MUDCAT VOW.

Subject: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 06:51 AM

I understand that I may be severely tested in this thread and that it could be viewed and criticised as bait. I understand and respect that view, but I view it as a necessary tactic to see if it can be done and if it will work, long term, to prevent us forever going over the same tedious ground. A link could be made to this and it could even appear on Joe's, Newcomer's Guide. If you agree then please say so or sign up and if you do not, just ignore it or send me a personal message. At worst it may just serve to keep the unpleasantness here in one thread, rather than everywhere.

I solemnly swear that I will make my very best efforts to always resist the temptation to respond, reply or in any way acknowledge the existence or effect of those who would insult, provoke or in any way, intentionally attempt to disrupt the positive nature of The Mudcat Forum.

I will make no excuse or exception to this rule for any circumstances.

I further request that if I should ever be seen to stray from this path, that a personal message be sent to me pointing out my fall into temptation? On receipt of this message I shall then immediately be liable to make a large financial contribution to Mudcat funds and have to listen to only the complete recorded works of the artist of the poster's choice, for one week. For that week my entire contribution to The Mudcat will be limited to hourly postings, saying nice things about Max.

This I do solemnly swear____________________

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 06:52 AM

Roger Gall

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:09 AM

Roger, I think you forgot to factor one thing in........
That people are human which means they will constantly make mistakes.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Chet W.
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:21 AM

Yes people make mistakes, but there's a version of that sentiment spreading wide today that uses the indulgence we naturally feel toward mistakes to give themselves permission in advance. I have had students, as extreme examples, who have committed all manner of horrible crimes and think it is awfully weird, or at least nonsensical, that anyone should think they should be held responsible for those and any future "mistakes". What Roger is suggesting is the implied contract that we all make in order to be a part of a civilized group. Mistakes will certainly be indulged, but self-control is to be an understood prerequisite before such indulgence can be meaningful. I'm in, for what it's worth, but I always have been.

Chet

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:11 AM

Aye, count me in mates... I am sick of the personal attacks on here.. This place is a cafe, decent behaviour or leave it.(especially cowardly annonymous attacks) Dave

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:24 AM

Testify, le'me testify. I won't respond to the small print either (damme, can't read it with these bifocals!).Deny 'em the oxygen of publicity (as someoneonce said). Won't rise to their bait (even if I'm a bit miffed not to have been flamed by them, isn't MY BS bad enough?).As has been pointed out many times, if they don't like non-music threads why do they add to them, which just keeps them going??
Well started,Roger. [But we Rogers are renowned for our common sense!]
RtS

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Sean Belt
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:33 AM

While going on record as questioning the need for a stated contract like the one above, I'll certainly agree to keep a civil keyboard and treat others on the forum with the same respect and kindness I'd hope to receive.

And to always give Little Neo, especially, the benefit of the doubt.

Sean Ruprecht-Belt

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Brendy
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:38 AM

Deny the Oxygen?

That was helium!; Have yiz no sense?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:42 AM

None at all, Brendy (as I'm sure you've noticed if you've read any of my contributions!)
RtS

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: SDShad
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:54 AM

Soon as I started regularly reading Mudcat, I pretty much took a version of that pledge in my own head anyway. It's an approach that can really cut down on the flamage, depending on just how motivated/angry/unhinged the flamers are. Nothing I've seen here compares, really, to what I saw happen on my favorite Internet BBS which was pretty much driven underground by hacking from a couple of people who really went postal when we started "shunning" them after months of abuse and threats that would curl your toes. (Of course, we discussed and agreed on the pledge on a message board that was open only to old-timers, if you wanna talk about elitist cliques in online forums).

I think such a pledge would go a long ways here at the 'Cat. Sign me on.

Christopher Hoover

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:08 AM

Sign me on...and let me say this once...the people who are attacked the most are the people, without exception, that have been the nicest to me in making me feel welcome, corresponding privately, sending me helpful info by mail, etc. I treasure their friendships.

Mary

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: SDShad
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:17 AM

Amen, Mary. That's been much my experience, too.

Chris

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:18 AM

Gee, Mary, that's worth saying several times!

Sham, I am with you in principle. I dunno about the penalty clause -- it's pretty rough. I am very glad to see your sense of humor breaking out!!

A

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:23 AM

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

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From:
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:04 AM

Shambles. I agree and hereby endeavour to follow your message.

Thanks!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:04 AM

Good point Chet, I understand what you mean.

And thanks Sean Ruprecht-Belt for suggesting I should especially be given the "benefit of the doubt". Those were the exact same words said to me by my driving test instructor.

