 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obit - Below the Line???
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Musket musing Date: 25 Sep 13 - 06:35 AM I'd worry if I were you Bridge. Has it occurred to you that I have been consistent and you are mellowing? Perish the thought and all that. I reckon it is about time a thread or two appeared on the role of free market economics in funding a social agenda. You are right, we have not been disagreeing enough lately. You see, what Bridge and I have in common is respect for the other view. Valid view that is. A view based on a rational ethos and applied to the thread subject. We may not always agree, far from it, and it has gone down the name calling route, hence Mither, M'Unlearned Friend etc. (I didn't come up with that first but wish I did.) But at no point has ribbing turned to contempt. Views that include restricting the rights of others are not valid views and are to be challenged, belittled and shown there is no place for them in a just society. The old adage of our fathers fighting a war to kick the bastards into touch would be fitting if we were to invoke such a statement.... Trying to insult peoples' intelligence by claiming a public health clause to further hatred and division of the people who jointly make up society is beneath contempt and my only sense of wonder is how Akenhateon thinks his posts don't contain hate. But there again, personality disorder is something we have to deal with. Present medical thinking is that you don't encourage it by calling it a view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Sep 13 - 06:08 AM ""Why do you think that to debate public health "encourages bigotry"? I would have thought that discussion of public health matters was beneficial to society?"" The bottom line is that you will only debate the miniscule proportion of "public health" relating to male homosexuals, and that when asked if your objections would cease on the finding of a positive cure for HIV/AIDS, the best response we have elicited from you is ""There are other considerations"". This last removes any doubt in our minds that it is the existence of male homosexuals to which you object, rather than the health of the public at large. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:14 AM I find my abiding impression of Wannabee Pharaoh is of posts filled with hate and spite, verging on a seeming desire for the equivalent of ethnic cleansing, mostly for homosexuals and travellers but also for those he incorrectly calls "liberals". Such people are no less human than he and are therefore not meet to be discriminated against. The expression of the views he posts is not to be tolerated or respected. I have also asked him more than once what economic or governmental or social system he would posit, and have I think received no constructive answer. He is part of the problem, not part of the solution. While I find Mither to be too supportive of a centrist approach rather than a socialist or communist one, lately he has been saying many things more sensible than of yore. He is part of the solution if not my preferred part. Other parts of the problem include the irrational reactionary right (in which for present purposes I include extreme libertarians, for they, too, empower the oppression by the rich and powerful of the poor and disempowered). Then there are the proponents of ignorance in the name of religion. "I've got a little list". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: akenaton Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:57 AM "Wiping my feet on the way out." "Hate has no place in public health and to debate it gives false credibility and encourages bigotry." "Akenhateon" You don't even seem to be able to help yourself Ian, every post is loaded with abuse. Hate? I have contributed to many threads here, I don't believe that you will find "hate" in any of them. Why do you think that to debate public health "encourages bigotry"? I would have thought that discussion of public health matters was beneficial to society? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Musket musing Date: 25 Sep 13 - 01:52 AM If we were face to face I would quietly sup up and leave the pub, wiping my feet on the way out. Hate has no place in public health and to debate it gives false credibility and encourages bigotry. If anyone can translate that to words of fewer syllables I'd be grateful because it doesn't seem to get across to Akenhateon when I repeat it ad neaseum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Sep 13 - 01:09 PM Metaphorical onanism means doing things for one's own satisfaction without wishing to interact with other people in a meaningful manner, such as learning from them. Trolling is the same, specifically for the enjoyment of making others angry. (From "troll" in the meaning of "mischievous spook" - not referring to physical attributes.) The only difference between trolling in a pub and on an Internet forum is that for the former you may risk a beating. Persons' degree of "reality" is not very different; we know each other only to a certain extent, often less than we think. However, anyone who wishes to build a reputation on her or his real name or nickname has to be careful - Mudcat has a stronger memory than most pub custom, and is more numerous. Occasionally we read something like "In real life she is quite different" - which means that those who only know her from oral communication do not know her really well either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Sep 13 - 12:36 PM Ho hum. Posts justifying the "obit" begin to appear, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: akenaton Date: 24 Sep 13 - 12:29 PM I take it you do read books Ian? Everyone here knows what personal abuse is. Usually it is a sure sign that the abuser has run out of ideas, has no answers to further the debate and is too closed minded to question why. When I try to engage you in debate on the subject which you seem concerned about, I find that you have no argument to put forward, you simply keep repeating "equality" over and over again....when the "fact" of equality within this economic and social system is brought into question, you turn nasty....then the abuse starts. Personal abuse on an internet forum like this, is just as unacceptable as it would be face to face. If we were face to face, you would not do it, so why do it at all? If you are really concerned get some sort of sensible argument put together.....if you cant think of one, just don't open the threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Pete Jennings Date: 24 Sep 13 - 12:24 PM ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: George Papavgeris Date: 24 Sep 13 - 12:10 PM OK, 40/24... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Musket curious Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:47 AM Yes but my concern wasn't being called a troll. I am an ugly troll with a huge willy. Get it right. No. My issue was that Internet debate at this level is onanism no matter how much people rally otherwise. You can go out and give an opinion in the pub to real people or you can turn on the computer and self serve. You can go out and chat up a prospective partner in the pub or you can go on the computer and self serve. It's all fantasy versus the real thing and you can get your rocks off to either. None of us actually exist do we? I bloody well don't for starters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Sep 13 - 09:22 AM Normally I do not react to trolling at all. In the other thread I mentioned on 23 Sep 13 - 05:41 AM, I explained to another poster that the post he had replied to was actually to be understood as trolling. Criticism was not my primary concern, but is of course implied. Musket took issue, and wrote to his justification "At the end of the day, all Internet debate on this level is a form of onanism. If anyone takes it more seriously, more fool them. BS stands for wanking if you think about it." This implies that his own messages are to be taken as "onanism", which in the given context (- wild controversy, no recognizable joking -) is more or less synonymous to trolling. Criticizing a particular behaviour is not an abuse or insult. Simply stating one's honest opinion, however controversial, is not an act of trolling in itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Pete Jennings Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:19 AM Nice thread, Bobz. Keep it coming, guys, I find all of it interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Musket sans abuse Date: 24 Sep 13 - 04:25 AM Personal abuse or group abuse. It's all abuse. All worthy of nothing but abuse back. Some opinions are beneath contempt and technically illegal under UK law to publish. Live with it. Yo moderators. Touché |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Sep 13 - 04:24 AM If and when Max decides change is needed, he and he alone will make that change, and railing against the way things are because they don't suit ones agenda is pointless. When you use the word liberal Ake, it is as a pejorative term for those whose opinions you regard as worthless. It is no less offensive in that context than wanker or a host of other pejoratives, and is just as much a personal attack. When you make statements about the motives of opponents for which you cannot supply evidence, let alone proof, that is a personal attack. You are by no means occupying the moral high ground here mate. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: akenaton Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:42 AM Some people are in favour of "abortion on demand"....I disagree with this view, but do not consider these people to be lesser beings, ("worms", "shit" "that their opinions are beneath contempt".....or that the world would be a better place if they "stopped breathing"). I favour presenting my argument against "abortion on demand" and letting the readers make up their own minds. Abuse like the above is used only by a very few here and could be ended immediately by reinstating the "No personal abuse rule" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Musket curious Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:07 AM Oh I don't know Bill. I have met plenty of them your side of the pond. Met plenty this side too. Just because a word has biblical association, rational folk are allowed to use the term too you know! Grishka used my name in the same sentence as trolling. So by association, it is not a great leap of logic for me to dismiss Grishka as a wanker in the insulting term of the word. Tosser would suffice too for that matter. Whether Grishka meant something deep and meaningful is irrelevant. That said, I would recognise the actions of what are called trolls when I refuse point blank to give quarter or credibility to bigotry. Hate isn't a virtue yet the moderators allow it to thrive at times. They Plough a lumpy field and I sympathise with them. But when we have people openly advocating rounding up gay people and another star here reckoning he can cure gay tendencies. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:19 PM Onan was not a 'wanker'.... Onanism, as referred to in the Bible referred to coitus interruptus "He spilled his seed upon the ground" ... but surely YOU knew that... (and 'wanker' is almost unknown on the side of the pond) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Musket curious Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:56 AM But Grishka. You may not like my behaviour but it is your opinion that it is trolling. I say it is questioning belief. Onanism is a wonderful term. It describes those taking the piss and those acting like wankers. Wonderful. .. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:51 AM ...or stops them rolling out of bed? :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: JohnInKansas Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:31 AM These kinds of threads are like Viagra for some folks. You mean it really makes them taller??? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:17 AM See? Liberal does not mean left wing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Ed T Date: 23 Sep 13 - 07:42 AM Good suggestions Grishka |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 23 Sep 13 - 05:41 AM It is one of the characteristics of trolls that complaining about them just feeds them. (Musket recently took exception of the word "trolling" for his own behaviour, in favour of "a form of onanism". I wonder why he considers that more flattering, but it perfectly fits SRS's observation of metaphorical pornography.) Thus, we have no choice but to ignore all trolling. The faint-hearted are best advised to ignore all messages from posters who are prone to trolling, or even to avoid all threads of suspicious titles - as Q writes. In my view, the current specific problem of Mudcat is a different one: there are too few threads on either side of the Line that inspire a large spectrum of Mudcatters. As every kindergarten nanny knows, the trick is to organize attractive games. The Song Challenges were great fun for participants and readers, and created that kind of community spirit. For the BS section, ideal thread titles will be
