, I am deeply offended by those who must must go out of their way to find something objectional just so they can object. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Charlie Baum Date: 20 Apr 98 - 11:57 PM Well, Mudcat is running fast, and whatever it is/was is on a box of its own, so Max...end the suspense and tell us! --Charlie Baum |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: GaryD Date: 20 Apr 98 - 10:41 PM I'm glad to be back..I had the "try again later" flag a few times too..good to hear you are getting the act together.. I love this place..this thread in particular.. It is nice to be able to carry on a somewhat cerebral conversation again. It's wearisome to just communicate with "good day" "How's it goin'", etc.. Although, come to think of it, We are missing the G'day! from our buddy in Australia..(which I "do" miss!).. Would have thought Alan and friends would have something to say about what is objectionable.. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Apr 98 - 01:10 PM .....ah, the suspense is killing me.... Nothing like a little mystery to spice things up a bit. Aw, c'mon, Max, tell us. You can trust us. -Joe Offer, insanely curious- |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Max Date: 17 Apr 98 - 12:28 PM I'm not gonna tell you till we get it the hell off the mudcat box, then I'm gonna tell you because the Mudcat gets 20% commission of the sale or their product line. So you'll be able to support the Mudcat and get good stuff. Maybe by tonight... |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Dani Date: 16 Apr 98 - 10:38 PM So hey, Max, what could be more popular and demanding than this site? Do tell... |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Max Date: 16 Apr 98 - 08:38 PM As I mentioned in another thread, we are solving the problem by tomorrow night. We have a site that is so popular and demanding that it is crashing our whole network and it will be moved by friday night. I sware (not to be objectionable) the errors will go away then and the mudcat will be the only site on our primary server. The errors that you have been experiencing in the last few days only last about 15 to 30 seconds, so try back in a minute and it may very well work. We also have everything reseting itself every 30 minutes, so if something really goes wrong, try back in a half an hour and it should be OK. But as I say, by saturday, all will be grand. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Art Thieme Date: 16 Apr 98 - 08:17 PM What it comes down to is this: SOME PEOPLE HAVE TACT; OTHERS TELL THE TRUTH! Art Thieme >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now for the comment I've tried to send 3 times the TEN TIMES FASTER thread: We'll see if I can send it here! I've been trying to get into the forum for hours and I keep getting "Can't connect to server/time out" thing. Usually I need to disconnect and wait several HOURS or just go somewhere else before I MIGHT be able to get in. MIGHT NOT THOUGH! Sorry Max! Don't mean to be a killjoy, but to me it aint faster--not at all! Art
|
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Max Date: 16 Apr 98 - 06:32 PM Sindication helps, so does my 8 year old. Perhaps my coining was mere coincidence, maybe pure genius. I find your age descrimination objectionable:) |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Apr 98 - 05:48 PM My digression from this weighty discussion is no doubt objectionable, but I couldn't help noticing Max's coining of the term "Mudcateers." Meedka, Moodka, MudcateersOK, OK, levity break over. Back to the discussion.... -Joe Offer- ....you know, what's really disturbing to me is that Max may be too young to remember the TV show I'm referring to.... |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Pete M Date: 16 Apr 98 - 04:51 PM My own feelings are very much in accord with Maxs'. I found this site because of a lifelong interest in folk song, but I very much doubt if I would have remaioned a regular visitor if the only things available were details of lyrics etc. Folk, however you define it, is a living and universal art form, and as such changes with the times and participants. Which brings in my other concern. What is "objectionalble" is entirely subjective, so I would never support any move to ban material which someone found so. My own particular area of interest may be the next to go under such a regime. Secondly, I would argue that one essential aspect of any art form is to "shock" people, by which I mean that it should enable us to view something in a totally unexpected way. Now many people find being shocked objectionable, quite apart from any content of the material. Similarly if all folk songs which someone finds objectionable (sexist, racist, lewd, nationalistic etc etc) were removed I would suggest that you would be able to contain the Dt on a single sheet of A4. Do we then abrogate our responsibilities as artists, archivists or what ever, merely to avoid offence? For example, and I hope the artist will forgive me for considering her work within the ambit of "folk"; currently there is on display in the Museum of New Zealand an art work consisting of a small figurine of the Madonna inside a condom. Many RC's and other find this very offensive