BS: Mudcat 'language!'

Subject: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:08 AM

"Now now, language!" prim and priggish people would censoriously exclaim when I was young, in stern rebuke on hearing what they thought of as a "wicked word".

But, oh my fur and whiskers, isn't an awful lot of "language" a prominent feature of Mudcat! When I started posting, nearly 5 years ago now, I would employ my quota of "fucks" and "shits" and "cunts" and "bollocks" & such; it was just 'The Custom Of The Country'. But after a while, I grew sick of this constant reliving of my National Service days, the most tedious and tiresome and unsatisfying period of my entire life, and determined to forswear such locutions and usages on this forum; in the interest, I considered, of more, not less, cogent expression of the points I wished to make: a resolution I have maintained, with only perhaps one or two lapses, for some 4 years now; expressing myself in moments of stress or anger with no more than a "scoundrel" or a "scamp", a "villain" or a "scallywag" or a "swine" [this last most sparingly in moments of genuine rage]; or a "bloody" or a "dammit" or a "blast" - or even a "Dear me!" or an "Oh pooh!".

There are some posters on here, obviously of the utmost intelligence, but appearing nevertheless incapable of making a point to their own satisfaction without at least a couple of "fucks" and a "shit" or two. They presumably think this enhances or emphasises the points they make. But I must beg to disagree. It seems to me in almost every case an enfeebling and counterproductive distraction from, and diminution of, the points they are making.

Anyone agree? Who thinks, with me, that the Cat would be a better and more effective forum if "language" became rarer, or even obsolete? Or who is determined to continue with the fucking-and-blinding, and thinks I am nothing but a pompous, po-faced, self-righteous old fart?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:34 AM

It goes with the abusive style that has become prevalent among a cohort of posters.
It replaces actual discussion and I believe dissuades decent folk from contributing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:42 AM

These guys piss in the soup and wonder why the best guests don't come to dinner. I am sure there's a reason somewhere to be found.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:09 AM

MGM - There is language and there is language.

I get tired of vulgarity, as well. But it's less tedious than the language employed in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musfucket
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:18 AM

The most appalling language can be found in the demise of the boring thread. Not a fuck, cunt, Willy or poo in it.

When you speak of language, I refer the honourable old git to recent posts by Akenaton and Guest from Sanity. They are disgusting, vile and genuinely upsetting for gay people to stumble across.

Reading the likes of Keith calling it "unfortunate" or Jack the Sailor referring to it as old fashioned is merely a second insult.

Other Mudcat language that needs pulling up includes calling someone a liar because the accuser is too idle to read beyond The Daily M*il website yet pathetic enough to look in the first place because of the low opinion they have of fellow members.

Starting threads on inflammatory subjects and filling the OP with odious crap based on prejudice. That seems to be Mudcat language too.

Moaning about those who expose such crap and refusing to let bigotry, hate and revision of history go unchallenged, that's in there too.

We could write a fucking book. And next year, Keith could revise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:41 AM

Lend me a telescope with which to see the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:43 AM

Musket, I have only called you a liar regarding two blatant lies.

You claimed to have heard BBC report Christians attacking a Muslim school in Nigeria, killing the children and feeding them to pigs.
There is no trace of such a story on BBC or any other news site, and no-one else has heard of any such atrocity because you made it up.

You claimed to have downloaded a quote, but Google could only find it in your post.
You claimed to have downloaded it from "The British Council of Mosques" which does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:45 AM

This section of Mudcat was not devised for people with one strict ideological view, but a platform where all issues could be discussed; whether the issues are "inflammatory" or controversial is neither here nor there, it is the job of administration to decide which subjects are up for debate and which are beyond the pale.

The sight of a group of childish bullies, setting themselves up as self appointed arbiters over what is debated here is unfortunate.
If these people were capable of formulating reasonable responses to the subjects in question, there would be no need for the infantile behaviour and attempted intimidation which has become prevalent.
Personally the abuse does not affect me in the slightest, it just makes obvious the lack of depth and comprehension on the part of the bullies.
However, I agree with MtheGM, that this tactic can be extremely boring for those of us with a real interest in understanding complex issues. Bringing them down to "playground level", serves no purpose other than the bullies long term objective of having this valuable section of the forum closed down.

Orwellian tactics, one might even say "Fascist" in nature?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:50 AM

Moaning about those who expose such crap and refusing to let bigotry, hate and revision of history go unchallenged, that's in there too.

I support you in that, but you do not challenge.
Rude names do not make any kind of case against anyone.

If you can not challenge what people actually say, or make a case of your own, go away and think until you can.
Saying "cunt" "bigot" and "(insert)ophobe" does not count.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 14 - 04:06 AM

While course language doesn't worry me personally, I do find it difficult to recommend Mudcat to people who might, just might be offended. That's sad.

As for the "f" word used in the post immediately above, that's an automatic suspension on some groups I frequent and considered much more offensive than the naming of bodily parts and functions. :-)

It's almost as bad as calling some one an "accordion player"!

Oops! That's done it. Used the "a" word. I'll consider myself suspended.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:10 AM

I too would find it difficult to recommend Mudcat to any decent person, lest they be gay, black, Muslim or a believer in equality.

I doubt the odd fuck hurts anybody. Its what the fuck was aimed at.... As it has been noted by many on these threads that you can't educate pork, verbal abuse is the only language bigots understand. I commend anybody to read yesterday's lecture on gay people by Akenaton on the demise of the boring thread and then tell me this website moderates hatred.

The Council of Mosques by the way does exist. I heard their spokesman on the wireless.. I googled them and got their website too... I put British in the general description to distinguish it for our er.. international audience. As this is an abuse thread, perhaps, and using your "liar" diatribe as an excellent example... Perhaps the children may wish to know why I put TC on the end of most posts aimed at you?

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:16 AM

Keith may not have heard of it (no surprise there) but Google has:

Council of Mosques

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:30 AM

"Christians attacking a Muslim school in Nigeria, killing the children and feeding them to pigs."
He was possibly wrong about this one - it was in Kenya and they only slit the children's throats, so that makes it all right then!!
"The sight of a group of childish bullies, setting themselves up as self appointed arbiters over what is debated here is unfortunate."
And who has the right to debate it - like new members or non members or those who live in the wrong country - I agree with you, but isn't it about time we let up on Keith - he does his best!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 10 May 14 - 09:17 AM

I normally pass vulgar comments/posts by, and don't read the contents. If that's the itent, rather than to communicate and share information and perspectives, it works with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 09:57 AM

Jack you linked to Tower Hamlets Council of Mosques.
There are many such, for towns or local areas, but know "The Council of Mosques."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 10:57 AM

Jim, I think you refer to the Turbi school massacre which, unlike Musket's story, was not in Nigeria, did not involve bodies dismembered and fed to pigs, was not Christians attacking Muslims and did actually happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:18 AM

No - I refer to the slaughter of Muslims by Christians in Niarobi - which did happen and were children as young as three were slaughtered, mainlt by having their throats cut.
I wonder why massacres by Christians always become either not Christian or unimportant to you - no, I'm lying; I know bloody well it's because you are an obsessive, tunnel-visioned bigot.
Jim Carroll
NIAROBI

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:35 AM

That incident was not in Nairobi or Kenya but in CAR which I referred to above.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:42 AM

Sorry, not referred to above but on the relevant thread.

CAR.
After years of peaceful co-existence, Muslims seized power and began massacring Christians. What you report is the backlash which can not be defended but it was those massacres that caused the hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:46 AM

Still a massacare of Muslims - including children, by Christians, wherever it was.
As I said - they're all at it - why single out Muslims - (one of your favourite excuses for human rights abuses)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:57 AM

Musket made up his story.
He said it was "a couple of years ago" when there was no religious violence in CAR, and there has never been such an incident anywhere in the world.
He unequivocally lied.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:45 PM

Funny how my initial animadversions against such as the perversely pertinacious own-undoubted-intelligence-sabotaging foul mouths of the likes of the self-destructive M*sk*t should somehow have transmogrified into yet another episode of the "this one will run & run" Keith·&·Carroll Show. Apart from the everlastingly tedious fuckshitcuntbollox&repeattillyeroutofbreath, some aspects of this forum are so depressingly -- o-ho-hum -- predictable!...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:57 PM

"Keith·&·Carroll Show."
Having now lodged yourself solidly up Keith's arse - it seems now to be the Keith and Mike show
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:09 PM

All your usual charming fragrancy of expression, Jim. Couldn't have come up with a more shining example of precisely the phenomena that I intended this thread to address.

