BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 06:51 AM

I think Pete from the 7 Stars genuinely believes in his nonsense. Every song he sings is about God-bothering. But it is frustrating to see such irrationality.

Fugitive from Sanity and Ding-Dong and several others I believe to be malicious. But at least I can glean some idea of what they want.

Ake - I have no idea. I can see what he hates - gypsies, gays, every political party (some more than others), probably a load of other things too - but I am damned if I can see what he would like to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 06:20 AM

Be fair Steve, neither we nor the scientists have any more idea of how the universe began than the creationists.

Lets admit that on that issue we are all in ignorance?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:39 AM

Raparee. Interesting question, that if your life depended on it etc, would it change your perspective. Me? I'd still call a spade a spade on the internet and an earth inverting horticultural implement to someone's face.

I'd just have a bloody big dog at the side of me. (I do, but he is a greyhound so he doesn't count, unless you dress up in a rabbit costume and start running.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:33 AM

I don't need a room. Suffice to say that that last post from Wacko completely misrepresents the exchange in the now-closed thread.

Sorry, Bill, but pete does a damn sight more than defend his delusion. He frequently takes the opportunity to bad-mouth "darwinists", Darwin, "evolutionists" and the like. Yet he abundantly demonstrates time and time again that he doesn't have even the faintest understanding of the stuff he criticises. By any measure this is extremely unpleasant behaviour. He demonstrates no respect for honest scientific endeavour. This, in case you haven't noticed it, is my big issue with him and his ilk. I don't give a stuff about his delusion but I'll keep on at him until he decides to refrain from his attacks on good science and honest scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:14 AM

Scottish culture eh? At least you don't have to wait long for the page to refresh after posting...


How do you do a bloody smiley face?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Allan Conn
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:28 AM

"But my point is that sometimes the tone of voice.....even if it isn't intended....can discourage many people who might have a lot to offer from putting themselves forward."

I think the real intention of posters doesn't always come across the way that it would for instance in a bar over a pint. You can't see the twinkle in someone's eye hence the reader doesn't always interpret the post as it is meant to be. They might think the post is condescending when it is not meant to be. Short of lacing every line with smiley faces (which I can't imagine anyone wants) then maybe the best idea is if you are unsure if a post is being negative to you or not then give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Initially at least!

On the wider issue of course some posts are insulting. However, and I am not meaning to be complacent here, compared to most elsewhere on the net the posters in here are actually really civil. I used to post in newsgroups. In particular soc.culture.scottish and in the end it just became a joke as the thing was over run by really nasty trolls which chased most of the proper posters away. Likewise just visit youtube and the behaviour on many threads is awful. On here though even the threads where people continually argue with another individual (for example the Keith and Jim threads) are for the most part people putting actual points to each other. Not just filled with insults etc. So I am not being complacent as of course things can deteriorate but we are a long way off that at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:26 AM

Ah! That's it.

The devil is in the detail.....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:18 AM

Don... I would answer the points you make in your 7:30 post, ut as Janie says perhaps this is not the thread to get into detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:31 AM

I've got a good feeling. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:10 AM

Mr Shaw and Mr Sailor, get a room!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:54 PM

" What he said were blatant untruths, so why shouldn't I call him a liar? He knew exactly what he was doing!"

That is a lie and I proved by quoting you.


I said that Mr. Shaw insults someone in most of his posts. Look at this thread. Is that point not proved here?



I don't call him Steve because he is not my friend. I call him Mr. Shaw, or Shaw because it is a polite way to ensure that other people know that I am talking to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:30 PM

I must admit that there are times, both in real life and on the Web, that I wish I could say, "Sir, my friends will call upon you", bow politely and leave stiffly -- and mean it. I often wonder how different manners would be if expressed opinions and subsequent insults had to be defended with the speaker's or writer's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:06 PM

I've looked at the titles of all the threads in which you have posted, Larry, and I've run a "Super Search" for "7th chords."

I can't find anything that seems likely.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:53 PM

I was speaking with God just this morning and She told me to be nice at the Mudcat Cafe.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:51 PM

I have no doubts whatsoever about your musical expertise, Don.

