BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?

Subject: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: GutBucketeer
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 12:36 AM

Hi:

I am a long time avid follower of the threads, and sometimes poster of music questions, etc. My addiction is growing and as my posts mount I have been wondering. Who are the most prolific Mudcatters by topic? I think it would be interesting to acknowledge the contributions of the most frequent music posters, or lyrics, or those to the BS threads, etc. I haven't figured out how to tabulate the information myself.

Also, as the number of daily posts grows I have seen some interesting music topics, or requests for lyrics fly by and be swallowed up by the numerous other threads. Has anyone else noticed this phenomenae.

JAB

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From:
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 01:00 AM

It depends on whether you mean just quantity or whether quality is a factor. They're not the same thing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: GutBucketeer
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 01:25 AM

You're right " " quality is in the eye of the beholder and much more difficult to measure. I was thinking of the much easier tabulation concerning quantity.

For that matter is there an easy way to see the number of threads and message by major area? i.e. Lyric request, Lyric post, Music post, Music or song discussion, Music related, B.S., etc... Has it changed over time?

JAB

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 05:49 AM

Gee, that's a loaded question. Could be embarrassing. I think there's not much question, if you don't categorize the posts. The "categories" came in just recently, so it would be hard to figure who post how much were.
Counting messages posted Katlaughing is most probably the most prolific poster in the two years she's been here, and I'm probably second. I've been here since November, 1996, so I probably have a higher total. Clicking on my name (I would advise you not to do this at heavy traffic times) shows I have posted 4,507 messages since January, 1997. I think I also posted some in 1996, but not many. Clicking on Kat's name.....well, you don't want to do that, either. Actually, it says 2,752 since December 29, 1998. Could it be less than a year that she's been here? I'll betcha she's posted more words than I have.
Gene posts more country and old-timey lyrics than anybody here and at Cowpie (and probably posts the most lyrics overall here at the 'Cat), and John in Brisbane (821 total posts since Oct 97) probably beats Alison (2,133 total posts since Jan 97) narrowly in number of tunes posted. dick greenhaus leads the world in messages posted without using uppercase letters. Big Mick may lead the pack in "attempts to seduce married women in Australia..." Catspaw (2,138 total messages since Dec 98) leads in humor, and Art Thieme is still legendary with his "groaner" jokes. I'll betcha I post more line breaks and blue clicky things than anybody.
I'd say quantity is a bad measure. There are some people here who do some real scholarship, and it's the information they post that's most important.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 05:56 AM

G'day,
The character of the mudcat forum has changed considerably over the last year or so. Some of us older Mudcatters are more focussed on the music/lyrics than the "fun" threads. Some dislike the change, some like myself wish we had the time to join in all the fun but are just forced to bypass the BS (is that back space?) threads. A little bird keeps me informed about the most outrageous fun but I know I'm missing quite a bit.

When you start a new thread you get a drop down list of common prefixes such as Lyr add etc & that helps. Whichever way you look at it though, the Mudcat/Digital Tradition is the web's greatest resource. Like many I'm an addict. My internet explorer is set to start in Mudcat by default.

Cheers,
Alan

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: MMario
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 08:41 AM

Whether someone is prolific or not really has little bearing, especially when you consider that some people have MUCH more access time. For instance, I often drop a post to a BS thread because I am online all day and use the 'Cat as an index of network functionality. So I have the 'Cat available all day.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 11:53 AM

Why not tabulate the "anonymous" threads? They're the ones that really tick me off. Not the obvious ones by Bruce O. coming back in disguise to give some valuable info on a traditional music question, but the ones that take cheap shots in a totally gutless manner. It's not brain surgery to figure out who's on at that time and might have the know-how to do it, but it truly makes me wonder "why" they would need to. My read on the above "anonymous" poster is that they feel there are "valuable" and "useless" posts and posters. (possibly music, and non-music?)I doubt if they'd be stoned to death for showing some courage. Both sides have support.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 01:03 PM

Points well taken Rick......and its no secret that the ambience of the 'Cat has changed since some of us arrived. A lot of newbies hit at the first of the year and some found it a shame that we stayed. Some others found the BS equally appealing and joined into the sheer nonsense or intense debates, not always musically related. The 'Cat is first and foremost a music site. Like you, I read a lot of music threads, but don't post to them a lot. I enjoy the learning. You and I tend to post to a lot of instrument related threads on the other hand.

