BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 28 Jul 13 - 11:11 PM

There was a great thread started by Gnu about how it was nice to see so many old friends posting again on the Forum, and suggesting that the disrespectful language being used in posts was one factor that has 'turned off' a lot of people who would be posting valuable and insightful information and opinions.

Unfortunately, the thread descended into name calling once again, and was closed.

There have been calls for tougher moderation....deleting such posts. However, I don't think it's fair for one or two people to have to do that.....and, as was pointed out, there then end up being accusations of unfairness.

I'd like to suggest something.

I know that often controversial posts can lead to some strong and passionate opinions, and sometimes we end up letting our negative emotions take us to a place where we might 'over-do' our zeal.

Rather than risking all the discussion becoming academic and flat, I'd like to suggest that we all agree on one 'boundary' statement, which is that we will not accept one person consistently calling another person a name that is meant to demean them.   

I can think of two instances where I witnessed this and was really turned off.   In Gnu's thread one person posting kept referring to Jack as Wacko (I think that was the name). And I witnessed a previous thread where another regular poster kept referring to a person who's opinions he didn't respect as 'goofball'.   

If everybody made it clear that this will not be tolerated, posted a huge STOP!!!! after any post where that is happening, let the poster know that this insulting name is not acceptable, then refused to engage with this person in that post or any other post until they apologized and promised to cease and desist from such behaviour..........my guess is that this kind of behaviour would become rare.

Who's in?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 02:59 AM

You mean the thread started by olddude that is now closed? I think you are expecting a lot if you don't think this thread will go the same way. You are against name calling and then go on to name two people who you believe are guilty of it. Well, OK, not name them exactly but post enough detail so everyone knows who you are referring to. There are dozens of people who call others names. Why those two specifically? Why give those two your 'special' treatment? Some may think you just want to have a go at certain people, in which case I am definitely not 'in'.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:18 AM

How about an agreement also not to use what they used to call '4-letter words' [a usage started in the Lady Chatterley trial iirc] quite so readily, even with asterisks? One gets so tired of the constant reiteration of 'fuck' and 'cunt' and 'shit', or even 'f**k' &c. When I joined the Cat 4 years ago, I used to employ such, as everyone else did so. But then I realised the extent to which such knee-jerk obscenity, apart from the filthy-manneredness of it all, so counter-productively detracted from the effect of one one said, and resolved to stop such locutions ~~ a resolution which I have, I think, maintained about 98%, with just the very occasional lapse in moments of high stress or dudgeon; and have become something of a joke in some circles, I am told, for falling back on such unspeakable obloquies as 'scoundrel' or, in moments of real anger, 'swine'. I really do, seriously, think the Cat would be a much more agreeable environment without all of this tiresome, tedious, relentless fucking·&·blinding.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Will Fly
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:09 AM

There used to be a saying in the British Army's officers' messes that one never discussed "politics, religion and the memsahibs". You might laugh at that old-fashioned idea but, in a small society, it made sense to avoid topics that would create dissension, anger and bad feeling and disrupt the important cohesion of that small society.

I avoid most topics (BS) below the line except for one long-standing thread on old pocket watches. And I avoid them because, in many cases, the participants - and it tends to be the same participants - seem unable:

(a) to see any logic or reason in points of view other than their own
(b) to argue strongly without unnecessary swearing
(c) to argue strongly without unnecessary name calling
(d) to argue logically and in a reasoned way

Just my take on it. I can't think offhand of any argued thread I've read below the line where a participant has actually changed their point of view - and sometimes never conceded or recognised a single opposing point.

Above the lines may have had its ups and downs - but just look at it at the moment. Varied and reasonable threads asking for, and passing on information and ideas.

No contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:19 AM

I do think it hilarious that someone starts a thread wanting everybody to go in the garden and pick flowers holding hands, but then has a pop at "those bastards over there."

You mentioned Goofball and Wacko. Don't forget some of the others. Bridge for instance rather likes the soubriquet "Rumpole of the Volvo" and "M'Unlearned Friend" and I take "Mither" when coming from him. We also disagree on many points. But you know what? not a problem. Also, Jack the Sailor and I appear to have a loose ceasefire going. I haven't altered my stance and he cannot alter his, (sorry, couldn't help it..) but you are right when saying that name calling between two people is tedious to others.

But it isn't always aimed at others. I only hold one person in contempt. Sorry, let me qualify that. I only know of one person whose views I hold in contempt.

if there is a difference between culture here, and I doubt there really is, then both sides need to give slack, not just one. I don't expect our cousins to understand piss taking and disguised irony, and I can't aways take a post at full face value. This is an international forum, let's not forget. This isn't an American sit com where there has to be the moral at the end. It can also be British farce where someone ends up with egg on their face, and everybody else pointing and laughing.