For shame, you scoundrelly cad and bounder!

〠~M~〠

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:17 PM

Yes Keith I lied. And yes, Operation Yewtree has a file on you.

Happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:19 PM

Hope that not too tedious for your o-so-fastidious semantic requirements, michaelr. I intended polemic, not fascination, you know. As I used, in my long-ago teaching days, to tell pupils who complained of boredom: 'Much acquisition of information is, by its nature, boring. School isn't a place of entertainment, and I am not paid to entertain you. If I was, I expect they'd give me more money'.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Janie
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:25 PM

sigh.....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:26 PM

LOL Michael. I used to get cross with the "This is boooooring!" pupils. I foolishly once roared, "What do you expect, all of you? Do you want me to dance and sing?" Of course the silly little things thought I was serious and there were thrilled gasps of, "Oooh yes pleeease Miss!" Red-faced teacher praying for the bell.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:32 PM

"Couldn't have come up with a more shining example of precisely the phenomena that I intended this thread to address."
I learned from a master Mike - thanks for the lessons.
I've given my opinion on language - 'bad' is very rare - overused is ineffectual - no more.
It's hard not to notice that you only play your 'Keith and Jim' card whnen your protegé is blowing for tugs.
Keith is still a rabid little extremist and I will respond to his extremism - and yours - when I see fit and have the time and inclination.
Once more, none of your business really, unless you care to join in with non-childish mudslinging
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:39 PM

IMO, a good question on the use of profane or offensive speech, is what purpose does it serve in the discussion, and is it important in delivering a important message to others who may be particilating or observing.

In most cases it reflects frustration and anger, versus logic and a calm attitude.

Humour may be one of the cases where vulgar language is more acceptable in society.

A good question: Is it more acceptable to state something offensive I a polite way, or say something non-offensive in a vulgar manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:43 PM

Thanks for compliment implied in "master" -- but what 'lessons'? I don't, as you well know, use such locutions as "lodged solidly up somebody's arse", and have not done so for the past 4 years. You do habitually attribute to other people invented attitudes and usages to suit your own preconceptions -- are you aware of that?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:58 PM

Sometimes swear words can add a funny piquancy to dialogue. They also produce their own rhythm, especially f*** and f******. Consider, "What are you doing Sid?" and, "What the f*** are you doing Sid?"
And "That's the best thing I've heard all day!" or "That's the best f****** thing I've heard all f****** day!" or "What the b***** hell is THAT?" Unsalty language can be a bit bland. I don't myself use a lot of swear words, but many of them are quite acceptable in the right context. We aren't nuns are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:23 PM

GUEST,Musfucket: "The most appalling language can be found in the demise of the boring thread. Not a fuck, cunt, Willy or poo in it.
When you speak of language, I refer the honourable old git to recent posts by Akenaton and Guest from Sanity. They are disgusting, vile and genuinely upsetting for gay people to stumble across."

Amos had it right: "These guys piss in the soup and wonder why the best guests don't come to dinner."

Musketfuck is only pissed off because his childish antics aren't getting any traction...but as he said, "Not a fuck, cunt, Willy or poo in it."

Only his..Right, Musketfuck??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:38 PM

So called 'bad language' is a misnomer. It is in fact a very useful tool. Particularly to enable the movement of an immobile component. I have often, when faced with a stubborn nut or bolt, resorted to the ancient Anglo-Saxon mystical incantation, GET FUCKING MOVING YOU LITTLE TWAT! And, in every case, along with liberal application of WD40 and a one and a half lb lump hammer, it has worked.

Now, I am not saying that anyone on here is like a rusty bolt but if I could access the virtual equivalent of ease-it oil and a heavy lever I am sure that the same Anglo-Saxon incantations could well work with out resident intransigents.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:53 PM

Whatever Goofus. But the soup turned rancid when you published posts calling gay people wrong and saying they could be cured.

Not quite sure what they need curing of or even why they should but pissing in the soup just about sums your contribution up.

Sick puppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:54 PM

Oh, sure. It has indeed its place. There is a good moment in Dorothy L Sayers' Gaudy Night, in which Harriet comes back to college to find that someone has vandalised her room, and smashed up her treasured chessmen with a poker. She suffers an overwhelming moment of silent rage and horror; until, mercifully "she found the relief of bad language". But the kind of overuse of such language around here robs any of us of the potential of that relief. There is no relief to be found in the utterly overused commonplace. That is precisely my objection.

Not convinced? Dear me. Oh pooh! You are misguided...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Janie
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:05 PM

Thinking of starting an "office" pool as to when the rest of the gang will show up. Hard to know just how to define "the gang." A handful are at the core with a number of others who like to jump into the orgy then jump back out, proclaiming, "not me!"

While I consider myself on the far periphery, there is no question that I participate on occasion, or I would not be posting this.

Life, people and personalities being what they are, there is never a clear line between when shunning is appropriate vs when shunning is sticking one's head in the sand when it comes to the dynamic balancing act of fostering community over time. What I would like to see, because I think this and any community is better and more sustainable for it, is people reflecting on their own roles in contributing to dysfunction, rather than people pointing fingers at one another.

Conflict does not equal dysfunction.

But as I said on another thread, Lord of the Flies dynamics are definitely dysfunctional.

I'm curious (and perhaps suspicious without warrant, MtheGM,) regarding your intention in starting this thread. What was your intention? Have the posts thus far fulfilled your expectations?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 14 - 04:09 PM

Okay, Mudbutt wants to interject the homosexual thing into this thread, TOO.
You cut and paste, where I said that 'homosexuals were wrong'...but do it on another thread..it's becoming a worn out exercise, in block-headedness, with stubbornly ignorant politicos.

Another thread.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 May 14 - 06:53 PM

Janie, you are trying to psychoanalyse the undefinable. I think. Give over or you will find yourself wondering whether you are daft or of it is everyone else. Trust me. It is the others...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:08 PM

Janie: What do you find hard to follow in my OP? I don't see how I could have put my reservations as to the seemliness, and the judiciousness [on account of both counterproductive & alienatory effects] of pertinacious use of the sorts of locution I was animadverting against, any more clearly.

Which part (to paraphrase and summarise) of

"constant iteration of what is universally recognised as obscene language is likely to be alienatory to the well-intentioned, and counterproductive in its ultimate effect, there being neither emphasis nor relief to be had in the constant repetition of words which gross over-familiarity has robbed of all emotional, emphatic, or animadvertive effect"

do you not understand?


Turning to the second part of your enquiry, most posts have taken my point to a degree. I am, though, particularly disappointed in Musket's peculiarly crass ill-judgment in his responses. I have generally found him a man of reasonable intellect and perception, and am surprised by his responses here. No doubt he will rise pertinently and sagaciously to the occasion, with a most carefully considered injunction to me to go and fuck myself.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:43 PM

The odd bit of salty language describing a funny situation is fine depending on how it is said. Having said that if for example a comedy act is all about torrents of bad language throughout just to get a laugh then I do find it tiresome.

When it is directed at another person in an aggressive way then I find it unnecessary and insulting. It would not be tolerated in ordinary life so why do it here?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:55 PM

Are we done yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Janie
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:00 PM

Thanks for answering, MtheGM. I appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 14 - 01:27 PM

Using such language in an office will get you disciplined.
Using it to a police officer will get you arrested.
In a shop or bar you will not be served.
It is just not acceptable in a public place, which this is.

It has been justified by Musket as a weapon to use against bad people.
Even if there were such people here, as you yourself said, it does not hurt anyone anyway.
It is just unpleasant for everyone and pushes decent folk away.

It has been justified by others as a relief of frustration.
Fair enough.
Use it all you want but don't type it.

