Music chat - enough is enough

Subject: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Will Fly
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 06:37 PM

The "More Pretentious Than Bellowhead" thread has seemed to have caused more shit-stirring and contention than any sort of serious and considered discussion. I thoroughly regret starting it - even though my initial intentions were straightforward and transparent.

Enough Mudcat is enough Mudcat. For those who wish to keep in touch, my website is: www.mjra.net/WillFly/

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Gurney
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

Leaving Mudcat, Will? Sorry, if so.
As I've said on other threads, there is the problem of treating a forum as you would a conversation, there being no opportunity to see the faces of those you are 'talking' to, and getting the wrong end of the stick entirely, and finding insult where entertainment was intended.
I've been on both sides of that equation.
Please don't go.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:34 PM

I wish you'd stick around.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Noreen
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:44 PM

Will- as you would in real life- just walk away from the stupid conversation.

Don't leave the party!

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:52 PM

I must admit that I assumed that a lot of the over-the-top rudeness was intended as humorous/ironic rather than genuine. I think that, for a lot of people, this is a joke thread.

Try and realise that Catherine Foster (or, at least, this one) does not exist. Her post was a wind up and too many people have fallen for it. Quite a lot of the other one-off GUEST postings are probably the same person.

Somebody is pulling your string and you are jumping.

Calm down Will. It's only the internet. See you on Thursday?

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Janie
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:54 PM

What Rapaire said....

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:59 PM

Me, too, Will. I hope you will stick around and not give the shit-stirrers the time of day. I haven't been in the thread in question, but don't forget I am one of the moderators and may be able to help when those things get started. You are too good of a person and musician for Mudcat to lose.

Much love,

kat

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 11:04 PM

I, for one, find these kind of threads self serving. If you really didn't have an ulterior motive, you would simply have left. Further, it doesn't speak well of one when they listen to a couple of small minded, pompous asses spouting their verbal flatulence in the town square, and decide the whole town is not worthy of their time. It seems to me it puts one in the same bag as those they criticize.

So leave if you must, but spare us the grand exit, OK. If you decide to stay, that would be great as you have added good things to our little community.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 12:01 AM

Mick, I know how a lot of folks feel about these kinds of threads, but you are way off the mark when it comes to Will, imo. And, I, for one, want to know if a friend is leaving...I'd much rather that than be left to wonder. Sometimes, it is a lot easier for folks to do that in a thread, rather than a bunch of PMs. I don't think Will has any "ulterior motives" in mind.

My two cents as I am sure you figured you get from at least one of us.

kat

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Slag
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:26 AM

Gee, how'd I miss THAT thread!

Will, if you go, can we all come with you?

I would miss your input. You are a clear thinker and intelligent. That's a combination that's NEEDED here. Stick around bud.

Tom

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 02:39 AM

Leaving? Best of luck - you're one of the good guys. I tried that leaving business a while back. I lasted a few months, but the old vomitdog tendencies got too strong.

Come back to the Beech sometime, eh?

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 03:19 AM

Will, when you start a thread you can't dictate the way it's going to go. You can't stop a bunch of shit-headed trolls causing unpleasantness. If you start a thread with the best of intentions and it goes pear-shaped, just leave it to its own devices.

Anyway, if you really are going, you'll be missed. Thanks for all the fish!

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: My guru always said
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 03:32 AM

Mick, I know what you mean about the leaving threads, but I agree with kat that Will is just being open and honest. There are many of us UK Folkies who can be too trusting and I think Will is one of that number. It's easy to be drawn in by contentious words in black and white. Don't go Will, just look at threads in a different way!

I'll go and take a look at the other thread now....

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 04:07 AM

Will, if you are still reading, I wonder if you would care to consider my post just made to the offensive thread, which in case you are not on that other thread I reproduce here: -

"I had wondered about the same thing that SueGorgeous does. Are we at all confident that the posts taking the piss out of Bellowhead are not in fact Bellowhead having a jolly jape?