As for the Pledge, I guess unless I am waxing my furniture, I have not much use for it. I try to do my best and when I make a mistake, I try not to beat myself up over it. I guess that is where I was coming from.

What we see grows, so I figure I will look for the threads and postings that make this wonderful Forum thrive and those are the ones I will focus on and contribute to.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From:
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:07 AM

Mick, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Most of those "annoyance" messages are meant to provoke and get a response. If they don't get EVEN one, they'll soon learn to stop.

People, remember Pavlov's dogs. We WANT to identify ourselves as being in control, and not part of a stimulus and response cycle that is not controllable.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:22 AM

Thank you, Mick and Bonnie. What you've expressed pretty much sums up how I feel, too. In view of a few personal messages, I can read between the lines and know who it is aimed at, besides the usual flamers, and I question the motivation. Nonethelss, as Mick has said, we all should do.

katlaughing

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Sophocleese
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:30 AM

Personally I'm not about to try and control other people through my responses. The best I can do is control myself. I'm not allowing myself more than four postings per day, maximum. I'll need to focus only on what interests me and think very carefully about what I write. I don't consider it a pledge but rather a challenge. Others might like to take it up as well and see what a weeks worth of such restricted posting leads to, but they don't have to.

Sophocleese

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Hyperabid
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:31 AM

Umm... Personally I prefer good manners above almost anything. The odd quip should just add to the fun... without offending.

However, I guess there are also those who believe that debate has to be hot in order to reach a resolution and bring out all ideas / beliefs / and otherthingummies.

If we ignore these people we are prejudging them and ignoring what they have to say based on our assumpotions about who they are.

(I know - this is all "liberal hogwash" but I'm gonna say it anyway).

If you do reply to these people and they just continue grunting away being rude then you know to leave it, but they might just try and join in the debate and have something fresh to say.

Hyp

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: kendall
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:37 AM

I've only been flamed once, so, dont know if it will be a habit or not. The thing is, I'm a natural born counter puncher, and I do enjoy bringing assholes down to size, but, I will never START a row. Is that sufficient?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:43 AM

Sophoclees, I can appreciate what you are saying, but as a nutritionist/dietitian, I find everytime someone goes on a diet, it seems to never works. They always gain the weight back
My concern is after you restrict yourself from postings by limiting it to 4 posts per day, it might work for awhile, but the craving to post will come back and you might gain back the amount you use to post and more.

Soph, I hope you realize I am smiling as I write this.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:02 PM

What's been working for me lately is to just not read their postings- not difficult at all once I got the hang of it. G-l -i-d-e on by. I know me- when my rusty buttons get pushed, I scream. But certainly in theory I'm with you.
As for their wanting to join in on any subject, Hyperabid, all they need to do is change their name and jump in, and we'll all be the happier for it.
I don't believe that Roger is trying to stifle the legitimate but controversial debates. People learn from each other. (I'm just spilling over with cliches this morning!) And just as in the gun debate thread, which got pretty hot, it's easy to leave the room when I'm uncomfortable. Good people can agree to disagree- it's the people who don't allow disagreement that are so terribly frustrating, at best.
Roger, could you come up with a vow that wouldn't be just a bit off-putting? Somehow this one feels a little grim. If you would come up with an easy-mannered promise I think it would fit very well indeed into the Newcomer's Guide. Ebbie

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: harpgirl
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:12 PM

...I vow to continue to strenuously object to monopolizers!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Hyperabid
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:13 PM

Ebbie

I agree on almost every point...

Referring to the gun debate thread, I mentioned the lack of guns in the UK as an indicator - particularly with reference to a family member who is a policeman... and was almost instantly greeted by an anonymous "headline" suggesting the death of a policeman's family members was the only likely outcome of them not being armed.

Offensive no doubt and something I chose not to respond to...

But I guess we do need to know what other people think... The underlying belief could have been that it is unethical not to arm the police in a violent society... which is not an unreasonable point...

Anyway. I think the vow's a pretty good idea. I might even squeeze myself into taking it.

Hyp

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: annamill
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:28 PM

Shambles, I think yo're great and I'm sooo glad you returned to Mudcat, but...

To me, what you're suggesting sounds awfully close to censorship.

Also, I enjoy laughing at the idiots. I think they're funny sometimes. Stupid, but funny. The problem is we take them too much to heart. Way too serious. Generally I don't respond unless something just as silly comes to my mind.

I think the flaming has gotten, at times, hurtful and those I ignore.

But,umm, I can't take a vow never to respond to GUEST:

My freedom seeking brain just won't allow me to.