and wish to have the exhibit withdrawn from display(censored). What, in my opionion, they have lost sight of is that the artist is herself a Catholic, and that the work has achieved her reported aim of engendering debate about the catholic position on birth control far more than any "measured and reasonable" debate has ever done. Finally I would also draw a clear distinction between causing offence, and setting out to deliberately hurt. Thanks Max for providing the opportunity to debate such important issues within the context of our mutual interest. Pete M |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Frank in the swamps Date: 16 Apr 98 - 04:12 PM We seem to have a pretty good consensus of opinion here. The Mudcat has had bawdy songs and such before. I'm in Joe's camp as far as what I consider to be objectionable, simple discretion covers the rest. If you see a thread titled "Objectionable material" you can't complain about what you find, but if you think it's a lark to jump into a thread about "Ozark hymns" with a filthy limerick, maybe no one will slap you, but you'd sure deserve it if you got one. Frank "in the pure as the driven snow" Swamps. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Dani Date: 16 Apr 98 - 01:18 PM When it comes to people who post objectionable material with the SOLE purpose being to be objected to, or those people who post hoppy, narrowminded objections to the objectionable, I am reminded of experiences with neighborhood parties. In the general mix, there's bound to be someone who thinks they're going to be the life of the party by telling some kind of offensive (usually racist or sexist) jokes. My mother always said if you slam 'em with silence long enough they'll get the hint and either quit the habit or quit the company. The person who gets up and slaps such a joke teller gets the same treatment, don't you think? In the company at hand, I feel like most folks will either have their manners improved and their minds opened by hanging around, or they'll go someplace else. Dani (who loves a good raunchy song once in a while) |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: GaryD Date: 16 Apr 98 - 12:48 PM I like that perspective, Jon...What I said above about sharing specific types of inputs with those people who would appreciate it fits well with your concept of censorship vs discretion. Unless I am in the position of producing a forum like Max and friends, I do not have to really worry about limiting what I say except by exercising my own discretion about what is in good taste &appropriate to share on their forum. Censorship to me is preventing certain elements from being heard, and must be excercised by those in control. I have no problem with Max & friends exercising that control. It is their creation and certainly up to them what they allow. I am glad, however, that they decide to keep censorship to a minimum. It provides a diversity and freedom that is refreshing to someone like me who lives in a very conservative area of MN. Furthermore, it shows that Max has a grand strength of character of his own. And it demonstrates his real concern for our Mudcat community...Thanks, Max! |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Sandy Date: 16 Apr 98 - 12:46 PM I've not really expressed a view, just got it going a bit. If I have a view its that I guess the world is full of profanities and much worse and so it really isn't worth getting worked up about. Personally, I can appreciate the odd offensive ditty that has some amusement factor about it. I guess If you are a stout Christian you may take offence at the first in the thread though a Jew may give a deep belly laugh (I'm neither). The second? well what would you say if someone asked you about your hat? Mildly amusing, more so after a few beers. If it's filthy for the sake of filth o rspecifically meant to hurt then it ain't my cup of char. I do find the annoymous rantings of the over sensitive as amusing as the ditties. I guess they just turn their tellies off at nine O'Clock, wear rose tinted glasses and walk about with their head in the clouds (no offence intended). Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Susan from California Date: 16 Apr 98 - 11:14 AM Bert, I don't think that not sharing a song that YOU choose not to share is censorship, it is you deciding for your self, being judicious (sp?) if you will. I think it becomes censorship when someone else decides for you that you cannot share it. Not exactly a legal definition or anything, just my opinion...:-) |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Bert Date: 16 Apr 98 - 11:12 AM Thanks, Jon. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Jon W. Date: 16 Apr 98 - 11:08 AM No, Bert, you're not guilty of censorship, you're guilty of discretion. Censorship is saying "No one can listen to this song" whereas discretion is saying "This song doesn't meet my standards, I'm not going to share it, let them get it from some other source if they simply must have it." |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Bert Date: 16 Apr 98 - 10:39 AM I think we must thank Sandy for starting this thread. It is certainly an issue that we should discuss. Dick made a very good point in the "Name of this Song???" thread.
