BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:34 AM

Kevin, I too have had the occasional accursed visit. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:14 AM

On the subject of hated minorities, I might logically claim to be a minority of one, whom Akenaton has decided to hate, and therefore to treat as though he doesn't exist, IMO, as rude and pig ignorant as name calling, if not more so.

Or it might be that he has nothing to offer in the way of an answer, in the face of evidence from those who might be supposed to know more than he, namely the medical profession.

Who knows?......If he doesn't answer, he is safe from the ignominy of having to admit being wrong!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 09:34 AM

I agree Mc G. It's like quitting any bad habit. At first you think, "What will I do without this or that familiar vice?" As it turns out, you do fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 08:43 AM

It is always right to extend civility to others. That applies whatever you think of their opinions or behaviour.

There's a French family comedy series that was on a couple of months ago on a French channel. (Fais pas çi , fais pas ça - if you get a chance to see it that sometime I recommend it). At one point one of the families were entertaining someone, and in the curse of the visit she started coming out with the kind of racist views you often find among "nice" people, who assume you feel the same as they do.

There's a dilemma in such situations - do you flare up and denounce the views, or stay silent and effectively collude. But what the host does is neither. He politely says to the viisitor something on the lines of "You should be aware madam that you are on enemy territory", and indicates that she should leave without delay.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 05:20 AM

I'm Sorry Richard, but I rarely see you debate anything on this forum, so I doubt that you are the one to give Mr McGrath advice on "perception"

You make accusations, which you are never willing to explain, then vanish from our screens...Just saying that I "have form on hating minorities" is not good enough and amounts to a repition of Ians claim that I "hate" everything and everybody.

Actually I am a cheerful and outgoing guy in real life, I enjoy my sport, my music and frequent discussion on any subject....I love this group of people and think myself fortunate to have stumbled on Mudcat so many years ago.
I look on you all as friends, even those who disagree with me most vehemently.....tho' I am especially fond of the Americans and Canadians, who appear to be without the artifice and cynicism of we from the UK.

Larry, thank you for starting this thread, I think you may have initiated a sea change for the better in this forum.....AKE.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 04:55 AM

""All this as an alternative to discussing WHY the procedures he supports are not working and what alternatives are available.""

Could it be because those procedures have worked an are working, to the extent that HIV, while not YET curable is, according to the medical profession, reduced to the level of a manageable condition which should cause no significant decrease in life expectancy?

You have made much of your concern for those Gay men who are at risk.

Yet, when asked whether your objections would cease if HIV were eradicated, youresponded that there are other reasons.

Why should anybody believe your protestations when you don't believe them yourself?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

Wannabee Pharoah has form on hating minorities. Not just homosexual ones. It is quite alarming to see the usually perceptive McGrath prepared to extend civility to such an one.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Ian Mather
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:12 AM

I have read the sage and reasonable discussion but on reflection, I still see no reason to change my stance. As it is a stance, I suppose it is better posting it as me not the silly moniker Musket.

Gay people make up a very small percentage of the population of The UK so the efforts made in trying to stigmatise them and deny them the same rights as other voting tax paying contributors to society isn't a reflection on Gay issues, it is a reflection on the task still ahead in creating a just and decent society.

So addressing this thread. Reinforcing boundaries, assuming that is a good idea in principle, should perhaps focus on perpetrators of boundary breakers, however softly spoken as well as those like me who react.

Back when I used to investigate lapses in the quality and safety of health and social care, my favourite retort to complacent management of poor care was "to permit is to promote. " I see parallels here, hence not letting go, not wishing to assume condoning through not challenging.

Sorry if it sounds boorish but not sorry for making a stance. It isn't enough to like the music of Tom Paxton, Si Khan, Vin Garbutt etc etc. Sometimes you have to ask if you like the words.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:24 PM

Oh, gee, I had some friends who started a company and named it "MSM, Inc." That was in 1980, so I guess it didn't affect them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:39 PM

Mr McGrath....agree 100%....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM

Sorry Charmion, I missed your post, MSM is a term coined by the sexual health agencies ("men who have sex with men") basically male homosexuals and bi-sexual males.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:28 PM

I'd think the point being made was that belittling nicknames in a discussion divert from the real issues. And that kind of thing is very often used as a way of skating round points that deserve to be addressed - and that happens often in both directions, with the other person responding to the irrelevancies instead of the issues.

I'm pleased to see that, perhaps with a few exceptions this thread hasn't spun into a shouting match. That's not really what the Mudcat is about. (For a reminder of what is central to this place I suggest opening up the current threads about a member who recently died, katlaughing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:19 PM

Guest SJL.....Your aunt sounds a lovely and very very sensible person.
She conveys my feelings on homosexuality almost exactly.
My stance against homosexual "marriage" has always been, as Ian rightly says, about health statistics and how the "marriage" issue has been used as a distraction by activists....many of whom are not homosexual themselves.
There are several valid arguments against same sex marriage, but I have heard nothing from the pro "gay marriage" activist except the myth of "equality".....An etherial concept which does not and will never exist under our present socio/economic system.
Your aunt makes excellent points on "false equality" and "unnecessary reconstruction of society"....please give her my best wishes.