Hey Michael! I hear what you are saying about bloody swearing, but you know what? Brevity is the soul of wit. You can either post paragraph after paragraph to get someone to see what you think of what they said, or you can sum it up with "fuck off."

Me? I find the latter cathartic at times, and lack of ambiguity is sometimes needed around here...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:25 AM

Well due to my views on homosexuality and "gay marriage", I suppose I receive more verbal abuse than any other member, i've been called dozens of derogatory names, been sworn at, accused of bigotry homophobia, as well as numerous stupid comments on my own sexuality.

None of it bothers me too much, as these tactics always reflect badly on those who use them. We (most of us), dont come here for a shouting match, we come to put forward our thoughts for discussion. When I first came here, I was a strict atheist, but after listening to some here, especially Little Hawk, I have come to understand something about the benefits of allowing a little spirituality into our lives.

BUT...I do agree with Larry about the use of habitual derogatory name calling. When you address a message calling someone "stupid", you are not there for debate!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:27 AM

Oh Damn and Blast! I agree with Mither again (save in one respect, namely that I can think of a number of posters for whom I feel no respect, and a number of others about whom I respect nothing save for their ability effectively to use Google to support their prejudices).

I think there is much to be said in favour of a disrespectful nickname, and it is very different from the sort of abuse that used to be disseminated by Gargoyle and Martin Gibson and occasionally one other who I will not immediately name as I think he still posts here and was not quite so offensive. The beauty of a nickname lies in the accuracy with which it lampoons.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:42 AM

Ian ~~

"I disagree" ~~ only one typespace more than the rejoinder you recommend.

So be off with you, prithee!

Ah ~~ κάθαρσις !

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:46 AM

Akenaton. Serious question. If Littlehawk can move your position on spirituality, can the rest of Mudcat move you on your stance regarding gay people?

I enjoy having my perspective tweaked by reading some of the excellent varied comments on Mudcat. Others can alter too.... Bridge appears to be applying to be secretary of my fan club at this rate. (Don't tell him, but I occasionally, not always, nod appreciatively when he sums up a situation far more eloquently than I am willing to do. I prefer to shoot from the hip.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:05 AM

Yes, but if you say "I disagree" people feel that you are obliged to say why. If you say the other there is no explanation necessary :-)

I was wrong about this thread. It looks like it is not going to turn nasty. Hilarious, yes. Nasty, no.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:13 AM

Oh, I don't know, Dave. The other could equally provoke the question "Where to?", couldn't it?

So avaunt ye! Scram! Shoo! Skedaddle! Vamoose!

Or "I disagree"...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:32 AM

Wacko, huh (well, Hawk called me a "fucking asshole" last week... :-))? It's hardly a take on his real name, is it? He himself is much inclined to refer to me as "Shaw" or "Mr Shaw", both of which I assume are intended to provoke (they don't). For reference, everybody I know calls me Steve. Even the doctor, dentist and postman and the bloke at the fish shop. In real life anyone calling me by just my surname has received bloody short shrift, I can tell you. So what's so much worse about "Wacko"? So he doesn't like it. His best bet would be to regard it as a term of endearment and proceed from there. I might just suggest that the big fibs Wacko told about my posts in that now-closed thread could be regarded as far worse slurs that a gently-ribbing nickname, but hey, that's double standards for ye.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:45 AM

STOP!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:50 AM

Well due to my views on homosexuality and "gay marriage", I suppose I receive more verbal abuse than any other member, i've been called dozens of derogatory names, been sworn at, accused of bigotry homophobia,

Your views as stated are illiberal, prejudiced, ill-informed and out of touch, and if you choose to go public with them you need to be prepared for a backlash. I have some pretty solid views about religion and the actions of some of the people who practise it (such as forcing religious observance and instruction on their children, which is one of the nastiest things anyone can do to a child). I get plenty of backlash here for expressing these opinions loud and clear, but that's what I expect, and it includes name-calling, misrepresentation and insults, and I think I'm probably a bigger "victim" of all that than anyone else here (no, really!). Not that I do victimhood, so what the hell. If you think you're being insulted, look at it in one of two ways: either the person insulting you is a complete twat and will be seen as such by all readers, or he's frustrated because you persistently refuse to listen to reason (in which case insulting might not be such a great tactic I suppose, but hey). Like Musket, I quietly absorb lots of people's views expressed here, even coming from people I don't like. It helps to give a better perspective of the kaleidoscope of opinion and might even help me to adjust some of mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:54 AM

Ian, there is simply no way of proving spirituality or faith, it is in the mind of the "spiritual" or the "faithful."
My stance on homosexuality is reinforced by studies,statistics and all of the official health agencies.

