 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:27 PM Ah well I am going to go to bed and leave you Americans to have a good old chin wag. Keep it clean boys and girls :-) God, I hope I don't have dreams on this :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:31 PM Shakespeare has a relevant quote when it comes to the futility of this kind of thing: "We have scotched the snake, not killed it. She'll close and be herself whilst our poor malice Remains in danger of her former tooth." Another way of making the same point is Nietzsche's "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" Which works equally well as "That which does not kill them makes them stronger" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:37 PM "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." This I have heard many times here in the Mudcat ... and from some of the elder members. With that being said .... and a over all acceptance of a Laissez faire, "no barricades approach" to moderating ... the Mudcat is what it is ...... then I ask, what is the meaning of this thread? things won't change .... the Old Dudes and other good people will come and then they will leave .... the same old heated arguments will continue with the usual vengence. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:38 PM In that case, McGrath? Joe, PM sent. Evil will triumph when good men do nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:43 PM Richard, in response to the implication of your, "Evil will triumph when good men do nothing" comment. The appropriate thing to do, in this case, is to expose the wrongness of the idea, expose it to the light of day, not ban the free expression of ideas. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:48 PM Perhaps the time has come for the 'right on' anything goes doctrine to be knocked on the head. People are allowed to post the most obnoxious crap on here, and it's allowed to stay up. Moderators [and they should be anonymous] should take down nasty contentious posts, WITHOUT COMMENT! I once asked Joe "what happened to taste and decency on Mudcat?", and I was told that it wasn't one of the parameters when Mudcat was set up !!!! Sorry but it's a necessary adjunct of everyday living in my book. If Max wants to finance Mudcat by allowing sponsored adverts, then he better discourage any putative sponsor from reading some of the content of Mudcat, or they won't sign on any dotted line. JM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:49 PM But that is not what Joe proposes. He suggests only responses in accordance with his views of moderate response, and not responses that illuminate the evils of religions (or the BNP). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jeri Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:50 PM If insults are to be deleted, I consider anyone who doesn't agree with me to be insulting me. ;-) Seriously, I think life is better when it's not so easy to piss people off. If we can't even define 'folk', how the hell are we gonna come up with a definition for 'insult'. Know why I think the trolls down own Usenet newsgroups? Because people know nobody's gonna delete anything, they'll have to lie in the bed they make, and if they find themselves immersed in a hellish argument with hellish people, it's their own fault for diving in. Once again, for Joe and myself as much as anyone else: you can't control what other people do. You can only control what YOU do. You can get pissed off and start an infinite number of 'The problem at Mudcat?' threads to complain about things or people you don't like. WE can start them. In the end, I don't think anybody's gonna try to be more considerate and nothing will change, and there isn't much anybody can do about it... except learn how to live with it or go away. --------------------- And Richard, the pertinent verb is 'do', not 'discuss', and the action has to be something effective. Consider that what you do may only give them the attention they want and hurt a bunch of innocent bystanders. Does this help their cause or discourage them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:50 PM What I just wrote my friend Dan: .... Life is too full to put time or energy into messes that are not yet ready to be cleaned up. I usually have my hands full feeding the positive, and encouraging that. I spend less and less time de-goofing things-- and I try to limit that to ONLY the stuff that comes to me, ripe for de-goofing. Sometimes I'm wrong about the ripeness, or exactly what God's asking me to do, and then I back off. Fast. Each time I back off I take a lesson with me. Hardi and I buried a lot of good people the last two weeks. I say "we" did it because I, too, am a professional member of the team. There will be two more on Saturday, then-- after a quick bite to share what cool things we saw God doing-- that Sat. Nite service I keep inviting you to visit. And ya know what's hard about all these funeral times? Not the deaths and not the funerals. The several people AFTER the funerals who can't look at anything positive God is doing right next to them and IN them. Not when there's been death and not, unfortunately, when there's been new life born, either. The energy to try to hold up all that pain-- the only one I know that is big enough to do it is Jesus. Of course we know that each person has to be WILLING to be lifted up..... by Him or by anything. (That free will thing is a bitch.) Oh, I can do my share, but then I need to sleep! :~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:53 PM ""I don't give a rat's ass how evil the BNP is, Dick. If all we can do is fight evil with evil, then we've sold our souls to them. We've conpromised our own integrity, and then what good are we?"" With regard to that Joe, I have just one question. How would you propose to expose the evil of an organisation? 