BS: Why I am gone

Subject: BS: Why I am gone
From: TIA
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:54 PM

Because I am following the lead of Azizi.
I love many of you, but the "contributions" of so many new blind haters just make me ill.
Some of them are just ignorant.
Some of them (and you know exactly who you are) have been caught red-handed posting as multiple people.
One of them in particular can be identified just from thread titles - no need to open it to know who will be the OP - with the same tired, racist, hateful message.
I went from participating, to lurking, to now just disappearing. If I wanted to follow the Fox/Breitbart/Drudge blogs, I would. This used to be a haven from such. As an advocate of freedom of speech, I am not going to tell anyone to shut-up. Instead, I will go where I can't hear these assholes spewing.
I will miss many of you, and support you in fighting the good fight.
Cheers and tunes,
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Elmore
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 10:19 PM

Farewell TIA.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Elmore
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 11:36 PM

Tia: You said you were gone at 9:54 but contributed to another thread at 10:19. How can we miss you if you won't go away?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 04:02 AM

One reason I read the forums is that it is open to all points of view.
There are many statements made that I do not accept, but I see that as no reason to wish to depart. Some statements made actually change my stance on things.
    Surely to see all sides of an argument presented, no matter how provocatively phrased, can only be a good thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 04:57 AM

I *almost* started a thread called 'Why I am not gone'.

There is, indeed, a much higher level of - what shall we say? assertiveness? vehemence? - in BS than it real life conversations. Some of it is certainly very ill-informed.

But the point is, just sometimes, I'm the one that's ill-informed. And the only way I know of to address that is when someone else let's me know.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: G-Force
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 05:23 AM

The best way to get through life is to just take the rough with the smooth.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 05:49 AM

> No need to open it to know who will be the OP - with the same tired, racist, hateful message

Why not just bypass them? You don't have to click any link you don't want to.

There's still a lot of good content here - intelligence, goodwill, information - which you'll be missing out on. As you say, it's easy to spot which threads are gonna be trouble. And avoid them.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 07:39 AM

Yeah, TIA, I fully understand where you are coming from... It is disheartening that wacko right wingers seem to have permeated every conceivable vehicle where people communicate... Big media has all but blackballed "liberals"... All we hear is the right wing defining who we are and it does get tiresome hearing and reading these people's boorish and racist garbage but...

...these people ain't squat in the big scheme of things and we will one day look back on these times a the darkest of times... It started with 9/11 and since we haven't had much in the way of fresh air...

Just take some time off, TIA, and come on back when ya' feel like it 'cause ol' Bobert loves ya'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:41 AM

TIA - Your decision pleases no one but the trolls. You've made them very happy today. In my opinion- it's better to stay and poke fun at the trolls than let them get under your skin.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:00 AM

Trolls should be ignored, they thrive on our responces.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Elmore
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 11:44 AM

Actually the trolls on Mudcat are more literate than the trolls on other web sites. Yes, they piss me off, but they serve to strengthen my faith in the correctness of my opinions, and they provoke some brilliant responses from the anti-trolls.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 07:27 PM

I'm with Elmore on that. I live in a very conservative area, and I need to practice my responses on the issues so I can answer challenges intelligently and with diplomacy and an open mind. If I am to accomplish anything in my community, I have to know how to deal with right-wingers without insulting them. I can get the insults out of my system by insulting Songwronger here - and we have a number of sincere right-wingers here, and I've tried to learn how to treat them with respect.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 07:36 PM

TIA, nobody CARES that you are gone, I've been gone for years and nobody even noticed, let alone cared. It's all about the Inner Circle....Max, Mods and Maine-iacs. Trolls are incidental.

Since the minimal moderation favours the trolls, they do get to win more often than not.

Even some of the Old Stalwarts (Spaw, Big Mick, Joe Offer ect) are Seldom Seen, and god forbid MAX should actually check his own site often. After all, he seems to have 'mental problems'.....or whatever.
Oh yes, of course he has a Day Job (don't most of us?) and Other Real Life Problems (don't most of us?) but just WHEN has he really been any sort of Regular around the Cat? Date please....

I gave up caring much a long time ago, but I still check in for some kicks, giggles and laffs. Miz Lizzie and SRS are usually good for a few of those. That is a No Win Game, but they both seem to enjoy it.

Most everyone except herself knows that MLC 'needs help' but she is never going to get it....and has more or less asked to be 'banned'. That won't happen, it would simply Justify her Position....yea, a laff a minute.

I'll keep checking in to see if MC has actually become better or its' old self, but I doubt that.

Ta ta!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:04 PM

Well, I've been here a long time, but I've never really worked out how to define a "troll".
Is it someone who posts just to provoke an angry response? If so how does one determine whether they are sincere or not?
Is it someone who posts personal attacks, but vows that they are attacking the opinions not the person?
Is it someone who posts on subjects which contradict the majority view?

I see many very unpleasant people here, who seem to be accepted regardless of their behaviour. I also see people, who appear to be pleasant and tolerant, yet their posts are laced with venom toward those who disagree with their views.....some of the old stagers fall into this category.....what we call a clique, a fortress mentality

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:16 PM

Just so you'll know them when you see them:

Inner Circle

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:17 PM

TIA has more intelligence in her finger nail clippings than a lot of people here with their entire mindless heads...

But with that said, hey, folks can either take the wackos here or they can't... If I have had enough of one or another I just ignore everything they post for a month or two and then chime back in and if they are still as whacked out as the last time go back to ignoring them...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:32 PM

Are "trolls" all right wingers Bob?
People of left and right can have different views on controversial subjects like abortion, homosexual "marriage", multiculturalism, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: gnu
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:34 PM

Good lord! A "guest" comes in and personally attacks the siteowner? Fuck me. What an ignorant bunch of complete twats. Trolls and assholes expound their virtues ad infinitum and think the core group of 'Catters who have been here far longer don't see thru their shit veil.

Well. Maybe the throlls and assholes have won?. Me? I am exploring a new strategy. I have even been apprised by some mods I should give it up... stop resisting... give it a try as it might help. Rather than rail against such detracters...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dULOjT9GYdQ... maybe I should just give up and join Spaw and Sev and John and Dan and.... all the others who can't be arsed anymore.

Does that mean I and they gave up and the trolls win? No. What it means is far more that that. I finally understand why they fucked off. This is not a true community anymore. It's a shitfest of trolls. I wish I had all of the money I ever contributed to this site back so I could hold a wake for it. Open bar fer MEMBERS ONLY.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:42 PM

Yeah, Ake, they are...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:25 PM

Not actually, Bobert. There are quite a number on the left end of the spectrum who like to toss around verbal abuse, as well. One school of thought runs that reasoned and logical discussions don't draw the sort of attention that crack-rants do. Another school of thought is that posters insult and abuse because they don't actually know enough about the subject to actually discuss it, or care enough to learn about it. Both schools have merit.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Joe_F
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:33 PM

I must have superlative taste in subject lines. I cannot recall encountering any rudeness on the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:49 PM

Yeah ...over a decade ago I once spouted similar threats...but returned just like "our zit zit."

In the end ...what other place would tolerate thee, me, or her?

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Nunc lento sonitu dicunt, Morieris

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Gurney
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 12:21 AM

Inner circle? I never noticed one! There are prolific posters, and there are plenty of posters with a long lifetime's experience, and prepared to share that accrued wisdom. Often the same people.

The moderators don't post much.

Some years ago, I decided that if I wouldn't argue with an axe-grinder or a bigot in a bar, then I wouldn't argue with him or her here. I feel that this decision has reduced the incidence of ear-steam for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 02:55 AM

I notice that those who talk of going either don't go anyway or use it as a threat to get people agreeing with them instead of questioning them.

Nobody owns this forum, except Max and he merely hosts it.   It is what it is. We have our share of nice people, not so nice people, burnt out hippies, closet bigots, beards, brown shirts, liberals, radicals and point scorers.

People will come and go. If you go, do so. Don't bother looking for people pleading. That shows you to be the narcissist I should have added to the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 04:19 AM

TIA - I am sorry your experience on Mudcat has become unpleasant. I too felt this for sometime. But now, having grown up a little in the last few years, I realise that I don't expect anyone to sway me from my views, so why should I feel compelled to convince others their opinions, beliefs are incorrect?   That would be very pompous of me.

I glean the good from Mudcat, and be sure there is so much more good than there is bad. It just takes a conscious effort to look for it and to ignore the rest.

All the best,

Tam

p.s. Guest - If you truly value your opinion then you should not fear to post under your (former) Mudcat ID.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 04:20 AM

I personally come here to gain knowledge of Folk Music/singing worldwide and enjoy doing so. I used to get involved in conversations in BS, quite regularly at one point, but came under attack for my Christian views by some quite nasty characters. (No names mentioned as some are still here and they know who they are). My attitude is 'If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen' Read what you want to read, comment on what you want to comment on and ignore personal attacks or detrimental comments. Some people here are quite genuine and give a good account of themselves in the things they write and the opinions they put forward..... the rest are here too! Live with it or don't come here!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 05:11 AM

In the past (or even in the present, depending on which country you had the accident to be born in), lusty opponents of religion (not necessarily all religions, of course, often just the one in vogue at the time) were very likely to fail to live out their natural lifespan. These days we just get called trolls. At least we've learned how to keep our heads (in more ways than one). If you air your "Christian views" on a website which is basically of a secular nature, which is your inalienable right, yes you can expect to be subjected to opposing points of view, put fairly directly at times. You call it nasty, I say tomayto. You do not own the default position of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Will Fly
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 05:16 AM

I realise that I don't expect anyone to sway me from my views, so why should I feel compelled to convince others their opinions, beliefs are incorrect?

Absolutely. Which is why I can hardly be arsed to go "below the line" these days, unless there's a fun thread or an interesting technical topic to read about.

The value of Mudcat for me is up above the line - music and stuff related to music. That's primarily why I'm here and why I only occasionally contribute to the BS section. Much of what's discussed down here - to me, I stress - is a waste of space. Others seem to get their rocks off on it - good luck to 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 05:37 AM

Steve you state >>>>> If you air your "Christian views" on a website which is basically of a secular nature, which is your inalienable right, yes you can expect to be subjected to opposing points of view, put fairly directly at times. You call it nasty, I say tomayto. You do not own the default position of humanity.<<<<<< Generally I believe my Christian views were aired on threads which were discussing religion and beliefs. I gave my personal views and was attacked personally for giving them....... There are those who do not consider that it is my right to do that and most of those are happy to air their views about people who so believe without expecting any reply............... Yes the website is of a secular nature until someone raises a 'Religious' subject... If you look back over time you will find that many of the threads with religious titles/themes in them have been started by anti-religious members ( or guests)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 05:47 AM

When you say personally attacked, do you mean you were physically crucified or fed to lions or somebody just didn't give your superstition the respect you feel it demands?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:44 AM

Speaking as an atheist/humanist I don't understand why is it so difficult to accord each individual the dignity one expects for oneself?   It is quite simple and the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 07:26 AM

I can understand why good people leave, they have no stomach for nastiness, and I understand why they announce that they are leaving. Other good people want to know, that's all.

I've thought about it myself when I've been called a liar and a fool, but, no one has the power to influence my actions. As the saying goes, "Your opinion of me is none of my business."

People who don't even know me; if they decide they don't like me, it's their problem, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 09:00 AM

Simply stating one's honest opinion, however controversial, is not an act of trolling in itself. (Some opinions go against other general rules, e.g. being racist etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 09:19 AM

It's well to remember that, with one minor exception, the universe is made up of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 09:51 AM

Yes the website is of a secular nature until someone raises a 'Religious' subject.

Raising a religious subject does not alter the mix of people who come here. You don't get to ringfence your conversations just because they happen to be about your religion, any more that I should expect to be able to ringfence any of my pet topics. I can't rattle on about atheism without expecting to get a good kicking here, and I'm more than happy about that, so why should you expect to be wrapped in cotton wool? Anyway, I'd say it all depended on the manner in which you express your views. And never, ever ask me for my prayers, even if you're lumping me in with everyone else here.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Mr Happy
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 09:59 AM

I don't get why anyone announces that they're going?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:02 AM

Just my thoughts, Mr H. If you are going, then go and don't let the door slam. If you are staying, shut the door and keep the heat in :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Mr Happy
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:07 AM

Bye-ee!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: SINSULL
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:14 AM

HMMMM
Four posts since her dramatic exit.
Guess she exited to another thread.
????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:33 AM

Oh, fellas? I believe TIA is a man.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:40 AM

When someone chooses to sneer at and insult someone else purely on the basis of that other person's religious faith or lack of it, it says far more about the sneerer and insulter than it does about the object of his or her vilification. And not in a good way, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:48 AM

I did one of these - I am gone forever things - after a tata with Dave Hanson and Diane easby.