But in any event, the thread was not really about that in the beginning, but about a different cruise-by guest on a different thread criticising a folk festival because it was not opera or modern jazz (or something like that). If that cruise-by "Foster" was serious (and I somehow doubt that too then the excellent analysis by Tom Bliss above perfectly demonstrated the ignorance of that Foster.

In fact I am tempted to consider whether that Foster was actually one of our resident horse definitioners or devotees of meretricious technical excellence. The same discounting of derivation (or "roots" if you prefer) and plans to raise barriers to entry seem to be givens in "Foster"s approach.

I suggest that people are getting wound up about all the wrong things."

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: GUEST,LDT
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 04:34 AM

Hi Will,
Its not your fault, you just accidentally fed a troll. These things happen.

Don't feed the trolls is a big rule..as that's the main reason for things to turn sour. The other is never write a negative subject line (especially containing an insult) it attracts trolls like iron filings to a magnet.

Its taken me 10years and 30+ forums to be come a forum veteran and be able to spot when and when not to post. There's a skill and an art to forum posting in order not to get flamed. (you think that thread was scary....fan fiction forums can be even scarier ad some places...oooh don't start a Classic V New Who conversation)

I've made every mistake in the book....even arguing with a moderator (on a another forum-long story difference of opinion of a characterization of a fictional character).

So pick yourself up dust yourself off and get back on that horse.

kind regards
a yoof and internet forums veteran

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:43 AM

I made a post on this thread which seems to have been deleted (that's never happened to me before). What I said there:

Will manages to make unusually illuminating and constructive comments when responding to idiots.

If he takes off to forums that don't have a steady supply of idiots, how is he going to do that?

So, please, stick around. Some of the idiots on that thread may have been substandard but on the whole we have QUALITY idiots here.

---

Don't get paranoid on us, Jack. You haven't had a post deleted since you went after Walkaboutsverse in August.
-Joe Offer, Moderator-

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:49 AM

"Are you calling Catherine Foster a nasty, vindictive, grumpy git?"
I'd be more inclined to call her/him a WUM who has achieved exactly what they set out to do.

My post 06/10/2010 and as I just said on the original post that sadly I rest my case.
You were quite right to raise the question as several of us were interested to find out just who this person though played the music that she claimed to be so passionate about well?
Don't let the Mudcat detractors get you down for all their pontificating that such threads are charictaristic of the forum they conveniently ignore the knowledge and experience that can be available here.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: GUEST,Silas
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 06:02 AM

Come on Will - you are a voice of sanity on here ( and there are very few of us left!)

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 06:10 AM

Well, morning has come and, after several kindly PMs, I'm going to say what I really wanted to say at the top of this thread - in reference to the "More Pretentious Than..." conflict.

I was perfectly aware, when starting that thread, that there might be a nice greasy troll lurking there. Pot luck - it seemed an interesting and debatable topic and a risk worth taking. I was also perfectly aware that there are always the usual shit-stirrers lurking as GUESTs - that's another risk taken when starting such a thread. Again - pot luck. The GUEST crappers turned up as expected, but that didn't bother me.

What really pissed me off Big Time were the lofty, smug, straight-faced, high-minded, self-important, self-righteous, pompous, know-it-all, holier-than-thou, I-told-you-so, complacency-is-my-middle-name pronouncements about the thread itself by those who added nothing to the main thread topic but just jumped in to hold their nose, grimace and express their personal distaste from a nice, safe distance. What an easy and even more destructive thing to do. Thank you (for example) Ruth Archer, Big Mick and several others.

And, by the way Mick, self-serving is not my style, and spare us the grand exit is a also a distasteful and pompous phrase in my view.

As for GUEST postings, why, oh why do we get the repetitive and toothless mantra in small red type Please note that anonymous posting is no longer allowed at Mudcat.? It appears regularly and is rarely, if ever, acted on. If GUEST postings, and anonymous GUEST postings in particular, were not allowed, then perhaps there would be a little less crap-dusting on Mudcat. It's a point that's been made over and over again by older and wiser posters than me.