I dont think you are a bad or bigoted person for believing that male homosexuals can regulate their behaviour and fit into conventional society, but the evidence so far says that they are unwilling or unable to do so. Your stance may not be in the long term interests of homosexual health....but that is for you to come to terms with.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:05 AM

Your stance appears to be based on cherrypicking predicated on your pre-existing bias against homosexual people, whom you simply don't understand. It looks revolting to me. And to a lot of other people, I'd suggest. And that is for you to come to terms with. In this matter you are an aggressor, not a victim, no matter how much name-calling you think you attract to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:08 AM

Steve...In the area in which I reside and in truth the country that I live in, my views appear to be mainstream.
Scotland has always been a socially conservative nation.

Its all a matter of perception.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:11 AM

I'm sorry, but claiming strength in numbers does not alter the argument one jot.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:29 AM

I don't believe Scotland is any different from the UK as a whole when it comes to attitudes towards homosexuals. Nowadays we are far more accepting of people than we were for instance in the 1970s when I was a teenager.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:18 AM

Strange? I don't find Scotland any different to anywhere else. When I managed a place in Airdre, the pubs were full of the same bar room barristers as in Chesterfield. When I spend time in Edinburgh, it is as multicultural as London. My wife was in Inverurie at the weekend and enjoyed her time there. She wouldn't have bothered if the room was going to be full of bigots.

No. Other than the midges in summer and the depressing weather the rest of the time, Scotland is the same as the rest of our country. In every sense.

Scotland has always been socially conservative? Now we are talking! I can enjoy arguing that without having to have a wash afterwards, as I feel important to do when discussing gay issues with you.

In that case, Scotland is full of socialist pandas. It was, I believe, one of your heroes who first pointed out there are more pandas than conservative MPs in Scotland?

if you mean conservative in the other sense, then yes, there are some miserable presbyterian dour buggers, especially around Fife.

But to say Scotland supports your Gay stance?   {chortle}   Alex Salmond supports equality, gay marriage and inclusiveness. Now... would he say that if there weren't votes in it?

Wake up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:18 AM

.... watching.... hoping....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:36 AM

""If everybody made it clear that this will not be tolerated, posted a huge STOP!!!! after any post where that is happening, let the poster know that this insulting name is not acceptable, then refused to engage with this person in that post or any other post until they apologized and promised to cease and desist from such behaviour..........my guess is that this kind of behaviour would become rare.""

One of the joys of this forum is that it is not hedged about by the restrictive oppression of those whose aim in life is to make everybody conform to there own idea of what is right or wrong.

The best way to decimate the membership would seem to be curtailing the right of free speech.

The bottom line is that there are two sections. The most important being upstairs, the folk music section.

The BS section down below is a freewheeling snake pit of conflicting opinions, but I'd venture to state with conviction that regular contributors would, almost without exception, admit to having learned, from the discussions, things which they hadn't previously known.

And guess what?......Nobody is compelled ever to open any thread in that section.

And BTW, it seems that you have chosen strangely mild epithets to moan about.

Goofus? I've been called much worse than that and I'm still here. So is Goofu...er....GfS!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:51 AM

I still like fugitive from sanity. He can't complain because a) I tend to be choosy who I allow my dog to make a fuss of and b) I write him poetry.

Tell you what, it isn't the ones like me people should be wary of, its those who insult without knowing they are doing it. Funnily enough, most of those seem to be wanting us all to agree with each other. Nothing more frustrating than those who can't understand why you won't fit in their perception box or if you don't share their outlook, there must be a reason for it. That alone has filled the BS swearbox coffers lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:59 AM

Hhhmmmmm....

The so-sad thread Obit thread for Katlaughing had a high content of "I don't come here very often anymore" openers from old friends. I wonder why...

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:03 AM

Errrrr, isn't that how this thread started, Martin?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:12 AM

I still say it's the 'fucks' rather than the [imo rather anodyne] names! Too boring not to be able to read two lines without a fuck or a shit or a bollox or a cunt. Not witty. Not "cathartic". Just vulgar & childish.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:18 AM

If you had left the 'bollox' off there, Michael, that would have been hell of a confession. It certainly would have been taken out of context and come back to bite you on the bum :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:20 AM

Errrrr, isn't that how this thread started, Martin?


