BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum

Subject: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: selby
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 05:20 AM

I have used mudcat for a number of years both as a guest and as a member unfortunately at the moment, we as a community appear to have lost the plot, there appears to be a number of individuals who wish to power over anyone else in some threads to get their view over at all costs. This was a forum where people from all over the world discussed their love of music and other things, some of those people seem to have disappeared and do not participate, I know for one I was a richer person for their input. Would it be possible for once to have a thread where left wing right wing politics are left at the door and interesting stimulating discussion took place rather than a cat fight between one or two individuals.

DISCUSSION an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.

I know, I am fed up with it and feel that others are as well.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: MartinRyan
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 05:33 AM

Or, as I rather more directly put it a few minutes ago on one of the 'Yah! Boo! Sucks!" threads:

For fuck's fake, lads, give over!

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 05:37 AM

Opinions, they say, are like arseholes: everyone has one.

Me, I just avoid threads which never end: gun control, anything to do with politics, and pretty much anything I don't know anything about (with the proviso that I might pop in and see if I could learn anything).

Visit MOAB -- you'd be surprised what gets discussed there. Really!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 05:50 AM

I just do not open threads that are like that, or skip the posts that are repetitive.
I would not tell anyone to stop posting just because I was not interested in their views.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 05:54 AM

There have been previous discussions on similar topics witlittle impact over the long-term.

As Rap indicates, it is relatively easy to avoid many of the arguments and grandstanding that may frustrate some, (if you are prone to that) by carefully reading the titles, especially the political-religious and the provocative thread titles. (However some discourse between individuals tends to move from one thread to the next-somewhat like in real life, where a variety of folks socialize).

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: MartinRyan
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 06:18 AM

Keith A

I just do not open threads that are like that, or skip the posts that are repetitive.
I would not tell anyone to stop posting just because I was not interested in their views.

I repeat: for fuck's sake, give over!

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 06:31 AM

""for fuck's sake, give over!""



Hopefully, this, (rather strong, and potentially provocative), directive does not intend to "wish power over anyone else in some threads to get their view over at all costs"- (see opening post).


This post is Intended only as a humourous reflection - but, as an example, it only takes one potentially innocent (and possibly well intended) statement like this to set folks off towards an argument:)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 06:45 AM

The best thing about the internet, is that you can finish your point, without interruption
*
*
*
*
*
The worst thing about the internet, is that he can finish his point, without interruption

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 07:57 AM

I threw the F word out in a post,new res out the windy,so apologies if i contributed to you making this post.I think it is because everybody is frustrated with seeing things getting debated round and round in circles and it just being "personal". Now I know some like doing this and use the net to make friends,but some really do want to figure out why we dont ever really get it together.my last post here as pretty obvious to me its best done face to face.got a pic of my dinner if anyone wants to see it.GL

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 08:21 AM

Final thought,in the real world people know the solutions the debates should be how to implement,anything else is irrelevantish imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 09:21 AM

I decided years and years ago that damned few people cared what I thought, that I had no power to do sweeping social change, and so I would change what little I could for what I thought was the better. Then I wouldn't worry about what I couldn't change.

I couldn't change the course of the Vietnam War, I couldn't prevent the election of Richard Nixon, I couldn't do anything about gun violence, and a whole list of other things -- and no one listened to my ideas anyway.

Why waste my time and energy yammering about it? I would make what small changes I could make and not worry about the rest.

Too much yammer, yammer, yammer and not enough thoughtful action.

YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 09:33 AM

selby, I agree with you...the discussions have been more rancorous and led by a few, imo, who really don't care much about Mudcat. I know we've lost good members,

As others have said, folks can pass over those threads and posts, but I remember when those were in the minority, rather than the majority as now.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Midchuck
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 09:41 AM

A good rule of thumb: Once any thread in the "BS" section gets to around 100 posts, if the last 50 are by no more than 4 or 5 people, there is no longer any point in it. It should be dumped, and those people should continue their name-calling by PMs or private email.

P.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Leadfingers
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 10:06 AM

Mudcat is a community , and in every community there is a percentage of clots ! The Bigger the community , the more clots there are !
Sadly , the clots seem to be noisier than the rest of us !

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 10:18 AM

When I open a thread and see csrtain names..I go no further. I know what they will say and how they will say it. The same people seem to Hijack music threads as well. I am tired to death of the polirics of negativity and resentment. I am equally tired of people who claim to be "entitled" to opinions. I always thought that being "entitled" to anything meant you had earned the entirlement..not so with many of these negative people..they do not seem to believe that knowing anything is vital to expressing an opinion..I try to avoid these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Will Fly
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 10:19 AM

A good rule of thumb: Once any thread in the "BS" section gets to around 100 posts, if the last 50 are by no more than 4 or 5 people, there is no longer any point in it. It should be dumped, and those people should continue their name-calling by PMs or private email.