Will (no more Mr. Nice Guy) Fly

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: maeve
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 06:14 AM

Hi, Mick. I understand your disdain for dramatic exit threads here on Mudcat. I am compelled to say, however, that your estimation in this case doesn't jib with my reading of Will Fly. Will's posts tend to be knowledgeable and witty. He is generous with musical information, and kind in his answers to those who aren't up to his level of expertise.

He is one who has quietly, unknowingly, made it bearable for me to take one more step each day as I deal with the hellhole of fire ruin once known as my home. Had he not had the courtesy to let us know of his frustration, had he quietly disappeared from Mudcat as I have often been tempted to do, many of us would have have been concerned enough to seek him out.

If he and others like him leave, it's our loss. If he finds himself ready to return, we'll be the richer for it. Either way it is unkind to judge so harshly. We both know it's easy for such kerfuffles to weigh heavily on the mind of an honest soul, seeming to block out the delightful possibilities of Mudcat.

Respectfully,

Maeve

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 06:29 AM

There are older catters ?
Your Mr Nasty needs some work btw.
Lol.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: kendall
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 07:08 AM

If I had the authority to run anyone off from the mudcat, Will Fly wouldn't be one of them.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 07:09 AM

Kendall, you're only saying that because I paid top dollar for your CDs... :-)

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 07:43 AM

Over on Concertina.net the question has been raised "where to go for some intelligent discussion".

I still say that mudcat can supply the solution, but you need to pick your thread.

If you need help or information on a subject it is remakable how much can be contributed by the community here, and if you think that trolls are unlikely to attack that sort of thread you should look at some of the car owner sites!

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 07:53 AM

"Please note that anonymous posting is no longer allowed at Mudcat.? It appears regularly and is rarely, if ever, acted on."

Over the past few months I have lost count of the number of my posts that have just vanished - some after a time of actually having appeared when the thread is refreshed. Now I'm past worrying about that, I consider that it is not my loss, and I'm pretty sure from teh nature of the posts that go missing that nobody could be bothered 'losing' them - but I'll watch this one ... :-P so I'm convinced that it is an intermittent caused by posts colliding. If it's a long thoughtful post that took some time to write and I consider it 'useful' enough that it should not vanish, I'll keep it and check back and repost if it has disappeared.

Personally I've wandered away for a while from time to time, and rarely been missed, except by a few... :-)

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: olddude
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:34 AM

No way my brother, I will hunt you down LOL ... Shitheads come in all size packages on every forum ... ignore them .. you got your friends here ... and none of us did anything

Dan

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:58 AM

Sadly, it's the threads that attract the most acrimimony that are usually the longest-lived. (Except The Reimagined Village, which changed from a potentially nasty thread into the most fun in years!)

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: MikeL2
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM

hi will

I support the dozens of people who know that you are a sensible, intelligent and helpful character here at Mudcat.

I understand your annoyance. I suggest that you do as others have suggested - just walk away from the thread.....but please don't let the idiots drive you away.

cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 09:53 AM

"acrimimony" Ooops!

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Leadfingers
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 09:54 AM

Its the Old Old Story !! A LOT of Mudslinging and back stabbing and another of the 'Good Guys' gets sick of it and leaves ! Will - IF you do leave that will be one less Voice of Reason in here !!

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM

I stand by my post, and I apologize for the phrases that offended. But I still find these types of "beg me to stay" threads annoying, and that has been my position since the earliest days of this site. Still, my phrasing should have been better considered. This is what happens late at night when the day has been tough emotionally. No excuse there, just explanation.

I do want to clear up one thing with Will. My post in your other thread was not aimed at the originator of the thread, its topic, or its point of view. The "SSDD" (same shit, different day) was aimed at these people that delight in turning up their collective noses at any opinion that doesn't jibe with their narrow view. I tire, and usually avoid, these snobby, and mean spirited people. Unfortunately, it appears I acted a bit that way in this thread.

I still don't like this thread, but I also don't care much for the tone of my post. I am sorry about that.

Mick

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: maeve
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:45 PM

Thank you, Mick.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM

One thing these threads are good for is to provide a record of just how many people got fed up, left, and then came back. They aren't much different than my occasional posts complaining about that which sucks here. The threads are perhaps intended to get others to straighten up and be nicer.