I am in full agreement on the anonymous or pseudonym poster.......It won't stop, I don't care, but it's pretty gutless.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Roger in Baltimore
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 01:11 PM

I only have two kids, so I know it's not me.

Roger in Baltimore

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 02:26 PM

I know some non-menbers post anonymously because it's easy to miss the "from" box. However, it does seem that most of the anonymous posts have a barb to them. Still, I don't think I'd like to see restrictions placed on anonymous posts - although it could be easy for Max to make it so you can't post unless you've filled in the "from" box with at least a pseudonym.

After 25 years as a U.S. government employee, I now work for a corporation that contracts with the government (I got "outsourced" or "privatized."). The company does subtle things to depersonalize us, and I don't like it. When we were government, we'd get an updated roster of employees and their phone numbers every 6 months, so we could communicate with coworkers. I've been with this company three years, and I still don't have an employee roster.

Our company e-mail identifies senders by employee number, not by name. I've waged a one-man campaign to encourage coworkers to start e-mail messages with a greeting, and end them with the name and phone number of the sender.

My point is this - it does make a difference if we identify ourselves by name, if we take responsibility for what we say. I've come to know a number of interesting people here. If I didn't have a name to connect with them, I wouldn't know them. I don't mean to say I object to "handles" like Catspaw - that's the name I know him by and it seems to reflect his personality very well, and that's grand. I really like the name I've had since birth, so that's the name I use.

-Joe Offer, and proud of it-

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 02:42 PM

Good words Joe. As tough as it is sometimes, I try to keep my belief in "no censorship". I'd hardly want a rule against anonymous posters, it just occasionally ticks me off. You know this thing in New York with the preposterous state funded Art display at the Brooklyn museum tests my tolerance to the limit...plus I KNOW that Rudy is just using it to dis Hillary C.,....anyway I guess I still cherish the freedom to be a vicious dork, rather than to trust someone in power to make those decisions for me.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Llanfair
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 03:18 PM

The UK contribtors would have to be millionaires to be as prolific as those in the USA. I've had another £200+ phone bill this week. AOL seem to be addressing this problem, though, and doing an0800 number so we pay them 1p a minute. Monthly. By standing order. Much less painful. As I am going to be unemployed at the end of November, this could be a godsend. Hwyl, Bron.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 03:41 PM

Llanfair, I have recently switched to using Screaming Net and to Localtel rather than BT. It is too early to tell what their service is realy like but (on condition of changing phone companies) they do offer free internet connection in the evenings and at weekends.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 05:53 PM

In terms of concentrated value, I still think that Night Owl's postings had most of the rest of us beat, and I wonder where she is, and hope she is doing alright in that hard, hard work.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 05:57 PM

For concentrated quality, I would say it is Bruce Olson, every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Jack (Who is called Jack)
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 06:16 PM

Sometimes the anonymous posts happen by accident. I know I've just forgotten to include my name a couple of time.

Also, some of it may be 'net paranoia' A lot of people on the web who don't understand the technical underpinnings have irrational fears about thier privacy and saftey. They want to post but don't know whether its safe to fill in a name field.

Just suggesting that we interpret with a broad mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 06:19 PM

Hey! Let's also vote for Most Popular, Most Attractive, Most Intelligent, Most Humorous, Most Likely to Succeed, and Mr and Mrs Mudcat!!