I don't want to perpetuate anything and I'll try not to, but on my own. No vows.

Love, annap

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: ceitagh
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:29 PM

Here's my pledge:

I vow to take in a deep breath and a good song before replying to anything that pushes my buttons. If, after much thought and folksinging, I deem the message worth replying to, I will not use any language or say anything I would not want my family and friends to hear from me.

I vow to uphold the peace of the Mudcat by being considerate of those who phrase their complaints in a polite and open manner, and ignoring those who are only out to cause trouble.

I vow to read as many music threads as I have time for, and in the chance that there is some relevant knowledge I can share, I will do so. If ever I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time on BS threads, or going days without participating in a music-related thread, I promise to step back and spend a day 'cat-free in the real world. I will refrain from posting BS to non-BS threads.

If anything I say is offensive or seems to violate these principles, I welcome personal messages containing suggestions for improvement, if phrased concisely and considerately.

I will assume that anyone who does post an uncharactoristic flame to me or any other is having a bad day and should be allowed time to cool down.

To summarise: I vow to attempt to do unto others as I would have them do unto me.

Ceitagh

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: folk1234
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:04 PM

I SOLEMNLY VOW to continue to be myself - a reasonable person of generally good judgement. One who has an opinion (not too often voiced) on many subjects, and real knowledge on just a few. The list of what I don't know is infinitely longer than the list of what I know. When I ask questions of the 'Cat, I seek answers. However, I gladly accept some diversion. When I contribute to another's thread, I 'believe' I have something to share. Sometimes, it's just humor. While wearing a 'Cat hat, I respect other's opinions, even those of the flamers. Some of what I've seen presents good points, although their delivery fails to meet my own standards of personal expression and conduct. My 'Cat hat differs not from my 'engineering', 'management', 'educator', 'friend', 'companion', 'loving husband', 'stern father' and 'folk singer' hats. Of course, there are many other 'hats' that I wear a week's experience. For 20 years, I wore an 'Officer of Marines' hat, which was still no different than my other hats.
In the words from 'La Cage au Folle', "I am what I am." Here in the 'Cat community, "We are what we are".

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Sean Belt
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:08 PM

Well said, Ceitagh. A sentiment we can probably all learn from.

Sean

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: ceitagh
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:16 PM

And one I'm forced to keep to on the 'cat, too, since my father reads the forum and I'd like to keep his respect. (Hi Dad!)
Ceit

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Mrrzy-at-work
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:21 PM

I agree that it sounds a) like common sense and b) like censorship. But I haven't been personally insulted yet. I have read some really obnoxious and abusive threads, including one listing people whose posts to avoid, and I must say, I would take it as a great compliment to be included in that list, which seemed to name all the 'Catters whose posts and responses I really enjoy reading! Also, I tend to take life as a floor show, and thus laugh a lot at what bothers others tremendously (need I add, that very attitude had bothered others tremendously. But it has kept me sane through 3 mergers and 5 company names in the last 6 years). But, again, I haven't been personally abused. I would like to think that if I were, I would be able to "rise above it" and not respond, at least not while still mad... and I am willing to promise or affirm my willingness to attempt such maturity and restraint... but that sounds like promising to act my age, or be civilized, or something I shouldn't have to promise.

Also, what Newcomer's packet? I didn't get anything when I joined, maybe a couple of weeks ago...

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: harpgirl
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:21 PM

...PS and to those who espouse their religious beliefs on this forum I do not promises politeness!!!! (hell, I've been a candyass grosse pointe girl all my goddamned life...but no more)

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Mudjack
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:35 PM

I took a long break from responding to ANY threads thanks to the THREAD COPS and those who responded to my offerings in a lecturing manner and I am certain they did'nt mean to be offensive. From that I thought maybe it was time to leave the site for a long needed break. > Coming back I found A whole new litter of cats digging in the same old crap box.> I think lurking might suit my Mudcat needs for yet another long break.> Mudjack

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:01 PM

Well, I'll do my best. Currently that means anyone who signs on as a guest and starts making personal comments ort writing in an innofensive way doesn't exist. And if in response to what some civilisd member or GUEST has to say, if it bvnecomnes appropriate to say something relating to one of the tiny band of non-existent regul I mentioned above, I'll do so in an oblique way that avoids any reference to them.

And I reckon any member has stepped over the line in a discussion, I might send them a personal message, but won't start or continue a slanging match on te open thread.

So help me Max!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, A.C.
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:09 PM

........Just in!.....

....Reuters News Agency....