What we learn is that the only person we have a reliable effect on is ourselves. We either a) learn how to filter out the crap, b) we leave, or c) stay and bitch about what other people do incessantly (also SSDD). I'm a bit between a) and c), but strive to be a more constant a). I can't imagine being here for any length of time and enjoying it withOUT developing a filter.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM

Mick - thanks from me as well. Water under the bridge.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 02:56 PM

Will asks:

As for GUEST postings, why, oh why do we get the repetitive and toothless mantra in small red type Please note that anonymous posting is no longer allowed at Mudcat.? It appears regularly and is rarely, if ever, acted on. If GUEST postings, and anonymous GUEST postings in particular, were not allowed, then perhaps there would be a little less crap-dusting on Mudcat. It's a point that's been made over and over again by older and wiser posters than me.

Well, Will, I'm the one who posts those warnings; and there's actually a method to my madness. There are three standard warning messages, tailored to the situation. I use standardized messages in an attempt to be dispassionate and non-provocative, to serve as a final warning to the anonymous poster that he/she is under scrutiny and ought to stop. I post the warnings in messages the anonymous poster is likely to see. If the problem persists, I take action.

Yeah, it's nice to say that people ought to be logged in, but that would have eliminated several worthwhile posts in the "Bellowhead" thread, messages that came from people who aren't here regularly or who have situations that don't allow them to set cookies on the computer they're using. And very often, anonymous "Guest" posts come from well-meaning people who simply forgot to enter their name.
We read all Guest posts, and generally delete Guest posts if there is animosity in them, or if there is evidence of an intent to deceive. There is evidence of some identity manipulation in the "Bellowhead" thread, but it is a bit difficult at times to tell which is which.

In the "Bellowhead" thread, the following posters are of questionable identity:

GUEST, Catherine Foster
GUEST,Dorothy Peterson
GUEST,Gary Keeper
GUEST,Appleseed
GUEST,Barry Denning
GUEST,D. Brinkman
and probably a few others...

The moderators have been watching and discussing the "Bellowheld" thread for a few days, but we haven't agreed on an action yet. On the whole, there is a lot of worthwhile discussion in the thread. That surprised me, because I thought Will's initial post was ill-advised and asking for trouble. I'm sure Will won't agree with me on that, but he started the thread to challenge the comments of a person whose identity cannot be verified. When you respond to an unknown person's negative post, it makes it difficult for us moderators to delete the offending post - deleting such a message then makes nonsense of the messages that follow it.

And yeah, I know that some Mudcatters change identities in an attempt to be funny, and not for any insidious reason. I have mixed feelings about that. There's a lot of that identity-switching in the Blitherscrum thread. As far as I can see, the identity-switching in the thread is innocuous. I started to delete those posts, and then decided not to. Still, it's a problem. Although no harm was intended, every switched-identity post tends to undermine the credibility of the identity of other posters. So, I don't know what to do about it. I've taken to prohibiting Guest posts in threads that have become overly contentious, and that seems to help.

Oh, yes, even though I am an American, I recognized the Blitherscrum thread as irony. Still, the thread is on the border of becoming contentious, so we may have to shut it down.

So, what's the solution? I really don't know. We've discussed closing threads at a hundred posts, because it seems that so many threads become contentious when they reach that hundred-post mark. Gee, maybe we should outlaw all threads that discuss the nature of folk music (and the "Bellowhead" thread is one of those), since it seems to be a subject that so many British folkies find so upsetting that they cannot discuss it in a civil manner. Maybe we should post a warning at the top of all what-is-folk threads:

Warning: this thread may be upsetting to you if you were born in the British Isles (And it may tempt you to say things you will regret later)

I dunno. I just don't know. I also can't figure out why some moderator moved this thread to the non-music section - but oh, well.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 03:03 PM

I am personally not incensed as I am insensitive although for just a few cents I have often enjoyed the incense of sandalwood with a touch of vanilla. Whatever ta' hell caused this thread and the seeming bad feelings it produced with no help from the other thread which produced bad feelings of its own which it did not mean to produce, has equally seemingly been settled by roasting a 45 pound turkey, drinking a gallon of beer, and taking a huge shit in a hedge.