I have no idea how I would even find the post....I don't even remember the topic. I'll try look for it, though, because I'm kind of curious too, as it made quite the impression on me.

But my point is that sometimes the tone of voice.....even if it isn't intended....can discourage many people who might have a lot to offer from putting themselves forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:43 PM

"we're all entitled to our delusions, but serially insulting scientists,.."

**IF** it's a delusion, it's not necessarily an insult. An insult, to my way of thinking, is intentional. And if one is entitled to a delusion, he should also be free to defend it as best he can.

"He clearly relishes your exchanges yet he does not alter his position one inch." What a surprise! After all, he "has a delusion"! Maybe if I YELL AT HIM IN CAPITALS he will change!

Let me have MY delusion and just conduct a debate about evolution & such. I state the premises about it pretty strongly, hoping that any drop-ins will see the science prevailing over the religious circular reasoning.

"You and pete are nothing if not fun to behold."

Well.. glad to be of service.... now, 'shhhh' just watch and giggle. (If Pete returns to this next week)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:37 PM

[Sigh]
Sometimes, I think we need to have a playpen, where the more childish of us can be sent to

beat each other silly!!!!

Ahhhh. That felt better.


At one time, I devised a very clever Mudcat Certified Asshole Award. I thought it worked quite well, giving credit where credit was due; until one recipient went and tattled to Max. Max gave me a directed meditation on the Zen of Forum Moderation. Ooooooom.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:26 PM

Larry, I don't remember that at all, and would appreciate it if you could point it out to me so I can see what I actually said.

I have studied music formally (in University and in a conservatory) and I've taught music for years. I'm not about to make a mistake in that area. nor, as a teacher, am I about to blow someone off the way you describe.

So--please document your allegation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:39 PM

Read his posts, a good many of which manage to diss perfectly good science in the cause of his young-earth creationism. The latter is fine by me as we're all entitled to our delusions, but serially insulting scientists, who have done all the work whilst he has done none, is vindictive, prejudiced and nasty, and deserves to be jumped on. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:34 PM

I admire the honesty and integrity of what you just posted, LtRG. I also think such a post does have the potential power, over time, to shift things.

You have courage, and are not yet weary.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:32 PM

Perhaps it is wisest to avoid referring to anyone else as "the nastiest piece of work". That is an epithet that is only too likely to be redirected at any person who confers it.
...............

The problem with threads that go toxic isn't that their presence, and the presence of the few people who make them toxic somehow corrupts the Mudcat, or that somehow it's got worse. It's that potentially interesting and enjoyable discussions, or exchanges of good natured comments (including good natured insults) get diverted. The threads either fade away nastily, or they get terminated, sometimes prematurely. It's a shame, but one the Mudcat has lived with always.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:32 PM

I posted before that pete is known PERSONALLY by two members here, both of whom took the time to assure us that Pete is an nice, honest guy who is totally sincere.

He is one of the most insincere people you could ever wish to meet. He spouts his nonsense and insults honest scientists at every opportunity and he does not listen to a word you say. Soft faces, hard cases.

"These navel-gazing meta-chats are lovely, aren't they, but what a bloody waste of time they are."

A waste of time? Oh...right.... like spending hours telling others they are stupid and others that they are spending too much time being gullible.

And they say there's no such thing as perpetual motion! :>)

I did tell you I was thinking of questioning my own sanity. But, with pete, you are extremely gullible. He clearly relishes your exchanges yet he does not alter his position one inch. You indulge him and as a result he continues to clutter up the forum with his nasty rubbish. You have a fair bit to answer for on that score, which is presumably why you feel the need to get all defensive, but what the hell. You and pete are nothing if not fun to behold.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:10 PM

I think that so often we make assumptions about the intent or motives of another person based on a little bit of information......and instead of checking it out (which I find is best done by communicating our judgments then asking them if they agree, we resort to name calling.

It happened to me in one of my first posts to mudcat where I became involved in a discussion.   I don't even know where I'd look to find it, and I said something that proved to be incorrect.