The thing is. Mudcat is unique. Its for us. The deaths of our friends are notified here. The latest bits and pieces on the scene are alluded to. If you're in a lather about someone - like I am with blind Lemon Jefferson at the moment - theres always someone to help out....

I can't see anything ever being as good as Mudcat. It can be hurtful and offensive. people say things out loud that they would whisper in real life. I guess some people have a fantasy about folk music which reality can't fulfil - so they balls on about it, like Mussolini addressing his adoring fans. Its an easy trap to fall into.

We're all entitled to say and think malevolent and subversive thoughts to our mates. But if you told Mussolini to be less extreme when he was in full flow - the results would always be predictable.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:54 AM

Bloody hell Al. If folk music is your fantasy I suggest eating cheese before going to bed.

My fantasies certainly don't involve the upstairs room of a draughty pub that smells of cat with an audience who quietly tell you in the beer break that you sang it wrong.

If that's fantasy, I must be living the dream!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 11:55 AM

"I must have superlative taste in subject lines. I cannot recall encountering any rudeness on the Mudcat."
.,,.
Really, Joe F. Why, what a lucky fellow.

I was once accused by someone who objected to something I had posted of wearing an ill-fitting colostomy bag. I don't so I wasn't too bothered. Still, I should say it was a bit rude, wouldn't you?

However, same time, within a day or two, someone else posted to me "Long may you continue to post to Mudcat".

Can't please everyone. As I summed up on insert on 'Me & Mudcat' I was invited to contribute to last 'This Is Us' CD collection, "'Rough with smooth', as they say" ~~ which I note a point similarly made by one of early posts on this thread, by G-Force.

OTOH, if you really can't stand the heat...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 12:26 PM

I guess in order to resent an "Inner Circle" you have to see yourself as outcast or outside. No-one at Mudcat ever made me feel anything but welcome, and as a result I have never suspected there was an inner circle. Of course, I almost always try to mind my manners in case there IS one, silently watching, but so far, not a peep out of them. I have observed a great number of strong friendships, but nothing circular or hidden.

Maybe it is the case that in order to see and resent Inner Circles, one has to be a bit of a sphincter oneself. Ya think?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 01:50 PM

The problem with being a member of an elite inner circle
is the constantly festering insecurity and paranoia
that there may be an even more elite secret inner inner circle
to which you have not been invited......

.. it's actually quite a comfort to just accept you are unwanted & forever excluded..

it's quite nice out here...

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Elmore
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 01:59 PM

Even the trolls have been nice to me on occasion. BB once called me a witty fool, or something like that. What more could one ask for?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:27 PM

Mr. Happy, I thought I explained that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Former guest from beyond BS
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:47 PM

Hello, anyone "home" in here?

"Hello!"

I'm just stealthly "looking back in" to see if anyone is also "looking back in to see me", or if anyone notices I am gone (or here) - or that I am still kinda here (not).

And, btw, I legally reserve the right to look back in, if I feel like doing so in the future (not wishing to exhaust or limit any future change of mind). It's mighty lonely out here in the real bs-less world.

*Disclaimer, not intended to reflect on any person, or seity, real or not

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:40 PM

I don't see the point of the anti-religious jihad that a few folks here engage in. You may have a dislike of the subject. You are entitled to express your opinion. But do you have to bark and drool like a Pavlovian pitbull every time religion is mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 07:11 PM

I have to say that Jack the Sailor and Steve Shaw and a few others have made it absolutely impossible to speak about the subject of religion with and degree of intelligence or civility.
So, I guess I've written that subject off as "bigot territory."
See what happened when they joined this thread?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 07:28 PM

Joe Offer

"Life involves all types"

I suspect there are a still retro-folks who still believe that people are converted by silencing them, through a variety of means (some approaches may seem less gentile than others). An odd concept that, in my observation, has rarely worked anywhere over the longer-term (and most likely has also been mostly ineffective over the shorter-term).

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 08:50 PM

So, Joe Offer, a bigot is someone who doesn't entirely go along with your cosy and unreal view of a life that cuddles up with religion. Well here's what I think. You're the bigot. You're the guy who "educates" his children within a religion that they were born into by pure chance, then makes a ton of excuses along the lines of giving them get-outs if they want them (which you probably hope they won't want). You're the guy who shuts a part of his mind off to evidence because you think there's "a greater truth". Actually, I could do a deal with you: stop calling me a bigot because I have the temerity to question your religion in a somewhat forthright way, and I'll stop calling you a bigot for embracing delusion and passing it on to the next generation.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 09:31 PM

I have to agree with Joe that those who are fanatic on the subject of religion make me not want to bother trying to discuss it. Likewise the fanatics on any particular subject. You can't have a decent conversation when one or several crusading whack jobs have their personal volume set to 10 all of the time. Religion, politics, human rights-- it's not worth it to try to be heard in the midst of all the figurative shouting and frantic post-bombing.

One thing though, trying to direct what happens here is futile. Nobody cares, except maybe a couple people who know you. And the things you can't stand are things someone else loves, and they won't back off simply because it bothers you. This is me being cynical. It's so nice to hear from all the people who aren't here, though. That's special.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Noreen
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:35 PM

Whatever your opinion, on whatever subject, it is possible to discuss it and exchange opinions with others, with courtesy and politeness, accepting the possibility that YOUR opinion is not the only one that is valid.

When I first came to the Mudcat Café, (13 years ago?!) at a very fragile time in my life, I felt myself surrounded by like-minded, warm friendship- it felt safe here.

Sadly, the openness and welcoming nature of the site has attracted those who don't respect it and who have made it a far less pleasant place to come.

I still do come here, for old times sake, and like someone said above (Will Fly?) it's OUR place still- but I don't feel safe here like I used to and I'm far more wary about posting anything at all personal.



It's so nice to hear from all the people who aren't here, though. That's special.

Well said, Jeri.

To absent friends *clink* :)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket sans jerkiness
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 01:45 AM

I love delicious irony. Hence I am still giggling at the contribution by Jack the Sailor.

Joe Offer has sadly disappointed me though. Yes, you included Jack the Sailor in your condemnation and perhaps in that you feel it balanced. The sad part is though that the origins of the threads you don't like stoop to a low level when someone who is religious sneers at those who either profess otherwise (atheists to give them a title I suppose) and the vast majority who don't entertain religion but don't go scrabbling for an alternative. (As atheist as a word implies anti theist I doubt the majority of people could be arsed enough to give it any thought. )

The rise of religious threads lately seems to fit in with the push by Christian groups around the world to rally against the increasing irrelevance they have in society and the blunt silly attempts lately to come over as persecuted.

The day I see any religion embrace equality I might just be prepared to debate at their level. Until that day, I happily look down on those who use their faith as a sanctimonious weapon.

And as that doesn't describe the good guy Joe Offer in general, that's why I am saddened by his post above.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:31 AM

Abuse is abuse, and trolling is trolling, no matter to what extent the objects deserve criticism. This is how I understand Joe's message, not as a statement about the content of any such dispute.

Civilized persons who wish to counteract propaganda have the following options:

1. ignore it ostentatiously, for example by continuing the previous discussion of the thread or giving the thread a new turn within its topic
2. state their disagreement briefly in sober words, and no more than once per thread
3. point out the propagandist's fallacies in sober words, and no more than once per thread
4. point out the propagandist's lack of civilized behaviour (in case s/he pretends otherwise) in sober words, and no more than once per thread

Option 1. is most efficient.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket chastised?
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:49 AM

No not really.

Ok. Once per thread. There is no God. You have one opportunity to prove me wrong then you have to shut up.

Tell you what, here's what I demand you do, as you use italics to underline your own demands. You have to put up with as many posts as it takes to get over a message. Some people try many times and whilst I may or may not agree with them, I accept that they are trying, bless 'em.

You see, what you totally fail to understand is that your use of the word "troll" seems linked to your arbitrary terms of posting that you seek to impose. In other words, anybody who doesn't dance to your tune is a troll.

Fine.

Excuse me whilst I fart.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:15 AM

For what it's worth here's my feeble contribution:-
I can't for the life of me understand why people get so hurt, incensed, upset and mortally offended by some words on a computer screen. If one is getting hot under the collar, turn the darned thing off. It's not as if the posters are knocking on the front door of your house or banging on the window pane. They don't even know who you are or where you live. I'm very saddened for example by these recent cases of youngsters committing suicide because of 'cyber bullying'. Why couldn't they just stop visiting that site and look at something else? I've read some nasty things on Mudcat, but I haven't ground my teeth down to the gums in shock. It would be nice if folk restrained themselves a bit. But there's no need to get your knickers in a twist or leave completely. I really like most of the people on here, and enjoy visiting Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:22 AM

Some folks are nice and courteous who believe in a God, some are the same that don't believe in such, and some of those who are not sure are share the same characteristics. Then, there are the opposite types in all said groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:43 AM

If we do not stop it, the BS forum will die, or become a mindless pit.

If there are to be subjects which "must not be discussed", that is for the site owner or moderators to decide upon.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:10 AM

Musket, I do not impose anything, I just describe what sort of behaviour seems civilized to me. If you prefer to be perceived as an "onanist" (cf. the other thread on the same topic), you are not affected at all: proceed as you did before. If you feel to be perfectly civilized and my observation to be wrong, you are welcome to argue.

I avoid using nouns like "troll" (or "thief", "liar" etc.), since they suggest invariability. For my usage of the word "trolling" I gave definitions (conforming with Internet-savvy dictionaries) and arguments; you are welcome to challenge either, if you are specific.

Once per thread: this obviously refers to any single point. We should strive to make it clear and concise in a single message, but sometimes we fail that and need more than one post to elaborate or explain. What I am criticizing is repetitions for the sole reason of having the last word; this is not only rude but also pointless (- Mudcat threads being mistaken for online chats whose older posts would descend into oblivion).

Enjoy your effluvium.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:26 AM

Eliza asserts that these expressing unacceptable opinins here are not invading our lives. But they are. They are proponents of the attempts at oppression that are so prevalent in the USA, by the lunatic right, by so-called libertarians, by fundagelicals, who would empower the oppression of the less fortunate, of the less violent, of women, of homosexuals. What they propose would damage and should be opposed by decent people here and in the physical world. They should be vilified and excoriated here. Mither is too charitable to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket sans charity
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:57 AM

And that's saying something Bridge... Don't just mention the ones the other side of the pond, please try to be inclusive and include Scotland eh?

Grishka. If you want to get a point over in one post, that is difficult for many, yourself included. There have been a few posts that I have reacted to where you have then further clarified and yes, on a couple of occasions I feel I had got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Sometimes, a point needs explaining further.

I am civilised. Or at least I can tie my own shoelaces, which is not a bad measure of the word. Whether I wish to debate or confront depends on the view posted. If we are not careful, we will join Akenhateon in his mindless pit that he at last acknowledges exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 11:00 AM

But R Bridge's definition of those who, he states in his last post, "should be opposed by decent people here and in the physical world [and] vilified and excoriated here", I know from experience to comprise merely those who have to barefaced gall and impudence to happen not to share his own jejune & fatuous political slant. Because I don't concur unquestioningly, 100%, with all his oh-so-predictable left-oriented political views, he has often denounced me as one "who would empower the oppression of the less fortunate, of the less violent", and stated explicitly that I deserve, ('have earned' as he once charmingly expressed it), rudeness, obloquy, and abuse as such a face-grinding oppressor. And then, like as so many of such orientation (horny-handed sons of toil like him, slaving away in solicitors' offices), he proceeds to strike conceited airs of moral superiority for being so supremely enlightened!

Pathetic...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: kendall
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 11:02 AM

No one has a right to tell another that your opinion is wrong.

The most you can say is, "I have a different opinion."

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 11:26 AM

Hi

Well said Eliza.

If people don't like something posted here all they have to do is go to next posting - easy eh ??

I do enjoy most people's posts here - even when their views don't agree with my own. Just ignore the the trolls....they will soon disappear.

Regards

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 12:09 PM

One thing I should add to my criteria:

To convey the impression of being civilized, it also helps to read messages carefully before responding. Otherwise the authors may feel obliged to restate and explain their point unnecessarily. (Many messages do not deserve reading carefully, but all the less they deserve a reply.) Sorting posters into drawers and writing "blindly" to a whole drawer is very bad style.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 02:59 PM

Musket, you and your fellow hateful ranters are entertaining each other - the rest of us do not find that entertaining at all, and not convincing either. Each of you is demolishing his own respectability, not anybody else's, however deserving.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:19 PM

And BTW, I am not moaning about manners, I gave practical tips to all interested Mudcatters about how to react to unpleasant messages. It is not my concern to find out who is the worst of all, and definitely not to suggest criteria for censorship. The reason why I discuss with Musket is to refute his idea that someone who gratuitously abuses the deserving can appear as a civilized person.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 07:30 PM

Ian sounds like an exceptionally good person to me. OK, he "supports" Sheffield Wednesday, but even that puts me in a weak position after tonight's completely unjust "defeat" of Liverpool by the arch-enemy. However.