This is often the case as long as a 45 pound turkey can be found.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 03:05 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Joe. As I mentioned above, I took a punt on starting the Bellowhead thread because I thought there was the germ of an intelligent discussion there. And, yes, I did suspect a troll, but still took the punt. So I do agree with you. I underestimated the amount of stupidity that it would generate - always a careless thing to do in the case of UK folk music, obviously.

As for the GUEST question, I must bow to your experience in these matters.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 04:04 PM

I'm not saying you shouldn't have started the 'Bellowhead' thread, Will. On the whole, I think there were many interesting posts there. BUT, I think you should have realized that your initial post was likely to invite some contentiousness, and you were mistaken if you expected your post to be responded to with Sweetness and Light.

There are times when Mudcat embarrasses me. Even my wife says that I am a Really Nice Person, and I don't like being identified with all this Mudcat nastiness. If I had my druthers, I'd stay in the song threads, which are rarely combative.

I suppose I should confess that I have my own personal agenda in the way I work as a moderator at Mudcat, and it's an agenda that Max and the other moderators may not agree with. I'm a pacifist, and I've been a pacifist since I was a teenager. I do not believe in combat, and I do not believe in violence or aggressive conduct - even if the motivation for the combat or violence is righteous. I remember endlessly saying to my children, "I don't care who's right or who started the fight, I just want the fighting to stop!" I find myself saying the same thing here at Mudcat, over and over again. That can be a problem with pacifists - they try to solve conflicts by lecturing, and lecturing often doesn't work very well. Still, pacifists have a certain compulsion to lecture. In my better moments, I try to use humor and gentle persuasion to resolve conflicts - and sometimes, it actually works. Other times, I give in to the temptation to call somebody a motherfuckingasshole - and sometimes, that actually works, too. And sometimes not. But when I have the opportunity, I do my best to use pacifist, nonviolent, nonprovocative, nonagressive, noninterventionist methods to settle things down here. With mixed results.


So, yeah, I suppose you can call Mudcat contentious and all those other nasty words. On the other hand, you could call Mudcat "lively" and "refreshingly scrappy" - two different ways of looking at the same thing.

People complain that Mudcat moderation is "inconsistent," but we're actually not. Our underlying principles are freedom of speech, tempered by limited moderation. We eschew rules, and enforce the few rules we have only when we need to. Our moderation is practical, rather than legalistic. If you expect Mudcat to have a fixed set of rules that are rigidly enforced, then we're going to disappoint you. We generally let anything go by unless it's likely to result in warfare - and we even let the warfare get by, to a point.

Our general rule is that we don't allow threads that discuss Mudcat moderation, because there are many times that we cannot defend ourselves without revealing information that it's not wise for us to reveal. We much prefer to discuss Mudcat editing in private communication, where we can be more frank. This thread has a lot to do with Mudcat moderation, and I would be within my rights to shut it down. But it's a worthwhile discussion, so I'll let it go until it gets contentious.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: andrew e
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 04:20 PM

It's a choice whether to get offended by someone's comment.
I can choose to get offended or not. Even if the comment goes against everything I feel[I don't use the word believe any more],and I feel a physical reaction, I can chose to take no action.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 04:55 PM

Deleted Messages

Oh, one other thing: I often see messages like this one complaining that the poster's message had been deleted. I check out every one of these allegations that I see, and I rarely find that the complainer's message has actually been deleted.

If you post an innocuous message and it doesn't show up on the thread, most times what has happened is a function of your browser. Browsers store threads in different ways. If you post on a "stored" copy of a thread, your post may go to never-neverland, and not end up at Mudcat. So....it's a good idea to check your messages after you post them, to make sure they "took." If the message didn't post, you may be able to retrieve your typing by using the "back" button on your browser. And if you're posting something long and significant, it's a good idea to get into the habit of highlighting [CTRL-A] your post and copying [CTRL-C] it onto your computer's clipboard. Then if the message didn't post, refresh the thread using your F5 button or the circular-arrow refresh button on your browser, and then paste [CTRL-V] the text into the message box and submit it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 06:05 PM

I see Joe has arrived to fulfill the turkey request but I think he weighs in at a good bit more. Oh well, that much more to shit in the hedge! Gotta' find some mighty big hedges though....................