Dick's View |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Art Thieme Date: 16 Apr 98 - 09:32 AM "We ate well and cheaply and drank well and cheaply and slept well and warm together and loved each other." Ernest Hemingway __A Moveable Feast__ (me too---Art Thieme) |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: aldus Date: 16 Apr 98 - 09:21 AM I do wish people would spend more time exercising their freedom of thought and less time exerccising their freedom of speech,if speech it can be called> There should be a law that states that we must all achieve the age of twelve. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Date: 16 Apr 98 - 12:27 AM It's a tough call...I have words to certain songs that I would never sing in public..but with my seafaring friends, would be very appropriate..In fact watering down a gritty song like the ballad of Sam Hall so it is acceptable to all goes against my grain.. However, I, being a person who is very consious of the sensativity of others would not foist my joy of such a song to other types, i.e. faith filled friends. With them, I'd share the joy I have for traditional & old time Gospel Songs. In my mind, I'm not limited by a monolithic approach to music. The problem seems to be be at least from my perspective, there is no control of what stuff you are exposed to on the net, other than the concern of the people who enter it as to the care they have that they don't offend the onlooker. It would be nice to be able to know at a glance that the following would be objectional, but it's an impossible task. I am just glad that the people who I have found at this place do seem to care about each other & each of our concerns. For those who care, there's nothing wrong about prefacing your remarks that the following i.e. is a bawdy ballad. Those who find such things objectionable can ignore, or skip over it. Such remarks, though not required, may just be courteous. As for those who just want to cause trouble by shocking crudeness & profanity, I have no time for them. We all know people who have no care or concern for others, whose behavior is destructive. It's a pity they exist, but they do..and it is, as my friend puts it, "Not worth the effort to go across the street to give 'em a slap!"..Sorry about the length of this, I got carried away again!...Gary
|
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Max Date: 16 Apr 98 - 12:02 AM I happen to think that the forum is about we people that enjoy and find meaningful these musics. I like to hear about your lives and children, your odd thoughts and likes and dislikes. This is a community. Shall we discuss merely the one thing that puts us in common? I tell you, I made this forum to know you people and increase my knowledge of the universe and the people that I admire, respect and have something to share with. But what I think doesn't matter so much. This is a collective just like any other community by its definition. If I edited out all the messages that I did not find relevant or did not agree with, I am sure none of you would be here. Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that. Just have respect for our brothers and sisters that come here too. They are like you... at least in one way... they are Mudcateers. The forum is searchable, bookmarkable (traceable), and very dynamic. This is to serve you all, the ones that want lyrics and facts, and the ones that are social and sharing. We are working to enhance this concept with categories, but rest assured that the forum will always be diverse and all encompassing at its core. This is a global community, and I will always make sure it is free and open minded. We all are from different places and even different generations... where do we draw any lines? |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Dan Mulligan Date: 15 Apr 98 - 11:41 PM One of the more interesting conversations I have seen here in a while.I agree with you, Max, about the anonymous ones. They get no respect from me. I don't believe that this forum always has to be about finding lyrics, and I certainly appreciate the fact that Sandy created a new thread to start this subject rather than doing it in an existing thread like so many others have done in the past (very rude thing to do.) Is it objectionable? It probably is to some.....but that is just too bad now isn't it? Dan |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: dulcimer Date: 15 Apr 98 - 11:15 PM I would certainly defend Sandy's right to share, but just two personal notes. I