A good point - if the thread is rancorous. But I'd hate for the "Old Pocket Watches" thread (for example) to get 'dumped' just for that reason. It serves a small but devoted and very friendly group of people.

Not all such long BS threads are self-destructive wrangling. I just keep well away from those that are.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 11:11 AM

Whilst I agree in general with selby's point, I also agree with several others: we are not obliged to view any thread or take notice of certain individuals / posts.

One thing that does frustrate me: people posting to threads that are either obvious wind-ups or from trolls...but hey, that's just me. Each to their own.

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 12:16 PM

There still are worthwhile discussions--and information conveyed--above the line.   Where it always was.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 03:29 PM

I very seldom post above the line because I'm not very knowledgeable about music. But I post all the time in the BS section. I've had enormous pleasure reading people's posts and considering their opinions.If it gets a bit unpleasant I give up on that particular thread. But vociferous posters have a right to air their views. They have reasons for their anger. I've had wonderful support and advice from many of the 'regulars', and been able to encourage and sympathise with those going through a bad time. I've also laughed my socks off at many of the hilarious things people say. Their quirky sense of humour is such a tonic. I feel censorship would be a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 03:38 PM

Mudcat posts follow Gresham's Law,

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 04:08 PM

It's like a big party where silly jokes are being told in one corner and recipes exchanged in the kitchen... with ongoing political wrangling in the back room. It can be interesting and educational... but here the participants are often anonymous, and as such, sometimes 'say' things in ways they would likely not do to a person's face.

I always try to word my posts ... even when controversial... so as not to be insulting or vulgar or hateful. If THAT simple rule were followed, there would be more 'useful' .... even if heated... discussions. I see no basic hard in arguments... just in bitter fights. Sadly, some seem to have no other way to express their more ...umm... 'intense' feelings.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 04:11 PM

I'm not anonymous. I post everywhere under my real name, always.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 04:33 PM

And I also use my own name.

There is nothing wrong with a good, heated discussion. The thread gets nasty and begins to sink into worthlessness when one or maybe a couple of people chronically answer someone else's points with nothing more that personal insults (as if that refutes the point), and often stalks that person from thread to thread!

I've been there and had to put up with that. A LOT! No paranoia. I've taken note of the fact that one particular person seems to follow me from post to post, not so much on the music threads, but in the general discussions.

It would be nice to be able to discuss something and exchange viewpoints—including strenuously disagreeing—without being called a "f**king idiot" or a "brainwashed liberal" every other post. Which is NOT exactly a refutation!

Those given to using such verbiage should be aware that it reveals more about THEM than it does about the object of the abuse. And it's notable that they invariably hide behind a pseudonym, which they seem to feel gives them the freedom to say things they would never have the guts to say to someone in person.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: gnu
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 04:44 PM

And I use my real name. Everyone who has been here for any length of time knows my name, address and phone number.

I am certainly guilty of YELLING "You don't get it." over and over and calling those that keep posting the same "stuff" of poor whatever, especially logical and practical arguement, let alone compassion and understanding. If that is "powering over" then I am guilty as charged. But I will not sway from defending reasonable arguement and suggesting reasonable solutions to, for ONE example, gun threads.

That oughta go over like a lead balloon!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 04:51 PM

anonymous IS a technical term,,, but it can also be code for "you don't really have much idea who & where this person is or what they are like"

Many members and non-member regulars don't use a name that could even BE easily used to find them or identify them... essentially anonymous. Some don't make an effort to 'hide' their actual identity... some do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: gnu
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 05:05 PM

Bill D... "Some don't make an effort to 'hide' their actual identity... some do."

Yes, some do. Some even go to the lengths of obvious mispellings and grammar errors and lack of punctuation and other ruses to disguise themselves.

Personally, anyone who has read much of my thousands of posts "knows" me. I get outta line at times and I own it and apologize but I won't simply stand down when I feel I am right... I expect to be shown that I am wrong before I apologize or change my views.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 05:55 PM

Please, Sir, what does this mean?

For fuck's fake, lads, give over!

Such a colorful phrase from the eastern shore of the Pond.

But really, I don't quite know what it means.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: MartinRyan
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 06:05 PM

Joe

Basically, it's the demotic Hiberno-English equivalent of Cromwell's I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken!

Addressed, in this case, to both sets of protagonists.

Regards

p.s. Love the For fuck's fake... Bring back the long s!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: selby
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM

I agree mudcat is like a big party and you do have the facility not to contribute to threads or even read them, the point i am trying to make is that a thread is opened and any number of people ignore what has been written by A N Other to continue their private battle. I am not a clever/educated person but some people here are unfortunately some have left, as I said before my life has been enriched by then. But using swear words at each other ( I know how to use them )on the internet is not clever or educated.
If you are really interested how it used to be go into the archives and read some of the threads look for some of the real friendships that where formed some where people met and some that will never meet but are still friends mostly UK USA I personally have received through the internet and post all sorts of information, I am not sure that can happen now

I wish to point out to those who may have misread my original post I am not suggesting censorship.
Keith


Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 06:39 PM

I completely agree. The problem is that people have to be able to see what they do here, and critique themselves.