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 06:20 PM

Over & over for several years we have struggled with the complaint that post were 'deleted'....I have had a few of mine disappear, so I have gotten into the habit of double-checking after posting, like Joe suggests. Sometimes it requires RELOADING Mudcat from the browser...not just hitting 'refresh' at the top of Mudcat.
'Reload' should put a new copy on the thread list in your browser's cache.

**IF** you really think something was deleted, PM Joe quietly, rather than taking up space complaining when it might not be true.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 06:38 PM

Why doesn't that "lost message" feature ever work for Catspaw????

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Old Vermin
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 07:03 PM

Glad Will Fly's re-appeared. Also glad I stopped reading that Bellowhead thread when I did.

It must be that time of year - there is even more dissension than usual in uk.sci.weather, with people leaving.

If threads had a 100-posting limit, the Licensing Bill stuff might load faster. Takes longer to load than to read. What's the record thread-length?

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 07:14 PM

Sigh - there it goes again...

ok - the trick is that I work with multiple tabs and multiple threads open - the post was there in the correct tab when gone back, but it just didn't take the first time ... so Joe, make a note to ask if the complainants are using multiple tabs when posting.... :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I only mentioned the 'lost post' ta ta ta da ... sorry ... in passing - any system has its annoying bugs, some of them even posting on purpose... no matter what the technical reason, it can still be frustrating... even more frustrating than idiots d*cking around for laughs... had some clown lay rubber up the road for 500 meters up the cul de sac outside this house a few weeks ago - rubber stink hung around for hours....

The 'stored threads' theory I never considered, as sometimes it can happen after doing several test posts with the 'show what she looks like' button ticked, then fail when posted, sometimes just fail ... no pattern that I can detect - the 'go back' has never worked sensibly for me, especially when the post shows up once on initial check (so you close the tab thus losing the possibility of going back!) then vanishes a few minutes later! - Can suggest 2 possibilities, the system somehow losing it cause it didn't get written to store properly, seems more consistent than the sort of 'possible deletion' theory, based on what gets posted. I've made my views of Guests known before, would regret the loss of a bit of anonymous fun. But then any music instrument can be used as a weapon, so you can't just ban all instruments....


Joe - I gave up on fixing that 'bug' with the chat - just bypassed the error checking now... :-)

I tend to partly agree with the sentiment about 'stop me or the nigger gets it' (comedy movie reference!) threads, perhaps one needs to just post - 'I'm alright, just not going to be around for a while' instead of anything else. genuine friends may worry if they don't see someone for a while, especially as we age.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: michaelr
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM

I posted to this thread yesterday, commenting on Kat and Big Mick's little dustup above (seems like a couple of their early posts have been removed, as well). It's gone.

Hmm - am I to believe it's a browser (or user) malfunction?

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Rain Dog
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 03:39 AM

Scroll on!

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: My guru always said
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 04:06 AM

Glad to see things are settling down and I think there have been useful points made here. Thanks for starting the thread Will, however it was titled or phrased. Thanks too, Mick, for your words!

Reading the two threads yesterday I became certain that stopping 'guests' posts was the answer, but Joe has reminded me that not everyone wants to be logged into a site for whatever reason and that real guests can add value to a discussion. I'm afraid for the reputation of Mudcat though, when the trolling sows discontent like this. These subjects are close to our hearts, some of us live and breathe folk (whatever it may be) music and song, so it's easy to spring into action to defend our opinions. Lets play nice though.....

Re. lost posts, I'm in the habit now of doing exactly what Joe suggested. Checking to see if my post made it to the thread, then going 'back', copying & reloading the thread, then reposting. It works!

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 04:51 AM

Late to this particular party. Will, are you staying then?