If you can not make a case without being abusive, go away and think until you can.
If you can not challenge what someone says (ACTUALLY says) go away and think until you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 May 14 - 01:39 PM

Or accept that they just might be right?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 14 - 02:42 PM

What your point, Guest? Can't they be 'right' without obscenities to establish their supposed correctness? If you think not, then pray explain why.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 11 May 14 - 02:53 PM

I don't think foul language is itself the problem, those unable to construct a reasonable response, will retreat into foul language as an intimidation tactic, no matter how "intelligent" they believe themselves to be.

I see little signs of intelligence from the pack of UKers who habitually abuse other members of this forum, simply because they have no reasonable argument to put forward.

Bad pastiche of the Pythons or the Goons, is not a measurement of intelligence in my eyes, I enjoy the company of people who like to debate issues and who can recognise the intricacies of difficult controversial subjects.
As I have said before, I am a manual worker, with only a very basic formal education, but I think I know how an intelligent person behaves.

The problem with foul language, is that some "men" use the words for female genitalia as derogatory terms of abuse, and I am sure that "men" who use that particular form of abuse, have a problem with their relationship with women......Personally, I find such conduct disgusting and would be interested to hear what our Mudcat sisters think of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:01 AM

Mike, I do not think Guest meant that.
He appears to be supportive of my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:13 AM

"Using such language in an office will get you disciplined....."
All this is a bit of a diversion really
Inciting race hatred with generiled accusations of cultural implants would be illegal outside the confines of the social media - doesn't stop some people though.
Where is Mary Whitehouse when she is so desperately needed?
"Foul" language is in the ear of the listener - where wold we be without Rabbie Burns and The Earl of Rochester?
Though I do agree about the sexist implications of using women's anatomy as a term of abuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:20 AM

I enjoy the company of people who like to debate issues

We always said you enjoyed a mass debate...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:22 AM

Oh I don't know, Jim. I often mutter, "Dickhead!" or, "What a prick!" when furious with a bad driver on the road. I don't (I think) intend any sexism, neither do I have personal relationship problems with men. I also mutter, "Silly cow!" if it's a woman carving me up. However I certainly wouldn't swear at the doctor's surgery or in the local library. One has to be appropriate, but not mealy-mouthed either. On Mudcat it's the context and the inherent intention to insult or wound which matter. If one swears just for fun or to underline a point a bit forcefully, I reckon that's okay.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:59 AM

I have just come across something that causes me confusion. Can anyone tell me which they would rather read on here?

A: Fuck off

or

B: People who enjoy something I don't are idiots.

A is bad language. B is insulting to, I suspect, more people. I'll start the ball rolling. A doesn't annoy me in the slightest. B gets up my nose!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:03 AM

"Oh I don't know,"
It's only one particular word Eliza
An old tradeseman who taught me when I was an apprentice summed it up for me.
"Why make something we all dropped out of, and spend a great deal of our lives trying to get back into, a term of abuse?"
Makes sense to me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:05 AM

If your copulating ideas ever took copulating hold an awful copulating lot of copulating glans would have nothing at all to copulating post! Swive 'em all, I say! Let their tongues and fingers continue to reside within their turbinal, lodged firmly in their ampulla recti.

As for me -- stand back, I have a vocabulary and I know how to use it!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:13 AM

Nah - Sorry, rap, no cigar. Too much fucking use of 'copulating'.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:33 AM

Dave the Gnome: "I have just come across something that causes me confusion. Can anyone tell me which they would rather read on here?

A: Fuck off
or
B: People who enjoy something I don't are idiots."


Dave the Gnome: "Janie, you are trying to psychoanalyse the undefinable. I think. Give over or you will find yourself wondering whether you are daft or of it is everyone else. Trust me. It is the others..."

You might have just answered your own question!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:40 AM

I don't understand the relationship between the two, GfS. Please explain.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 12 May 14 - 11:49 AM

Personally I don't understand Goofus. I understand what he puts forward though, and it ain't nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 14 - 02:21 PM

I also think that there is quite a difference in cursing while under stress or pain; and using foul language on an internet forum as an intimidation tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 14 - 03:22 PM

Jim, I share your views on race hate and would be very angry if I ever saw it on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 14 - 03:58 PM

"Jim, I share your views on race hate and would be very angry if I ever saw it on here."
Y'r 'tis again, back to bite your bum again, as it will continue to be every time you pay lip service to hating racism.
Time for you to get "angry"
Jim Carroll

"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
Quote from Keith the "anti racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 May 14 - 04:30 PM

I prefer the admonishments of the MGM such as booby, it has a certain "je ne sais quoit" and style, to be insulted by MGM is akin to having a ride with the "creme de la creme", to quote Jean Brodie.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:04 PM

I think I might make some points.

M the GM. If, at your age, you should be accused of being FIRMLY up someone's arse, I think you should accept the compliment gracefully.

Secondly - did you mean to speak of a phenomenon or a number of phenomena?   

Thirdly, I am surprised that you should say "smashed up". Is that not an American construction when an Englishman should say "smashed"?

Fourthly, a 01:19 Mudcat time on the 10th May, surely you intended to say "were" not "was". It looks as if a residual subjunctive would have been more proper.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:10 PM

Wot Bridge said.

I think.

He don't speak rate like wot we do. (His years in Nottingham may come in handy there.)

I have to agree with the worm. Homophobic language is indeed intimidation on an Internet forum.

Well..   Fuck me! Is that the time? I should be on the nest. Tatty bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Airymouse
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:45 PM

Seems to me there are three uses:
1) Sometimes unacceptable language is well used. For example, Andrew Marvel's "Then worms shall try thy quaint virginity" is fun even though the pun is stolen from Chaucer. Lord knows you can't read 3 pages of Shakespeare without encountering "foul" language. Mercutio's "The bawdy hand of the dial is now on the prick of noon" comes to mind.
2) Words like "fuck" are used as expletives and to me this use is no less or more annoying than other filler words" eh, you know, you see.
3) There's a real problem with unacceptable language in singing. If you sing a "coon song" do you explain that that's what it is? There doesn't seem to be a problem with The YELLOW rose of Texas. How about,
"John Hardy was standing in the poker room
Didn't have no interes in the game
Up stepped a YELLOW gal, with a dollar in her hand
Says deal John Hardy in the game"?
Then of course there's the N word.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 14 - 08:50 PM

Pissing aside, the best guests now have other engagements such as TED talks which were not around 10 years ago. People still come here to be informed or bemused or simply show off. Instead of coming to a dinner for World Peace it appears they almost all to a person still come to BS for drinks and canapés.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:40 AM

Richard ~~ Could I please have refs for these linguistic solecisms you allege? I recall none of them except for 'was/were', and suspect you may be confusing some others' posts with mine. The use of subjunctive 'were' in place of indicative 'was' is frequently a stylistic choice, rather than a grammatical error.

Airymouse may think he contradicts my main point; but in fact IMO confirms it. It is the reduction of such vocabulary to phatic meaningless, which he identifies, to which I take exception, as a diminution in the meaning and usefulness of such potentially useful words. My objection, i.e, is a stylistic, not a moral, one. Ingenious Metaphysical plays on words are ∴ a separate matter entirely. Ref to Marvell, e.g, would only have relevance if he had written "Then fucking worms would fucking try Thy fucking long-fucking-preserv'd fucking virginity, you cunt!" ~~ a formulation IMO much redolent of the usages of some Cat-posters which are the real [& sole] object of my animadversions on this thread. Other forms of unacceptable usage ['nigger', 'coon'...], also another matter, quite beside the point of this thread.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:51 AM

Jim, there are no racists posting on Mudcat.
If there were you would not have to go back over 3 years, only to produce someone saying they have come to accept what some prominent minority people said about their own culture!