And Don Firth, since, you don't seem to be afraid to put yourself forward, I'll take the risk and let you know that it was you.   I doubt if you'll remember....but I think it had something to do with me confusing the 7th chord with what is called the 'dominant 7th' chord, and, while I can't remember the words used, the impression was that somehow I was pretending to be a know-it-all who was spreading false information about topics I knew nothing about. In actual fact I was only trying to get some feedback on what appeared to me to be a point of confusion.....the different way that I believed chords were labelled in the pop music and the classical music tradition.

I wasn't looking for an argument, a fight, praise, or a personal putdown (I got the latter).   

It's true that I had been wrong, and I think it was important that I was corrected.....and I appreciated the correction.    But the 'tone' of the correction inhibited me from posting much more.....until fairly recently.

And I guess it affected me because I still remember it. And I'm glad to be able to have the opportunity, with the greatest respect for you, to put this forward.

While I think it's good to develop a strong backbone, I have to agree with McGrath from Harlow when he writes "Politeness is in fact a far better weapon in inflicting damage on a faulty argument."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:09 PM

"...the gullible souls who crowd round him to pat him on the head, indulge him and tell the rest of us not to be so nasty..."

I think I'll write a book about my adventures in cyber-land and call it "Gullible's Travails"

I think it may frustrate Steve more to see polite debate than to see the "stupidity" he frets over, when he is so sure those "gullible souls" are taken in by "deliberately-false self-deprecation".

I posted before that pete is known PERSONALLY by two members here, both of whom took the time to assure us that Pete is an nice, honest guy who is totally sincere. I take their word for it, and I see it myself, even as I try to counter most of what Pete claims. I am able to keep "respectful boundaries" about (most) people even when I have serious problems with their opinions & beliefs.

"These navel-gazing meta-chats are lovely, aren't they, but what a bloody waste of time they are."

A waste of time? Oh...right.... like spending hours telling others they are stupid and others that they are spending too much time being gullible.

And they say there's no such thing as perpetual motion! :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:05 PM

too.....zzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:04 PM

I'm up to late..*humorous*

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:03 PM

If hijacking rings one's chime, and what matters most to one is getting one's chime rung (ringed? rang? runged?) then I suppose one goes for it. Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:59 PM

The fact that you cannot recognise irony Steve, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Mr McGrath...is our acknowledged expert....and most humerous exponent, PM him for assistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:53 PM

Nah. Thread drift is a wonderful thing. Nearly every thread I've ever started on the interwebby thingie has been hijacked. Roll with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:49 PM

How about respecting the boundaries of this thread and moving the discussion regarding gay rights/homophobia to an existing thread where that is the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:45 PM

I was answering others at the time, who seemed to actually know what they were "talking" about.

This peculiar fellow rails against others who he sees as insulting him yet can, apparently without irony, still come out with this. Amazing how self-described insult-victims can actually be among the worst dishers-out of insults, innit.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:41 PM

Guest from Sanity, Jack The Sailor and Guest pete from seven stars link. God yes. They know who they are all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:34 PM

Ake, I didn't call you the "biggest" liar on Mudcat, nor did I call you a "liar." I said that you, among others, post a great deal of misinformation.

Your CDC figures are highly selective, slanting your viewpoint. I have read the figures myself, and I come up with considerably different indications.

AND--you argue against the one thing that would do the most to mitigate the spread of HIV/AIDs: reducing promiscuity by encouraging stable relationships.

Which YOU say homosexuals don't want, but most homosexuals say they DO want.

Misinformation, based on your own prejudices.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:32 PM

OK by me Steve...feel free, if I'm to be insulted I prefer it to be in impeccable English.   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:27 PM

"Guffo" "Wacko" "slippery pete"

I'm sure Steve Shaw knows whom he's referring to. Perhaps they do as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:19 PM

Steve...I didn't ignore you out of spite or because I am on an "anti gay crusade"...I did so because I was answering others at the time, who seemed to actually know what they were "talking" about.