1) By ignoring it, in the hope that it will go away? 2) By telling the man who is advocating the sinking of boatloads of human beings that he shouldn't be so naughty, and slapping his wrist? or would you agree that there is nothing evil about confronting and attacking the organisation at every turn, exposing the racism and bigotry, and YES, attacking the veracity and the ethical and moral compass of one who takes a position of power in said organisation? I have a dossier of 40 A4 pages printed off from discussion boards and profiles on Facebook, Bebo, and Myspace, all of which pages are solely devoted to personal attacks on, and lies about, Mudcat members. Richard Bridge, Myself, Jeddy Rose, Virginia Tam, Peace, Katlaughing, Owen Woodson, Houston Diamond, Royston, John Barden, Fred mcCormick, Lox, Lizzie Cornish, and passing references to you, Joe, and Max. As I have pointed out before, the Nazi Party was as insignificant in 1930 as the BNP is today. Ten years later it ruled most of Europe, and was starting on a policy of ethnic extermination. The BNP deny that this ever took place, and if we simply ignore them, we are asking for another dose, this time against Muslims in particular, and dark skinned people in general. Would you accord them the right of free speech, and try to curtail OUR right to the same? On the subject of Christianity, I consider myself a Christian, but in the way I live my life, not in the place I spend Sunday mornings. Christianity is not a building with a cross, nor is it a man in a black frock. It is, as I read Jesus' message, how you live, how you treat your neighbour, and how you place the interests of others at the same level as your own. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:53 PM John MacKenzie ... I fully agree. Even the most civilized of debates are moderated. It's human nature and it's about time that it should be done here in the Mudcat. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:55 PM To get it in proportion, I just counted, and there are 29 currently visible BS threads. Perhaps three of these might involve some significant disagreement. And at this point, so far as I could see, all of these discussions are being conducted in pretty reasonable terms. It's stormy weather from time to time, but not that much of the time. .................. My point with those quotes, Richard, was the same as one Big Mick made earlier - "It is a discussion forum, not the barricades." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Leadfingers Date: 28 Oct 09 - 09:01 PM Abuse and shouting down ANYONE who says something you disagree with is NOT Discussion ! If someone posts something that You feel needs correcting , either do it politely or in a PM ! And PLEASE dont respond to an Obvious troll ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Oct 09 - 09:01 PM Not everyone wholly approves of Mother Teresa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aplank/Criticisms_of_Mother_Teresa If we do not man the barricades, Mick, then those who did not can write our epitaphs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 09 - 09:12 PM Richard, maybe I can get it across to you another way. Manning the barricades on Mudcat means exposing THE IDEAS for their falsehoods, half truths and outright distortions. It means attacking THE ARGUMENTS forcefully, with your own arguments and logic, and doing so in a cogent way. To twist a cliche' a bit, tis better to let them open their mouths and prove themselves fools. But personal attacks, and namecalling, does nothing but turn you into the thing you detest. Manning the barricades in the streets is another matter. But as one who actually has done it, as opposed to those that throw the term around as a foolish, romanticized view of something, I know that this is a dangerous thing, and a last resort. Tis far better to destroy the idea than to attack the people. They will then look foolish all on their own. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rapparee Date: 28 Oct 09 - 09:18 PM I have simply dropped out of political and religious discussions, even threads that I, believing the topic to be fairly innocuous, have started. And I'm "taking a breather in place" -- I will no longer post to religious or political threads, at least for some time. I have dropped out of two forums because what I posted was derided. My momma told me not to stay where I wasn't wanted, and I find that to be good advice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Russ Date: 28 Oct 09 - 09:52 PM My post just disappeared. If it was deleted, no problem. But I'll try again. I have said it before and I will say it again, Mudcat is fine just the way it is. I post rarely but browse Mudcat almost daily. It's always worth the effort, even when I don't read any of the threads. That said, I don't come to Mudcat to read or participate in non-musical threads. Coming to Mudcat to discuss politics is like trying to buy a pair of socks at a McDonald's. Keep up the good work, Joe [Russ-nothing was deleted. It may be one of those occasional technical glitches.] Russ (still Permanent GUEST after all these years) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Oct 09 - 10:25 PM I'll speak up for Russ. He's no nameless "guest" He's a reg'lar, and a good guy-- joined-up or not. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Date: 28 Oct 09 - 10:44 PM Interesting to read the responses posted thus far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D Date: 28 Oct 09 - 10:51 PM Mick keeps trying to explain what the difference is between discussing and "deriding and denigrating", but it seems a tricky point to make. (He and I have very different positions on a couple of topics, but we don't insult each other as we debate) *IF* you have a good point, and you make it well in a rational manner, it will do just as much to promote your cause as all the standing-on-the-soapbox rants you can muster. If you feel you MUST oppose someone or some group, go DO it on the barricades where you face your target directly. As far as I know, 99.999% of the BNP doesn't read Mudcat. Exactly who are you preaching to? As far as having more (If anyone has real proof that ANY moderator has maliciously edited ANY other person's posts, that should be taken up with Joe/Mick/Jeri...and maybe Max ...and not just tossed into this thread as an insinuation of corruption. That is too serious to just claim without evidence.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing Date: 28 Oct 09 - 10:56 PM (If anyone has real proof that ANY moderator has maliciously edited ANY other person's posts, that should be taken up with Joe/Mick/Jeri...and maybe Max ...and not just tossed into this thread as an insinuation of corruption. That is too serious to just claim without evidence.) Thank you for that, BillDarlin'...have to say I absolutely agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Date: 28 Oct 09 - 11:02 PM Well said, Mick, Jeri, Joe, Bill D. and several others. Different angles, each of you, that taken together provide a pretty whole picture and cover most, perhaps all, of the options available to a responsible adult. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Date: 28 Oct 09 - 11:19 PM It's not an insinuation that a moderator has maliciously changed the content of posts. It's established fact. The head moderator had to change one of them back to the original content more than once. So my alerting anyone would be completely redundant. In the more recent thread, the poster whose content had been changed complained about it in the thread, which the head moderator also read. So it is not necessary for me to alert anyone about that one, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Date: 28 Oct 09 - 11:21 PM Some perspective compliments of Amos, on the MOAB thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Date: 28 Oct 09 - 11:27 PM Here's an example of the kind of malicious moderation I'm talking about. One of the posters who has served as a designated target in the Mudcat and has been on the receiving end of enormous amounts of abuse, including quite a lot of extremely vicious (and often obscene) abuse from one of the moderators, posted a poem they had written. In the poem, they used the word Pennine. One of the moderators changed Pennine to penile. There were other changes as well, but that's the one I remember
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,jts Date: 28 Oct 09 - 11:46 PM Anti Cristian bigotry? If you want to show people how they can express their issues with religion in a civilized way maybe you can point out some better examples. I am impressed by Christopher Hitchens. I think his point of view is rubbish. But he expresses it in a civilized manner. On the other hand maybe you can keep the rabid christian-bashers at bay by calling them second rate Hitchens' But as you look for ways to curb Christianity bashers, will you equally crack down on other bigotries? Anti Muslim Bigotry has been pretty common here. If you enforce such morality for one, in my opinion, it must be for all. Its hard for many people to discuss politics and religion and stay friends. As long as you have those discussions about either of those issues, people will leave. Lively discussion is one of the hallmarks of this place. I would not like to see it stifled. But also consider that the people leaving are not being forced to read those threads. Maybe they simply want to get back at someone who offended them and they are using you as their catspaw. As far as the BNP goes, anyone who comes here supporting the BNP is asking for trouble. Most of recent folk music is the total antithesis of what the BNP stands for. I would suggest that those who feel the need to express their dislike for the BNP would be better served by doing so in song. Woody Guthrie and others have provided some excellent templates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Neil D Date: 29 Oct 09 - 12:05 AM I know they are two separate issues but protesting the horrible meanness toward the British National Party AND anti-Christian bigotry in the same thread seems counter-intuitive. And publicly taking two members to task, by name, in a thread promoting more civility seems counter-productive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Date: 29 Oct 09 - 12:08 AM Good try, Joe. Bye, ya'll. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 29 Oct 09 - 12:34 AM Thank You Joe!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 29 Oct 09 - 12:42 AM Boy - doesn't this list of contributors look like the most "Co-Dependent on Mudcat Anonoymous" posters in the history of the organization.