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Elmore Date: 22 Sep 13 - 10:17 PM Farewell TIA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: TIA Date: 22 Sep 13 - 10:01 PM The appearance and dominance by people who disgust me will send me elsewhere. I go online for education, entertainment, and camaraderie. Used to find it here. Certain people (who will know who they are when they see my handle) just make this a distasteful place to visit. Really sad, because I used to find such enjoyment here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: bobad Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:00 PM Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: ChanteyLass Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:53 PM There is hope! This thread makes 17 Below the Line, and once the Dennis Kucinich thread is moved down here, there'll be 18! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:52 PM "I do wish some idiots would learn what "liberal" means." Of or relating to the liberal arts Of or befitting a man of free birth Lacking moral restraint Given in a generous way Not literal or strict Broad-minded, not bound by orthodoxy or authoritarianism Copious quantities Of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism A political party in UK &c Many posts Below the Belt" fit the definition, "lacking moral restraint." Is that the prime mudcat definition? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: bobad Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:39 PM These kinds of threads are like Viagra for some folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:33 PM Well, well, well... Looks as if my thread has some folks aroused... Good... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: JohnInKansas Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:15 PM Stilly - Of course you can spell s.a.r.c.a.s.m. (?) I'll admit to not always making it clear whether it's intended. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Sep 13 - 07:21 PM I hope you're not considering the Mother of All BS thread in your figures, John. That is a uniquely positioned thread, innocuous and entertaining to its participants. "bash anyone near center" - that's a good one! SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Ed T Date: 22 Sep 13 - 07:02 PM Last guest was me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:59 PM I agree with your assessment gts, but I see many more than you include doing the same thing (I suspect you may not immediately see who this group of "like thinking folks" are, who seem to have a desire to be feel they are always on the "right side" (as they define right) on most issues, beyond music). Regardless, It is a pity for all that some of the "best thinkers" and communicators in mudcat may not participate in enlightened discourse because they feel intimated or frustrated by the fruitlessness and the tempo of most threads.It is unfortunate that many may see it as a waste of time and effort. But, it is what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: JohnInKansas Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:49 PM Numbers may be off a little, since I got an "Offline by Operator" message when I hit Submit an hour or so ago. As written earlier: For an assessment of the relative significance of posts above and below the line it may be noted that at the present time there are 44 threads above, with a total of appproximately 727 total posts. Below the lne there are only 16 threads, but containing approximately 53,108 individual posts. Ignoring the two threads specifically dedicated to stupidity (51,506 posts) that leaves 1,602 potentially meaningful (intentional?) comments in BS. For the most part, the individual posts above the line either ask a question or contribute to answering one. This seems useful. Below the line I've read sufficient posts to be quite able to tell which threads were started by those who simply want to argue, and can easily predict who will participate, so I seldom bother with most of them. It is obvious, however, that we have several people who believe it's important to express their opinions about who's the biggest idiot, bigot, pervert, or otherwise deficient person. This is not a subject of much interest to me, so I've found little below the line that's of interest in recent months. Formal DEBATE never solves anything, since the basic principle is that you must choose a side and defend it - right or worng - against all opposing arguments. NEGOTIATION (or conversation) might permit finding what's the better or worse way to approach a difficulty - but it ain't gonna happen here with our recently most active (BS) participants. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:32 PM I do wish that some idiots would learn what "liberal" means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:22 PM I guess this is the thread where the furthest out 'so-called' liberals' get to bash anyone near center, of them, and make an attempt to sound astute while doing it...and censor all those who they can't win an argument with!!!!..and then console each other, as being the 'good guys'!....instead of using the angst to compose or write decent music!!! So what?..Its' not making them any more knowledgeable, interesting, or productive. So I thought I'd just give you something to consider...you know, c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r, as in THINK! The problem with non-thinking parrots, is they get as boring as a broken record...AND......."We can forgive those who bore us..we can never forgive those who we bore!" Cheers, while watching you stroke each other!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Sep 13 - 04:10 PM Oh, is someone spewing pornography? Please give me the links. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Sep 13 - 02:05 PM I swore off the Below the Belt a couple of weeks ago, but here I am. I will stay away from political-religious threads etc., not reading them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: gnu Date: 22 Sep 13 - 01:35 PM I know it's not the way a truly educated and level headed and wise man should act in public. On the other hand, I was also raised to "come big or stay home" when someone tries to bully you or anyone else. Being polite to a bully only encourages them. Matter of fact, at least one personal attack still exists on this very thread. None existed when I left the thread in which I was trolled, stalked and attacked without ever having posted to it. For anyone who missed all that, I was absolutely nasty on that thread. I may have been the nastiest I have ever been. All posts regarding the 'problem" were deleted by a wise moderator. Otherwise, I would be even nastier. I know it's rough on the mods. I spoke to more than one during that last bit of crap. I have been informed of their frustration on an ONgoing basis, as has been stated within this thread. I have even attempted to rein myself in on more than one occasion but it's simple... mess with me or anyone else and I fight back with everything I got... bite, kick, scratch, gouge, scream at the top of my lungs and yes, promise to fuck over anyone who does not recant and apologize for their transgressions. If anyone doesn't want that response, it's simple : don't try to screw with me or anyone else. If you poke the gnu, you get gored by the Wildebeest. And no, that is not bravado nor even childish. If anyone thinks that, they haven't been here long enough to understand it. gnightgnu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 Sep 13 - 01:30 PM ""I just wish we could drop most of the partisan stuff which gets in the way of open debate."" People don't all have the same opinion about almost any subject that you can name. That is a given! Debate is about discussion of those differing opinions, by both sides, or even numerous sides. That too is a given! Whenever I see a post like the one above from Ake, I know that I am dealing with someone who wishes only to "debate" with those who share his opinion, and that is an oxymoron. Debate is a partisan activity, or it is not debate. It need not be nasty (though sometimes one is dealing with people whose opinions are despicable), but it is always partisan, which incentally is not a dirty word. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Sep 13 - 01:21 PM I didn't, Elmore, but they sometimes have musical remarks, despite their typical behavior. Same with a few others who are known for their anti-social behavior. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Elmore Date: 22 Sep 13 - 01:18 PM SRS: Don't forget Bearded Bruce or the not quite so unpleasant, Guest From Sanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: akenaton Date: 22 Sep 13 - 01:15 PM Not me either Bob.....lets leave it to the infants...eh? BTW Jeri..... I have never used the word "buttfucking in my life, as far as I am aware. I have discussed HIV rates amongst male homosexuals, is that against the rules? I don't think the boss would agree about that! It is an extremely serious and important subject. I don't use personal abuse, but depend on the strength of my argument. I am certainly NOT a "troll", the "trolls" here are quite obvious by their personal attacks and childishness. Admin could stop all the personal attacks immediately, by warning those few who use these tactics, if they do not take a warning they should be banned as others before them have been. Referring to members in the language used by these people is certainly worthy of a public warning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Sep 13 - 01:00 PM I suppose it might be a good point for whomever's interested to start side-betting on who's going to successfully takeover this thread. I'll win that one hands down, Jeri. It isn't Bobert - who at least starts discussions that can be discussed. My vote for the toxic poster and thread hijacker here is Songwronger. And once his name has been mentioned here by his chosen nemesis (me) he will start spewing vitriol and pornographic invective. If there was ever anyone who started a thread to start a fight, it's he. He has absolutely no other reason for being on Mudcat. A close second for that is Henry Krinkle by whatever he is calling himself these days. I think these two are also stalkers. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Bill D Date: 22 Sep 13 - 12:44 PM "...was I wrong to get upset when someone trolled and attacked me..."? Not necessarily... it's how one expresses being upset that drives the debate/discussion. Not remembering that situation, gnu, I can't comment on it specifically. In all differences of opinion (to use the most neutral phrase I can think of), 94.8264% of the tone of the thread is related to how many posters toss in a "You are a *****" instead of just responding with an opinion about the issue rather than the person making it. I realize that some folks become very incensed and indignant on some topics when their ideology or favorite 'concern' is at issue, but the very fact OF being highly indignant often seems to degrade their ability to rationally make their points. What IS it about the idea that "I ain't gonna take that shit offa NObody, and I'm gonna tell 'em so!" that controls the basic approach of otherwise rational folk? "Oh wad the gift the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: GUEST,Musket exploding Date: 22 Sep 13 - 12:44 PM Look at it from my perspective Bridge.. Will somebody PLEASE stop Bridge agreeing with me! I have my street cred to think about. Oh and where did Mither go? I liked that. Not as good as M'Unlearned Friend I'll grant you, but it was something you live. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Sep 13 - 12:37 PM Will somebody PLEASE stop Musket saying things I have to agree with (his post of 22 Sep 13 - 01:30 AM)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obit - Below the Line??? From: gnu Date: 22 Sep 13 - 12:13 PM Hmmm... was I wrong to get upset when someone trolled and attacked me thru innuendo a thread I had never posted to? |