Know summat, achytony? Ian is a good bloke because he "does" humanity in a way that someone like you can never recognise. Your brain is sullied by your perverted attitude to gay people, who are human beings just like you, Ian and me. Yeah, they're just like you. Identical, in fact. Hope you feel good about that. You are outdated, outmoded, outdone and out of it. You haven't a bloody clue about what makes people who are ever so slightly different from you (in your opinion only) tick. I can conclude that you probably don't even know what makes you tick. The really worrying thing for you should be that your obsession with gay people marks you out as a closet something. Can't quite put my finger on what that something might be and wouldn't really want to. There must be something about yourself that you haven't told us that makes you think like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket living the dream
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 01:26 AM

Make that evens on the pint you owe me on another thread mate.

Grishka. Your penultimate post puts confronting bigotry on the same level as spouting it then your last post appears to say such people don't come across as civilised.

In which case say so. As it is, a conspiracy of silence seems to be louder than words.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 01:58 AM

In exactly the same way as one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom-fighter', it could be argued that one man's 'bigot' is another man's 'realist'. There are always two sides to a debate, and both should be able to be freely aired.

Stifling inconvenient opinions is the tactic of the extremist, and doesn't in any way win an argument. You don't defeat an opponent in debate by insulting him, screaming '"Bigot" and refusing to allow him to speak. You do it by allowing him to make his argument, however unacceptable you might find it, and then proposing a counter-argument which is more compelling and against which he has no plausible response.

Those who seek to silence others on this forum simply display either the paucity of their own arguments, or their inability to make those arguments convincingly, or both.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:53 AM

You've proved exactly the point I was trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to make - that by allowing others to air their views, you allow them the opportunity to condemn themselves by their own words. If you simply stifle them, you don't change anything - they still hold their, perhaps odious, views and are neither deflected from their purpose nor persuaded of their error (in fact, it may very we'll serve to reinforce their opinions by virtue of giving them a sense that they are somehow the victim).

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:02 AM

And, of course, it's all OK while you're the one playing Big Brother and defining what may, and may not, be spoken of, but remember that fashions change and, one day, it may be your own opinions that become taboo, and Big Brother may have his secret ears and eyes on you.

By the way, I use the word "You" above in the impersonal sense of "One" - not you personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:06 AM

And now I'm gone (but only from this thread)!   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:43 AM

I do see your point Richard, that we should be vigilant and oppose all the 'isms' that oppress and hurt. And perhaps my stance is a bit lily-livered. I find strident confrontation rather difficult though. But one can, I think, express disapproval and even anger in a civilised and mature way. In fact, such a restrained response may in the end have more effect than outright ranting and insults. All I was trying to say (perhaps not very clearly) is that one isn't condemned to read posts which upset and enrage if one would rather not. There are some funny and interesting threads to go to instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:04 AM

Fair do's Backwoodsman. But I am not on a crusade to stifle him. The genie is out of the bottle in his case. Making it perfectly clear that such exhibition of personality disorder will be rigorously challenged may just either shut him up in future or dissuade others who Google key words that interest them and find mudcat.org. We had it with a UK fascist party the other year.

It would be nice if a gay person could use Mudcat.org and participate without having to read things that any decent person in their position would find distressing. Hence my reporting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:57 AM

Sorry you have left us, TIA.

But it's definitely understandable. Only thing that is not understandable is not being interested in the discussions above the line.   I find you can learn a lot above the line, and only rarely do the flame war fans intrude----usually those who are unwilling to live and let live on the subject of religion.

However there are virtually always worthwhile posts above the line. Just finding out about concert opportunities is worth a lot--I just found out we may get a chance to see Archie Fisher if we play our cards right.

Why should anybody waste time below the line--unless he or she really has an appetite for combat---or a bit of time to kill?    Nothing is ever resolved below the line

As you note, Songwrongheader and a few others can be counted on to start threads which have no point other than stirring the pot.    But, as in all threads, nobody has to respond.

If somebody favors you with gutter language, you can ask whether they also speak English--and let it go at that.

You will be sorely missed--one the few voices of reason below the line.


To be continued.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:23 AM

I would like to see what Musket sees as a hate crime.
I have followed Akeneaton over the years and never seen any such.
It would be out of character.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:37 AM

Anyone know where this quote came from - possibly a movie?


""Never miss a good opportunity to shut up""

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:52 AM

As I've never actually regarded atheism as a point of view as such (seeing as we are no more than the invention of deluded people), I never cease to be amused that anyone can think you can have such a thing as an "atheist bigot". Just thought I'd mention it. Of course, atheists can be bigoted about stuff aside from religion. I've heard, for example, that Yorkshire and environs contain several "Sheffield Wednesday fans" who haven't been to Mass for positively years!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 12:28 PM

I am grateful to Joe, Max and Dick for supplying a forum for expressing views and in spite of the brickbats being thrown, offering a chance to clarify ideas which would be difficult to state in other blogs and venues. I see Mudcat as a champion of genuine democracy where citizens can have their say. So often on the media,
you get pundits yelling at each other without any listening skills whatever and those who shout the loudest get heard. Or those who can buy "free speech" as the Supreme Court has ruled, can drown out the voices of dissent.

Here, you can examine statements made by anyone and offer an alternative point of view. That's why I keep coming back. I expect the brickbats but here there is an opportunity to delve into the underlying motivations of those who throw them and address them rationally.

I am one who thinks that there is no separation between one's musical expression and political or philosophical ideas. In this I concur with Pete Seeger, Steve Earle,
Woody Guthrie, Beethoven, Chopin, Louis Armstrong and other leading influential musicians.

I deplore the censorship of "Pussy Riot" in Russia by Putin although I might question their ideas. They don't deserve what Putin gave them the same way Victor Jara didn't deserve the torture he received at the hands of the Chilean government eventually overtaken by Noriega.

Mudcat offers a forum which is invaluable and connects humanitarian ideals
to music.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:28 PM

It's sort of amusing (and explanatory) that yet another thread has turned into a general-purpose bitch session. The MAIN problem is that some people are NOT gone-- or at least that they can't put the good of the community above their person urges.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:26 PM

Ake, note the stats from below - what do you propose be done to rectify this major health issue among minorties?

Note I am not suggesting that NA Indians (and possibly the African Americans) should be "rounded up" and put on reservations, and kept away from the healthier whites (because, we did that, it did not work:)

""Minority Health
HIV and Sexually Transmitted Diseases - Newly diagnosed cases of HIV.
The HIV rate for American Indians is nearly 80 percent higher than
the rate for whites, but much lower than the rate for African Americans.
The same is true for the overall rate of certain sexually transmitted diseases among American Indians, whites, and African Americans (early syphilis,gonorrhea, and chlamydia)"'

Source:
NA Indians Health
North Carolina
PDF

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:28 PM

The main problem is personal abuse Jeri.

Why was the rule on personal abuse abandoned? I can only think of perhaps three people who do it in a serious and regular basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Noreen
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 05:08 PM

Exactly what I was thinking Jeri.

That and *yawn*.... in a bar I'd have walked away from this 'conversation' a long time ago.

Can we not reserve a separate 'room' here for those who just want to abuse each other ad nauseam, and keep their vituperation away from the rest of us nice people?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:03 PM

" But one can, I think, express disapproval and even anger in a civilised and mature way. In fact, such a restrained response may in the end have more effect than outright ranting and insults."

Absolutely correct, Eliza. In fact, this may be one of the best things about Mudcat BS.


" All I was trying to say (perhaps not very clearly) is that one isn't condemned to read posts which upset and enrage if one would rather not. There are some funny and interesting threads to go to instead."

Right! I think one can deal with outbursts and insults with rationality and clarity. I don't expect that people should muzzle their passions but as you say, a restrained response
elevates the level of conversation about controversial topics.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:07 PM

1 in 10 women have breast cancer. Almost 100% of new cases of breast cancer are amongst women. This is an epidemic and for this reason I suggest that all women are subjected to compulsory screening for breast cancer every 3 years. Us men can just sit back and relax as usual. Or start rounding up homosexuals I suppose...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:13 PM

Well I suspect the health impact on the NA indians, and African Americans is not a small matter to these people, Ake?

If sexual intercourse is the means of infection, and they have sex with other (seting asided the bisexual factor), how does it impact others- as they seem to know and accept the risks? What makes you sure that the homosexual community is any less likely to stay faithful to a partner than others in society, for example the younger single population.

I am not sure where you are going with this, beyond the hint of anti homosexual perspective. Why do you seem so " stuck" on this issue? Are you proposing a solution? Are you on a drive to end homosexuality (good luck with that). Do you propose greater health education with this group? Are you proposing the benefits of gay mariage and fewer partners? Not reading many of your other posts on this, I do not understand your preoccupation with this issue? I give you the benefit of the doubt (lacking information) that it is not coming from prejudice. Are you merely ringing alarm, in concern for this segment?

In a nutshell, what's your point with obsessing with this matter?









So, what is this all about?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:21 PM

Can we not reserve a separate 'room' here for those who just want to abuse each other ad nauseam, and keep their vituperation away from the rest of us nice people?

As in, let's always sweep unpleasantness under the carpet so as not to offend the oh so delicate views of the Nice People? Yep, go for it. What a great way of solving problems. Alternatively, do think before you post.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:35 PM

Ed....Do you not agree that this is an extremely serious matter?

I would never have mentioned it on this thread had I not been goaded into doing so by other posters.
How can anyone be "anti homosexual"? homosexuality is a fact. You are not being reasonable.
How can anyone hope to end homosexuality? You are not being reasonable!
I am suggesting a procedure which has possibilities of cutting the horrific infection rates amongst male homosexuals.
"Gay marriage" is not a solution, it is a smokescreen.

I don't feel that I am "obsessing" on this issue, I am certain that this issue is being ignored by many people here and in the wider population, on ideological grounds; and that is an absolute disgrace.

Do these figures really not affect you at all? Did you even read them?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:44 PM

DtN.....Cancer is not an infectious disease.
Of course screening and testing for cancer is a very good idea, but as it is non infectious the decision to make them compulsory or not is debatable.
As we continue to live longer, one in three of us will develop cancer of some sort, but it appears to be largely age related.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:44 PM

You guys decided to let Ake drive this bus?

Prompted by Ake's comment, but "you" is generic.

Some years ago, Max asked me if I wanted to be a "volunteer" here, at what was essentially a website for those who shared a common interest in folk. I would fix HTML and line breaks (it wasn't automatic then) and delete duplicate and blank posts. If people argued, they did so with an underlying repect and there were lines that never seemed to be crossed.

Now, there are threads exclusively for people to argue. Most of those people don't seem to care at all about folk music.

Max once said Mudcat was whatever the people here wanted it to be. Some of them want it to be a long series of bar brawls. People who don't want that can do nothing about it except complain. Because those who are engaged in the bar fights don't care. They don't care about bothering others or making the place seem poisoned. They don't care how stupid or petty they look. They don't care about "nice" and "respectful. They don't care about winning a fight, just the process of fighting. They care about being able to do what THEY want, whenever and wherever they want to do it.

There are too many of them, and they're too intent on keeping the nastiness going, and I can't win. I've deleted posts attacking one person, only to have that person fire off three retaliatory messages in the minutes it took to delete the attack that prompted it all. Then they accused me of making them look stupid. I didn't do that. There are people who, if they show up, their usual adversaries can be predicted to join soon, and selfishly and make it impossible for anyone else to contribute. There are some who intentionally troll, but mostly, there are is a ready-made group of... I know it's not the best term, but it's as disgusting as I can manage to get.. troll-fuckers: a bunch of jerks who come in looking to be provoked and take advantage of any offense. Some are in the US and some are British. I don't see other countries getting involved routinely.

I know this is not what Max wants for his site, but I'm one person, and I can only do what I can do. If someone complains about personal abuse because they're engaging in a pub brawl and get a bloody nose, STAY OUT OF THE FUCKING FIGHTS. If it happens in a music discussion, or if someone gets blind-sided, I'll try to stop it. If you want adult supervision to make the bad kids behave, you probably shouldn't be on the internet. That's not why I'm here. I don't enjoy reading unpleasantness. I don't choose to because it makes me sick, and I'm here for what I love, not what I hate.

No one can control you but you.
You are the ONLY person you can control.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:57 PM

Good post jeri and you have made yourself clear.

I take pride in not abusing people and trying to put forward a reasoned argument backed by as many facts as I can find.
Unfortunately some subjects of discussion here seem to provoke abuse in others. Religion, Homosexuality, Abortion.....controversial subjects.