If we ever do get racists, I will argue them down.
Just calling them names would have no effect.
They would just call you names back.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 03:25 AM

"Jim, there are no racists posting on Mudcat."
You've just had one of yours presented to you - every time it has been in the intervening years, you have confirmed that you still hold the nauseating views you articulated so clearly three years ago - though you have added the refinement that you only hold your nauseating racist views because "experts" told you they were accurate (an invention of oyur own which only serves to compound the sickening nature of your statement).
Far from "arguing them down" you have made racism and sectarian hatred your hallmark - you are noted for it wherever you post - can 99.9% recurring of Mudcat all be wrong?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:39 AM

It is three and a half years old and not racist.
3 Sentences only.
The first states that I do not believe all the things you accuse me of believing.
The second says I have come to accept what eminent people said about their own culture.
The third asks why you think you know more than they do.

Instead of always trying to discredit me, try challenging what I actually say.
Of course if you were capable of that you would not need to keep trying to discredit me with an ancient post!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:24 AM

You have your statement - in your own words - it is a racist and cultural slur, whoever makes it.
No public figure has ever made such a statement, and would have been prosecuted, and certainly expelled from any post he or she held, had they done so publicly - that is a fact of British law.
However ancient a post, your reaction to it always indicates you still hold your views, and your intervening posts have added to that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:34 AM

Wrong.
People are entitled to be critical of their own culture.
It is not racist to do it or to refer to it.

Can you not produce anything more racist than that from my thousands of posts?

And, when will you get the message that everyone else hates you bringing this up in every thread, forcing me to defend myself from your lies?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:06 AM

"It is not racist to do it or to refer to it."
It is illegal to depict an entire racial community as being culturally inclined to having underage sex - that falls under the incitement to race hatred laws - you have even been given the specific law it covers.
I' am overwhelmed by the protest that I should again have to bring this up - don't you dare claim to oppose everything you stand for.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:12 AM

A couple of words never appear in my posts except in quotes from someone else's. I'm rather fond of "twat" because it's nice and direct and conveys a certain degree of ridicule. Body function words are pretty mild I reckon. What I can't be doing with is the use of asterisks (except where used correctly, of course, as in "b*ast*ard" or "w*anker", for example). If you don't like the word, don't use it, and don't pretend you're being polite by peppering us with bl*oody asterisks! Even worse is the prissy use of expressions such as "the n-word" or "the c-word". Just s*oddin' say it! One of my favourite films of all time is Blazing Saddles and I'm not going to never watch it again because it has "nigger" in it umpteen times. Context is everything. The most important thing is that one has no right to not be offended.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:30 AM

Jim, they all blamed the culture and were reported in all the media.
It is not racist to do that or to refer to it.

When will you get the message that everyone else hates you bringing this up in every thread, forcing me to defend myself from your lies?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:36 AM

I have always believed Britain to be a fairly liberal democracy that has constructed its society around protecting cultural and racial minorities from racist smears such as yours with fairly stringent laws.
If you say it is not, I have to take your word for it, I suppose.
"Can you not produce anything more racist than that from my thousands of posts?"
There actually isn't anything more racist than suggesting that the male gender of an entire racial/cultural group of a million and a half people is inclined towards pedophilia by its"implanted" culture, which it has to "resist" in order to prevent its male population from having it off with our underage daughters.
"When will you get the message that everyone else hates you bringing this up in every thread, forcing me to defend myself from your lies?"
When you get it into your thick, twisted skull that you are on your own in your sick Crusade of hate.
And thank you again for confirming that you still hold these views - "every little helps", as the man from Tesco keeps telling me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:53 AM

?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 14 - 08:29 AM

booby and nincompoop, are imaginative insults that have style.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 08:46 AM

Mudcat language, lesson 101.

Anyone who disagrees with Keith A Hole of Hertford is referred to as a liar.

Anyone who is turned off this shouldn't be posting as Mudcat is for Keith and anyone who has been posting as long as he has.

My fucking hero, you know...












TC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 09:12 AM

Picking at nits, the lot of you. It is very simple. Use of "salty" language is your business as long as it is used to attack ideas, or in a humorous way. When it is used in a personal attack, it goes. "That is an idiotic fucking idea", while distasteful, would not be deleted. "You are a fucking idiot" would.

Actually I don't know why I explain this, because the usual suspects aren't really interested in knowing this. They prefer to try and claim victim status and tilt at the windmill of "censorship". Amos has it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 09:55 AM

Musket,
Anyone who disagrees with Keith A Hole of Hertford is referred to as a liar.

That is, errr, untrue.
Most people disagree with me, but I do not call them liars.
I do not use the word as a term of abuse.
I only use it in response to unequivocal lying.

I have only ever called you a liar for 2 of your posts.
The one where you claimed to have heard a report of Nigerian Christians chopping up Muslim school kids and feeding them to pigs, and the one you claimed to have downloaded a quote from "The Council of Mosques" which does not exist and Google could only find it in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 10:00 AM

But who would say something was a fucking idiotic idea unless they were addressing a fucking idiot?

At the risk of prodding the lion with a stick... Has Amos got it right or does Mick just happen to like what Amos put?

I happen to disagree with Amos. The soup will always taste of piss unless enough people tell the waiter it tastes fucking awful.

I think I get the bit about humorous...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 10:14 AM

No-one should be subject to this Mick.
Deleting the posts some time later is no help and no deterrent.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: pdq
Date: 13 May 14 - 10:24 AM

Editorial Policy...


"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. Editorial decisions are made by Max, or under his direction. We follow principles and common sense, and see no need to have everything spelled out in some sort of pseudo-legal code. We don't allow hate, racism, stalking or other intimidation, or personal threats or attacks..."


personal attacks do not have to have "motherfucker" in them to be offensive

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 11:54 AM

Is homophobia hate, intimidation or fair comment?

Is calling a member a liar intimidation?

Is deleting obvious satire editorial policy?








I obviously didn't get the bit about humorous. Still, if the cap is a 7 3/4 " and so is the head, it fits quite nicely.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:14 PM

Well, Englishman, no, homophobia is not or intimidation. Strictly speaking it is a fear of homosexuals.

I am not going to fall into the trap of debating your predicates. I am simply going to refer you to the very basic and simple rules enunciated in the post that pdq quoted. If moderators examine posts and find that they fall into the categories described, they will be deleted without comment. If you do not like the policy, please feel free to find a forum that allows them. Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:35 PM

I use the term Englishman because you folks are constantly moaning about two cultures separated by a common language. You made an assertion about homophobia that was not a correct usage of the term. This poor old colonial just thought he would point it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:35 PM

You are quite correct Mick, neither Sanity nor I have any hatred of homosexuals....in fact I feel very sorry for them, having to go through life without the pain and joy of raising their own family.
I am sorry that their behaviour seems to lead to a huge over representation in the STD figures.
I am sorry for the bad parenting which perhaps led to them taking the path that they did, or the psychological trauma that moulded their sexual orientation.

No hatred, just pity and a desire to see HIV and STD stats brought under control.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:41 PM

Well done Mick. Sick disgraceful homophobic views suddenly come out of the midden.

The views expressed by Akenaton above are absolutely beyond the pail and even the pale.

Just read them.

For homosexual read repressed bigot. That works far better.

Moderation? Akenaton shows us why it doesn't work far better than respectable people do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:45 PM

Oh akenaton, I really MUST protest at such remarks! Do you really really believe that men's homosexual orientation can be determined by 'psychological trauma' or 'bad parenting'?? And many gay men in loving partnerships, and now marriage, have adopted children, so they do indeed have the 'pain and joy' of raising their own family. Your pity is patronising and offensive.
And Big Mick, who are you including in 'you folks'? And what makes you say we English are 'constantly moaning' about 'two cultures separated by a common language'? One surely can't stereotype an entire nation like that. I for one (English and proud of it) am not 'constantly moaning' about anything, least of all Americans and their speech.
Reading some of these posts makes me truly despair. Whatever is going on in your minds? Or hearts for that matter? Good grief. Please please stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:52 PM

And as his post us full of false facts to back up his awful opinion, I look forward to it being removed under the category hate.