I was proposing much better education for all in sexual matters whilst you were doing the triumphalist bit about your devastating figures in order to show how horrid gay people are. How dare you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about. Is it OK if I call you an intolerant and ignorant git with tunnel vision, because that's what I'm thinking right now?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:11 PM

I've noted the despicable nonsense levelled at you by Guffo, Don (OK if I call him that? :-)) and I also note the frustration you express in your post about people posting misinformation. I'd add to that one of the cardinal sins of the internet, one which is much worse than direct insults: misrepresentation. Wacko did that twice with me in that shut-down thread, claiming things about my posts that were simply false and utterly unsupportable. What he said were blatant untruths, so why shouldn't I call him a liar? He knew exactly what he was doing! To be honest, I'd rather be called a "fucking asshole" by Little Hawk than be misrepresented (though he manages both things at once). Then you have people like slippery pete who charms everyone with his deliberately-false self-deprecation before posting the most ignorant and insulting nonsense you've ever read. The icing on the cake there is the gullible souls who crowd round him to pat him on the head, indulge him and tell the rest of us not to be so nasty to this nastiest piece of work. Right, end of rant. These navel-gazing meta-chats are lovely, aren't they, but what a bloody waste of time they are. I feel I may have to question my own sanity. Not you, Guffers. Go back to sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:06 PM

Don...where have I posted "misinformation"?

You may not like what I have posted, but it is taken directly from official health agency sites......so why do you traduce me as the biggest liar on Mudcat?
I expected better of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:00 PM

Steve...I didn't ignore you out of spite or because I am on an "anti gay crusade"...I did so because I was answering others at the time, who seemed to actually know what they were "talking" about.

How can it be "anti gay" to draw attention to these horrific figures?
Surely it is much more "anti gay" to attempt to conceal them and continue with a policy which obviously,to every sane person IS NOT WORKING.

Look, in all honesty, it seems that you people dont care a damn about the epidemic which is affecting homosexuals all you really care about is some mad "equality" agenda
Where serious health issues are concerned the "rights" of the individual take second place to stopping the epidemic.

Is that REALLY hatred?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:45 PM

In response to the opening post:

Larry, I confess to referring to one of the posters here as "Goofball." This is a variation on the "handle" he uses (his preferring to stay anonymous for very understandable reasons!).

I readily admit that this is not the maturest course of action, but I didn't start doing this UNTIL he attacked me—not the arguments I was posting, but me personally—because I had the temerity to disagree with many of his statements. He didn't argue with my rebuttals, he just started calling me names and trying to run down my moral character.

And he took to playing with MY name, (which is my real name, by the way) by calling me things like "Dork Froth."

Furthermore, it was not long before I noticed that he was stalking me from thread to thread.

No, I do not respect him, because his arguments are silly and fatuous, and he obviously—and gratuitously—takes the opposite view on most discussions, apparently looking for a confrontation with a number of different people, including me. And most of what he posts flies in the face of reason and provable facts, which he blows off as being held by "so-called 'liberals.'"

Along with this, if I happen to post any personal information, he twists it into the worst possible light and attacks me in terms of my morals and ethics.

And if this weren't enough, he salts his posts with four-letter obscenities (his favorite adjective appears to be "fucking") and gratuitous insults of the sort that he would not DARE use to someone's face.

A foul mouthed, cowardly stalker with all the earmarks of a troll.

"Goofball" is mild compared to what he has called me, and granted, I should simply ignore him, but sometimes the lies he tells simply have to be set straight.

There have been such people before who did not know how to behave among normal human beings (such as the notorious "Martin Gibson") who have been blocked. I wish the Powers That Be here at Mudcat would banish this person in a like manner. He adds nothing to the forum.

And then, there is Songwronger. He has posted more misinformation on this website than anyone I know (with the possible exception of Beardedbruce and Akenaton). One of his threads was the claim that polio vaccine is contaminated with cancer cells. This is simply NOT TRUE, and referred to some contaminated vaccine some sixty years ago which was quickly taken off the market once discovered, and actually had no apparent effect on those who did receive the contaminated vaccine. Yet—there he was, trying to frighten people into NOT getting the vaccine when recommended by their doctors.

I pointed out that he bears a moral responsibility if he frightens someone into not getting the vaccine and then they subsequently contract polio. And in that post, I referred to him, not as "Songwronger," but "Scare Monger." Which is a highly accurate description of what he was doing.