My advice is either ban the discussion of controversial subjects, or ban the abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:22 PM

That would still involve making someone else do something to make the world safe, and I'm pretty sure it would create more work than it would save. Try to come up with a solution that doesn't involve someone else assuming the role of thread police.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:27 PM

Yes, Ake (I trust calling you that is OK) better managed disease prevention-education-awareness among this group and others impacted by disease (regardless of the size of the group) does interest and concern me.

For example, people impacted by disease caused by poverty and hunger is huge all around the world. Take malaria, a huge problem which could be reduced much better with more resources from private donations and international focus.

So, from that perspective, I understand a concern regarding the health impact of unprotected sex with random partners, among the homosexual and heterosexuals community. Public concern for HIV has likely lessened in the past few years (compared to a few years ago). We all should be more vigilant and caring and encourage increased education, awareness and reasonable measures to limit its spread.

I am at low risk, as many, because I am married and don't fool around. I suspect a significant risk for spreading such stuff around is centered around those who are in a different situation.

Now, back to my question. Where are you coming from on this topic, and what is your goal and solution? Unlike some others (as it seems), I have not been previously been exposed to your perspective on this issue. I trust you are well meaning, and considerate and understanding to the homosexual community (as I am. However, I am cautious, as you have seemed to "stirred up" a few folks on this topic, that may be more aware of previous discussions than I am. As a side note, I have no interest in homophobic theories, and respect those in the homosexual community equally to those in any other community.

So, Ake, here is your chance to explain to me what is on your mind on the topic - to someone who currently has an open mind on your intent. I ask that you be clear on what is fueling your interest in the topic. Hopefully, others have misunderstood your intent and you can express it in a manner that is considerate of the concerns and sensitivities of other members.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:50 PM

"Good post Jeri" my arse. I hate to keep on repeating this, but there is no rule that says you have to join in with any folk music discussion, non-folk music discussion, unpleasantness, pleasantness, any other ness, any Wacko religion thread, anything at all.

And let's put this "they're not interested in folk music" crap to bed once and for all. Righto, I feel a bit guilty that I don't post more above the bloody line. That's because I mostly like Irish music and I only play the harmonica. Those things don't come up much. But that does not mean I don't read threads above the line. I do, every day, and I learn a fair bit. Just because I don't post there much (I do a bit as it happens) doesn't mean I'm some kind of hateful troll intent on destroying the website.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Janie
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:11 PM

Thank you, Jeri!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 09:30 PM

Wow, didn't take long for the usual suspects to start another religion flame war.

What I find fascinating is that while Mudcat believers by and large are more than willing to live and let live on the subject of religion, some of our illustrious atheists seem to salivate at any opportunity, real or imagined, to attack religion.

They do it so often, with such enthusiasm, that it makes you think that perhaps they protest too much.   It seems possible, based on their behavior, that some of the would-be foam-dripping atheists may actually be afraid of believing.

And what a world-shaking tragedy that would be. I can't imagine how they could live with themselves after such an unforgiveable apostasy.

By the way, regardless of what witty replies are devised to respond to this, and how the flame warriors beg me to join in again, this is in fact my last posting--on this thread.

So have fun, boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 10:13 PM

OK, so I lied.

Came back to tell you all to check out Roy Bookbinder's New Age Woman Blues--which you can learn about above the line--if you haven't already.    I had never heard about it til I saw the thread.

The YouTube version has him telling a great story--and the song is a sly gem with tasty licks.

That--among a huge number of other reasons--is a good reason not to be gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Noreen
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 12:49 AM

As in, let's always sweep unpleasantness under the carpet so as not to offend the oh so delicate views of the Nice People? Yep, go for it. What a great way of solving problems. Alternatively, do think before you post.

Steve Shaw, do you really believe that trying to shout each other down in abusive terms is "a great way of solving problems"?
Very funny.

I enjoy serious discussions- like we used to have on this forum- where posters respected the opinions of others and used reason and logic to put across a point of view.
I dislike intensely the childish abuse of those with opposing views and will absent myself from such.

I also dislike being patronised. Unlike some others here, I do think before I post- (I have thought about this for years as this forum has changed beyond recognition) and generally decide not to bother posting as I don't enjoy being abused.

Jeri posted a reasoned explanation of what she does here and how she views the situation, and you come back at her, telling her in foul language that she doesn't know what she's talking about and you know best.

Great.

Thank you for doing what you do, Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 01:00 AM

Still waiting

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 07:15 AM

I can only repeat - nay, stress - what Noreen has already said. In fact, I think I will. She speaks for me too, and speaks volumes. Underlining is mine:

> I do think before I post - (I have thought about this for years as this forum has changed beyond recognition) and generally decide not to bother posting as I don't enjoy being abused.

> I still do come here, for old times sake . . . but I don't feel safe here like I used to and I'm far more wary about posting anything at all personal.

I just withhold comment now, in places where I feel I actually have something to contribute to the discussion, to protect myself. And then I feel resentful because it's another form of gagging. Self-censorship is no less censorship, even if it's done out of self-defense.

It's another response to bullying, i.e. don't give it a chance to happen in the first place. And the only way is to just exclude yourself. But I'm annoyed that I feel I have to.

I also note with sorrow the departure of so many people whose company I valued, and whom I would/do welcome back if they decide to return. Add this to the loss of those whose departure was not by choice - as far too many Obit threads attest - and it leave quite an aching hole. Kendall made a good point about this in the parallel "Announcing one's return to Mudcat" discussion.

Once again, Noreen says it better than I could:

To absent friends *clink* :)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 08:08 AM

the decision to make them compulsory or not is debatable.

No it isn't, Ake. ANY testing of ANY sort on feeling, thinking human beings HAS to be voluntary. Anything else is an infringement of human rights. You know the old poem, First they came... Well, this is exactly the same. Once you start compulsory testing on ANY group of people, no matter how well intentioned, it will end in who knows what. The trick is to never start the ball rolling.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Zen
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 10:13 AM

Like Noreen, I joined Mudcat about 14 years ago. Occasionally I'll look in, mainly to see what people I've met over the years are up to (if they are still here) but very rarely post these days.

My reasons for leaving are much the same as Noreen's. When I joined this forum it was full of interesting and informed discussion on a multitude of subjects and there was a spirit of support and good-natured banter.

Over the years a meaner, nastier atmosphere developed and bullies, trolls and baiters came to the fore. Even on serious music threads there was a good chance of being shouted down by socially-inept know-alls. Unfortunately, that has largely persisted and, rather than get involved with it, many of us have simply withdrawn from the forum. Unfortunately, because policies aimed at stopping abusive behaviour were not enforced (indeed I've personally seen a few appalling comments against others from moderators over the years), this atmosphere still persists and I've little reason to become involved again. That's a shame because I made many good friends here in the early days.

The points Noreen made were excellent. I've always believed I should treat people online as I would in real life. Unfortunately, some inadequates here hide behind the anonymity of their keyboards where their words in real life would get short shrift.

Well, off to retirement from the fray for a few more years.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 10:25 AM

Jeri. The best way to stop me swearing and shouting would be to ensure I and others didn't have to do so.

If one gay person stopped using Mudcat.org due to being distressed at what the moderators allowed as a valid view that would be sad. You can't allow hate and then complain that we aren't all picking roses together. Sometimes you have to dig a hole for the manure to go if you wish to sustainably pick roses.

There is a huge difference between being odious and reacting to it. I react. Always have reacted and always shall react till they have no where to go and no credibility with even the most gullible of idiots.

Woody Guthrie had a notice on his guitar saying this machine kills fascists. I cannot begin to compare my feeble efforts with his but my guitar is now joined by my ipad. Bigotry will never get away with the last word whilst I have breath in my lungs or credit on my sim card.

Sorry to everybody who doesn't like reading it. I don't like writing it either.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 12:49 PM

Musket, we don't allow or disallow anything as "a valid" or "invalid" view. We let people post what they think, and then let the community express their agreement or disagreement - and the vast majority of Mudcatters speak very approvingly of gay people. Allowing minority opinions, even when they are disagreeable, gives an opportunity for discussion - and perhaps the "unenlightened" will become enlightened. We do put a stop to combative discussions when they get out of hand, but we have never gotten into the business of passing judgment on what is acceptable and unacceptable in individual posts.

You may have noticed that my religious denomination (Catholic) is a very small minority here, and I get a lot of crap about it. I admit that years ago I did delete a one-line post from an anonymous guest who called me a "Catholic child molester," but I think that's the only anti-Catholic post I've seen deleted here. We have deleted some anti-gay posts when they were truly hateful. There's a line between what is a person's opinion and what is just a hateful, bigoted attack. We try to err on the side of freedom of expression.

We do delete personal attacks, if the target of the attack finds them unacceptable. Let me know if that happens, and I'll pass your request on to the moderation team to deal with. I don't do that "remedial" moderation any more, but I'm still the person who handles other Mudcat business like public contact, music editing and archiving, and member registration.

We know that many people don't like the tone that discussion has taken at Mudcat, particularly in recent years - And I have to say I'm not always thrilled with it myself. Still, we still believe in erring on the side of freedom of expression. It would help if people who say they believe in civil discussion, were to refuse to join in the combat.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 12:53 PM

I think you do enjoy writing it Ian, you are perfectly capable of constructing a serious post.
You may have run out of ideas, but a rearguard literary action is surely not beyond you?
No I think you and your little band of warriors enjoy abuse for the sake of it....I think you believe it makes you look like men, but the opposite is the case as can be seen from most of the posts above, it makes you look like thugs.

You don't really care about the predicament facing homosexuals at all, do you.
You would rather see the infection rates continue to rise than have your "equality" agenda challenged.

I don't want to see compulsory testing in the MSM demographic, because of their "lifestyle"
I want to see compulsory testing and contact tracing to help defeat the epidemic.

If these infection rates applied to any demographic, I would be in favour of compulsory testing and contact tracing.
If these infection rates applied to heterosexuals, society would disintegrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 01:50 PM

Ake , outside of going against human rights in many countries,to me your suggestion will never happen Many countries have seen conditions where gays can "come out of the closet" without fear. IMO, such action would turn the clock back on the human rights of openly gay people. If it were acceptable,and workable there would be a call from the gay community, not from non-gays.

Ake, with your line of argument, since there is no call from the gay community to take your suggested action, does it mean that they do not care about thr plight of this disease on their members- that line of thinking does not seem reasonable, nor make common sense.

I recall that Japanese Canadians were forced to take loyalty tests and suffered during the second world war because of fear from a majority that this minority would impact loyity. Hopefully, we have progressed far beyond that type of mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 02:19 PM

Ed...There already has been a call from the gay community, which I linked to a couple of years ago.
A group of homosexuals in Los Angeles wanted hiv/aids designated as a "disease of homosexuality" due to the high rates of infection among male homosexuals.
I will try to find the link for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 02:47 PM

Taking a more global view, AIDS is far, far more prevalent among straight people in Africa, due to prostitution and aversion to condom use among heterosexuals. Whole families of orphaned children are now being brought up by their grandmothers. There have been literally millions of AIDS victims on the African continent, very few of whom were gay.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 02:51 PM

No offense Ake, but I suspect that hardly qualifies as the type or level of request from the gay community (that I refer to) to justify subjecting all gays to rounds of mandatory testing, as you seem to be promoting. Considering you seem to be a logical fellow in many post topics, I am surprised that you would stick to promoting this type of initiative and believe it would beseen as acceptable or could be managed and effective, even if it was considered so.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 04:38 PM

Don't forget we are all different despite the effort we make to bwe the same or part of a tribe.

Getting to know folks who have traits that belong to 2 or more species* other than homo sapiens is a fun and eye opening exploration. Yes some people are different but generally not enough to run and hide or scheme to fight them.

Nearly 20% of the population are social psychopaths but over 90% of them are perfectly safe individuals many of whom are CEO's and such.

Out of the 7 billion people each of whom have had unique experiences and opportunities waaaay different than yours, you may learn things that you would never see unless you first learn that a certain ability OF A CERTAIN PERON could change your understanding of the world. Its like never really seeing intense indigo blue without having a name ofr it. Its like being able to see something that has been in front of you for 20 years but finally seeing it is there.

*Neanderthal & Denisian {most recently discovered}

We all change each other. We all effect species diversity just by using a lawn mower. As bOBERT SAYS JUMP IN THE WATER'S FINE

The world is merely stranger and bigger and more intelligent than you may have previously thought.

TIA probably fed the trolls by feeding them emotion. Some people eat emotions and revel in making others upset and mad since they themselves are miserable upset and mad almost all the time. For trolls revenge and emotive response is pure gold. As for folks who label everyone trolls outside your comfort group, well your mistake is as introverted as TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: bobad
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 04:58 PM

Ake, people get AIDS from unsafe sex practices (among other unsafe behaviours) irregardless of their sexual orientation. Your crusade would be more effective if you aim it at these unsafe sex practices rather than the sexual orientation of the practitioners. Try, for instance, trumpeting the use of condoms rather than railing against homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 05:05 PM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-new-human-species-dna-nature-science-evolution-fossil-finger/


Another species of human in China "red deer" but may not have its genes in humans today like the most recent discovery in Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 05:50 PM

Well Ed....if the infections continue to rise at the present rates among MSM, something radical will need to be done, they have jumped by 20% in two years
What would you advise?