Not holding my English breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:02 PM

Well Eliza, there does seem to be a stereotypical parenting template which applies to many, not all, male homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:35 PM

Eliza, and all, please accept a sincere apology offered without condition. I was making a tongue in cheek comment,monte that I used Englishman as opposed to English men, but my "you folks" comment was far too broad. I apologies for the offense.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:39 PM

Big Mick, for my part I admire you very much for apologising. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:04 PM

Actually I don't know why I explain this, because the usual suspects aren't really interested in knowing this. They prefer to try and claim victim status and tilt at the windmill of "censorship".

Yeah, right, "usual suspects". How lame. No naming of names, as ever. How many times have we seen that. C'mon, Big Boy, big up why don't you. Name the usual suspects instead of bottling it, but go carefully, cos I know I'm in your sights, yet I never use c*unt, f*uck and I never claim victim status, and I don't give a flying monkey's shite about "censorship". And per-bloody-ease don't give us that "you know who you are" bollox. Nothing but a list will do. I do not hold my breath. And I bet homophobe Ake, mad Goofus and racist Keith aren't on your list! Time to get honest, Mr Mod!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:41 PM

Steve, you really must think me simple. Your attempts to elevate are very childish. Read the rules, follow them, everything is great. They apply to everyone. The names you mention do not engage in personal attack. They simply state their opinion. I find their opinions on homosexuality and racism to be sickening in my opinion. But I don't bother answering them as that allows them to elevate.

But back to the subject. Debate issues, leave personal attacks home.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:25 PM

Well, Big Mick, homophobic and racist posts from Ake, Keith and Goofus are personal attacks on millions of people, yet you always find a way to defend these nasty bigots. They sicken you but otherwise they're OK here. Wow. You'd much rather take the path of least resistance in attacking people who are rather nasty to known bigots (though I still await your list of us). Do I think you're simple? The thought never crossed my mind, old boy. You're probably a luvly feller deep down, but a little less luvliness to bigots and a little more cojones in confronting the b*ast*ards from you and the other forum worthies would be welcome. You know summat, old chap? We read constant bollox here from sanctimonious gits lamenting the good times of old and the loss of the nice guys who have decamped, yet we hear very little criticism, except from one or two of us who really would like to see the place being a lot better, about the horrible people like Keith, Ake, bobad and Goofus who drag this place into the mire. Note correct use of ast*er*isks there, by the way, in keeping with the spirit of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:44 PM

How to become a Saint in easy-to-follow steps.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 09:20 PM

Very entertaining link, guest! The only thing it fails to mention is that your devil's advocate must, deep down, be of like mind with yourself. So, no questions about cover-ups of child abuse, or about doing dirty deals with fascist dictators, or about helping the Nazis to escape or to ship Jews to death camps by the thousand...

Dominic Savio was sainted because (a) he died young, and (b) he wouldn't take his underpants off in front of the other lads! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 May 14 - 11:57 PM

It would be a great opportunity for you to correct that deficit. Have at it Mr Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket bemused
Date: 14 May 14 - 03:17 AM

If it sickens it must be hate?

Mick. If you don't like "Englishmen" pointing out posts that lower and cheapen Mudcat, look for the source, not the reaction. If Max doesn't want parental blocks by ISPs, start moderating. Parental blocks don't stop fuck, shit, nipple, cunt or thick, but they are there in case people unsuspectingly read the likes of Akenaton. If he sickens you too, think why.

Why should I try to argue and debate? I may as well debate with the pigs on the farm across the way. Because when I have finished my speech, asked for any questions and ejected my PowerPoint stick, they will just carry on grunting and rolling in shit.

Oh, and deleting my posts on the basis of a quasi medical opinion is fair comment, but it has to be applied fairly. I have yet to see hate deleted. Despite it being on Max's shit list. I know you guys are volunteers, and you think you are being fair but look for the source not the reaction.

There seems to be an echo here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 03:42 AM

In all the years I have been here, I have never never made a racist post because I am no racist.
I am a member of a church that fights racism.
Anyone who accuses me of racism is engaging in dishonest personal attack.
If you do it at least produce something, which obviously you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:55 AM

"f you do it at least produce something, which obviously you can't."
We have - and you've constantly confirmed it - while at the same time, denying it.
Your church must be very proud of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:34 AM

It's a pity that your precious church actively supports misogyny and homophobia then.

Im a member of a wine club that supports small producers but I don't appreciate wine because I claim to be a member.

Lots of prisoners locked away and not allowed to wear their dog collar. They are still members of their church.

Not sure what your point is Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:34 AM

You can accuse me all day, but you can not produce a racist post because I have no racist views.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:52 AM

No answer then.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 14 May 14 - 08:10 AM

"Groundhog Day: a situation in which a series of unwelcome or tedious events appear to be recurring in exactly the same way."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 14 - 12:32 PM

Mick, without trying to be argumentative, I would be interested to hear which particular views expressed by either Keith Sanity, or myself, you find so "sickening".
I have expressed mainly facts concerning over representation of male homosexuals in the STD figures, not my views but data collected by health agencies.

I am against homosexual "marriage" for several reasons, the same stance as your church, do you find the church's views "sickening"?

I am have no hatred towards homosexuals, being opposed to criminalisation of the practice when that was the law.

Keith is certainly no racist and why you infer that he is, is beyond my comprehension.

Be specific, or your allegations are as bad as those of the "pack".
You say stick to the issues, perhaps you should start taking your own advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:00 PM

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:35 PM

...I am sorry for the bad parenting which perhaps led to them taking the path that they did, or the psychological trauma that moulded their sexual orientation.

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 14 May 14 - 12:32 PM

...I have expressed mainly facts concerning over representation of male homosexuals in the STD figures

Mainly facts over STD figures? Including the fact that homosexuality is a result of bad parenting or psychological trauma maybe? And you wonder what sickens people about your statements? Well, for me, it really does sicken me that someone can cast such aspersions on the thousands of good and honest parents who have brought up their gay children to be good, honest people themselves.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:41 PM

Ignorance and cluelessness aren't hatred. Musket, you demonstrate far more hatred than either Keith or Ake. Hatred and childish name calling and bullying are what you're left with when you give up on reason and go straight to demonizing. I worked in Public Health for 18 years, and you're not helping anyone. Especially not yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:43 PM

Dave, my remarks were addressed to Mick, I have absolutely no interest in what you or your friend think of me, or my views.

Your last post is the usual misrepresentation of what I have written, you are not worth the time it will take to type yet another explanation. Disingenuous to the end! Back into room 101!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:53 PM

Jeri, I am neither "ignorant" nor "clueless" about this particular issue.
I thank you for your insight into what is happening on this forum, but I view your allegations of ignorance and cluelessness in the same way as I do Mick's "queasiness". Perhaps it was something he ate?   :0).
Do all the moderators have such delicate stomachs?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:19 PM

Your last post is the usual misrepresentation of what I have written

How so?

(Not that I expect an answer)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:22 PM

With that attitude Jeri, you wouldn't get a job as a public health specialist here, even after they dumbed it down so less qualified people than consultant doctors can advise.

By the way, the director of public health (a real one, GMC registered Prof) who answered to me in a previous life was always reminding the board that with the money we spent on health promotion, the damaging hatred if not challenged leads to mental health issues, CHD etc through obesity and other lack of self esteem conditions and gay men have a shorter life expectancy than others in the same socio economic groups. We might as well not bother promoting health if we turn a blind eye to the discrimination that leads to issues in the first place.

I don't excuse hatred, I refuse to accept it.

Leave public health to the experts eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:15 PM

Ignorance and cluelessness aren't hatred. Musket, you demonstrate far more hatred than either Keith or Ake. Hatred and childish name calling and bullying are what you're left with when you give up on reason and go straight to demonizing. I worked in Public Health for 18 years, and you're not helping anyone. Especially not yourself.