find this forum most helpful when we all seem to have searched for a tune or lyrics and we find many versions from our diverse background and share. I hope we don't contribute just to shock or to show off how much (or little) we know. Secondly, I have observed that if onecarefully studies the lyrics of many old folk tunes with some knowledge of the culture from which they originated, what is suggested and not directly stated can be far more eye opening and eye brow raising than more recent lyrics that employ expletives or provocative sexual words. Many musicians in the early part of the century in America had to be very resourceful in getting their meanings across in the face of strict moral conventions. For better or worse, many modern musicians seem to have lost the art of turning a phrase and their lyrics seem one dimensional. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Date: 15 Apr 98 - 08:17 PM Once, when my kiddies were small, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by the late and great (in my eyes) Benjamin Spock. I believe that most of us there were hoping to gain some wisdom and child rearing tips from Dr. Spock. However, some hecklers in the audience took over the floor and challenged Dr.Spock on his stand on the Viet Nam War. I regret to this day that I did not stand up and cry out: "Hey, youse guys, that's not what we came here for... SHADDAP AND SIT DOWN!!!!" I will do it here now anonymously. I think I speak for many when I say that we enjoy this site because it is dedicated to folk music and benefit from the unlimited knowledge of other people who also enjoy folk music. Let's keep it that way, shall we??? |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 98 - 04:35 PM I guess what I find objectionable on the Internet is hatefulness. There's a line where the "dirty" stuff becomes hateful, but I think that line is pretty far off, and relatively rare - where it hits the point of really hurting people, not just upsetting their sensitivities. Other kinds of hatefulness are found all over the Internet, and I'm very grateful you don't find them very often here. What I consider objectionable is when people trash a site by overloading it with garbage, or stop people from communicating by hounding them out of chat rooms or by overwhelming flaming or personal attacks. That hardly ever happens here. Most of us are good, gentle people who are here to enjoy each others' company and to share ideas. I sure like that. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Sandy Date: 15 Apr 98 - 01:09 PM Max, It's not my "work". They are a few of the many little ditties of well forgotten origin heard in countless drunken sessions in Edinburgh. I guess they are intended to shock and/or amuse. For the benefit of the holier than thou I've heard worse from some pretty well known folk artists. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Max Date: 15 Apr 98 - 12:59 PM I find it very interesting and worthwhile commentary. If this is your work Sandy, I applaud and encourage it. If it is a mere joke, I don't find it very meaningful to this forum. To the anonymous critics: The lack of constructivism to your critisism, I deplore. The web is good for a cross section of global society and humanity, and it is real. If you cannot handle it all, don't leave your room, and don't get on the web. Amazing that you have the right to judge for us all.
|
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Sandy Date: 15 Apr 98 - 12:49 PM True, But it's great for getting people going.
|
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Date: 15 Apr 98 - 12:45 PM The wonderful web. Never before has man had the opportunity to misinform so many so fast and so cheap, and dump his literary garbage, too. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Date: 15 Apr 98 - 12:41 PM No, its just a tasteless parody. |
|
Subject: RE: Objectionable Material From: Sandy Date: 15 Apr 98 - 12:38 PM Or worse? All around my hat I will wear the green willow, All around my hat for a twelve month and a day, If anyone should ask me the reason why I'm wearing it, I'll say it's my fucking business it's my fucking hat.
|
|
Subject: Objectionable Material From: Sandy Date: 15 Apr 98 - 12:34 PM There is a green hill far away, Beyond the city walls, Where the Dear Lord Christ was crucified, And died to save us all... Two, three, four... For he's a jolly good fellow, For he's a jolly good fellow, For he's a jolly good fellow, E.t.c. Is this objectionable? Sandy |
| Share Thread: |