BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Janie
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 10:12 PM

Yes, there is a song that sums this thread up nicely!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: gnu
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 09:06 PM

I can abide thread drift when it is actually that. This shite is another thread and it belongs there... on ANOTHER thread.

Oh, yeah... guests can't start BS threads. Silly me. Never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,I have forgotten the alias I used
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 08:34 PM

Fossil,fantasy indeed---man you will be claiming next that Samuel Pepys was not a rapist.
To return to the post that you have an objection to, do you really believe that a broadsheet, in the days when journalists still had some integrity, would fabricate a study and story in order to sell a few extra copies. They would be blown out of the water before the paper hit the streets.
Nowhere is it claimed that Tony Benn was connected in any way with Saville the point published is that the rich parents of the victim of the lowlife beast were stated to move in the same circles as the family of T.B.s mother who I am sure would be horrified at the breach of hospitality, to say the very least, exhibited by a scoundrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Fossil
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 05:11 AM

Back under the bridge, forgetful guest troll.

No point in dragging Tony Benn into your squalid fantasy, whatever else he was, and however many mugs of tea he consumed or interview tapes he filed, he shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as the horrid Jim S.

Although I never agreed with his politics, he had a lot to say about British society which made a lot of sense. And, indeed, his observations about the banks and building societies were right on when you consider the toxic, semi-criminal activities they got up to in the loadsamoney years. Some of us remember.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,I have forgotten the alias I used
Date: 10 Feb 13 - 07:34 AM

Greetings Keith A of Hereford.
Have just read your post of 29.1.13.                                 I was unaware that there was a book on the subject, my information came from an article in one of the broadsheets reviewing a study into the effects of unaturally close relationships between boys and young men and their mothers. The conclusion reached in that research was that young men who had had such relationships were psychologically unfitted for a relationship with a mature woman for the rest of their lifes but remained a great and continuing threat to young girls for that time. A good recent example of this would be the odious Saville.
Not having a great interest in the article my only reaction was sadness that "A Boys Own Paper Hero" should be exposed as having feet of clay   The girls rich family moved in the same circles as the family of the mother of Tony Benn, Viscount Stansgate[dis.]

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 13 - 06:03 AM

Be careful how you use that "knock me up" one LH.

If you say (of a member of the feminine gender) "I knocked her up", you'll likely get into some bother.

The phrase "knocked up" is also used to describe pregnancy.

Confuddlin' innit?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Megan L
Date: 30 Jan 13 - 05:32 AM

Little Hawk if baith you and thon flee bitten rug wie lang airms dinny behave an stop the bad words Granny will pit ye baith ower her knee and skelp yer bahookies till yer neb rins and yer lugs ring.

Translations can be bought at great cost from mr mackenzie

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 10:50 PM

I just thought of some more handy English words and phrases that I've picked up either on this forum or elsewhere...

"shite"
"starkers"
"gobsmacked"
"knackered"
"a good rogering"
"knock me up" (usually "in the morning")
"bonnet" (automotive term)
"boot" (also an automotive term)
"thump" and "a good thumping"
"piss off"
"taking the piss"
"randy"

They're surprisingly earthy, aren't they? They all make me think of Olive Whatnoll and 'er 'usband, Eddie, 'oo live in 'Ull.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM

No - It's a thread with people discussing mudfolks (named and elsewise)arguing and cussing each other during arguments and discussions on "discussion and cussing threads", and also where,at times cussing exceeds discussion (providing real-time examples, of course, of discourse, discussion and cussing)- with the odd imaginary animal thrown in.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 07:10 PM

I finally figured it out.

This is a thread for people arguing about discussing people arguing about people arguing about discussing discussion threads, right?........

Ooooh! My head hurts!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 03:52 PM

That's fer damn sure! Get on the job.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 03:40 PM

Geez! I'm an American and I haven't shot anybody all week!

I must be slipping up on my patriotic duties!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 03:23 PM

A Canadian may well be an unarmed American with health care. Canucks, on the other hand, are well armed and there are a shitload of them. They just don't shoot up the place so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 03:05 PM

He plays Jake's songs eh? I had the honour of knowing him. Mind you, singing his songs is difficult if you are prone to getting your wucking mords fuddled.