Just a couple of words in agreement. There are two things I really hate about Mudcat, one of which I could avoid if I had any sense. I've got a bad habit of engaging in discussions that I know aren't going to turn out well, and trying to be civil to people who I know from experience are going to wind me up. (It's a bad habit, rather than just me being naive, because the inevitable result is that I get wound up and add to the general excess of heat over light. Also it's a waste of time.)

So one of the things I hate about Mudcat is the realisation that I've fallen for a wind-up merchant - again - and the red mist is descending. Sometimes I can get something worthwhile out of it - by writing a long and impassioned post about musical tradition or about performing standards or (more often) about how people should and shouldn't post on Mudcat - but there's always a temptation to sneer and call names, i.e. to descend to the wind-up merchant's own level. Hate it when that happens.

But my number 1 Mudcat Pet Hate - what drives me from 0 to fury in 10 seconds flat - is comments that slag off Mudcatters in general, sometimes quite nastily, without actually descending to specifics: that select little band of self-delusional, smug bile-merchants and their self-congratulatory circle-jerk of the mediocre. As well as being vicious - really excessively, self-indulgently vicious - this type of criticism is unanswerable, making it grossly unfair (I mean, who? what? where?). And when it's made (as that comment was) by someone with actual authority in part of the folkie real world, it leaves a really bad taste.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Brian Peters
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 05:59 AM

"lofty, smug, straight-faced, high-minded, self-important, self-righteous, pompous, know-it-all, holier-than-thou, I-told-you-so, complacency-is-my-middle-name pronouncements"

Hope that didn't include me, Will. But that Bellowhead thread did get way out of hand, IMO. Having observed 'Catherine Foster's' pronouncements on the Bellamy thread, I knew exactly what you were doing, but I think the title quote may have provided a lightning-rod for shit-stirrers who probably had no idea of the previous history. However there remain many people on here with opinons worth reading, and you're one.

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:04 AM

Well, as we're playing this game, Pip, I'll elaborate: one of the things *I* really hate about Mudcat is that anyone with the temerity to have a career/profile/a critical mass of people who seem to think their work is okay can become the victim of the most appalling Tall Poppy Syndrome on these pages. Don't get me wrong: there are always kind and sensible people who realise that these individuals, by putting their music "out there", did not sign up for a catalogue of vicious abuse, prurient speculation about their personal lives, and other similar unseemliness which has happened in the past; and also an awareness that these very individuals might be reading this forum and be upset or hurt by some of the things that are said.

Conversely, there are others who have said repeatedly that, by having a public profile, those artists have made themselves fair game - that they should just grow a thicker skin and get over it. Paradoxically, this particular standpoint has been coupled with an almost slavishly devotional approach to the work of other Mudcatters - anyone in the "inner circle" who happens to sing in a session or play a song that they put up on Youtube, or gets involved in a small-scale recording project or gets a floor spot somewhere...anything done by amateurs, that doesn't get any ideas too far above its station, is seen as just the BEST thing EVER, and no one should DARE to post any comments that aren't gushing in their support and praise.

In my ever-so-humble opinion, this knocking down of anyone with the temerity to turn professional (keeping in mind all of the insecurity, stress and pressure that this entails for the average jobbing folk musician), while indulging in the big ol' Mudcat love-in over the usual suspects, is bizarre. Why is it such a leap to think that, apart from slightly higher-profile gigs and maybe a bit more talent (sorry, but there we are), these people are just like you? I know for a fact that certain musicians were hurt and bewildered by the unprovoked attacks on the Bellowhead thread. I also wonder what would happen if, god forbid, any of the Mudcat inner circle ever "made good": when would they be seen to have left their roots behind? When would popular be *too* popular? When would they become fair game?