The health agencies are already pushing for "routine testing" in "designated areas", which is code for "areas which already contain large rates of infection"......and which demographic contains by far the greatest rates of infection?
Isn't it about time we had a bit of straight talking? If the epidemic is to be slowed, or even halted, honesty is the best policy.

The reason the folks in LA wanted re-designation of HIV/AIDS, was to make more funds and new treatments like compulsory testing and contact tracing made available. Their campaign was stopped by "equality activists"(surprise surprise)
The LAGLC realised that the present procedures were not being heeded and halting the spread of the disease require a degree of compulsion.
Nothing has changed in the last two years, other than the infection rates growing ever higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 06:16 PM

Hi Eliza, You may find this helpful in your understanding of the issue.

In a compelling plenary session, The Global MSM HIV Epidemic: Time to Act Exit Disclaimer, Chris Beyrer Exit Disclaimer, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health noted that MSM around the world have markedly higher HIV prevalence rates than the general population of reproductive-aged adults. This is true in every region of the world, including sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, which has the highest HIV prevalence rate among MSM. (For more on the global epidemiology of HIV in MSM, see this study published by Dr. Beyrer and colleagues in The Lancet, 2012 Exit.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 06:32 PM

There really is no point in trying to reason with you is there, Ake. For all that you go on about Musket and his "little band of warriors" repeating the same arguments you do exactly the same thing. Over and over again. When anyone brings up the human rights issue you either ignore it or state that your views somehow transcend the basic rights that we have to not have our bodies subjected to invasive procedures against our wills. There is no doubt in my mind that you are promoting the same kind of sick logic that resulted in 6 million humans being exterminated for 'the good of the nation'. It is beyond me how a so called humanitarian can fail to read the lessons of history but I suppose it should not surprise me too much. OK, have it your way. Let's start compulsory testing. Then let's have compulsory testing of children for genetic defects. Then let's start eliminating those who have AIDS and genetic defects. It is simply too awful to contemplate where it will end and, fortunately, there are enough people who will shout you down and stop this nonsense in it's tracks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 09:05 PM

Ake, Let suppose, for arguments sake, that you could persuade those in power that your belief in a crisis is considerable enough to act (noting that you haven't done a very good job persuading folks here), and, that human rights issues could be ignored. Lets also imagine that you could get the health-medical community's support that mandatory intervention would make a difference, and you could get the support and cooperation of the gay community.

So, how exactly do you propose to identify the millions of gay people scatterd in every nook and cranny to enact mandatory testing on? They aren't easy to identify (they aren't black, red or purple), and they look and act mostly like you and me. I don't suspect there is a registry for the authorities to draw on to "round 'em up and bring 'em to testing" I suspect many may likely protest being tested under such human rights violations. Ignoring that, let's say you had a route to separate the gays from the straight, and had a good list - what would you do to ensure they are tested, and what would be the recourse if many, or most said "fuck off, Ake, I am not doing it"? And, what would you do with those who were tested positive, to limit the future spread? Isolating them in "homo camps" is hardly an option in today's societies (BTW, that term came from an old issue of National Lampoon magazine).

Surely you can see what you propose (while possibly well meaning) is not reasonable, nor workable.

Some people have suggested alternatives, if the issue is proven to be as serious and as focused as you claim. I am puzzled that you refuse to allow that focusing on what would work better, while not perfect, is much more reasonable and workable than what you broadly propose. What some suggested is addressing formally that a problem exists, increase education, increase awareness on how to avoid the spread, increase voluntary testing,encourage safe sex, increase research, and broaden the education and awareness to the entire community.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 09:07 PM

Oops, last one was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 09:15 PM

Threads have their own inherent outcomes...

I'd just like to interject that this thread was started by TIA about why she was leaving... Not about old fights...

Maybe we need a "Fight nThread" for the same ol' people who can't stay on topic...

Normal Mudcat...

If you are still reading, TIA, just know that this ol' hillbilly loves you... Sho nuff...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 09:27 PM

Well, Bobert TIA said clearly he was leaving in the OP. Since he is no longer here, what's the point in taking that topic any more, as he is not here (I see no reason not to take his persopnal decision as he stated it)?

BTW, there have been plenty of threads and posts about why Mudcat is what some see as " not as good as before", and about disrespectful folks and posts. So, why would that line of discussion be a "new one. And not an old fight"?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 02:12 AM

Joe Offer and I don't agree on a few things, have met half way on others and agree on certain points. But we can debate.

I am not going to alter his deeply held views and I very much doubt he will ever get me to lead with my left foot. Or the right one for that matter.

But you know what? I could entertain the idea of sitting down over a bottle or four and discussing theology with him. Because he has a view. A view that inadvertently in my opinion gives inferred respectability to zealous bigots but Joe makes his disdain of them very clear.

He is a good example of why the BS section of Mudcat.org is valid as a function.

Akenhateon on the other hand doesn't give respectability to odious views, he originates and proposes odious bigotry in the first place.

Rather than a few bottles and discuss it, I could do no more than I said a few posts back. Sup up and wipe my feet on the way out.

The late wonderful Jake Thackray once said "I can't tolerate intolerance." Quite.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 02:36 AM

To everyone...who thinks I am some sort of monster, I am talking about treating "infectious" disease, not exterminating a race, or a group.
Get a grip.

Why are you people not complaining about abortion on demand, or selection of sex of a foetus by abortion?

Where do "human rights" start and end?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 02:40 AM

I really feel it time someone objected to all this abuse of Akenaton. He seems to me simply to be trying to draw attention to a statistical conclusion which he finds of concern. He repeatedly quotes the actual statistics, which seem to be from respectable sources, but which nobody SFAICS has actually disputed. Instead, he has been cast in the role of The Messenger To Be Shot.

I do not like the implication of his statistics either; but they do give pause for thought. I do not think the 'whataboutery' to which they have been subjected in any way argumentatively convincing. I particularly think Musket's messenger-shooting, in the form of constantly rendering the penultimate syllable of his nickname as 'hate', to be, not only unwitty in the extreme, but an exceptionally cheap shot: think about it a bit more deeply, Ian -- please.

Instead of constantly abusing the man, why don't some of you try to find a few genuine counter-arguments. You are all reminding me of the ones who oh-so-predictably scream 'racism' any time the values of any ethnicity are questioned or impugned. So why not look for a few convincing arguments to replace these constant squeals of 'gayist', which add nothing to the concerning question as to whether SMS does or does not appear to show a statistical unbalance in regard to STDs?

I repeat ~~ I hate the idea that this might be the case; but accusing the person who adduces evidence ['evidence', I repeat -- not mere assertion] of being purely hate-motivated seems to me but an unworthy, vain, irrational, and counterproductive reaction.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket gettin
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 02:52 AM

M.

He is not just doing what you say he is. He has an agenda. Ask him about health issues and he merely is interested in a cluster statistic in certain cities with large gay communities and his solution of making HIV testing compulsory on the mere basis of being gay, UK wide.

Ask him if he wants to add women to his list to combat clymidia and, well you ask him. I don't like to keep having to wash my hands.

Don asked him if HIV was eradicated by a single inoculation would his disdain of gay people remain? The bastard replied "There are other issues. "

Just because a respectable person such as yourself hadn't read some of his filth, doesn't make it any better.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 02:56 AM

ED...from what I have read, the LA folks were talking about setting up a voluntary register of men who have sex with men(MSM) and publicising it to make young MSM more aware of the dangers they face.
Of course "rounding up" as mentioned above would be unworkable, and is just some of Ian's obstructive rhetoric.
Once on the register it would be compulsory to test every six months.
I don't think criminalisation would have to be brought in, as it would soon become "socially unacceptable" NOT to be tested.
I would make sense to contact trace every new positive test.
Just another tool in the armoury against the epidemic.

The agencies are at last beginning to understand the gravity of the problem by proposing routine testing in designated areas, but this is a huge, time consuming operation to no real purpose as they are aware that by far the greatest rates of infection are amongst MSM.

"Routine testing in designated areas" is simply a piece of window dressing.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 03:04 AM

MGM....We have had or "civil" battles, but that was kind and brave of you....thank you!

Ian you are the one with the agenda....as a "medical" pen pusher you should be quite ashamed of yourself.
Most people here are unaware of the situation, you don't even have that excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 03:51 AM

Many have provided genuine counter arguments, Michael, including Musket. Human rights, unworkable, sexual inclination based prejudice and many more. Ake simply passes them over and dogmatically repeats the stanza 'it is to stop the epidemic'. Once all reasonable arguments have failed to detract someone from an odious course of action, all that is left is a swift kick in the bollocks. Figuratively of course.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 04:08 AM

I have followed these correspondences on all threads, Ian & DtG. I have differed with Ake on ones about such topics as gay marriage &c, because I haven't seen his statistics as relevant there. But, I repeat, I see no reason to question the statistics themselves, or impugn their sources. And they have been more widely applied than you assert ~~ see his response a few back to Eliza re sub-Saharan Africa. I still think you are starting from the wrong end ~~ the acute PC posture whereby anything that can be said to the apparent disadvantage of any demographic ~ racial, sexual, whevs ~ must be denounced instantly for being unquestioningly motivated by hate. I see no evidence of any such unworthy motivations in anything that Ake has written, but continue to think that your reactions to it are mere politically correct kneejerkery.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 04:12 AM

Ake ~~ You are welcome. I value justice above political correctness.

Thank you for your kind and appreciative response.

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ian Mather
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 06:18 AM

What an unfortunate stain Michael.

It saddens me.

Political correctness saddens me too.

As does using the term to give respectability to hate filled bigotry.

Justice is when people are judged and treated as equal members of society, not prejudged because of their choice of lover. Deliberately using statistics out of context to further what is a fascist agenda is low, but supporting and encouraging it sinks even lower, as you are capable of rational unblinkered reasoning, and completely failed to exhibit it.

In the meantime, dealing with health issues, especially with hard to reach groups remains a challenge that real people, armed with public health intelligence strive to achieve. Ok, harder whilst hate and prejudice make contact with some people harder, but I am proud of those, some of whom I serve and give management support to, who get on with tackling, with huge successes, cluster health issues.

Perhaps if the person referred to was to use his energy and campaigning to help rather than hinder, the world would be just about a slightly better place.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 07:20 AM

I repeat, Ian ~~ I find no evidence, other than the evidential urging of these statistics [which, I reiterate, you have not disputed, except to claim, erroneously as I have shown, that they are in some way atypical -- tho of what, precisely, you are far from clear], to justify your accusatory denunciation of Ake as indulging in 'hate-filled bigotry' & having a 'fascist agenda'. Perhaps you could drop your patronisingly pained tone at my asking the question, and your implied impugning for reasons unclear to me of my motives for asking it, and specify where precisely in his posts you claim to have located such manifestations; and what, precisely, you accuse him of 'hinder[ing] rather than help[ing]'.

I am sorry to say it yet again; but I continue to feel that it is your motivations, rather than Akenaton's, which are open to question.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Mr Happy
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 07:23 AM

Long gone!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket repeating
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 09:13 AM

HIV is down. It is up in clusters due to, (according to The last annual report of The Health Protection Agency) small numbers of gay men living in cluster communities. The local Government Association in their paper on the subject put this down to fear of stigmatisation in the wider integrated communities. ADASS (the association of directors of adult social services) cite this as reasoning for the difficulties in health and social care reaching out to some people in this group.

It is a huge problem and will remain so whilst ever nasty bastards publish views to say all gay men should be forced to come forward and be tested for HIV. What that would achieve other than make a list of people base on their lifestyle I do not know, as the HPA AGAIN, to quote them, feel that GU clinics are now seeing the majority of people with HIV+ status.

What part of the myriad reports can't you read properly? Perhaps the bits stating that clamydia is the number one issue? If Akenhateon is as interested in public health, why isn't he advocating his solution for young women?

Why when Don asked him what his views of gay people would be if HIV was eradicated, he said that there are other issues? What about his claim that gay marriage is a liberal plot?

My motivations? I have no fucking motivations, but I can smell evil bastards when they fart. Questioning those who question bigotry? Nice new hobby you've got. I hope you find a club of like minded fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 09:54 AM

Dear me, Michael. Ake is no messenger. That would be like calling my postman the messenger were he the one typing the final demands he delivers. His statistics serve one purpose only for him, to reinforce his horrid bigotry. Messenger implies neutrality. I don't see any of that in his crusade.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 10:52 AM

I have given my views on how hiv infection amongst male homosexuals may be reduced, I have heard nothing from the "warriors" about any ideas they might have to lower MSM infection rates.