Anyone who can start a song with the line "I love a good bum on a woman it makes my day" died far far too young...

Parrots have far too much timing.. I downloaded Pierre the parrot for my phone and am teaching him to swear. ......

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 11:53 AM

LOL!!! Yeah, I love that one. It sums the matter up so succinctly.

Actually, I've had a lot of good British friends here in the folk music scene in Canada over the years. One has mastered most of Jake Thackray's repertoire. Hilarious stuff. Another plays the concertina, knows every traditional song imaginable, and is a very nice man to boot. Another started out as a huge Bob Dylan fan, but later moved to creating a guitar style all his own, totally unique and extremely subtle.

So, although I poke fun now and then at the foibles of British folkies, I have had plenty of reason to enjoy the good things they have to offer.

But how about that parrot, eh? What a sense of timing that bird has.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 11:45 AM

Aye. . Having lived and worked in a number of countries I suppose I can get rather embarrassed by the English man abroad stereotype and the number of arses who perpetuate it via cheap flights to Mediterranean resorts.

A Canadian friend had a T shirt (also saw it on sale in a number of Canadian ski resorts lately) saying

Canadian. (Noun) unarmed American with health care.

Slightly more witty than our Brits on the piss T shirts wouldn't you say?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 11:36 AM

Hi, Musket. ;-) I'm not sure where I first heard the term "bollocks", but it was long before I knew about Mudcat. I probably heard it being used by various expatriate Britons in the Toronto folk music scene in the early 70s, I guess. There were a lot of those chaps about, mostly large (fat) men with beards and a strong opinion about bloody well EVERYTHING. Then too, there was the odd skinny and sarcastic one, likewise strongly opinionated. When these gentlemen would get on the subject of Ireland or the British political system, things could get right nasty! I would attempt to slip quietly away at that point....

I have, however, found Mudcat to be a treasure trove of odd British expressions, and I am still busy mining that trove for new gems.

Among them: tosser, wassock (or wazzock), pillock, git, OLD git, wanker, twat, arse, bugger (off), and fecking.

Very expressive terms, I think, and they're quite useful to know.

Here is a British-resident parrot who has this sort of hostile invective absolutely mastered. His English owner is attempting to teach him a few words in French, and the parrot takes offense! The results are quite amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 11:12 AM

Where did you learn the word bollocks little hawk?

Has mudcat been expanding your vocabulary again?

See, if we didn't have the likes of the BS section we might think that everybody was as expected instead of genuinely interesting. ..

Nowt like a cathartic rant to start the day. If only Max understood the British hobby of taking the piss...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 11:11 AM

I never said I wanted this limey Chadwick bozo on my threads in the first place, did I? What would he add to them? Nothin'. I'm glad he don't bother droppin' in.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 11:04 AM

Your posts, and the threads that contain them, must be even less interesting than the Chongo "drivel" you make reference to, Doug Chadwick, because I don't remember ever even SEEing a post by you before. Where have you been? We must not attend the same pubs. (Mind you, I never go to pubs anyway. I think they're crap. A load of bollocks. Drivel. A waste of my time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Charmion
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 10:58 AM

Thanks for that, Donuel. Real wisdom there.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 10:40 AM

Dear selby,
One can hope for more inclusive hearts to prevail but even a great community can be corrupted by some form of fundamentalist ego or another. There are more exclusionary practices, rumor mills and hero worship of the most quantity driven posters than those daily immersed in the forum seem to realize. There are those who want to keep it that way so let them. Some need the rewarding responses more than others, If you are looking for rewards here but can not find any please know there are kinder hearts in communities outside this one small island.

Like any group who feel ownership of "this little thing of ours", exclusivity can spread like an infection. Playing king of hill is fun so let the kids play, it is their game after all.

Even the smallest reward given freely to another in a discussion forum is relished beyond words. Likewise the smallest snub can be devastation to others. If there are no rewards or responses there will be no feeling of mutual participation or membership.