You are correct and Ian is wrong, I am no hater, I cannot even bring myself to hate someone who describes me to my fellow members in such terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:01 PM

"Can't we all just get along" (Rodney King)...

But seriously... This thread wasn't supposed to turn into yet another pissing contest...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 06:58 PM

No Steve, I think you were doing it as a joke, but addressing Jack as you continually do, does not open the door to constructive debate.

You and I disagree about several things, but we dont address our post to one another in a manner which suggests mental deficiency?

Jack and I always argue about something or other, but I have always found him intelligent and civil. Why the need to demean him before even starting into the debate, if not as an undermining tactic?

Ian does the same to me all the time, when I point out that his procedures are not working and that MSM infection rates are still rising rapidly, he does not address the issue, but resorts to personal attacks, accusing me of homophobia, holding my "odious views in contempt", saying I should be ignored by other members and what I say should be regarded as "hate speech"
All this as an alternative to discussing WHY the procedures he supports are not working and what alternatives are available.

Well, you see, ake, I asked you to justify your assertion that I was leaving a gaping hole in my argument just because I called Wacko Wacko. Thus:

Ah, you mean I covered up some big gaping hole somewhere because I called Wacko Wacko? How's that work, then, ake?

I note with dismay that you choose to post aimless verbiage instead of addressing this point. So, I repeat (sort of). You are not keen on my calling Wacko Wacko. But what exactly is it about that that means I have covered up some big gaping hole somewhere? I note that you have not addressed this point, instead posting a bunch of obscurantist waffle (see above).

Found Wacko intelligent and civil, huh? What a lovely fellow you quite possibly are, but one does have to doubt your judgement on this one. Doubt? Nah, bollocks. It's rubbish!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 05:51 PM

OK, we'll leave it at that. Muskrat, everything's cool. .

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 03:18 PM

Mc Grath, you've got it. May level heads prevail.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 03:04 PM

It is perfectly possible to object to the linguistic innovation which is involved in redefining marriage to cover a wider range of relationships, without this implying any hostility towards people in single-sex unions. And there are in fact some people in such unions who see the development as a message that they need to assimilate in order to be accepted - which would appear to be the view of SJL's aunt - "She said she is not different to be the same as everyone else."

The world is complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 01:41 PM

""Muskrat, don't assume you are defending everyone within a given category. People are individuals. Muskrat,""

Don't you think that your own credibility might be enhanced by learning the difference between an obsolete smoothbore firearm, and a rather smelly small rodent?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket saying don't misquote me
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 12:49 PM

He is a hater. Your Aunty has no valid view to not believe in Gay marriage either. Just by being gay doesn't mean your failure to see equality as a right. Views that restrict the legitimate rights of others are not views, they are personality disorder. Full stop.

Views that limit the rights of others when the subject doesn't concern you are very damaging views. I think I am right in saying all Mudcat members are in countries that claim to be democracies, even if we have dim views of how seriously governments see that fact. Democracy means equal stakeholder. If one couple are allowed to marry and not another, you are oppressing people.

Full stop.

If you wish to force people to be medically assessed without consent, or assault as the police call it, you are oppressing people.

Full stop.

Akenaton wishes to have the respect of people when he decries the work done by health and social care in the field of sexual health. He does it by rubbishing the work by stating the size of the task means it is failing. That is a considered opinion, therefore an outrageous lie. He has form on these threads of promoting compulsory testing and sexual partner tracing of a minority of people with sexual transmitted diseases based on their sexual orientation. In the same sentences he calls the recent gay marriage act, that promotes monogamy when you think about it, as a distraction.

A distraction to his solution.

I find his quiet, reasoned approach rather chilling. As someone who has interviewed many patients in forensic care, I find his approach familiar too. No other way of putting it.

If someone wishes to debate the merit of his odious views with him, fine. But me? I shall risk censure if necessary, but can never allow pathetic hatred like that to be normalised, so. Where I see it, I challenge it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 12:46 PM

I'd say there is a moral imperative on everyone to know that they aren't carrying HIV before they embark on any behaviour that might entail passng it on, and a moral right of everyone to know that's true of the other person.

Whether that should be backed up in some legal way is another thing, and probably not - but it is reasonable that anyone who infects someone else with HIV because they hadn't ensured that that wouldn't happen should be liable.