I'm kidding

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 08:46 PM

I guess I will add to the inanity of this thread. If you were to do a forum search on my name, you would find the whole spectrum from Vietnam, to poor kids who are richer than any of us, to background on music, to lyrics, to pure BS, to my neverending pursuit over the cyber hills and dales of THE FAIR ONE. It is because this really is a community and I like to participate fully in all aspects of it. This is why we know each other in very special ways, even having never met face to face. And it is why it will never be just a music site. If our only link were the music, we would not care for one another as we do. Documentation of the caring exists under the names of Catspaw, DougR, and many others who have shared their happiness, sadness, and everything in between. Remember the thread some time ago that simply asked that we cheer the poster up.............a classic. I don't know if I give a shit about prolific, and I don't know how you judge who has the most "quality" in the most concentrated form. Quality what? I would say Alison (a little shameless sucking up coming here, folks) and her MIDITXT's probably wins handsdown any contest on "quality". How about Sandy Paton's insights on the early times of the folk revival. And on and on. I think that the establishing by Leej of the Mudcat Tavern or Alice's campfire have to weigh in there as well. And how about Shula's legendary house parties. That is why it is, IMHO, silly to ponder this too much. Suffice it to say that this is the finest online community, and collection of damn fine folks that I have ever encountered. And it is the diversity of the threads that facilitates that.

Big Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: DougR
Date: 29 Sep 99 - 10:53 PM

Right on, Big Mick! It's not so much the amount of participation by Mudcatters as it is the freedom Mudcatters feel to participate that makes this place special. Mudcatters are very caring people who try very hard to help people with their inquiries and still find time to participate in the B.S. Threads.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From:
Date: 30 Sep 99 - 12:10 AM

Holy ___________________Bat Man....

A Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes.....let's enter QUICK

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 30 Sep 99 - 12:35 AM

Jack, naturally a poster who forgets to identify themself wouldn't be in the category of those that I named. When someone takes a shot at people (for any reason) anonymously I find it dispicable.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: anonymously
Date: 30 Sep 99 - 01:22 AM

Rick, bang bang - you hav been shot at amonymously!

Being serious, I do agree with your view.

(From Jon Freeman - who I hope is not dispicable)

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 30 Sep 99 - 01:28 AM

Jon, I think you're pretty neat. Anonymosity looks good on you.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 30 Sep 99 - 02:13 AM

Anonymosity? Great weepin' wizards, Rick, what a terrific coinage--if you had applied it to the hostile anonymous: a combination of anonymous and animosity. --seed

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Roger the skiffler
Date: 30 Sep 99 - 04:45 AM

(who normally sticks to BS because he's a musical ignoramus and as an outlet for the old jokes that would get him beaten up if told in person).If today's papaers are to be believed we are all probably sufering from Internet Addiction Disorder!
Hence the special wing at the Neil Young Center for the Terminally Screwed.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 30 Sep 99 - 09:09 AM

Or those posting with anonymosity are suffering from IUD - Internet Undercover Disorder.

I expect their posts to be very infertile if not unprolific.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Paul G.
Date: 30 Sep 99 - 12:26 PM

Harking back to a mega-thread that was speading its virulence when I first landed in this place, perhaps we should identify the most profilactic Mudcatter. Would that be Art Thieme?

pg

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 01 Oct 99 - 12:42 AM

A dyslexic state trooper, as I've said before, stopped me the other day. He was checking for I.U.D.s !
And there's a vas deferens between prolific and profligate and prophylactic------between pro-phylactic and anti-phylactic---between comdoms and condominiums---- condiments and condom mints.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Oct 99 - 12:58 AM

Aw gawdamn...not again..................oy........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Oct 99 - 01:09 AM

and between an array of cunning stunts, and a ...

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Oct 99 - 01:15 AM

.....condom with 5 receptors which fit like a glove.........

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 01 Oct 99 - 03:59 AM

Reminds me of the bloke whose underpants fit like a glove.

Or the old Aussie song "The Banks Of The Condom mine".

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Den
Date: 01 Oct 99 - 10:07 AM

Joe I was just trying to check when my first post was and found it to be (when I clicked on my name) December of last year. I could of sworn I'd been hanging around here longer than that. The Mudcat appears second only to the unofficial Christy Moore site in my bookmarks list and I've had my current Internet connection for the past almost three years. Just wondering Den.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Oct 99 - 11:07 AM

Art, vas deferens is a classic. We veneris you, Mons.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Prolific Mudcatters?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Oct 99 - 01:18 PM

Well, Den, I think that function always works perfectly, the function that displays all the messages you've posted when you click on your name. Another possibility is that you originally posted under a slightly different name, and the search didn't pick it up because it's not exact. The third possibility is that your memory is playing trick on you. I was SURE I had posted in 1996, but the search insists it was 1997.
-Joe Offer-