Sincerely,
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Oct 09 - 01:48 AM Oh, Lord, just what I need....a compliment from Gargoyle... As far as the BNP goes, I think it is very important to be vigilant - but I also think it is important to be rational and civil, not hysterical and abusive. I don't think it would be worthwhile to reason with the BNP, but nonetheless I think our responses should be rational. Constant streams of profanity and name-calling and bullying party followers, just tends to draw "outside agitators" because they know they can find a place to fight here. As for the Facebook problem, look at Jeri's post about it above. As far as we can tell, the person responsible was the same one who was responsible for the alterations of the Mudcat Wikipedia entry, and was the same person who trolled under a variety of names here - long before the BNP ever came to prominence. There's a good chance our primary "BNP" antagonist, isn't a member of the BNP at all - he's just a troll who made suckers out of a lot of hysterical Mudcatters. Now, if the Mudcatters could have just been smart enough not to respond....
People angrily demand that we remove offensive posts, and accuse us of negligence if we don't - but what good does it do to remove a post when a dozen people have already responded to it in the first ten minutes? Sorry, but I still subscribe to Max's belief that this community has to police itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Date: 29 Oct 09 - 02:52 AM I applaud the removal of the moderator who was maliciously altering posts. In the thread, the head moderator's behavior had the appearance of covering for the moderator in question because they suggested that the poster whose words had been altered might have actually posted the altered words by mistake. We know that this is not what happened because that poster had copy pasted the poem from their own website where it did not contain the altered words. Because of the way it was handled, it left the impression that moderators would not be removed for that kind of behavior. Personally, I think it would have been very beneficial to have made a statement in the thread that such behavior by moderators is not tolerated and that the situation had been corrected. The appearance of condoning behavior that is against the rules has the effect of encouraging behavior that is in violation of the rules. In one of the websites for which I am the admin, one of the moderators did something similar. Our head moderator informed that person publicly that she would not tolerate such behavior and would remove that moderator if he ever did anything like that again. He apologized publicly for what he had done, and he never did anything like that again. And because the head moderator addressed it publicly, the other members, who were quite alarmed by this behavior, felt better for knowing what to expect and knowing that such behavior would not be tolerated. I will find the recent one and send it privately. I tried to call but there was no answer. I will try again tomorrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Date: 29 Oct 09 - 03:17 AM And I would just say, in response to one of the brown comments inserted in my post, which I almost didn't see because I usually don't go back and keep re-reading my posts (which is why this approach is so counterproductive) - I am told that if I would just inform the head moderator of abusive posts, corrective action would be taken. But my experience is that because of times when I have alerted the head moderator about abusive posts, I have earned in their esteem the reputation for being someone who "squeals like a stuck pig". My experience has been that if I complain about the behavior of one of the exalted ones in the Mudcat, I am branded as someone who squeals like a stuck pig and I get into trouble. If one of the exalted ones in the Mudcat complains about me, however, I get rules applied to me that are not applied to people who are far more abusive than me and who break the rules, by orders of magnitude, far more often than I ever have, and the one who made the complaint against me does not get branded as someone who squeals like a stuck pig, or experience any negative repercussions for having done so. This is a profoundly irresponsible and counterproductive way to moderate an internet forum. If people are going to be encouraged to alert someone in a position of authority when there is an abusive post, and then they are abused by the person in authority for having done so, I can't imagine any reason why they would ever want to contact that person of authority ever again for any reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Date: 29 Oct 09 - 03:34 AM I'm going to put it another way, and I'm going to speak directly - If you want people to be willing to come to you with issues, you need to treat them respectfully when they do, both in public, and in private. And you need to be fair and consistent in the way you deal with those issues. If you don't, people won't feel safe in coming to you with issues, and you will encourage people to deal with issues on their own, having no faith that their issues will be dealt with respectfully and fairly. I was willing to call you this evening because in this thread, you were addressing me respectfully, for the first time since I have been a member here in the Mudcat. Had that not been the case, I wouldn't have been willing to call. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Amergin Date: 29 Oct 09 - 03:42 AM Well, I'm sorry to hear Dan is gone....he seemed like a good guy.... Now I have been coming here since 1999, though didn't actually enroll until sometime in 2000, I think. I know with me, when I feel some one is trying to preach their agenda, whether religious or political...I can be a bit reactionary...and think before I post...I do that in real life too...speak before I think...and many times have been forced to eat my own foot... I try not to, and more and more am getting better at it...but sometimes it is hard, and through the years you have always been really fair. I respect that and you. Now as some one with very left wing views, I detest fascism...but I detest tyranny in all forms, all sides of the political and religious spectrum...from the left, right, centre, and whatnot...but there seems to be too much focus here on the BNP. Yes it is scary, and one can see it happening here in the States with our own emigration scare, mainly generated by the rich and their political lackeys to hide the true issues, but you go in any BNP thread and you will read the same thing over and over again, it seems. It's like a flashback to the incessant threads about the Irish question. Also this facebook thing, why is that even brought up here? I am sorry that people, some of which I like dearly and respect, are affected by it, but that is something that needs to be dealt with through facebook, or through legal channels (if there is even anything that could be brought to court over it, which slander, defamation, I presume could be, but those would be civil). I guess that is all I have to say...and I prefer the usual mudcat method over the constant moderation, but people need to act like the adults we are and not act like we're in a barroom brawl. All that from me and really little to add to the discussion...but there it goes, another aspect of mudcat, and one I wouldn't want changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Doug Chadwick Date: 29 Oct 09 - 03:58 AM If Max wants to finance Mudcat by allowing sponsored adverts, then he better discourage any putative sponsor from reading some of the content of Mudcat, or they won't sign on any dotted line. How worthwhile will any discussion be if it is carried out with one eye on what the sponsors may or may not like to here? DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Oct 09 - 04:36 AM I do not claim to be a good Christian, but I am one and am a regular churchgoer. I remember a lonely struggle to justify my belief that it is a force for good in the world and that the work of Christians would be missed. I have only ever derided BNP and am not at all racist, but I have been called a racist, a xenophobe and a liar on recent threads just for expressing concerns about mass immigration. This was allowed. I thought personal attacks were not allowed. At least they did put up posts of mine in an attempt to justify, although they found no racism or lies. Moderator Big Mick did not even do that when he called me a bigot. When I pointed out that to make judgements on a man's character, without any knowledge of him or evidence, is prejudice, my post was deleted because it was about another member not the subject! keith (I am offline for a couple of days.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 Oct 09 - 04:41 AM Posters here would do well to google for salient phrases, or to look on the "Folk against fascism" facebook pages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman Date: 29 Oct 09 - 05:45 AM some of the moderators on this forum,remind me of the fireman[ who dont put out fires, but burn the books]in fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. I agree with Carol C. she says[If you want people to be willing to come to you with issues, you need to treat them respectfully when they do, both in public, and in private]. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Gervase Date: 29 Oct 09 - 06:02 AM Keith makes a telling point in his usual quiet way. He is not a bigot or a racist; he is a decent human being with a deep love of traditional music, and yet he has been accused of the most extraordinary things by people on this forum. We are asked not to be nasty to people who are avowedly members of the BNP, yet disgraceful personal attacks on someone like Keith are tolerated and even condoned by moderators. And, on a slightly different tack, it would seem that the BNP are even impersonating Joe these days. This is an email that a BNP sock-puppet has posted on the Folk Against Fascism Facebook page, purporting to come from Joe: "I have to say that I share disillusion with the prejudice and nastiness that is so pervasive in threads about Gervase Webb these days. Even though Bruce Murdoch has done horrible things in the name of his faith, that's no justification for the overall prejudice against victims of alcohol that exists today. And even though I'm sure that it is righteous to oppose Richard Bridge's Russ Meyer comments, the nastiness in the name of righteousness - is still nastiness. Think about those things - no, I'm not going to open that for discussion, because it will just get nasty and bigoted all over again. Royston is not the only one who has abandoned his membership because of the bigotry and nastiness here. I don't know how these things can be resolved, but I wish they could be. I suppose it's not quite fair to say something like that and not allow discussion, so I will allow it for a limited time, and I will monitor it very closely. I'm not at liberty (by law) to name names, but there are a number of good