Be it a loss of etiquette or thin skin a discussion forum is usually a rough and tumble place that can end up offending more than illuminating. Arguments often require a foil or adversary, real or not, to contrast points of view. I think discussions are more about being rewarded for the thought, insight or scholarly history one can bring to the table. No cookie, no trick. Of course there are the contributors who are truly selfless in their giving.

The unwritten dark side rules of making sure the rumored scarlet troll is ignored and not responded to, will put them in their place and make them go away. To PM people and tell them to "stop messin with people's minds" is a more direct rebuke I have seen. The mean, trite or deeply angry people can be forgiven for their follies and foibles but they still do damage to a community.

For former participants I can only hope they realize that the pendulum of human nature will allow any community to swing back to inclusivity from exclusivity, be it from the momentum of events, discoveries, accomplishments or death. Sometimes highly qualified people like a judge or a DA must leave mudcat forum to save their occupation from guilt by association with yahoos or worse.

One can argue if spending five or more hours on one website is healthy. They like it because they are getting something they think they need. Even if it is only an illusion of gratification from ones time posting, it is still seemingly important. When it is from a good heart, good things will probably issue.
It is always healthy to step away for a season or more to grow in directions outside one small group of people. Immediate family excepted, although that may also be a good idea.

Remember the quality of a contribution will seldom outweigh the quantity of contributions. It is always best to not make the mistake of basing self worth upon ill formed or misinformed notions of what a a yahoo in a chat room says about you. True membership in a community like this one is defined more by the in person relationships made at getaways and workshops. Love and trust require actual touch and oxytocin.

Fair or not selby, it is wise to not over invest emotions in people who will only know you as a virtual spot on a page and not the consciousness that is growing within you. Most people will only see what they already know; outside their focused pov they are blind.

Look, lurk or post, it's up to you. For me that is freedom enough with or without a good discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 05:33 AM

what are we meant to be discussing on here again?

We're discussing "discussing". The confusion arises because some of us read it as "disgusting".

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 05:30 AM

yes, i think i've learned that chongo has a nebulous sort of identity that seems to mean something slightly different to a few people in on the joke. don't think i need to get into that.
much as i like a bit of veering off the subject -winding up the machine this morning and finding a discussion on whether captain oates fathered a child in dodgy circumstances is - as i believe those pesky young folk say - random, extreme even.
what is more predictable is the bickering between LC and 'unkle boko?' or whoever. as the slightly less young people may say -'get a room!'
could you start a thread titled ,say,'a cat fight between one or two individuals - number whatever' (see OP) i would enjoy the occasional read of such a thread, as i enjoy an occasional row. however, each time i am doing it i am reminded of a more sensible friend saying to me - don't bother arguing with people who seem to be crazy - a passer-by will not be able to distinguish between you.

what are we meant to be discussing on here again?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 05:11 AM

i have seen many references to this 'chongo' character - i guess it's an in-joke on this site - who or what is s/he? and why?

For me "chongo" is a code word for "the rest of this post is drivel". Whenever I see the word I move on to something more sensible. If it becomes clear that subsequent posters have descended to the chongo level, I abandon the thread and find something more interesting. I never open threads with titles that refer to chongo or chimps, apes, etc. It was much the same with references to William Shatner. Some here clearly see these in-jokes as hilariously funny but, for me, they are just a waste of bandwidth.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 04:56 AM

>>>>L.C.
As a guest in this forum I do not have the facility to bring up quotes made by me in previous threads forby being of an age when the memory is failing fast. You however, as a member, can no doubt bring up the required threads and thereby enable us all to check without schoolyard name calling who is a hypocrite and it is certainly not me. A check of threads you have posted in during the past six months should throw up the required information.
If you were to apply a little of the time you waste in obstreperous argument you would quickly find McTaggart who is not a whit diminished by your ignorance.<<<<<<

Then JOIN Mudcat and stop posting as a guest....Easy Peasy.
I most certainly am not going to search for a post you say you made. You want to throw it at me, you locate it..and not just the words you used but a link to the actual thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 04:06 AM

the allegation that Oates had fathered a child with a girl who was only eleven at the time of conception. This allegation was, naturally, picked up by the media as fact. It is far, far from fact. There is no actual evidence for it whatsoever. It hinges entirely on the fact that a girl was told by her guardian (after many years) that her father was Captain Oates. How convenient - a heroic figure who couldn't answer back and deny it. If I was a woman who had no idea who my father was and had a little dream that he may be someone great, I'd like to hear he was Captain Oates too. It seems to me that this somehow became accepted in their family, and Michael Smith got hold of it and put it in his book and got more publicity because of it.