Everyone. In our society it may be predominently gay men who are at risk, but of course that isn't the case in many other places where patterns of behaviour are different.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 11:07 AM

Akenaton, I have an aunt who is gay. It might interest you to know that she is very old school. Doesn't believe in gay marriage. She said she is not different to be the same as everyone else. She feels it is a false sense of equality and just plain weird. What she wanted from her life- the unconditional love and acceptance from her family first of all, her friends, society's blessing to be herself- she feels she got. She's not in favor of restructuring society, feels it is unnecessary and probably not a good thing. She believes sexual orientation should be handled by society with discretion until adolescence, meaning no gay marriage and no exposure to homosexuality until it matters.

My aunt is my favorite aunt. She was always the kindest and most sensitive of my aunts. My aunts took turns babysitting us and when it was her turn it was like, "Yay! Gonna be an easy night!" one of my aunts was kinda mean. Not her. She is one out of five girls. My poor grandpa was overrun.

But to make a long story short, Akenaton, I don't automatically categorize you as a hater. Politically incorrect yes, but hater no. Muskrat, don't assume you are defending everyone within a given category. People are individuals. Muskrat, society is not served by making the real homophobes worst nightmares come true. Divisiveness is not where it's at.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket spelling it out
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:34 AM

Akenaton. You do not have a view. The Nuremberg trials set the precedent that some ideas are beyond human decency. Your enforced testing, profiling and partner testing of gay people as a solution to one particular sexual transmitted disease, partnered with your refusal to even acknowledge that straight people spread them, coupled with your insistence that gay marriage is wrong...

Your views are beneath contempt, and make respectable people wish to wash themselves having been made to read them.

Hopefully, that makes my position clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM

I remember when I took my young son to a football match. Some incident happened, and the insults started flying. My son stood there and bellowed "Buffoons!"

I felt rather proud of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Claire M
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM

Hiya,

I doubt people who are so rude on the Internet would be the same face-to-face. If I should get a nasty comment, (which I have, many a time) I simply leave the website it's on – I've got enough problems w/o adding to them; that's why all my networking is interest-based or not done.

Words like "scoundrel" need to be brought back; they'd be a lot better than the modern equivalent. I prefer "go forth & multiply" – sounds nicer & essentially means the same thing. There are a few people here (housemates, not on Mudcat) I'd like to tell that to!
If someone said to me, "be off w/ you, prithee" I'd just melt.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 09:54 AM

I suppose there's a place for insulting or belittling nicknames when it's a question of cutting someone down to size, as a kind of verbal cartoon. But it doesn't belong in a genuine discussion, online any more than face-to-face.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM

akenaton, please tell me what you mean by "MSM".

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:56 AM

No Steve, I think you were doing it as a joke, but addressing Jack as you continually do, does not open the door to constructive debate.

You and I disagree about several things, but we dont address our post to one another in a manner which suggests mental deficiency?

Jack and I always argue about something or other, but I have always found him intelligent and civil. Why the need to demean him before even starting into the debate, if not as an undermining tactic?

Ian does the same to me all the time, when I point out that his procedures are not working and that MSM infection rates are still rising rapidly, he does not address the issue, but resorts to personal attacks, accusing me of homophobia, holding my "odious views in contempt", saying I should be ignored by other members and what I say should be regarded as "hate speech"
All this as an alternative to discussing WHY the procedures he supports are not working and what alternatives are available.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:22 AM

Ah, you mean I covered up some big gaping hole somewhere because I called Wacko Wacko? How's that work, then, ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:14 AM

Done what in the form of a joke?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 04:38 AM

I'm afraid Janie, some people just cant help themselves.
Steve's just done it in the form of a joke, others will do it in anger, to make themselves feel better .....but most often, to cover gaping holes in their stance on particular issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:43 PM

See? That's the problem. You'd have to get the men to agree first.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:26 PM

Well I don't think the laws on abortion should be decided just by women - because I don't think we need that many laws on abortion in the first place. We need education, not laws. I look forward to the day when education for relationships has been so good that abortion clinics, freely available to all women, will be having to make people redundant due to lack of demand. In the interim, laws on abortion should be formulated by people of good will of both genders and none. I would be struggling to see how anyone from a religion of any kind could possibly qualify as one of those law-makers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:18 PM

My point was that I was sceptical about you being able to keep to the promise "I won't blather on again about my views on that."

Gosh no, You'll never get anyone on the interwebby thingie to stick to "promises" made in threads! One only has to observe the people who say they're so disgusted, etc., that they're outta here. Invariably, they're back within hours (know what I mean, Wacko? :-) ) When I said that, I didn't realise I'd have to enlarge on it. One goeth with the floweth, innit!

Good tunes tonight, by the way - and lotsa free beer!