The Mudcat Anthem

One.. Two..
One.. Two..
One. Two. Three. Four.
One. Let-me-hearye-now

On - ward Mud - cat so - oh - ho - hole
Jers. Marching as to - hoo war.
With the cross of Sham
Bills, burning as before.

© 2000 Our Rog.

We'll ask The Thread Watcher to write a Midi program.
That would be nice now, wouldn't it?

Later.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Dulci46
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:14 PM

I'm fairly new. What is Thread Cops. Do agree

Judy

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, A.C.
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:15 PM

Oh stick around, you're in for an education.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Áine
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:18 PM

Dear Roger,

*Smoles* for your good heart and concern for the 'Cat.

Here's the saying I try to go along and get along by -- Those that want respect, have to give respect.

All the best, Áine

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: TerriM
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:24 PM

You can sign me up since that's exactly what I've been doing anyway. Quite frankly, I just find these people very dull and so far up their own backsides as to be unbelievable but I approve of discouraging anyone who wastes my time .

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:37 PM

The Shambles has consistently demonstrated through his postings that anything he chooses to submit for consideration respectfully deserves same. This posting is no different. I know it was done with careful forethought to its consequences, and to the circumstances which spawned it.

It seems as though the anonymous intimidators have won a victory of sorts, for I perceive, in the hope that I am mistaken, the people to whom Mary in Bluegrass alludes have held themselves in check, a lamentable state of affairs. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their beliefs/philosophy/outlook on life/what-have-you, the exhuberance and joy with which those people expressed themselves on topics musically related or no, was a welcome respite from the harsh and abrasive gridlock of everyday living. Guests and passers-through looking for this or that appreciated it also, evident in their virtually unvaried responses to greeters: "Wow thanks..this is a friendly place..." etc. To borrow from the cafe analogy prevalent in the heading of this forum, it was comparable to going to a friendly and unhurried restaurant in a small town, where the waitress had a little time to take a load off and talk to you about anything on her mind, not just what was on the menu, although the menu was a sumptuous and varied read. Evidently some people prefer the institutional chrome and porcelain decor, antiseptic in nature and sterile in creativity, where hamburgers and nothing but hamburgers are served. I surmise it would ruin their day to enter McDonald's expecting the standard fare, instead hearing, "Well, you deserve a break today...just to mix things up a little we decided to serve shitake mushrooms, day lilies, and herbal tea." The pleasant surprise of the unexpected would make my day. Some people don't like surprises; others welcome diversity, change-ups, new experiences - and activel seek them out.

In the free spiritness of annap, the insight Neo brings to the human condition, the thoughtfulness and practical considerations Big Mick exudes, the responsibleness of Chet W., and the rebelliousness of harpgirl:

I reserve the right to be human, to occasionally make stupid mistakes, to apologize for them when I realize they are mistakes, while striving for perfection and realizing it will never be attained. Hopefully I won't hurt anyone else too badly in the process of conducting myself as an inherently flawed human being.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 03:12 PM

in case no one has noticed, I ain't been gettin' into it NOHOW recently, how's that for a pre-emptive vow?...I have my opinions, but they seldom make any difference.

OLD Peanuts cartoon:
Lucy-(standing in various characters faces."Change your mind!"..."Change your mind, I say!"..."I insist you change your mind"...

Lucy-(looking grumpily puzzled).." Hmmm..wonder why it's so hard to get people to change their minds these days?"

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: skarpi
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 03:17 PM

Hallo all , Well this is what I have been doing - I just ignore them all, this last week has been like a bad dream. If this is the coming future ,well then I have to re-think about my being on the mudcat forum.

Love thee others like you love your self. If we want people to be good to us , be good to them.

All the best skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Caitrin
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 04:31 PM

Count me in with Ceitagh.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Bartholomew
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 05:18 PM

I have no objections to making any pledge public that I have already made in private. I will always try, in my own fumbling way, to add to the dialogue that helps us discover and explore aspects of our humanity. I have always seen that as being closely interwoven with my personal musical journey of discovery and exploration. That's why I don't object to purportedly "non-musical" threads in a music forum.

I am strongly opposed to censorship of any sort and have often seen how a somewhat uncomfortable statement of position can help even onlookers get a better reading on their thoughts/feelings about something. That being said, personal attacks are never acceptable, in my humble opinion, even when confrontation seems to be the quickest way to evoke an honest response. I like the idea of denying oxygen to the truly rude and unnecessary remark and agree that the best response can be a profound silence(it helps a lot to look profound while you're being silent, but that's hard in a cyber context). If something must be said, support for those attacked is often a needed antidote to things that hurt.