Keith A of Hertford wrote "I just do not open threads that are like that, or skip the posts that are repetitive." Seriously!?

...or perhaps you were trying for irony.

There are subjects it might be interesting to discuss, but when certain people get involved, they're going to just brawl until no one wants to be in there with them. And it DOES occasionally spill over into music.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: framus
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 08:25 PM

I haven't had a long s since I started the senna pods.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Michael
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 08:29 AM

'Long s' is like largess only thinner.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 09:32 AM

Mudcat's quite an insular space on the web, many of the contributors spend there time here and only here, many of the contributors have also been here for many years likewise. While many fora attract numerous new posters all the time and the turnover can be quite frequent, the membership here stays pretty static. I think part of the reason MC can be as abusive at it is, is because of the old saying 'Familiarity breeds contempt' - the posters here have all 'known' each other for years, and this has diminished the sense of a need to maintain the more formal codes of politeness we would usually maintain with strangers.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 09:36 AM

Up North, "give over" means pack it in. Desist.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: MartinRyan
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 10:26 AM

Pete
Yeah - that's what I meant.... but I couldn't resist the more poetic Cromwellian version! ;>)>

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: MartinRyan
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 10:28 AM

GUESTCS

Good analysis.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 11:04 AM

Personal abuse on an internet thread is idiotic behaviour.

Very occasionally, on reflection, I realise that I have crossed the line of what is reasonably acceptable...I always apologise.

Most abusers here do not!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 12:08 PM

ahh... then, selby, I DO agree with your concern. I sometimes try to contribute a bit to an issue, only to have my thoughtful post 'seemingly' ignored while several combatants 'go at it'... or more commonly, some attention seeking 'star' tosses out a quip or 'thread creep' and a dozen feel obligated to add cuteness......... and my remark... even though only an hour old... is way ^up ▲ there, like a lost sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: BrendanB
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 12:22 PM

Some interesting points here. I am struck by the occasional vicious obscenities that some posters use, which, as has been pointed out already, they probably would not use in a face to face discussion. On the other hand, I have to own up to being somewhat potty mouthed in the real world and much more circumspect on line. Perhaps the casual use of obscenity between my friends and me is a product of familiarity and comfort while online you never know to whom you are talking. A name conveys little on its own and many posters use aliases of one kind or another so I opt for discretion. That having been said there have been some splendid debates which I have followed with pleasure and there are certain names that I look out for in a thread because I have learnt to value their insights. There are others who, even though they are well informed, just get on my tits.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 12:56 PM

"just get on my tits"

Good heavens! What a disturbing mental image that summons up. Too much information, BrendanB. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 02:44 PM

and when some wazzock starts mythering every other bugger with stuff that makes as much sense as udders on a bull I get reet pow-fagged and reckon it really is time to jack it in.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:06 PM

You know me, I hate to complain...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:22 PM

Oh Dave, I can just picture you in your cloth cap, your faithful whippet by your side, waving your black pudding at us. Eee by gum!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:25 PM

["gnu":]

And I use my real name. Everyone who has been here for any length of time knows my name, address and phone number.

I challenged that thing about posting insults from behind an anonymous identity a couple of years ago, and it replied that it would never give anyone here the least clue as to who it was. I didn't take it very seriously before that and considerably less so since.

No, I haven't any idea who it is or how to find out despite being on Mudcat for more than ten years. And if it tells me off-channel, I will flip a coin as to whether I delete the message unread or post it for everyone to read right here; either way, I will not both retain the information and keep it private.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:39 PM

So, Jack... can you explain that in English?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: BrendanB
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:46 PM

Eliza, I can put up with a lot, but disrespecting black pudding is the outside of enough. One never waves a black pudding, one cherishes it - and then fries it. (Then you pig out on it with fried eggs and fried bread, yeah! Soooo healthy!)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:52 PM

Dave the Gnome - I am in debt to you, sir! You have considerably expanded my already considerable library of British slang terms. Can you define "pow-fagged", please?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:18 PM

His head's tired?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:36 PM

Anyone have suggestions on how to deal with internet bully's/trolls?
I have not been exposed to it often, but< I am intersted in the topic.

Through experience, my normal route (in real life, growing up in a kinda tough location)) has been to deal directly and promptly with a bully, to let them know that there is a line that if crossed, will be met with action- win or lose. I have found that approach effective, even though it may result in "a few bumps on the head" you stop the bullying and gain respect for your action and the bullying often stops.

But, that may or may not be effective on the internet?

As this relates to the topic, any thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:42 PM

No, that doesn't work on the Internet. In my experience, absolutely nothing works except to ignore them, not respond to them at all, and put your attention on something else instead.