I kept turning the pages waiting for the actual evidence. Apparently, he looked a bit like some uncle of the family. That's it.

This is a man who (and this IS documented and attested to by those who knew him) showed absolutely no interest in women or sex at all for the rest of his life. This is a man who, according to everyone who knew him, behaved with the utmost decency to all he knew from any walk of life. There is no record of him or his family having anything to do with the woman or her family at any point in his life. She lived in Scotland. There is no record of him going to Scotland at this time. There is absolutely nothing to link them at any point. The person who told the girl he was her father was only her guardian. Her mother lived near to her but never mentioned anything of the sort.

Oates would have been eighteen at the time. This clearly, if it happened at all, which I believe it did not, was an incredibly brief relationship with no further contact - would it even be possible to recognise him as the same person 14 years later? And if the mother told the guardian that it was Oates (as who else would have done?), why didn't she tell the daughter herself? It just doesn't add up. It seems quite obvious that it was a nice story told to a girl who wanted a hero for a father. It is just a shame that this warming little family white lie couldn't have stayed within the family.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,I have forgotten the alias I used.
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 03:28 AM

Good morning all.
I have supplied, as requested, the name of my source along with the first line of the first verse of what is a lost bawdy song relating to what old men got up to with young girls. I go no further as I am about to leave for the North East and in the words of that well known paedophile [a younger man] Captain Lawerence "Titus" Oates "I may be some time".
PS. Check out the said "Titus" for the veracity of my statement. He fathered a child on a twelve year old girl.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 13 - 12:27 AM

Yes. Indubitably.

And so?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 08:56 PM

Do you folks realize how (ironically) stupid this thread has become? How helpless some seem to break from their disruptive, angry patterns...and how helpless others are to resist reacting to the stimulus?

Read the initial post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,I have forgotten the alias I used.
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 08:31 PM

L.C.
As a guest in this forum I do not have the facility to bring up quotes made by me in previous threads forby being of an age when the memory is failing fast. You however, as a member, can no doubt bring up the required threads and thereby enable us all to check without schoolyard name calling who is a hypocrite and it is certainly not me. A check of threads you have posted in during the past six months should throw up the required information.
If you were to apply a little of the time you waste in obstreperous argument you would quickly find McTaggart who is not a whit diminished by your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 06:30 PM

""and they had no further way to continue their 'Witch Hunt' against me,""

""Screaming, name-calling, and generally acting like a mad person draws attention to yourself and can affect your argument for your "cause de jour" adversely.""

Sometimes the object of a witch hunt has made herself look and sound like a witch.

Just saying.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 06:21 PM

It should also be noted that Chongo has come under repeated attack from his political enemies (the Democrats and Republicans), and has been subjected to shockingly false allegations and attacks on his character, most of those emanating from Rapparee, Bobert, Amos, and Frogprince, plus an occasional obscene remark from Catspaw49. Do not believe anything they post about him! It all comes straight from either the White House...or the Republican National Committee...and it's nothing but scurrilous lies and unconsionable falsehoods of the most heinous and despicable sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 06:11 PM

achmelvich,

My error - I must surrender to a greater authority on the lineage and lifestyle of Chongo the Chimp. In fact, I am unsure if he prefers Banana-Land, or the Bird Food Emporium while dining with the poereful and famous.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 05:44 PM

Sigh...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 05:43 PM

Yes, it all depends on which threads you open.