people who have left their Mudcat memberships recently, and it's for two main reasons The horrible meanness expressed in the threads on the BNP (British National Party). Please accept this party has every right to exist. The constant anti-BNP bigotry that is expressed at Mudcat And the thing about all this that is so distressing, is that this bigotry and nastiness is coming from people who were once quite admirable people, people who would ordinarily be thought of as 'the good guys" - but yet they can be horribly mean and horribly prejudiced against a party the British public clearly want and who gave them two seats in Europe last May. The most distressing example was one day when Gervase Webb posted on a BNP thread and started talking about how his life had changed since he left his wife for a guy he went to school with, and people just ganged up and battered him. Gervase is a longtime Mudcatter and a longtime member of the UK folk community, and I hear from people who know him that he is a very nice person. BUT he left his wife for a man and some could not accept that, so now he has been repeatedly and cruelly condemned at Mudcat as a bigot and a horrible person. Yes, we do have occasional visits from Richard Bridge posting under another name to talk about the Russ Meyer films he collects. There's always the underlying feeling that I'm an outsider, because I'm share the views of Keith who has proven to be a solid guy always defending his right to be British. I like Keith, and I agree with him totally. I'll open this to discussion, but only to civil discussion. I will not allow any posts from Anti BNP types, even if they are members; and I will not allow any posts from those members whose ask female members if they wear stockings and suspenders or their cup size. I guess it's a good idea for some honest (and I hope charitable) discussion." FaF has a membership of several thousand, many of who have no contact with Mudcat. It would odd if their perception of this place was based on that sort of thing. But, in the great scheme of things, I suppose it doesn't matter... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman Date: 29 Oct 09 - 06:23 AM another reason why I understand people have left mudcat,is the disgraceful behaviour that went on in the chat room. I never visit the chat room[so again I am not guilty]. Joe, you have never answered my question?. is not MBS George responsible for some of the unpleasantness here, by declaring herself as the BNP candidate for Chippenham, if she had not done so, a lot of unpleasantness could have been avoided.PLEASE ANSWER THIS.
My 94-year-old mother-in-law listens to US talk radio constantly, and she spouts some of the same misguided and racist ideas that I hear from BNP supporters from the UK. Do I express my disagreement with her? Certainly. Would I be justified in beating her to a pulp or in verbally abusing her? Absolutely not. You Brits seem to think you are the only ones with a Fascist problem. We have Foxnews and talk radio. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Oct 09 - 07:10 AM Is that not a rhetorical question anyway, Dick? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: manitas_at_work Date: 29 Oct 09 - 07:20 AM Isn't that like blaming Tom Berners-Lee? If he hadn't invented the Internet there would be no flame-fests. No, there would still be arguments about the BNP even if MBSGeorge hadn't stood for office so you can't hang this one on her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Oct 09 - 07:29 AM I get the feeling this thread is getting to the stage where it might be appropriate to start posting recipes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: number 6 Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:12 AM Might as well start posting recipes .... it would be more significant. Things here in the Mudcat are not going to change ... a new version of this thread will appear in about a years time. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:32 AM "...a new version of this thread will appear in about a years time" As is only natural. After all, "The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance". In relation to the Mudcat that means members using commonsense and good manners towards each other. Which most of the time most of us do, but the occasional reminder makes good sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:23 AM manitas , the point is that mbs georges thread in which she announced,her candidacy for the BNP ,had 282 posts.,and caused unpleasantess on this forum,thats what she is responsible for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:40 AM I also think that pious and patronising comments in brown type, added to someone's thread, smack of megalomania. It reminds me of a maxim I was taught in training. 'A man who has his name on his desk, and on his door, is usually hiding behind his position.' We were also taught, that the way to deal with someone like that, was to try and draw him out from behind his desk. Thus bringing him down to the same level as you. JM
The pious and patronizing tone may have been a sign of my inner struggle to avoid using the term "asshole" in response to some comments. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Smedley Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:41 AM Part of the problem is that 'civil' and 'courteous' and 'non-personal' and 'taste' are relative things, not absolutes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:54 AM Well everybody is being pretty nice to each other. |