Absolute bl*oody b*oll*ocks. Ake cannot bring himself to accept the law of the land and the attitude of the vast majority by typing gay marriage instead of gay "marriage". That is totally hateful and thoroughly nasty. Keith equates Hamas, with whom I personally have no truck by the way, with Nazis, who killed six million Jews in the most horrendous circumstances. That is brainless demonisation of the worst kind by any decent measure, levelled against people who have (yes, wrongly) killed, whilst under siege lest we forget, a couple of handfuls of Israelis over more than a decade in the face of having more than a hundred times as many of their own people killed by Israeli forces over the same period. That is hateful, spiteful and riddled with denial. He also will not blame Israel for the disgusting massacres at Sabra and Shatila which were overseen by that nasty shitbag Ariel Sharon, still lionised in Israel today. Sorry, Jeri, whoever you are, but you also are not helping yourself, nor are you helping Mudcat to be a better place by lamely excusing these total bastards (note lack of asterisks this time) who you, big Mick and the other mod-apologists allow to blight this place. And what the hell "working in public health for 18 years" has to do with anything is anyone's guess. Puerile.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: pdq
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:31 PM

We need an exterminator.

"Pass the DDT"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:32 PM

Here come da Jews, here come da Jews!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Janie
Date: 14 May 14 - 09:01 PM

Really Musket. You don't get it? I don't believe you.

Really Keith and Ake? You don't get it? I don't believe you.

My impression is that Steve and Jim really don't get it.

GfS, You don't get it? My impression is you are a more "mixed bag" than the others I named (Happy now, Steve?) I shudder to think you may be a licensed clinician.

Could name any of us at one time or another, including myself.

Suspect I may regret hitting "submit" on this one unless I can let the reactions roll off my back.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:30 AM

Society is such that we don't have to "get" bigotry and discrimination Janie.

Just whack it back into the hole it came out of in the first place.

A word to the wise. "Mixed bag" and "irrational" are so close, they could fit together in a single strait jacket.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:09 AM

Steve.
Keith equates Hamas, with whom I personally have no truck by the way, with Nazis, who killed six million Jews in the most horrendous circumstances.

I actually said "In this respect they out-Nazi the Nazis."
The context was that the Nazis kept quiet about their intention to exterminate the Jews while Hamas are quite open about it, even encouraging it in TV shows for young and preschool children.
The Nazis never went that far.

Many contributors have equated Israel with the Nazis.
Why not vilify them as you did me?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:21 AM

Oh. The Nazis kept their odious views to themselves. That's alright then.

I wish some on here would take a leaf out of their book if that's the case.

"Many contributors." But you keep telling us you are clever and understand things we mere liars don't have the capacity to digest. Why question peasants when a member of his local church is saying it!

Gather round everybody! Keith has something to say and he is a member of a church that opposes something or other! Let's sit at the feet of the wise one.

Oh how you smirked when some of us disagreed with a bloke who called himself a "historian." Only you have an IQ high enough to understand. How you scoffed when anyone challenged four revisionists, or "the established view" as you so ably put it.

Funny thing context Keith. You enjoy taking things out of context to justify views that are frankly disturbing yet are very quick to claim others do it to you.

But there again, I'm just a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:48 AM

It was all current historians Musket.
You said they "should know better," like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:31 AM

True. Very true.

(The bit about your four, who don't represent all current historians. All current historians is a bit of a mouthful, even for you and your rose tinted blinkers.). It appears I do know better. Who'd have thought it? Just me, most commentators, most academics, anybody whose relatives are on a War Memorial.........

Alan Clark died in 1999, so isn't strictly speaking current. "Donkeys" makes interesting reading anyway. As he was part of the privileged establishment, he is very scathing as to their ability to lead.

That's the book, not someone's opinion of it you read through a google hit.   I notice even David Cameron has stopped giving credence to your mate Michael Gove on the subject.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:36 AM

It was all current historians Musket.
You said they "should know better," like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 14 - 12:55 PM

This thread has become pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 02:14 PM

Oh, I don't know. Some of us are just strumming and picking at the same time. A huge difference between pointless and of interest to any particular person.

The pointless ones are where ignorant people talk bollocks on subjects they have no clue about. See the "all current historians" claim as a case in point. I'm a historian, I've decided, and I'm with the "donkeys" scenario and butcher of the Somme moniker, just like the vast majority of people who have given war any thought.

Then we come to religion. Someone, to pick a member at random, claims his church isn't into racism or any other "old fashioned" vice, yet I've just been watching BBC News. A Christian group with right wing political connections broke into a mosque in Bradford and started laying bibles around, videoing themselves and then found an Imam, and with their video running, tried forcing him to read from the bible.

The local MP, one Eric Pickles has promised to "have a word" with the relevant authorities, but refused to condemn Christian Right to try to convert people.

Language?

I've got some choice language and it isn't just aimed at the awful bigotry earlier on....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:08 PM

Well then let me see....Is it really "vile hatred"   to type homosexual " marriage", rather than "gay marriage"?

I don't think so, I never use the word "gay", in respect of sexual orientation, as it is a rather good example of Orwellian newspeak and I am not prepared to be manipulated by a tiny section of society.

I put homosexual "marriage" in inverted commas, as I do not agree with the redefinition of the institution of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority.
Homosexual "marriage" is completely different in construct to traditional hetero marriage, in that very many homosexual "marriages" and unions are "open relationships" containing large numbers of sexual partners. Also, homosexual "marriage" does not fulfil the function of a secure base for the procreation, nurturing, raising of children and the construction of an extended family structure.

I opposed the law on the criminalising of homosexuals and I reserve the right to oppose legislation regarding homosexual "marriage".

No hatred from me, just cool calm reason.

Dave, Ian and Steve are afraid of reason, preferring to depend on faith in the ethereal myth of equality under a cruel economic system based on greed and exploitation. For this reason, they dismiss all know data on homosexual health rates, male homosexual sexual behaviour patterns and any other facts which contradict their "raison d'etre".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:48 PM

Insert word here ...............

How many other people did you fuck In your open marriage?

Not a nice accusation is it? What's more, I have no evidence to back it up.

How dare you make such vile accusations against people you don't even know? Where is your evidence that people who make a commitment to marriage don't preclude monogamy based on their gender?

Nobody wants you to agree with the law. You are obliged to abide by it though regardless of your lack of respect for society. You are also obliged by law not to publish lies designed to vilify sections of society in order to invite hatred of people for their sexual orientation.

Any chance of carrying on your criminal activities where unsuspecting people don't come across it? Freedom of speech has responsibility attached.if you won't listen to me, listen to the others who are telling you that you are out of order.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:25 PM

Anyone notice that a bloke reads an "entertainement" book or two,( lets say, fir example, the bible, the Orwell, and trys to figure out all life from it, and this one author.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:29 PM

I have already published a link to the American study on "Open Homosexual Relationships.
You read it and commented on it at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:40 PM

Here is another from a large list.

Examining the correspondence between relationship identity and actual sexual risk behavior among HIV-positive men who have sex with men.

Blashill AJ1, Wilson JM, O'Cleirigh CM, Mayer KH, Safren SA.



Author information

1Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, 1 Bowdoin Square, 7th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA, [e-mail].

Abstract

Sexual behavior of men who have sex with men (MSM), within and outside of one's primary relationship, may contribute to increased risk of HIV transmission among those living with HIV. The current study sought to understand how HIV-infected MSM report their relationship status and the degree to which this corresponds with their sexual behavior. Further, we examined rates and psychosocial associations with sexual HIV transmission risk behavior (TRB) across relationship categories. In a sample of 503 HIV-infected MSM in HIV care, 200 (39.8 %) reported having a primary partner. Of these, 115 reported that their relationship was open and 85 reported that it was monogamous. Of the 85 who reported a monogamous relationship, 23 (27 %) reported more than one sexual partner in the prior 3 months, 53 (62 %) reported only one partner, and nine did not report on the number of partners in the past 3 months. Hence, there were three categories of relationships: (1) "monogamous with one sexual partner," (2) "monogamous with more than one sexual partner," and (3) "open relationship." The "monogamous with more than one sexual partner" group reported higher TRB and crystal methamphetamine use compared to the "monogamous with one sexual partner" group and different patterns of relationships with TRB emerged across the three groups. Couples-based HIV prevention interventions for MSM may be enhanced by considering that there may be different definitions of monogamy among MSM, and that the context of relationship status may require tailoring interventions to meet the needs of specific subgroups of MSM couples.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:11 PM

Really Musket. You don't get it? I don't believe you.

Really Keith and Ake? You don't get it? I don't believe you.