achmelvich - You've been given some misleading info about Chongo. He is NOT Canadian. He's an ex-African Chimpanzee, now and American citizen, came over to the USA on a banana boat in the late 20s or early 30s, landed at Ellis Island, got his immigration papers, was in New York City for a few years, then relocated to Chicago where he got a license as a private investigator, having been inspired by Humprhey Bogart gangster films. He has stayed in Chicago ever since, fighting crime. He has also been running for president on the APP (American Primate Party) ticket for the last few elections. Some of his personal friends include Clint Eastwood, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Madonna. His politics range from the Far Right to the Far Left and everything else in between. He helped put Al Capone in jail, and was a personal friend of Primo Carnera and Joe Louis. He once went 8 rounds with Muhammad Ali in an exhibition match to raise money for homeless children, apes, and monkeys.

And, yes, he's an in-joke on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Joe_F
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 05:30 PM

This is not the first time I have been startled to see complaints about the bad manners of Mudcatters. Evidently they are not attracted by the subjects I look at, or (less likely) they are on their best behavior on such threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 02:23 PM

>>>L.C.
Aha you have me there.....<<<<

Yup, thought that *might* be the case.

Well, if you find it, please feel free to put it up on here, unless, of course, you're merely a lying, twisting, spinning little pain in the whatsit, of course...

"...The quote can be found in McTaggart. You can do your own search for it---it begins "With pows say white and tails say green--- "

Is 'McTaggart' a Far and Distant land where they speak the Ancient Language of Codswallop?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 02:18 PM

""To change something? Or to make yourself feel noble.""

A good one, Don Firth LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 02:14 PM

Lizzie, believe me, I'm plenty involved in things and I'm truly outraged about a number of things, but I find it far more productive to endeavor to persuade and logically argue people into my way of thinking than to shriek, stomp, spit, and throw things.

Logic and a good command of the facts, presented in a calm and persuasive manner, if it does not actually convince the Powers That Be to see it my way, it will more often than not convince others who will then join me in putting pressure on the Powers That Be.

Screaming, name-calling, and generally acting like a mad person draws attention to yourself and can affect your argument for your "cause de jour" adversely.

That sort of behavior puts people off, no matter how just your cause is

Of course, it can also act as a great cathartic for you. But it is almost invariably counterproductive. It depends of what you are really trying to accomplish. To change something? Or to make yourself feel noble.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,I have forgotten the alias I used.
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 10:51 AM

L.C.
Aha you have me there. I do not keep notes on the threads I comment on but I do remember the quote containing the "f" word that you raised an objection to and I remember you, to show a complete egostistical disregard, proceeded to use the "f" word in threads immediately following the one commented on, I, of course pointed out your hypocrisy at the time in at least one of these threads.
The quote can be found in McTaggart. You can do your own search for it---it begins "With pows say white and tails say green---

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM

from what i remember of the bbc boards - most discussions towards the end seemed to attract the abuse and right wing hostility of 'unkle boko' - new posts became less frequent and some posters mentioned 'mudcat' a place where folk and anything else (politics) could be discussed/argued without such boring censorship as imposed by the bbc. i came here from there and appreciate the wide range of views and do my best not to get involved with slagging off individuals - though feel slagging political ideologies is totally fair game. don't mind if others insult each other though and i like a bit of thread drift. real conversations involve interesting diversions and a bit of piss-taking -
and no censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 10:28 AM

A funny quote I saw recently *(no disrespect to anyone, real or fictional, intended - it's just humour):

""The combination of prozac and other medications, guns, food additives, cell phone towers and elf people is mind controlling. It is all part of the global government-corporate agenda to make us all mind slaves and it is beginning to look scary. I don't have much information on this yet, but I'll see what I can dig up on the internet and get back to you all on it.""

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Paddy McBollox
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 10:10 AM

Your version of events, Liz. I challenge you to find one other person who shares that view about what happened on the BBC messageboards. What do you imagine you had to teach anyone about folk music? You don't know anything about folk music. Just like the poor Native Americans, who are your latest crusade, you take a pinch of knowledge from your endless internet surfing, decide you are an expert, and then screech and preach at people who know far more than you do and tell them what to think. No wonder you piss so many people off in so many places. If there was a witch hunt, why is it that you're still constantly winding up new people here on Mudcat? Always new enemies, always new fights. And who is the common denominator? Oh that's right - poor put upon Saint Liz.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 10:07 AM

A few mudcatters tried to track down the whereabouts of Chongo, as he does leave muddy tracks on this site. But, unfortunately, he employs socks and possibly changes them often to obscure identification.(when he changes socks, he wears old soiled mis-matched 60's folkie ones, to obscure DNA tracing).