As my grandma used to say, BE NICE. And my own observation - don't be afraid to wade into the muck from time to time; you may find some diamonds in the dreck.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, A.C.
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:21 PM

Mick - it is reasonable to assume that the 'side of the coin' we represent, was only brought into existence because of the original existence of the 'sect', I think, is the only way I can describe them.
What would any 'stranger' think when on hitting these pages, which we all agree (that's you plural, and me) is a valuable and worthwhile place; what would they think when they see that the 'hot' threads on prime internet time in the United States, in the Mudcat Café, are about virtually getting drunk while watching the sun sinks over a virtual horizon? Or this thread, for instance?

The only kind of people that this sort of advertising attracts, are those kind of people. I don't doubt the musicality of ANYONE on this forum. Not at all. But I do think that once this snowball starts rolling, you will find, as a lot of other people have found but are not as inclined as we are to air our grieviences, that the balance has shifted.

Anybody who doesn't admit at least that, in all it's minimalist form, is NOT aware of the situation, and is living in a egotistical bubble, where self-appointed 'guardians of decency and moral etiquette' recruit un-suspecting (and suspecting); plus the afore-mentioned like-minded people, who are joining up like wildfire, to their cause.

I know this is a community, and I have been proud to be a member of it. I don't wish to be a 'member' of a club, another wild follower of the terminally (as regards the computer screen) addicted who use this place as a 'fun place to hang out'. I uninstalled Microsoft Chat the minute I got this computer. But I never thought it would happen here. Not in a million years.

The questions that have been asked about things musical are starting to decline in quality. The interesting discussions we used to have here; as The Shambles inadvertently linked us to on another thread, there were only 19 posts for such and such, 12 for this one etc. The favorites were of course the BS. And that was a year ago.

Fair enough, you might say. And to a degree I would say the same. But come on now: "A jolly heave-ho and scupper me barnacles"?
Or the 'Solemn Oath and Covenant'? Or discussions about healing?

I don't want to rake up too much of this because it was an emotive subject at the time, but when 'The Great Cookie Cock-up' hit (and it wasn't Max's fault), a lot of people didn't post votes of either agreement or disagreement. They voted with their mice, and shagged off over to rec.folk and the likes, still under assumed names, leaving a certain, I'm sorry to say it, intellectual vacuum in this place. To some eyes the difference is more subtle than to others. But I don't think that this resource should be dominated by, or sullied by the amount of un-readable trash that sports those threads.
I know Max is working on a 'chat' experiment (You may remember seeing it).
If he has success in this venture it may take a lot of that kind of stuff off these pages. Those threads are posted to, more or less, by the same people. So why not take that off to 'Chat' when it comes to pass.

Why not act out 'Wuthering Heights' on ICQ for the time being?

Why do you have to say that you are representative of this Forum?
YOU ARE NOT!
You are a small bunch of people who are attracted to a little bit of Folk, a little bit of Blues, per'aps a li'l Country, and a whole lot of noise.

Once people see that noise when they surf-on-over, they either surf-on-in, because this is a fun place to hang out, or they surf-on-elsewhere. I have talked to a LOT of people who used to be here from 3 odd years ago til the day the cookie crumbled: Mudcat's Darkest Hour. They had been getting sick of it for a while anyway. Apparently it wasn't the same as it used to be. Strange they should say that.

Stop this Shambles. Stop it before you and your 'true believers' ruin the place. Your name has been mentioned in lofty places. You are famous among us, man.

You are famous for the wrong reasons though.

You should not toy around with this place. YOU don't have the right to do that. None of you concerned have that right.
I'm just a musician. Nothing more, nothing less. But I know a wrong when I see it done.

You really want to clean up the Mudcat and not have angry, disillusioned 'members' complaining all the time?
Clean up your own house first and leave a bit of room for others in this place.

To put it in terms that you understand: You're crowding up the bar, and nobody else can get a drink

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Pustule
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:50 PM

A.C.:

¡¡POTENTIAL PUSTULE ALERT !!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, The Thread Watcher
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:54 PM

Shag off you asshole

You're helping to keep this at the top remember!

Go and help somebody, will you?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:02 PM

AC, contact me via [e-mail]

Need to speak with you.


(Edgar)

...and anyone else who wants to send ''fan mail'' as well...

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Pustule
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:03 PM

Fascinating, 'Wotcher'- you think you've a right to complain about others' postings, after the crud you've spashed about?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, The Thread Watcher
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:05 PM

Can't be anything worse than the stuff you're putting up