My impression is that Steve and Jim really don't get it.

GfS, You don't get it? My impression is you are a more "mixed bag" than the others I named (Happy now, Steve?) I shudder to think you may be a licensed clinician.

Could name any of us at one time or another, including myself.

Suspect I may regret hitting "submit" on this one unless I can let the reactions roll off my back.

Don't "get" what? Who are you, another mod-apologist for the real nasties around here?? Care to explain this post of yours??

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:27 PM

Dave, Ian and Steve are afraid of reason, preferring to depend on faith etc. etc.

So, ake, when you said you mainly deal in facts and then went on to say that homosexuality was brought on by poor parenting or psychological trauma, was that an example of your reasoning?

When I asked how I was misrepresenting you by pointing this out and you failed to answer, was that another example?

When you say I have absolutely no interest in what you or your friend think of me, or my views. does this give us an insight into your self styled wonderful debating skills? If you have no interest in what we say, why do you keep replying?

Something is rotten in the state of Mudcat methinks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 14 - 07:02 PM

bring back MGM, AT LEAST HE HAS STYLE.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 May 14 - 07:07 PM

Infidelity as no fixed orientation 

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 07:51 PM

The paper was published by the National Centre for Biotechnology Information, under the auspices of the US National Library of Medicine and the National institute of Health.
The authors are reputable and have published many papers on medical issues. There are many more such studies into homosexual open relationships.

Please stop playing King Canute, It makes you look even dafter.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:52 AM

It was sent for assessment and possible publication to The New England Journal of Medicine and over here, to The BMJ and Lancet.

It was rejected by BMJ on two counts. Failure to declare anti gay political donations by two of the authors and making unsubstantiated conclusions from the evidence.

The Terence Higgins Trust have a library of papers on gay lifestyle and one factor that keeps cropping up is the struggle to keep in a relationship against discrimination and social pressure of not being accepted by family and the local community.

Rather than the discredited "proactive" promiscuity, it is generally a case of hitherto, relationships being frail.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest open relationship numbers are higher in gay people than straight. Confusion over sexuality is a result of lack of understanding by society, not a trait of any particular sexuality.

The paper gets currency on religious websites and far right Nazi groups such as BNP over here and according to the CSU sexual health lead I had a chat with yesterday evening about it, it received prominence in The USA when KKK picked up on it.

By the way, there are many papers on a similar theme available in The USA, due to lack of strictness on impartiality. Only NEJM has similar stringent editorial policy to UK and EU journals.

I only have access to BMJ reasons for rejection. I can't say conclusively why others rejected it. BMJ is sensitive to publishing false data, hence the uproar over the statin data slipping through in a paper they accepted recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:09 AM

By the way. The paper forwarded for publication here was a meta paper of many similar papers too.

NICE guidelines for treating sexual orientation anxiety specifically preclude looking for promiscuity as a symptom.

In any event, what the hell has that to do with gay people getting married? If we were pathetic enough to see equality as a medical necessity anyway, marriage and civil partnerships combat the (non existent) promiscuity the papers refer to.

It is all well and good observing a phenomenon such as length of time a relationship lasts in a particular demographic. It is wrong however to make conclusions based on prejudice as such papers do. Short term relationships through lack of society acceptance are very different to the odious "let's find someone to fuck" fantasy that seems to keep Akenaton interested in the subject.

Considering decent people accept gay relationships in the same way as mixed race now, (it wasn't always the case there either) bile from the likes of Akenaton will become less until one fine sunny day, it falls quiet forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:19 AM

I would be very interest to see your evidence for all that Musket.

What is your opinion of this NAT report?

"Given the importance of partnership
patterns to HIV transmission, we should
look at what we know about such patterns
amongst MSM in the UK. The 2007
Gay Men's Sex Survey states:
'As every year, respondents were
very varied in their number of sexual
partners. Among the men who had a
male sex partner in the last year, 21.4%
indicated they had one male partner
only; 27.6% had two, three or four
male partners; 24.4% had between five
and twelve male partners; 13.4% had
between thirteen and 29 male partners;
and the remaining 13.4% had thirty or
more male partners in the last year'. 17
John Imrie also presented data on
numbers of sexual partners amongst
HIV positive MSM at the NAT seminar
which found a median of 12 partners in
the year. 18 25% of the men reported 35
or more sexual partners in the last year.
These 89 HIV positive men with more
than 35 partners a year also accounted
for nearly 80% of all reported sexual
contacts in the sample (11,077 of the
total of 13,969 sexual contacts).
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/July-2010-Parternship-Patterns-and-HIV-Prevention.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:29 AM

"A significant proportion of MSM have
a high number of sexual partners, and
these men have sex with each other
(the 'core of the core'), thus facilitating
the spread of HIV and other STIs,
but also have sex with other MSM
who themselves have fewer partners
('the edge of the core'). This sexual
organisation is a major determinant of
HIV incidence in the MSM population.

'High rates of STI infection in a population
are also indicators of multiple partnership
and ongoing HIV transmission. As has been
previously stated, MSM in the UK experience
not only high rates of HIV but also other STIs
such as gonorrhoea and syphilis."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:38 AM

Thank you, Dick. Much appreciated!

I have been staying away as I am somewhat bemused as to how this thread, which I OPd with the clear object of testing out how many Catters were as fed up as I am with the extremely high incidence of mindless and meaningless phatic obscenity on the forum, has somehow transmogrified into yet another ill-tempered spat about gay marriage and the comparative incidence of STDs in the gay community: most worthy topics to be sure, but I absolutely fail to see any relevance whatsoever to the thread's evident subject.

Still, there's Mudcat for you, innit! As Tommy Handley's old signature tune used to aver, as the real oldies among us will remember ~~

"Oh, it's useless to complain!"

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 05:23 AM

My opinion is already noted. It basically concurs with PHE and Terrence Higgins Trust.

First of all, NAT are talking about MSM sex, not gay relationships.

Second, it is a noted issue, from the discredited US papers and the more objective research that gay relationships don't last as long as heterosexual ones, all other factors considered.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in their submission to NICE on this statistic stated that there is no evidence to suggest promiscuity is a larger or lower factor in this. There is however plenty of evidence to suggest social pressure, discrimination and acceptance by family and society at large is a factor. The promiscuity has lowered as society acceptance has increased. The somewhat explosion of HIV at the outset being the point in case. Fascinating reading. I only looked at it a few weeks ago actually, when looking for ideas of how to make representations to NICE as I am delivering one shortly on chemotherapy. The reports I have from oncologists may make the technical points (although who am I to judge) but the RCP approach to laying the points out is something I am happy to crib, or at least get someone else to crib. I am backing off over the summer, trying to slowly retire (again.)

You are quick to find anything to contradict me when I put an opinion forward Keith. I don't know your background, someone said you were a sports teacher but I don't know. However, please for once read something I wish to say seriously.

You ca find many contradictory opinions on any scientific subject and double that when it comes to healthcare. NAT, PHE, the Royal Colleges etc, all have their interest to factor into their conclusions. Their evidence base is usually sound, but conclusions from evidence are subjective. Even the implementation of them is subjective. Whilst I would wish to be totally objective when advising on priority spending and cash releasing efficiency savings (CRES) it is a fact that the political, social and situation aspects mould the actions.

Hence, and I understand if this is beyond your comprehension, information from such as NAT and THT are valuable and informed, and as a lay person I nor anyone else can argue otherwise. I have no issue whatsoever with the statistical facts, indeed I pulled you up on such matters a few weeks ago.

But selectively cutting and pasting whilst inferring that I might not agree is either stupidity or malicious. I'm too "fucking important" to lower myself to your level. If you want to keep giving credibility to bigotry, start a band with Akenaton. Your credibility won't lower I assure you, as it can't get much lower lately...







TC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:20 AM

TC, there was nothing selective about my extracts except their relevance to this.

Discussing differing opinions is what a forum is for, but in this case I was not questioning any opinion but asking for the source of stated "facts."