Hadn't seen the original thread - sporadic Internet access over the past week or so.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:21 AM

No probs - At least you know now.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Megan L
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:21 AM

The problem is when we all lived in villages we knew who had mental or emotional problems which resulted in them repeating themselves ad-nauseum. Unfortunately the internet has expanded the village but not the knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:54 AM

Oh! Scotland is socially conservative all right, I've lived here when it was a Conservative heartland.

Rural Scotland has always been socially and politically conservative I know because for many years I was.."the only Communist in the village".
Only the rise of the Scottish Nationalist Party, has weaned folks away from political conservatism.......but social conservatism is still very much the mainstream.
Many people still use the Church for BM&D, read "The Broons" and have their "purritch" in the mornin' :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:04 AM

"But to say Scotland supports your Gay stance?   {chortle"

My stance is to cut the horrific new infections of all STD's in male homosexuality.......Doesn't EVERYONE (who knows about them) support that stance Ian?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Allan Conn
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:14 AM

We're just going to have to disagree on that Ake. The Scotland you know seemingly differs from the Scotland I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:04 PM

I've found that most efforts to control negativity in an Internet forum, usually only make things worse. "Standing your ground" against Internet bullies, only eggs them on. Any sort of attention serves to feed the trolls who cause trouble to serve their craving for attention. And those who seek combat, also seek an audience - so any attention paid to them, gives them just what they're seeking. Then there are the troublemakers I hate most - the self-righteous prigs who feign innocence and start discussions in areas that are bound to end in chaos. They, also, are craving attention.

I have a theory that many or most of these people are driven by their sexual inadequacy. They can't have a normal sex life, so they go on the Internet and cause trouble. When they succeed, it's an orgasm for them, so they masturbate. I'd hate to put my fingers anywhere near their keyboards.

There are all sorts of things that people think will control these distasteful people, but none of them seem to work. The only sure-fire tactic against Internet troublemakers, is silence; and the discipline of a silent response is almost impossible to maintain in a forum like this.

I did my best to try to keep the peace here for well over ten years, and then retired to doing music editing and indexing and tech help and registration. I'm much happier doing that, and there's no end of work to do. I'd like to see a "DTStudy or "Origins" thread exploring every single song in the Digital Tradition Database - and verifying the sources and lyrics of each song in the DT. I'd like to see more answers for our Unanswered Requests database (in the QuickLinks dropdown menu). I'd welcome help posting and exploring all the songs in Carl Sandburg's American Songbag. And I'd like to see people volunteer to update untended PermaThreads.

As I said, all the efforts to control the nastiness, just don't woirk. There IS one thing that works, however, and that's the music content here at Mudcat. When there are healthy, interesting music discussions, everything else seems to fall into line. People forget about the bickering, and the bickerers get bored. So, if you care about this forum, contribute something worthwhile to its content. Ask an intelligent question or make an intelligent comment in a thread. Look for interesting, older threads with the Filter and resurrect them by adding new information or questions. Post the text (not just a link) of an interesting article you've come across, and then say what you think about it. Posts that contain links and no information, are more-or-less worthless - if you care enough to post a link, take one step further and summarize what's in the link and say what you think about it. Take the time to use the Filter to look for existing threads to resurrect and continue on a subject before starting a new thread on something that's been discussed forty times before. Use care when giving a title to a thread, so it tells the community what you want to discuss.

In short, it's the positive things we all do, that make a difference here. Negative energy, even when it's meant to make things better, just creates more negative energy. Control of the bad things really doesn't work, although our Moderation Team works hard to keep the worst of the nastiness under control. But if you contribute intelligent questions and information, especially about folk music, you'll be amazed how much better this forum will be.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:09 PM

*smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:20 PM

Thanks Joe. I respect your wisdom.   I was going to ask if there is one thing re. what is and what isn't appropriate that virtually all mudcatters would agree on.......but I think you just posted it.

I'm now going to take a look at some of those unanswered requests and see if I can find any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: maeve
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:33 PM

Thank you, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:35 PM

Joe, I know this isn't the right thread for this......but in the unanswered requests one I submitted a while back is missing.   A song called "The Hope Princeton Highway".   Maybe I'll refresh it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:47 PM

I will no longer post anything below the line. I may remove myself altogether; I am tired of facing excremental sewage from 3-4 who are here only to make trouble.

"Moderation Team"- I see little evidence that one exists. If one does, it should have clearly stated rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:54 PM

One topic that has intrigued me, is The Songs of Percy French. And the Percy French question that has burned in my brain for decades, is: Did Percy
French really write Abdul Abulbul Amir? I mean, how could a man with a name like Percy, write a song like THAT???
Yes, we have a DTStudy thread on the song, but I'm still not satisfied that we have conclusive evidence that Percy was the songwriter.