Some people who insist on posting on the web are just damned irresponsible!! And those who know better are remiss if they do not speak out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:41 PM

"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."

I'd have thought the point is that whether what is involved is an odious viewpoint or reason applied it is much better put politely than with a round of fucks. Swearing at someone in an argument is completely irrelevant and distracting. Politeness is in fact a far better weapon in inflicting damage on a faulty argument.

As for a teem like "sanctimonious prig" - the point isn't whether someone is a sanctimoniousr prig, it's whether they are right or wrong. Unfortunately sanctimonious prigs can often be right, just as people with appalling view can often be modest and charming.

One problem that arises when we refer to someone by a nickname etc., whether offensive or friendly, is that it can make it hard to know who is being referred to, especially when a number of other people have posted in the intervening period.

Incidentally I couldn't see that the thread that got closed, which Larry the Radio Guy mentioned in the opening post, was in the least toxic by the time it got shut down. It's a hard call to make I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:20 PM

That keeps happening with me. I promise that I only click the bloody thing once.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:18 PM

We were involved in debate on another thread regarding MSM infection rates, when you were unable to answer the questions I posed to you, you resorted to abuse and it is being continued here in an attempt to get yourself off the hook with the moderators.

This is sheer misrepresentation. I also took you on over your campaign to smear gay people with your infection statistics and you ignored me. The conclusion can only be that you are on some kind of anti-gay crusade. If I call you a bigoted homophobe, some would see that as name-calling and an insult. Unfortunately for you, there is the severe danger that I would actually be stating a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:18 PM

We were involved in debate on another thread regarding MSM infection rates, when you were unable to answer the questions I posed to you, you resorted to abuse and it is being continued here in an attempt to get yourself off the hook with the moderators.

This is sheer misrepresentation. I also took you on over your campaign to smear gay people with your infection statistics and you ignored me. The conclusion can only be that you are on some kind of anti-gay crusade. If I call you a bigoted homophobe, some would see that as name-calling and an insult. Unfortunately for you, there is the severe danger that I would actually be stating a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:51 PM

Ian....I have much better things to do than follow you around.
I am at present engaged in working out my dogs grading for next week's race at Sittingbourne.....much more interesting than reading your foul ranting.

We were involved in debate on another thread regarding MSM infection rates, when you were unable to answer the questions I posed to you, you resorted to abuse and it is being continued here in an attempt to get yourself off the hook with the moderators.
If you wish to voice your opinions on important issues,make sure you have the facts clear in your mind, because you dont take well to being corrected.

Afew years ago, your accusations and sneering attitude would not have been tolerated.....I on the other hand have broken none of the rules of this forum, never having had a post deleted or a even warning from admin....in ten years.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:33 PM

Just because someone calls someone else goofus or wacko or bearded bullshit (that's my personal favorite), doesn't mean they are that. Joe, I don't think there is any real cause for concern here. I reject your psychoanalysis, I think I'd use the term "existential crisis" and include myself in this group. As for the insults, it's largely shtick. The boys down below like to play rough. It's a good thing they are not in the same room. There could be injuries.

Liar bothers me a lot. That's YOU Jim! People have different experiences, they read different books, they have different ways of processing information. That doesn't make them liars. Keith is not a liar. I make up my mind about people and I am just as stubborn as you are. Liar is a bad word to use in any discussion. Once you use that word, the other person is not even listening. How can they? When someone calls me a liar in the course of pushing their own agenda, I know it's over.

Now Joe, if you and the other moderators want to make Mudcat a better place, here's one teeny thing you could do for me. If you see a thread that says, "To Edward Snowden, With Love" or ""Aye, It's a True Song", that means I am totally trashed and just casually conversing with my iphone. If you see anything like that, nip it in the bud.

Michael, you are right. There's no need for foul language. Something could fly out of someone's mouth, but writing is a very deliberate process. Every now and again, it might be appropriate, but used to excess, it shows no class.

gnu, great song. Love my Supremes!

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?

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 - 05:02 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: 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?