Discrimination and stigma are now almost non existent, money has been poured into the MSM demographic to fund education and promote condom use, but the rates of infection rise steadily every year.
The agencies are "hog tied" by the "equality agenda" and the people who suffer are of course homosexuals themselves.
We live in a mad world, and it's getting madder by the day.
If the current rates of infection amongst MSM, applied to heterosexuals compulsory testing and contact tracing would be brought in immediately and anyone refusing to test would be incarcerated to protect the rest of society. Human rights take second place when an epidemic of infectious disease is to be fought.

Ian, I don't like using the word "liar" on this forum and perhaps you made a genuine mistake, but Don asked me "if Hiv/Aids did not exist, would I still be opposed to "gay marriage"......I said that as far as "gay marriage" was concerned there were "other issues" to be considered and I would still be opposed.
This is totally different to what you were trying to imply.
I have always said that there are several valid arguments concerning "gay marriage" legislation.

At the moment we are discussing sexual health rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 12:54 PM

Funny. Thought you were finding more reasons to discriminate.

I can read and so can anyone else.

Back in your hole worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 04:03 PM

The answer appears to be clear:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/23/hiv-rates-reach-historic-low-in-children/
"The overall rate of HIV infections in children and adults fell significantly during the last decade, hitting a historic low in adolescents last year, according to a new report released Monday.

"About 260,000 children were affected by the AIDS-causing virus in 2012, a 52% drop since 2001, the UNAIDS report found. In addition, the combined rate in children and adults fell to 2.3 million new infections, a 33% reduction during the same time period.

"We are beginning to see true impact on the scaling of interventions over the last decade," Mitchell Warren, executive director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, told MSNBC. "Frankly it's essential news because over that decade we have seen an explosion in funding and investing."

"A decade ago the world invested less than a billion dollars toward HIV prevention, but now about $16 billion is being spent.
The report cited a worldwide expansion of access to preventative treatments as a reason for the decline."



http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.AIDS.ZS

UK 0.3 - HIV rate unchanged from 2008-2012
US: 0.6 to 0.7 HIV Rate 2008-2012

My suggestion to you, ake, is to be faithful to your significant other and be sure that your SO is also faithful. Of course, both of you should be tested first.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 04:40 PM

I have heard nothing from the "warriors" about any ideas they might have to lower MSM infection rates.


There have been plenty of suggestions, including better education and a safe environment. You Ake, on the other hand, can only suggest compulsory testing of gay men with no indication whatsoever what will happen to those tested and found to be carrying the HIV virus.

How will compulsory testing help unless it is used to prevent those infected from infecting anyone else. And how would you achieve that? Stop them having sex? Isolate them? Terminate them?

Michael. I am surprised that you, of all people, are happy to give credence to any policy that can only result in discrimination against an already abused minority. Have you not learned histories lessons either?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 04:52 PM

I have heard nothing from the "warriors" about any ideas they might have to lower MSM infection rates.

Yes you bloody have, but you don't hear because you don't listen because you don't want to. We can read you like a book.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 05:42 PM

I have done — no more to rejoin. My points have been made, and further reiteration would be tiresome and otiose.

But I will add, DtG, that Jews, whether practising, lapsed, or converted, of which I happen to be all three, do not need or appreciate outsiders constantly harping on their origins. Antisemitism largely consists of stereotyping Jews, knowing better than they do themselves what they think and how they will/should behave. It is not welcome: kindly keep your nose out of my ethno-genetic origins or beliefs, which are absolutely no business or concern of yours. Thank you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 05:47 PM

I meant to add, after "concern of yours"

and pray spare me the impertinence of knowing better than I do what obligations they lay upon me as to what opinions I am permitted to hold on any matter..

Again, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 06:02 PM

Errrr, I said or implied nothing of ethnic origins Michael. Please point out where in my post I did. I meant that you are, or were I understand, an intelligent person with influence in the media. I have never met you. I know nothing of your 'ethno-genetic origins or beliefs' and care even less. What I do care about is promoting the idea that anyone should be forced to undergo medical procedures against their will.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 06:37 PM

Then what did you mean by "you, of all people, are happy to give credence to any policy that can only result in discrimination against an already abused minority"? Why, in particular, "of all people"?

Come now. In what other ways but my genetic origins do I differ round here from "all people"? You are either being disingenuous, Dave, or the combination of 'of all people' with 'discrimination...abused minorities' constituted a peculiarly unfortunate choice of phrase.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 07:26 PM

Dave...testing and contact tracing, whether voluntary or compulsory, is of course designed to stop the spread of the virus......and to inform the person tested whether or not they are HIV positive.
It is a criminal offence to knowingly infect a partner with HIV/AIDS.

As I have said already the main thing about a testing and contact tracing regime, is that is will soon become socially unacceptable to refuse testing, if one is a member of a demographic affected at epidemic rates.

This will massively reduce the transmission of the virus.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 13 - 07:38 PM

What do you mean Ebbie?
The infection rates in most demographics are falling, but in one demographic the rates are rising rapidly.
Does no one care about why this is the case?
Are you not even a little curious why so many mostly young men are being condemned to a life sentence of ill health?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 04:13 AM

Well folks, the last few posts indicate why so many good people have left Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket again
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 04:58 AM

You can't have a thread pondering over people who carry on reading what they don't wish to (makes you wonder what they could be doing instead) and comparing them with those who stop reading (seems logical) and not have people say things they are ashamed of after reflection. The rather abrupt stance not to carry on discussing by one regular contributor above being an excellent example.

That is a garbled way of saying I accept your apology, delivered by snapping at somone else rather than saying you made a bad judgement call defending the worm, but such an apology isn't needed. I'm not important. Those who are labelled before they open their mouths, they are the ones you should apologise to.

In the meantime, Akenhateon rolls out his diatribe and challenges people to challenge him. Not easy when he has a few suspect apologists saying he should be getting a fair hearing. Fair hearings can be distressing for those innocently opening a thread, not realising Mudcat cannot differentiate between freedom of speech and promotion of hate, or hate crime in The UK, as it happens to be.

Catch 22. I'm not willing to ignore and join the gone crowd because lack of challenge can be seen as acceptance by shallow people promoting a hateful agenda. That will never do.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 05:08 AM

Awful lot of hints & nods'n'winks in that last post, Ian. Not clear to whom you are referring as having suddenly withdrawn; who is supposed to have apologised by implication & for what & to whom. A bit of exegesis as to your precise meaning & identifications thruout that post would be much appreciated, please.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 05:16 AM

Then what did you mean by "you, of all people,

I do believe I already answered that, Michael, by saying "I meant that you are, or were I understand, an intelligent person with influence in the media."

Maybe it was a peculiarly unfortunate choice of phrase. but that only goes to prove my point. There are very few people, including yourself, who have the literary skills and potential platform to swing the majority for or against a section of the population. If you had known that in a number of threads I have lambasted the press for their part in stirring up hatred you would have probably gleaned that meaning. There is no reason why you would know my views as I accept that my poor scribblings are not universally know so I apologise for that 'poor choice'. Equally I have not read everything that you have posted so I do hope you will excuse me for not knowing that you would jump to a different conclusion.

Ake - is that is will soon become socially unacceptable to refuse testing. So are you now saying that you do NOT approve of compulsory testing?

Kendall - You know I respect you and your posts. Why the 'last few' posts in particular? I have just re-read through the last half dozen and compared to earlier ones they seem to be a perfectly civilised exchange of views with no abuse therein. Am I missing something?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 09:09 AM

DtG...Of course I am still in favour of compulsory testing, as at the moment, MSM seem unwilling to regulate themselves.
All the money and effort which has gone into cutting infection rates up until now, has had absolutely no effect.

If a regime of compulsory testing and contact tracing was instigated, it may just bring home to male homosexuals, the risks they take with their own lives and the lives of all their sexual partners.

When anti smoking laws were brought in it soon became socially unacceptable to smoke in public places or even in the home.
Same thing happened with drink driving....in this area people used to laugh when someone got behind the wheel under the influence....now they would report them to the police.

Sometimes people need a good shove in the right direction, the freedom of the individual to do exactly what he pleases is also socially unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 09:17 AM

Ian.....I don't gamble much these days, but I would be more than willing to stake a large wager that more people here are sickened by your foul language and abuse, than by civilised discussion of a very serious problem.

Do you really think that this subject should not be discussed, or is it just that you have no cohesive answer or alternative to the points being made?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 09:20 AM

Like Michael, I can make no sense of your last post.
It's just like the jargon some pen pusher would post.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,ED T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 10:45 AM

I believe a return to civil discussion is in order, folks.

Ake,, I suspect you believe that those in the most danger of HIV infection (drug users, sex workers and people who engage in less then careful and unprotected sex) do not knosw they are at a high risk for infection. It also seems that you focus your attention on homosexual males (regardless of their lifestyles).

A question to you: do you have an association with any orhanized group with a ar concern? A Google search led me to a few organizations (some of them religious) whose posted information closely match some of what you post. Coincidence? Maybe. But, I leave that for you to explain - if you wish to do so (it is not compulsaryn as many here respect your rights to keep your personal associations personal. However, disclosing any such associations may clear the air on the reasons for your continued focus on this one issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:03 AM

Ed....I belong to no "group" religious or otherwise.
I base my views on the facts on HIV/AIDS, which are provided by CDC in the US and HPA in UK

I concentrate on MSM simply because they are many times more severely affected by this virus than any other demographic.

Had the most severely affected (epidemic rates) been for example, IDUs or "Sex Workers" I would be concentrating on them.
The MSM demographic is massively over represented in the HIV/AIDS statistics and that should be of concern to everyone.

Actually the rates amongst IDU's are actually quite low and those for "sex workers" slightly higher, but nothing near the rates for MSM.

My belief is that there is something intrinsically wrong with sex between males, which is causing the yearly rise in infection rates.
Do you have any ideas on the subject? You seem to have a serious interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:11 AM

"Not easy when he has a few suspect apologists saying he should be getting a fair hearing."

Support for the principle of free speech does not equate to support for the opinions of everyone to whom free speech is granted. It indicates a belief that they should have the right to express those opinions, however odious they may be, and that others should have the opportunity to challenge and defeat them in open debate. The tactic of "Shut the fuck up" does not win an argument, and does not persuade one's opponent of his errors. If you aren't sufficiently intellectually equipped to understand a simple principle like that, there's little wonder that the NHS is in such a precarious state.

Suppression of free speech has long been one of the chief weapons in the armouries of those who would oppress others, and I'm astonished that one such as yourself, who claims to occupy the highest of moral high ground, would stoop to such behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:33 AM

Ake Ok, thanks for putting to rest that you are not associated with to one of these groups. If you were, I would not see the point of continued discussion of the topic.

However - you added something else that concerns me: ""My belief is that there is something intrinsically wrong with sex between males, which is causing the yearly rise in infection rates.""

I am a bit puzzled by this statement, you say it is your "belief" rather than it is a question you have as to the reason why different groups are impacted by HIV at different rates? It is very difficult to have a discussion with one who has already established "a belief" versus one who is genuinely seeking knowledge through discussion with others with a variety of perspectives (possibly in an attempt of converting others to their beliefs).

Could it have been a error in what you posted?

Or, have you formed a firm (or, even soft) conclusion that puts it into a different dimension, a belief?

If it is the latter, (an actual belief,or conclusion) it seems unproductive for me to continue the discussion - as, I don't a valid reason to take the discussion further, as I mostly avoid trying to sway people away from their "beliefs".

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:50 AM

Dave, I was simply being lazy when I mentioned the past few posts. They are just examples of the negativity that has invaded this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:57 AM

OK - Thanks Kendall. I am just as guilty of sloth on many occasions :-)

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 01:48 PM

If You dont like it.go. but do not come back to haunt us and try and put a guilt trip on the remaining members, to quote Cromwell,"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 02:53 PM

Not quite clear whom BWM & GSS are addressing in their last posts.

Clarification, please?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 02:56 PM

Michael, I quoted in italics at the top of my post an extract from a post by Musket which took a sideswipe at me (what a sore loser that man is!), I thought that would give a clue to whom my response was directed? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 03:10 PM

My reference to the NHS is a bit of a clue too!   :-)   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 05:32 PM

Ah, BWM ~~ thank you.   I asked him whom he ref'd to; it might have been you, or it might have been me. That was why I needed clarification. I am really getting a bit confused as to who is saying what to whom...

Think I'll go to bed!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 06:12 PM

Ok Ed...I take it that you accept that within male homosexuality there is a serious problem with sexually transmitted disease?
If you do not accept that premise as a fact, there is no point in continuing with this discussion.

If you do accept the premise, then it is surely obvious that the sexual behaviour of the demographic has a bearing on infection rates?

Whether it be the methods employed in this behaviour, or the very large number of sexual partners which are often associated with male to male sex, is as yet unclear.