Just don't say it...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:10 PM

I suspect that the suggestion that laws about abortion should be decided exclusively by women would be welcomed by a lot of critics of current legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:03 PM

Ye need "smeddum" tae be richt coorse....or richt kind......LGG.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:53 PM

The gist of the OP statement (imo.)   

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.

Personalities. Everybody's got one. I am heartened in many ways by the evolution in the way several of the frequent posters to this thread, many of whom are frequent posters to threads that rapidly devolve, appear to be modifying how they communicate, apparently "listening" and becoming more mindful and less demeaning of the personhood of the people with whom they disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:43 PM

Well here's my main thought on abortion. Men don't get a vote. But I can't pretend to have come up with that stroke of genius on my own. Several years ago, I asked my Renn Faire friend Ed, a pagan, what his opinion on the issue was. He told me that he didn't have an opinion and that women's reproductive health as a whole is an area that should be decided by women only, collectively, and men should be excluded. I shared Ed's opinion with my mother and she agreed completely. And every time I state this to another woman, most times she is up to it, like, when do we get started?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:32 PM

""The more horror the better.""

Well Steve, if it's horror they want, they'll be hard put to beat the recent incident in Ireland, in which a fully equipped and qualified surgical team, stood and watched a woman die, because they would not terminate the non viable foetus which was poisoning and killing her.

That, IMNSHO, is a greater obscenity than any they have yet produced.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

And I thought the promise (in this thread) made a lot of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 05:14 PM

My point was that I was sceptical about you being able to keep to the promise "I won't blather on again about my views on that."

Of course I suppose there is a possible, or at least an arguable, ambiguity in the precise meaning of word "blather" in this context...

But playing tunes is more sensible than arguing about stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 02:33 PM

Well it's working so far. And scumbags did not refer to people posting here. Incidentally, I haven't got time to do all the processing required to comprehend your point about your quote from my post, etc. You do have this somewhat enigmatic man-o'-few-words way of putting things at times that defeats me unless I do about ten minutes' hard labour. Just thought I'd mention it. I have tunes to play on Fridays, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 01:58 PM

I see I was right to be a bit sceptical about the words I quoted from you, Steve...

But your point that the original topic for this thread might be a way of keeping discussions relatively courteous (given the occasional "scumbag" and stuff like that) does have some merit. Which would suggest it then might drift on to other issues where tempers flare, such as gun control, Israel/Palestine, Irish history, and quite a host more. Turning into a version of the "Mother of All Threads", but with a focus on controversy. And going round in perpetual circles.

I don't really think so. But perhaps there'd be something to be said for it being possible to set up a thread about a controversial subject with predetermined different moderating ground rules from the rest of the Mudcat.

No swearing, no spitting, no gouging of eyes... Threads that would be guaranteed to stay respectful, without interfering with the hurly burly in the threads generally which would continue to be more relaxed about that. (In fact you could have another set of threads which would be predetermined to go to the other extreme, and only the sickos would go there...)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: kendall
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:48 AM

Don, not to mention the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:45 AM

Damn and blast! There I go agreeing with Don again!

And an example of the sort of stuff that merits no respect at all is Ding-Dong's thread about Democrats wanting to disarm Blacks. Stupid and malicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:45 AM

I agree with that, Don. I'd also add that another tactic of the anti-abortion brigade is to look for extreme examples of bad practice at the periphery and go large with them. The more horror the better. Convenience-abortions and late abortions are grist to their mill, despite their representing a tiny proportion of the overall abortion numbers. They are bad things all right and there is a debate to be had, but minority rogue practices at the margins should not be used as a big stick to beat all women who need abortions.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:00 AM

""I have no knowledge of such figures, but personally I dont think abortion for the sake of convenience should be legal.""

So what about abortion when the pregnancy is the result either of rape, or the refusal of the man to either use contraceptives or abstain?

It strikes me that the number of women who decide to terminate for convenience is a tiny proportion of the whole, given the physical amd emotional stress of the procedure.

I don't believe that women take the denial of their most natural function as lightly as some men would like to believe.

Like you, I have no figures, but I believe that women have the right to decide for themselves.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

Ah, thanks Don! That's what I was hoping...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

I dont mind you calling me a Luddite Don....its a bit of a compliment the way I see things.

Regarding life on Earth, I am absolutely CERTAIN in mind that we will never colonise the galaxy,that would be a long term project and humans hate long term projects....they cant even think forward a couple of decades, they prefer to let things happen TO them.

No I'm quite sure that when we have poisoned this planet, divised ever more horrific Frankenstein science and constructed enough obscene viruses and bacteria, humanity will accomplish the finest of its achievements....self destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:04 AM

""Is there an assumption that to be part of Mudcat you have to be a musician? I thought it was about being interested in folk and/or blues, not being able to play...""

No such assumption S C!

I think Bobert just found the wrong word in a moment's inattention.

I'm certain he meant ALL Folkies.

Don T.