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 09:51 AM

>>>In a previous thread when I used the "f" word in a direct quote
from a published source who was it who came over all holier than thou backed up by a wheen syncophatic numpties ?
Why none other than L.C. whose motto appears to be "do as I say not as I do" if her/his use of this word in this and other threads is to be relied on. <<<

Really?

Please feel free to quote it, giving the link to the thread too..

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 09:49 AM

Chongo is a (Canadian?) chimp who somehow obtained the ability to type, give advice/comment and fling poo. Few here have actally seen him, though his "muddy tracks" and exploits are found throughout mudcat threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,I
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 09:49 AM

Hypocrisy, eminating from whatever exalted source, should at all times be exposed to scrutiny and this thread is as good a channel as any to try and keep a few overgrown egos in check.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 09:30 AM

OP = opening post/poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 09:25 AM

chongo? OP? angry rhinos? curiouser and curiouser

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,owl glass
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 09:12 AM

Well, it didn't take too long did it? Personal abuse and mudslinging, insults and bigotry rampaging like a herd of angry rhinos. I think the OP has had their point well and truly proven!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 09:04 AM

Chongo is a hairy-dirty sock:)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,I have forgotten the alias I used.
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 08:48 AM

I should perhaps ask L.C. for my lost alias, as he/she appears to be out of the same stable as MtheGM, who, on his own admission, keeps Gestapo type files on all those who disagree/contradict him on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 08:45 AM

Chongo?

Well, think of Johnny Depp, but with more body hair and an Ape-Like sense of humour and you'll be almost there... :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 08:43 AM

>>>It may have been beige bland and boring to you, but don't presume you speak for the majority of posters. Many people stopped posting because the constant atmosphere of confrontation and rowing drove them away, and by the time the BBC finally got rid of you the damage had been done. So well done - if anyone killed that messageboard, it was you.>>>


Er..NO...

That board went on for a further year, limping along, but the majority of posters, probably one person under different aliases, such as McBollox, left the moment they knew I'd gone, because their game was over and they had no further way to continue their 'Witch Hunt' against me, to use the BBCs own words...

There were very few new topics started, very little discussion. Whether you like it or not, whoever you are, and I have an idea who you well may be, Diane and I brought that board ALIVE as it had never been before and the moment we were removed from it, the death knoll sounded....

Smooth Ops killed off their Golden Gooses,(yes, Pedantic Ones, I KNOW it should be GEESE in your world, but it's Gooses in mine!) leaving them with Delapitated Ducks who had NO idea of how to keep a board vibrant, interesting, volatile and FUN!

Diane and I were both fully aware we were bringing in loads of people to that board, and whilst they were reading some of the posts with their mouths falling open in shock, or their ribs aching from laughter, many were learning about Folk Music, some for the first time, going on to fall deeply in love with it.

Ain't my fault you're eaten up with jealousy and bitterness....

Blimey, Pete, I'll Pass On The Party if it's OK with you...
You're a brave man! ;0) xx

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 08:42 AM

i have seen many references to this 'chongo' character - i guess it's an in-joke on this site - who or what is s/he? and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 08:17 AM

""Chongo has those totally mastered""

Wasn't he remastered? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,I have forgotten the alias I used.
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 08:04 AM