I would be interested to hear your personal views on the matter under discussion, as you seem to be exceptionally good at asking questions, but rather poor at answering mine.

I also think you are being slightly disingenuous, as I can clearly remember you being involved in several previous threads on this issue; so, I am a little puzzled as to your professed ignorance of my position?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 06:27 PM

"Perhaps if the person referred to was to use his energy and campaigning to help rather than hinder, the world would be just about a slightly better place."


Come on now Ian old pal, make up your mind! You've got ME confused now.

Have I to.... "campaign to help", or "just stop breathing"?

I can't do both!! :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 06:56 PM

Backwoodsman. I am confused on a number of points. I don't recall reading your posts on rounding up gays? Perhaps you can point me, because my post was about Michael feeling sorry for someone who posts hatred and he knows it.

I don't occupy any moral high ground. My first marriage fucked up because I couldn't keep my dick in my trousers, I loved beer more than I should have and I'm about to enjoy a good fart. I have no moral high ground to feel smug about. I'm as normal as the next average bloke. Luckily, The NHS was still there the last time I checked?

Saying something is wrong does not mean you try and polish your halo. I don't have one. I'm a bit of a cunt according to some, a good lay according to some others and limp dicked according to a few. Luckily, since retiring twelve years ago, I have found somewhere to try and put a bit back. Seeing and supporting those working each and every day making lives better, it makes my blood boil when people spew lies like Akenhateon does to support his wish to have a list of all gay people.

Why is that I wonder? Luckily, I notice more and more on this thread are starting to ask the self same question.





Ps. Being a cunt, I have nothing to lose speaking directly to you I suppose. Holding your breath might just help push a bit of needed blood into your brain. Flush out some of the bitterness. Campaign to keep your views quiet, that would be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 10:27 PM

Ake:

""I take it that you accept that within male homosexuality there is a serious problem with sexually transmitted disease?""

Reply:
I indeed agree that there is a serious problem with HIV, and that the male homosexual community (in some locations) are impacted to a high degree. However,it is not in anyway limited to this community, and the numbers differ greatly between location and country.

""If you do not accept that premise as a fact, there is no point in continuing with this discussion.""

Reply:
That would be up to you Ake. However, it was you who seem to be seeking dialogue on this issue, not me.

""If you do accept the premise, then it is surely obvious that the sexual behaviour of the demographic has a bearing on infection rates?""

Reply:
I agree that the transmission is through sexual contact, I do not know what you mean by "behaviour". If you mean promiscuity, unprotected sex and multiple partners increase the risk of spread, I suspect it is a major factor. However, it seems simplistic to say it includes all members of this community.

""Whether it be the methods employed in this behaviour, or the very large number of sexual partners which are often associated with male to male sex, is as yet unclear.""

Reply:
I do not know what you mean by methods, and this vague statement, so you need to be clear.

""I would be interested to hear your personal views on the matter under discussion"",

Reply:
It was you who proposed a solution to a problem that you defined. So, the ball is in your court, not others. It seems reasonable to ask you many questions on how you came to this definition of the problem, and how propose to implement the solution you seemed to proposed. That is a logical given your definition and proposed solution seems to have many confounding issues associated.

""you seem to be exceptionally good at asking questions, but rather poor at answering mine.""

Reply:
Your questions to me were very broad and assume I define the issue and solution as you do, nor have any such solution worked out. That is where dialogue comes in.

""I also think you are being slightly disingenuous, as I can clearly remember you being involved in several previous threads on this issue""

Reply:
I do not recall any such discussions on this issue. I only recall discussing the RC church, the former pope, condom use and HIV infections in third world countries, such as Africa. Since you made an allegation, can you provide evidence to anything beyond that?

"I am a little puzzled as to your professed ignorance of my position?""

Reply:
IMO, you take your posts and position a bit too seriously. It is indeed likely that many "tuned you out early" and are less than knowledgeable about what you post.

I recall some of your posts related to this topic in various threads in the past, with an abundance of negative reaction from others. To tell you the truth, from the reaction, and what seemed to be an obsession, I assumed you were "a bit of a nut". I rarely dwell on threads, or posts, that are overly negative and quarrelsome, repetitive or lacking in reasoned dialogue. So, I honestly did not focus or know where "you are coming from".   

I reassessed and in this thread, "hearing you out" and give you an opportunity to put your case forward in a reasoned manner and discuss the issues -against the odds, considering those who mostly seem to discount you and your case. With patience, and a few direct questions, I now know a bit more.

BTW, among listing the confounding issues with your suggestions, I have provided content on alternative approaches and definitions of the issues, if you care to step down from what seems to be a rigid position and actually look about and consider alternatives and other "opinions". Your opinions and mine will not be the solution, but with a logical dialogue and an open mind, most folks have the ability to learn from others - to satisfy a thirst for knowledge and reason.


Sorry to be long-winded - but you did seem to ask ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 10:31 PM

BTW Ake, off to bed. I will not catch any response until the morning.

So, no rush, if you wish to continue a discussion on the topic or not).

I normally don't hi-jack threads. But, due to the nature of this one, it seems like a dead OP topic anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:10 AM

Your replies are tendentious & question-begging, Ian ~~ & YOU know it. EG your assertion that I am "feeling sorry for someone who posts hatred" begs the question as to whether 'hatred' is involved, as you perceive, or merely the retailing of facts which those of your entrenched mindset will find uncongenial, which is my view of the matter.

Sorry, but this seems to me yet another of those occasions where the politically over-committed cannot see the wood for their PC-preconceived trees. There is no point persistently disputing those whose watchword is "My mind is made up, please do not confuse me with facts", among whose number it is disappointing to find Musket, for whose intellect I generally feel some respect. But that was why I said that, having had my say on the matter, I didn't propose to continue saying the sasme things yet again&again&again&again, which seemed a vain procedure. This hardly, I feel, constituted warrant for Ian's assertion that this was a "rather abrupt stance not to carry on discussing by one regular contributor above".

So BWM, as you see, I was right ~~ it was me, not you, that he meant; which was why I requested clarification.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:17 AM

To clarify my last post -- the post of mine, subject of Ian's denunciation I was responding, I reproduce below as it was some way back.

~~I have done — no more to rejoin. My points have been made, and further reiteration would be tiresome and otiose.~~

I hope it will be agreed that it does not warrant or justify Ian's description of it as an 'abrupt stance not to carry on discussing'.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:38 AM

It is my respect for your intellect and level headedness that made me both angry and disappointed in the first place.

By the way I have no political or any other motive. In this context my aim is not allowing healthcare reality to be hijacked by an odious agenda to promote hate and stigmatisation of sections of the general population. Once I have read his diatribe I then get on with my day, supporting those tackling health issues. The comparison between reality and his warped interpretation of it brings out the cunt in me.

Though I make no apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:45 AM

ake, your stance is of concern to me. I do hope you are not telling us in a roundabout way that you, through no 'fault' of your own, were infected? If that is so, most of us would empathise and immediately understand your obsession. If it is NOT so, then I am lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 03:58 AM

Please Ebbie, don't be silly.
I expect more from you, than that sort of nonsense.

To be honest, I cannot understand why everyone, especially those who claim to be liberal-minded, are not absolutely appalled at the situation which is being allowed to develop within MSM.
Not just the human tragedy which is of prime importance, but the massive cost entailed in treating those affected by this spiralling epidemic.

Ed...thank you for your response, but my stance is surely unimportant compared to the predicament of the ever increasing numbers of young people who are being infected within the MSM demographic?
Why do you not spend a bit of time examining the reasons that this is happening and how it can be controlled, rather than bringing my motives under scrutiny?
As far as treatment is concerned you have simply parroted the words of Ian.....who has motives of his own :0).

The procedures he recommends have been in position for years, and have had absolutely no impact on male homosexual infection rates.
Not just in HIV/AIDS, but in all sexually transmitted disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:00 AM

Well, thank you, Ian. But isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that what you are kind enough to rubricate as my "intellect and level-headedness" will always be exemplified by unquestioning agreement with your interpretation of any situation or any statement? I just don't read Ake's attitudes and statistics and reach the same conclusions from them as you do. And I continue to think that this is because your approach to them is agenda-driven, which is, in turn, antithetical to what I have always hereto taken to be your lntellectual level. I am sorry if this grieves and disappoints you; but why do you take that to indicate that my head must have gone aslant and my intellect gone awol? We interpret some things differently, is all. Surely no occasion for such abusive animus?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:04 AM

PS....I think we are starting to get a little "too much information" from Ian.

Information, of which we were only too well aware. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:15 AM

So, going back to the thread title, can anyone explain why TIA decided to leave? Maybe give examples if they're not buried too deep in some obscure threads ....

?:-(

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:32 AM

Musket, I clearly misunderstood the target of your remark which I quoted at the head of my last post - "Not easy when he has a few suspect apologists saying he should be getting a fair hearing".

Unsurprising though, as I have been suggesting that free speech is essential in a civilised and free society, and for open and meaningful debate - a suggestion which you strongly objected to in the case of akenaton, whose views clash with your own PC standpoint, even to the point of declaring that it was your intent to 'shut him up' (or words to that effect). As you had earlier referred to my views on free speech being tantamount to 'support' for a poster whose views you find odious (and, as I clearly stated, I find them odious too), it is perfectly reasonable that I should assume your remark quoted earlier was aimed at me.

I'm astonished by your response to my post, which made no attempt to address anything I said, but was simply a diatribe centered around your own personality defects and the seedier side of your sex-life! All I can say by way of reply is, "Too much information!".

I'll say it one more time - "Shut the fuck up" is not a winning shot, it's an admission that you've lost the will to discuss, and therefore lost the whole debate. It's the tactic of the extremist, and of the bully. It has no place in civilised society. It merely drives those whose aims and ideals conflict with those who seek the best for everyone underground. Far better to have them air their agenda out in the open, where fairer, more civilised minds can meet them head-on and challenge them with more-powerful and persuasive arguments.

End of.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:37 AM

To clarify yet further, Ian. If I took Ake's posts to have the implications you perceive in them, then I should object to them as much as you do. But you appear to me to react over-emotionally, with unworthy impugning of his motives for citing them, to what are a simply a set of statistics, whose accuracy SFAICS you have not challenged, which he has adduced as appearing to lead to certain worrying conclusions, as if he had made them up simply to promulgate a hate-filled agenda of YOUR, not HIS, invention; which, as I see the matter he has not done at all. Which is why I say that you appear agenda-driven ~~ that 'progressive' agenda, that starts at the end & works backwards from the assumption that any statement which might appear to have any sort of unfavourable connotations with regard to any demographic, MUST be denounced as culpably discriminatory ~~ even if it happens to be true or accurate.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 06:29 AM

Sorry Ake, I really do not know who "Ian" is or what his perespective on this issue is. When you post in code, it tells me you are beginning to have too much invested in the game. What $I posted in my opinion, regardless if it is shared by others. A reasonable person, actually interested in discussion, versus "preaching" would respect it as such, and would hold back insults- in the interest of reasoned discourse.

How rude of you to claim that others, that you don't know hjave less concern for those infected by disease- just because they do not see your onbsession as workable. But, I will be a better person than you for not judging you beyond that- as you have judged others with scant information to base it on.

From your last post to me, it seems you are more interested in promoting your own "firm belief". And shooting down the opinions of others, rather than participating in a discussion where folks can learn from the views of others. Good luck in life and on this site with that approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: kendall
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 07:57 AM

To those who say "GO! leave, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, fuck off, who cares"? I DO! when good people leave here it is OUR loss, not theirs. olddude,Azzizi,Jerry Rassmussen, etc.
If it keeps up, all we will have is trouble makers and assholes. When that happens, I will encourage Max to shut it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:00 AM

""To everyone...who thinks I am some sort of monster, I am talking about treating "infectious" disease, not exterminating a race, or a group.
Get a grip."" Akenaton

""Instead of constantly abusing the man, why don't some of you try to find a few genuine counter-arguments."" MtheGM

Right Mike (and Ake),
                   recent information from those specialists who have, since HIV/AIDS first appeared, devoted their efforts to the real problem, curing it, is that HIV is now downgraded to ""a manageable condition which need not significantly affect the life expectancy of sufferers"". The search for cure and vaccination is ongoing and hopeful.

This, Mike, is also evidence! Evidence which has been brushed aside as irrelevant by Ake.

Further to that, when I asked Ake whether his view of homosexuals and Gay marriage would change if HIV/AIDS were eradicated, he sidestepped the question with ""There are other considerations!""

When asked why he opposed Gay marriage as a route to monogamous relationships, he replied that Gays don't want it, in spite of evidence to the contrary. The tenor of his viewpoint is that Gays are inherently promiscuous, when the evidence is that they are n more so than heterosexuals.

You may draw your own conclusions as to what that says about his protestations of being concerned only on grounds of public health.