In a venue where I used to work, our techies were very depricating and sneery about a lot of the musicians and bands we had in, pronouncing on their musical abilities at length and usually finding them wanting. Interestingly, these self-same techies had a band. It played, invited or not, at every single staff function. It was shit. And I say this as someone who sang with them for a while. Really - we were bloody awful. It was only the indulgence of our mates that kept the applause and cheers coming. To me, it never meant very much beyond a bit of a laugh, and I still recall with fondness my fabulously rock-star flounce when I quit the band mid-gig after a spat involving several cast members of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat and a performance of "Love Shack" at a staff Christmas do one year. But my point is, our techies loved bitching about professional musicians because it somehow made them believe that we were all on the same level. They thought that, given the right breaks and enough ambition, it could have been them up on the big stage. Evidencing a lack of regard or respect seemed to level the playing field in some way, I guess.

I guess the big difference between that situation and what sometimes (note: *sometimes*) occurs on Mudcat is that our techies didn't think it might make them a big man to greet Ray Davies at the stage door by saying, "I think all your work since the Kinks has been complete bollocks - oh, and by the way, I shat in your tea." Of course, if they could have worn a little mask to hide their identity or spoken from behind a keyboard, maybe they would have been able to muster the necessary cojones.

I am not suggesting that professional musicians deserve *more* respect than the average amateur...but what about just recognising that they too are human, and that turning pro doesn't mean that all of one's insecurities and sensitivities have been excised?

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Will Fly
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:19 AM

I don't want to prolong the agony here, but I would just add that Ruth A and I had a civilised conversation last night via PMs. She understands, I hope, why I felt so pissed off with the Bellowhead thread, and I certainly understand her anger at the tone of much of it. 'Nuff said I hope.

And Pip - give us a kiss and I'll be here for ever...

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:39 AM

Well, we can all object to "vicious abuse, prurient speculation about [musicians'] personal lives, and other similar unseemliness" - I'd object myself. What happened on that thread, though, was that a few anonymous posters said they thought certain musicians aren't very good - to which you responded with the most extraordinary stream of ad hominem vituperation. Frankly, the viciousness was all yours.

Moreover, just about all the negative comments on that thread came from blow-in GUESTs, and not from this mysterious "inner circle". And I see you're still refraining from giving any details about who you're talking about - but it certainly isn't "Catherine Foster", "Dorothy Peterson" et al, because we've never seen them before and probably will never see them again.

As for the imbalance between being nice about amateurs and nasty about professionals, I think it's inevitable. I've heard some truly dire performances at my local singaround, but I'm not going to name and shame them on here - only a few people would know what I was talking about, and what good would it do? I will talk about really good amateurs, because that way other people may get to hear them. Conversely, I don't feel inhibited about saying that Jim Moray's voice isn't to my taste, because I know that what some guy with a pseudonym says isn't going to affect Jim's career one way or the other.

As for the "A says B is great, B says A is brilliant" syndrome, are you saying that this is surprising? Or that it doesn't happen among paying musicians? Or what?

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:44 AM

paying musicians

Um, paid musicians, obviously.

Will - oo-er...

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:47 AM

I've heard some truly dire performances at my local singaround

Although, now I come to think of it, not many and not recently, which bears out Bryan's point about standards and the positive effect of good regulars.

(I'll shut up now.)

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:16 AM

"it certainly isn't "Catherine Foster", "Dorothy Peterson" et al, because we've never seen them before and probably will never see them again."

See...I'm not so sure. A couple of the things said by those various "Guests" (who I agree are probably one or two people at most) make me think they aren't necessarily blow-ins at all, but ordinary Mudcatters giving vent to their biliousness behind a veil of anonymity.

It was one or two of the encouraging responses to the vituperation provided by the anonymous shit-stirrers, though, that really pissed me off. After all, everyone's entitled to their opinion, right?:

"She was having a good rant and getting the usual targets frothing and we applaud her for it."

"The woman whose quote triggered this thread was cheesed off with what she heard, her tastes may not be honed to the revival or she may have a very elevated musical palate. Either way it's her right to gob off on an internet forum. That's what it's there for, unless someone knows different?"

"If you come onto a folk discussion board you should expect to find criticism even if it is unfounded."

Subject: RE: Music chat - enough is enough
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:47 AM

I don't think that was Manitas's finest hour. As for glueman, see above re wind-up merchants, red mist etc - if I thought he was part of the inner circle I'd unplug my modem.