In a previous thread when I used the "f" word in a direct quote
from a published source who was it who came over all holier than thou backed up by a wheen syncophatic numpties ?
Why none other than L.C. whose motto appears to be "do as I say not as I do" if her/his use of this word in this and other threads is to be relied on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 06:25 AM

i'm with you on this one lizzie - when there is so much to get angry about where can we express this? i see little point in arguing on here though - try to make any serious point about eg politics here and it won't be considered, any responses will quickly turn to abuse.
i will always try to deal with people courteously on here and there are some folk who have really good and interesting thing to say - like FUCKETYFUCKETYFUCK! for example - others are best ignored.
maybe we are all just feeling frustrated, powerless and guilty that we are wasting our time on this machine when we should be doing something positive about the state of our world.
incidentally, when and where is this party mentioned above - i would love to meet folk and put faces to names - or maybe not. i hope people would find it less easy to abuse me to my face than they do on here.

peace and love, pete

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 06:05 AM

The idea of leaving Manchester at 200mph sounds a reasonable investment to me..

Actually, food banks are not the only booming UK industry. Travel agents that specialise in ski can't be doing too bad. I'm in Tignes at present enjoying a good holiday and the hotels are packed, the flight over was full and as to having today away from the slopes to look at apartments for sale, they seem to be commanding a much higher price than when we first started looking two years ago. Once emails are checked, I'm back on the piste. Most of Val Claret is British owned and bought by private individuals in the last couple of years. Might not bother buying. If this sounds provocative or crass, I apologise but fed up with those who think there are alternatives to growth and individual success if those less fortunate are to get a suck on the teat. A social programme needs paying for and whilst your average GROLIES might not realise it, the economic boost to infrastructure spending is good news not bad. Or at least it should be if your aim is helping others to get on. A hand up, not a hand out, as it were.

I don't agree with much this government has done, but public investment in rail, building up infrastructure etc is a better kick start the economy than their hitherto austerity measures. Sustainable growth is the only way to afford raising the safety net. Not that ignorance was a bar to ranting socialist twaddle about eat the rich and associated nonsense ....

Now, about Mudcat discussion forums ......

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Paddy McBollox
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 05:54 AM

It may have been beige bland and boring to you, but don't presume you speak for the majority of posters. Many people stopped posting because the constant atmosphere of confrontation and rowing drove them away, and by the time the BBC finally got rid of you the damage had been done. So well done - if anyone killed that messageboard, it was you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 05:41 AM

Nope, 'paddy', for as you well know, when they banned Diane and I, the board became Beige Bland & Boring...and...of course..all those who used to get up each morning ONLY to Moan Moan Moan on the BBC boards had nothing to do any longer...for their sole purpose in life was to er..moan to Mel and Smooth Ops, like some hideous teacher's pet....

Don, trust me on this, you truly need to start shouting too, for you are being ruled by people who don't give a FUCK about *their* People, who are creating a situation where the only Booming Business in this country is Food Banks and Homelessness, whilst they're can instantly find the money to spend £32FECKINGBILLION on a Hornby Train Set that will get them from London to Manchester in an hour, at over 200 mph....!!!

*************************WHY?!!?!?!?!*****************

I mean, PLEASE, Don..EXPLAIN this to me, for you are so calm about it and want to deter others from becoming incensed about anything!

I'm done with Lower Case Times, for trust me on this one, we are now in such DEEP shit that UPPER CASE TIMES are closing in at The Speed of Bullshit HITTING THE FAN!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Paddy McBollox
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 05:00 AM

You don't half think a lot of yourself, Liz. Think of it this way: maybe all the shrieking and ranting and brow-beating and endless fights is what drove a lot of those posters away. I expect a collective sigh of relief was breathed when one particular "vibrant and bloody minded" poster was banned for good and all. The same nonsense has driven away a lot of good, interesting, regular members of the Mudcat. As long as all this screeching and facebook timewasting keeps you off the street, I guess the Mudcat is at least doing it's share for Care in the Community.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 28 Jan 13 - 03:26 AM

Love it. A thread to moan about those who moan.

We are not a community. We don't even live in the same country. The musical bond is subjective to say the least. Folk seems to include English blokes in sandals and fair Isles sweaters singing with a finger in their ear about the herring fleet they never experienced as a retired geography teacher all the way to burned out west coast hippies who hope that chanting Dylan songs makes their GOP go away.

So, back to the BS threads. Being outraged is fun and cathartic. Responding in kind is a nice freedom that is rarely found face to face. It seems to come from everyone striving for what they think is the same thing but clearly isn't. .