I have drawn mine.

This post is completely lacking in personal abuse. It is a reasoned response which I have used before to absolutely no avail. For reason to work, one must be speaking to a person who is open to reason and willing to debate honestly.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:01 AM

"Ian" (see upthread "Ian Mather 28 Sep 13 - 06:18 AM") is the same poster as "Musket ...". Presumably "Ian Mather" is the name by which he wants to be known as a musician, thus he is fighting unshielded. Since he is retired, he does not feel he needs to worry about his reputation in "real life". As for inside Mudcat - all has been said.

BTW, akenaton may well be using health arguments to support a different "agenda"; those who wish to discuss that (difficult) problem at all are well entitled to criticize him for that, giving convincing reasons, and no more than once per thread. Those who prefer to skip the reasons, should at least give a link to the thread where the discussion took place. Like most of us, I do not read many threads of general discussion here.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Zen
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:15 AM

So, going back to the thread title, can anyone explain why TIA decided to leave? Maybe give examples if they're not buried too deep in some obscure threads ....

I think this thread probably exemplifies why TIA and many of us no longer bother with or post to Mudcat...

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:59 AM

people who go and then come back to say why they went, remind me of the child who takes his football away because he has not scored any goals.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 09:32 AM

An interesting read from UNAIDS on HIV and approaches that are working and approaches that should be avoided.

UN Global HIV report 2013

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 09:43 AM

UNAIDS news releases:
Message -UNAIDS Executive Director no evidence that punitive approaches work

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 09:57 AM

Thanks for reasoned response, Don. Can't see that the fact that a particular disease, previously incurable, is now curable, means that it is now therefore OK to contract it, or supplies any disproof of statistics regarding its distribution, or its prevalence in any particular demographic, which is all I can make of your supposed rejoinder. On the main topic of what our attitude should be to the posts at issue in general; I repeat that I have said my say and don't see any point in perpetually reiterating that I don't interpret them in the pejorative, IMO agenda-driven, way that some do.

Your, and obviously others', mileages may differ; but such is my perception.

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 10:25 AM

Suggestions from the 2013 UNAIDS Global report on HIV infections:

""National commitments to respond to the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men lag behind those for other key populations. Where data are collected, men who have sex with men typically share a disproportionate burden of HIV infection.

In many countries, data on HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men do not exist. Countries need to undertake more concerted efforts to measure the extent of the epidemic among men who have sex with men while building comprehensive services that remove barriers to access. Stigma, discrimination and oppressive legal environments in many settings discourage men who have sex with men from seeking HIV testing and appropriate, high-quality prevention, care and treatment.

National programmes should endeavour to remove legal obstacles to
practising homosexuality, increase sensitivity to the health needs of men who have sex with men, improve access to health services and build programmes to intensify HIV preventive behaviours in this population through improved access to condoms and lubricants and by creating a cultural norm of safer sex. Programmes should also consider using STI services targeted to men as a gateway to improve HIV prevention, treatment and care for men who have sex with men.
At the same time, countries should seize the HIV prevention potential of antiretroviral therapy by accelerating scale-up of HIV treatment and taking steps to implement the 2013 WHO antiretroviral guidelines.

Major resources should be directed towards critical enablers and development synergies that reduce vulnerability and enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and reach of HIV prevention efforts. Such approaches should include legal reform, stigma reduction, legal services, rights literacy, sensitization of police and training of health care workers. Among the many populations who could benefit from critical enablers and development synergies, such funding is notably important for sex workers, men who have sex with men and other marginalized groups at high risk of HIV.""

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 11:19 AM

""Thanks for reasoned response, Don. Can't see that the fact that a particular disease, previously incurable, is now curable, means that it is now therefore OK to contract it, or supplies any disproof of statistics regarding its distribution, or its prevalence in any particular demographic, which is all I can make of your supposed rejoinder.""

Not my point Mike!

What I was getting at is that the management of the HIV virus is at a stage where it is being prevented from developing into full blown AIDS, thereby removing, I would have thought, the claim that those newly infected with HIV are sick in the normally accepted sense of the word.

I does, in my opinion, alleviate the pressing need to "do something", however draconian, instead of continuing to look for the vaccine which will remove the virus once and for all.

Meanwhile, education is likely to be far more productive than coercion, which will simply result in some hiding their infection, while others take legal action in the Court of Human Rights.

Ake must surely know this, but

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 11:23 AM

Ake must surely know this, but his agenda won't ever permit him to acknowledge it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 12:03 PM

We are somewhat at x-purposes I think, Don. I have expressed no agreement with, or even opinion on, Ake's desire for compulsory testing, which I appreciate is one of the grounds for some people's denunciations but on which I have no strong feelings. But the initial attitude that, as some of the statistics he cited appeared to redound to the disadvantage of a certain demographic, then they must be false [tho nobody disputed them], and that his mere citing of them at all was iniquitous and proved that he was every possible sort of double-dyed villain who must be scouted out of decent society, was what stuck in my craw ~~ as I have said & make no apology for saying again, an exemplar of the sort of agenda-driven mindset which all-too-often takes the place of rational disputation on the part of certain persons of a knee-jerkingly 'progressive' bent.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 12:08 PM

Don...very many people still die from AIDS, anti-viral therapy is much less beneficial if the disease is only diagnosed in "late stage".
Even when diagnosed early, the treatment involves large doses of anti-viral drugs for life, from which the long term side effects are unknown.
The costs associated with this lifetime treatment are extremely high, at a time when NHS resources are being cut to the bone.
Compulsory testing and contact tracing would stop much of the present transmission of the disease by MSM who are unaware of their HIV status.

HIV/AIDS is not the only STD problem affecting male homosexuals.
70% of new Syphilis cases are from amongst MSM(2/3%) of the population.

It is clear that something is going badly wrong with the behaviour of male homosexuals.

Ed and Don, and it must be said, the cowardly health agencies, keep on about increasing education, and reducing discrimination as procedures which will stop the epidemic of sexual disease, but they have been in place for years and the infection rates among MSM are rising faster than ever.....it just not make sense to keep pouring money into a problem when there are no positive results.

I have something interesting to say on the issue of "clusters", which the agencies say partially accounts for the difference in infection rates.....but I will hold my fire at present.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 12:22 PM

From ED's cut and paste.

"Major resources should be directed towards critical enablers and development synergies that reduce vulnerability and enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and reach of HIV prevention efforts. Such approaches should include legal reform, stigma reduction, legal services, rights literacy, sensitization of police and training of health care workers. Among the many populations who could benefit from critical enablers and development synergies, such funding is notably important for sex workers, men who have sex with men and other marginalized groups at high risk of HIV.""

Michael....This is a perfect example of the dangerous politically- correct, gobbledegook that we are facing.

I'm certain you will be well able to read the hidden "message"

"Marginalised"??.....moi?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 12:32 PM

I think this thread probably exemplifies why TIA and many of us no longer bother with or post to Mudcat...

Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 01:02 PM

""the cowardly health agencies, keep on about increasing education, and reducing discrimination as procedures which will stop the epidemic of sexual disease, but they have been in place for years and the infection rates among MSM are rising faster than ever.....it just not make sense to keep pouring money into a problem when there are no positive results.""

Ake:
The approach is used because professionals have conducted research to ascertain that approach has worked in many situations. Big problems require big human and financial resources, (including research) which is why many UN member states are contributing - by leading it's citizens (males and females)to prevention and the best treatments currently available (unfortunately, there is no cure).

This contrasts your alternative "police state" type approach, that would likely cost as much (maybe more) and would scare 'em away.

BTW, you are one of the few people I have encountered that seems to refer to efforts to reduce discrimination as cowardly. That seems kinda "over the top" to me - or, did you post with haste?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,grumpy
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:05 PM

Three points, all directed at Akenaton.

1) AIDS is not a disease, but a syndrome.

2) People don't die of AIDS, but from a weakness in their immunity systems caused by the HIV virus.

3) You seem remarkably obsessed with whatever homosexual men get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Come out of the closet, Akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 03:42 PM

And your point is?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 03:20 AM

Actually, GUEST's contribution to the debate is not as inane as it sounds.

Suppose I was a male homosexual who was simply trying to raise awareness of the horrific disease rates pertaining to MSM and wishing to explore EFFECTIVE ways of combating HIV/AIDS within he demographic; would I be the most popular guy on the forum, or would I still be the butt of the disgusting abuse we have seen here?

It should not matter who flags up the serious problems.....facts is facts....get over it!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 04:03 AM

Suppose I was a male homosexual who was simply trying to raise awareness of the horrific disease rates

If so I suggest that you would not be recommending compulsory testing.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 04:12 AM

""Don...very many people still die from AIDS, anti-viral therapy is much less beneficial if the disease is only diagnosed in "late stage".""

Of course people are still dying from infections acuired over maybe the last ten years.

You focus on rising numbers of infections and ignore the rapidly faling number of deaths.

What will tell the story is the number of deaths ten years from now among those infected this year.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 04:20 AM

But still, Don, it's better not to contract it if it can be avoided, isn't it? I don't think that the fact, that it is liable to have less severe ultimate consequences than previously, alters that essential fact.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 09:53 AM

DtG.....You purposely(I suppose), left out half of the sentence.

"and wishing to explore EFFECTIVE ways of combatting infection(and transmission), within the demographic."

The procedures used in the past and at present, have been completely INEFFECTIVE.

Try googling the LAG&L Centre for more innovation.
Everyone does not care to stick with political correctness.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 10:15 AM

DtG.....You purposely(I suppose), left out half of the sentence.

OK

I actually left off about two thirds of the sentence to try to put the point across succinctly so, yes, I suppose it was on purpose. My point is still the same.

If you was a male homosexual who was simply trying to raise awareness of the horrific disease rates pertaining to MSM and wishing to explore EFFECTIVE ways of combating HIV/AIDS within he demographic; would I be the most popular guy on the forum, or would I still be the butt of the disgusting abuse we have seen here?, I suggest that you would not be recommending compulsory testing.

Better?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 10:22 AM

BTW - Just spotted a flaw in one of the arguments here. Some are saying that people leave because of nastiness and abuse. Ake seems to get more abuse than most but he is still here.

Just saying...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 11:13 AM

Masochism Rules OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 11:56 AM

looking at this website who the fuck would want to talk to any of you people

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: kendall
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 12:04 PM

That's just what the people who have left thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 12:08 PM

Backwoodsman.....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 12:18 PM

Actually, if we ignore all the swearing and abuse earlier on, it's turned into quite a good discussion.
I anyone doesn't like the subject which has evolved from Tia's departure, why open the thread and start grumbling?

These threads are of great interest to the membership, earlier ones ran into thousands of posts.....the facts of the issue have become pretty obvious to most, and because of the political bias of this particular group not so many want to put in their tuppence worth any more.

Still the serious problems remain, as our legislators try to cover the footprints.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 12:53 PM

The people haven't left. I think they went for the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" option and are now focusing on what they hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: kendall
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 06:30 PM

Olddude is gone and I miss him.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 12:13 AM

Every once in a while I find it expedient or helpful [or whatever] to take a week or two off from the Cat; to charge batteries, simmer down from some pugnacious or contentious exchanges that might have occurred, see what has changed & dropped off and started when I come back, &c. You might think my absences would not be noticed; but once during one such brief sabbatical I got an actual e-mail asking anxiously if I was OK!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 03:29 AM

Well it's good that some folks here still have opinions and that the forum hasn't just evolved into the mindless mush encouraged by the media.
Do we really want to inhabit an online club with a discussion section restricted to "nice" subjects like gardening or sock darning?

This was one of the few places on the net that controversial subjects used to be discussed in an adult manner......lets keep it that way, don't be influenced by the exponents of political correctness.

We're not dead yet!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 04:24 AM

"This was one of the few places on the net that controversial subjects used to be discussed in an adult manner.....

That's just the problem though, and the reason so many people have gone - there are a group, 'The Usual Suspects' (and we all know who they are) who can't, or won't, discuss controversial topics in an adult manner. The sad thing is that most of them (not all, but most) are perfectly capable of civilised discussion and debate, but they prefer to go down the road of name-calling, abuse, insults, hysterical shrieks of "racist" or "bigot", or "Shut the fuck up", sneers about "invisible friends" and "superstition" - anything other than a carefully-considered discussion which would necessarily involve, not only an honest evaluation of others' positions, but also of their own, and an acceptance that they themselves can be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 04:27 AM

And maybe this is a good point for everyone to leave this thread, and let it die? Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 05:55 AM

Ruling out any perspective, even the "politically correct ones" and those less so, in a discussion does not seem reasoned to me.But, repeating them over (from thread to thread) and over. And carrying disagreements over to other topics does seem to be pointless.

Anyway, I agree, this thread is now dead.I sispect the topics discussed will evolve elsewhere, as many often do, when not resolved to everyone's satisfaction.