Another burning question that has not been thoroughly explored: how is Francis James Child tied to the song titled One Meat Ball?


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:55 PM

Dedicated

To those unknown singers
Who made songs
Out of Love, Fun, Grief
And to those Many Other Singers
Who Kept Those Songs
As living things of the Heart and Mind
Out of Love, Fun, Grief


Thus the dedication written by Carl Sandburg long ago in his American Songbag.

Worth keeping in mind when the threads overheat. None of us would be here if not for some echo of this sentiment.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 01:55 PM

Hey Joe!

You are right in your ideal for the music side. Many of my posts are indeed about local folk clubs, finding old mates from the circuit many years ago and chipping in with information on particular songs, tues and instruments.

However, there is a BS section. It has little or no bearing on the music side and I fail to see comparisons. In fact, in someways they could be different websites. I certainly converse with different people.

With regard to what is respectful, I am sure someone with a well polished halo and sheltered upbringing has a different view of the boundary than where the likes me me enjoys rolling with the pigs. Before anybody starts crying to the moderators, they should differentiate between actual abusive behaviour and forcefully disagreeing with a stance.

I for one was bemused to see a sanctimonious prig reckon that an odious viewpoint put politely was better than reason applied with a round of fucks. Fascinating...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 02:18 PM

Yeah, Musket, but it's something I've observed over the years, to the point that I really believe it's true: if the music discussion here is rich and healthy, that healthiness spills over to the BS side - all with very little control.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket agreeing but..
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:02 PM

Assuming friendly discourse teases out issues?

If you smell bullshit, you don't get anywhere complimenting their aftershave. If the object of the exercise is to debate, influence and see different views, where in the name of all that is holy (Clapton generally speaking) is the need to end the debate with consensus?

In the final analysis, this isn't, as I noted elsewhere, a sitcom from your neck of the woods. We don't need to end it with a moral whilst all nodding in agreement. It's ok to disagree. It's not really a problem to pull someone up for being beyond decency by blunt methods. Anything less and you ain't getting anywhere....

Doesn't affect the music.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:07 PM

When everyone starts rolling with the pigs, they become pigs.

If summit meetings employed the level of insult in question, we'd be at World War XII by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:37 PM

"...a sanctimonious prig reckon that an odious viewpoint put politely was better than reason applied with a round of fucks."

Loses something in the translation to MusketSpeak...☺

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:07 PM

"If the object of the exercise is to debate, influence and see different views, where in the name of all that is holy (Clapton generally speaking) is the need to end the debate with consensus?"


I agree, the object in these kind of discussions isn't consensus. But if it is to debate, influence, and see different views, let's do it in the way that is most effective.   And calling people names just shuts them down....or, in some cases (as Joe points out) gives them undeserved attention.

It's much easier to influence somebody if that somebody feels that in some areas you are one of 'them'....and that you have some understanding of---and yes, even compassion---where they are at.

I think it's a skill. And I guess not everybody on mudcat is interested in learning it. But.......I do think it's wise to know your own intention.   Is it verbal masturbation? Pissing people off? Letting the world know how amazing you are?   Convincing people that your right and decent take on things really is right and decent? To help others who are asking for help? Or to feel/demonstrate a 'connection' with others in the mudcat community?

And once you know what you want.....then you can learn to do it well.

Frankly, if the intention of most people who post ends up being totally different from mine (the last three), then I'll probably stop posting. And my guess is that others with that same intention will also end up with less energy to post.

Then who do we have left?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:02 PM

Facts is facts Ian.....if you dont like them,complain to HPA/CDC ...dont abuse the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket on the button
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:25 PM

Here is an example.

Akenaton? Fuck off.

See? It's easy.

Bill, the translation doesn't need a Rosetta Stone, nor indeed a babel fish. Akenaton demonstrates it clearly above. He is aware of those involved in UK healthcare on Mudcat and uses every opportunity to spread his wish to outlaw gay lifestyle, the HPA/CDC reference being his use of HIV figures to justify his disgusting stance. He follows me around because I am involved in trying to deal with health issues, planning and funding NHS care.

So... These boundaries that we wish people to respect? Is gay hatred more acceptable than telling him to fuck off?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:31 PM

Absolute rubbish, you had just accused me of spreading "odious opinions"......I do not, I give the official figures which say that there is a serious problem with male/male sex.....and that something radical needs to be done.

Do you want the same useless procedures to continue?