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 |