British folk enthusiasts can relate to Albert Ramsbottom poking his stick with it's horses head handle (the finest that Woolworths could sell) into the lions cage just to provoke a reaction. If BS threads upset you I suggest you ask Mummy or Daddy to set yourInternet filters accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jan 13 - 11:21 PM

Smart counts for independents.


W won because independents did not think that the GOP would nominate an idiot. They know better now.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jan 13 - 11:19 PM

Some people find it useful to post complaints about the lack of civil discourse on the Mudcat on the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 13 - 07:22 PM

Chongo has those totally mastered, Don, but he saves them up for only the most critical situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 13 - 06:47 PM

Lizzie, you're shouting so loudly and shrilly that it's difficult to make out what you're saying.

Apparently a common problem among some people around here

Don Firth

(Stand by for window-shattering shriek!)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Jan 13 - 05:59 PM

So, I'd best not start a thread entitled...

"£32FECKINGBILLION ON A RAILWAY?!!!"


....but instead entitle it

"New Railway - Discuss?"


....even though FeckingFackingFickityFuck! is LEAPING out of my head in a volatile vocabulary of words ALL beginning with 'F' !!

Sorry, but in many cases, discusssions NEED people to explode because we are in the middle of Sociopathic Madness around the world, and whilst so very many dear people in my country can barely afford to feed themselves, are losing their jobs, their homes,their families, their 'leaders' (SPIT!) are sprinkling the Life-Size-Hornby-Railways with £32FECKINGBILLION!!

Actually, I'm Beyond Feck!!
I'm Beyond Fuming!!
I'm MOST CERTAINLY Beyond Politeness!!


And..I KNOW that the BBC ended up having to close down all their messageboards because no-one posted any longer, after they became so controlling, so dictatorial, so downright stupid and so under-the-thumb of posters who ONLY want BeigeBland&Boring at ALL Times that their boards CEASED to exist...

Oh, and, of course, they also removed the most vibrant and bloody-minded posters that they had, who brought people IN to their boards in the first place..

£32FECKINGBILLION on a railway!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 13 - 12:40 PM

Excellent! I've suffered a good deal of mythering in my life, and I've definitely been pow-fagged as well from time to time.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jan 13 - 05:27 AM

Hi LH - pow-fagged = Tired out, exhausted. Mythered = bothered, pestered. So, if someone is mythering (I have seen the spelling meithering but prefer the 'y' btw) you to do things, usualy the Mrs in the case of us down-trodden Lancy Lads, you could well end up pow-fagged having done all the chores.

The cry can be heard in the pigeon lofts and whippet kennels all across Lancashire.

"Eeeee, stop mythering me woman. Ahm pow-fagged already!"

Slight variation in some areas where you are warned not to pow-fag someone. In that case it means the same as myther but of a different degree. In that case you could think of being mythered by a friendly sales assistant but being pow-fagged by a hard-sell time-share rep.

Hope this helps :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat DISCUSSION forum
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:55 PM

Its Burns Night 25 January

so remember "where ere ye be let yer wind gang free" And in BS term be careful not to touch cloth


"O wad some Power the gift tae gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An foolish notion:"

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

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

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

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

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

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

As this relates to the topic, any thoughts?

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

His head's tired?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

["gnu":]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know me, I hate to complain...

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

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

DtG

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

"just get on my tits"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal abuse on an internet thread is idiotic behaviour.

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

Most abusers here do not!

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

GUESTCS

Good analysis.

Regards

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

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

Regards

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

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

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

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

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

'Long s' is like largess only thinner.

Mike

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

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

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

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

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

...or perhaps you were trying for irony.

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

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

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

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


Keith

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

Joe

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

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

Regards

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

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

Please, Sir, what does this mean?

For fuck's fake, lads, give over!

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

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

-Joe-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That oughta go over like a lead balloon!

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

And I also use my own name.

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mudcat posts follow Gresham's Law,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YMMV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

Keith A

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

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

Regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For fuck's fake, lads, give over!

Regards

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

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

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

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