It seems extraordinarily improbable that the group quoted by Ake would choose the BMJ to publish their paper.
Where did you get that info about the rejection?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:37 AM

Ian calls me a "dreadful bigot" for saying that many male homosexual "marriages", unions and relationships contain multiple sexual partners.
When confronted by health agency papers confirming my statement, Ian is forced to agree that this is indeed the case.....does anyone think an apology will be forthcoming?

This is the pattern adopted by Ian from the beginning of these discussions, first the mudslinging, then a grudging acceptance, hoping that some of the mud will have stuck.

He does the same to Keith over immigration, he attacks Sanity, MtheGM, and any who dare to challenge the myth which underpins his ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:19 AM

History, not immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:46 AM

Ake, same-sex marriages have only been legal in the UK since 29 March of this year. Less than 2 months ago. How could there be statistics from men married to men in that amount of time?

One also has to take into consideration the population that was surveyed. I remember reading one survey that came from surveys done at hot-spots for anonymous MSM hookups. Bathhouses and bars and such. That'll always show figures indicating more promiscuity. Gay men who go to a movie or a restaurant or such won't be included.

The reason you're using quotation marks around "marriage" is that marriage isn't want you're talking about at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:09 PM

I note my reply to Akenaton has been deleted.

You can guess the contents though, it isn't difficult.

My reply to Keith on a more serious subject has disappeared with it. No matter, the understanding of a blank is about the same level as the understanding of strings of characters on a screen.

Just one thing Jeri. Why is hate still on my screen where people can see it without prior warning but attempts to address it get deleted? You come across as educated, and even seem to have some understanding of the epidemiology of health, which is the smokescreen bigotry is using in these threads to spread distrust and fear of sections of society.

Yet still, you berate me and try to educate pork at the same time. Do you honestly think Akenaton is interested in reality?

And now a word to the perpetrator which I will try to do without getting the whole lot deleted, and it isn't easy when you have nothing but contempt for an opinion..

I don't "attack" Michael. I think he comes out with a few odd comments and he can get confused occasionally, but you know what? He comes across as a human. Good man. He is as sick of this obsession with gay people as I am. Sadly, I will never ever allow bitter hatred to have the last word. I refuse to rationalise it too. it only encourages the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:42 PM

Hi Jeri, the two studies I quoted, were from areas of the US where homosexual marriage has been legal for some time.
I have also read studies from Scandinavia, where the same rates of "open relationships" apply.

The American studies included civil unions, with a "primary partner" and several secondary partners. Of course some male homosexual relationships are monogamous, but the rates of "open relationships" amongst male homosexuals are massively higher than amongst heterosexual marriages and partnerships.

The last study which I linked to gave the rates as almost 50/50 "open" and monogamous amongst male homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:45 PM

You mean you can't rationalise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:37 PM

I can't rationalise your comments Keith. They have to be rational comments for starters.

Akenaton is perpetuating myth as usual. I very much doubt that 50% of married people are promiscuous. Whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant.

Any conclusions based on prejudice are not valid. Never have been and never shall. It's a bit like saying Keith is religious therefore don't let him steer a jumbo jet.

Long term relationships lasting in single people is not as high as married ones. Younger people look for shorter term relationships in general. That's a fact too.

After that, we leave reality.

"Nobody is predisposed to promiscuity on the basis of their sexual orientation." There's a quote from a Professor in healthcare. Feel free to repeat it. It is evidence based too.

Lock your doors tonight Akenaton. You live fairly close to a gay couple I call close friends. I wouldn't want either of them trying to get in and fuck you. Your friend will be ringing in the quarter peel for their wedding later this year. Isn't that nice? Like you said, it doesn't happen much up your way. I doubt anyone would fancy going up your way anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:07 PM

If you were capable of articulating a rational reply, you would.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:33 PM

IAN,to say;
"Nobody is predisposed to promiscuity on the basis of their sexual orientation." is not in itself rational, when there is such a massive difference in STD infection rates between homos and heteros.......do you not even read the links that we provide for you? They state unequivocally that open relationships assist the spread of STDs

You say the difference can be attributed to more male homosexuals coming forward to be tested, but that would only make up a tiny fraction of the difference, as only a very percentage of a very small percentage are presenting themselves.

You also think it is vile hatred to suggest MORE male homosexuals should be tested....you cant have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:58 PM

" I very much doubt that 50% of married people are promiscuous. Whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant."

As I said earlier homosexual relationships are a different construct from heterosexual ones. Open relationships are very rare amongst heteros as there is the added incentive for monogamy in the formation and providing for the welfare of a family.

Homosexuals have no such impediment to hedonistic behaviour, they are responsible only to themselves.
This in itself is a strong argument against legislation in favour of the redefinition of marriage, all these points have been carefully concealed by the media and the "liberal" lobby in their campaign to attack traditional marriage and in turn, the Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 16 May 14 - 07:36 PM

Ake, that last post of yours is exactly why people think of you as a bigot. Primarily because that expertise you claim to have about homosexuals in general is shit you just made up.

My personal experience is based on men who are married and men who are in committed relationships, because frankly, that's all I know. I'm sure I've known promiscuous gay men, but they didn't talk about it. Luckily for the world these days, men in love with specific other men aren't as inhibited in talking about it once they realize the person they're talking to is willing to listen. In years past, I think the subject was avoided. N

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 16 May 14 - 08:45 PM

You hit the nailon the head in your last post, jeri.

Folks who inter-mix selected research with personal opinion/bias may think they "look smart"- but, it is no more than a self-serving illusion. The more that is put forward, the more the cracks in the illusion are exposed to most others, save those sharing a common root cause/theoy- beyond the vaneer of logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 May 14 - 03:46 AM

I get so angry with akenaton's type of prejudiced claptrap. One would try to ignore it but for the fact that it spreads nastiness and can hurt gay men who are merely living their lives as they've every right to do. Over my long life I've known many gay men (and women too), some who had several relationships (and why not, pray?) and some who had a loving, long and stable partnership with one person. They had, to my certain knowledge, happy childhoods. Their parents were supportive and kind. Their siblings were content for them to be gay (and why not?) We have now two very dear friends, men who love each other dearly and have lived together for years. Their happiness is a joy to behold. Their only trouble is people like akenaton with their homophobic nonsense. I would be thrilled to attend their wedding if/when it happens. Now, my husband is black, and he's never ever met with prejudice or condemnation for being an immigrant or an African. But I'm trying to imagine how HE would feel if he was treated with the same attitude as that of akenaton towards gays. He'd be very upset, hurt and downhearted, and I'd be very angry. VERY VERY ANGRY!!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Mudcat
Date: 17 May 14 - 04:12 AM

By the way, none of us are perfect. I am on record as stereotyping gay men.

Seriously. Although I'm not on Facebook, a gay friend who is on it posted from a concert I was playing at. He picked up on my comment that gay men make the best soufflés.

Eventually it was posted to Mrs Musket. My punishment was to make a cheese soufflé and it was rather good though I say so myself. She posted a photo of it and Steve posted back that I should be " bowling from the pavilion end."

There you go. I'm a gay icon.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:11 AM

Was Jesus gay? who knows who cares

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:31 AM

Who knows or cares who is gay, within the parameters of this thread? I suppose there is no point my pleading that we might just go back to the topic of my OP, re the sometimes equivocal choice of vocabulary in posts on this forum, and continue the entirely irrelevant thereto gay marriage debate which is some people's peculiarly pertinacious King Charles' Head, by refreshing one of the approx 765+ threads which have run on that topic already -- or even starting a new one?

Thought not. Still, worth a try...

Or not...

Ho-hum! Think I'll go back to bed...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 May 14 - 07:33 AM

I mean, seriously now, don't some of you feel even the tiniest bit RUDE? -- hijacking (ie STEALING) someone else's thread to rehearse your all-consuming obsessions, yet again, on a topic which has no relevance to the subject of the thread whatsoever. Can I not plead at least the courtesy of the thread being returned to consideration of the avowed matters which led to its initiation?

Don't expect so. This is Mudcat, after all, which has usages of its own far divorced from the practices of the mainstream ongoings of normal yooman beans. Wonder why I bother to stay around here sometimes. But I gave up smoking 40 years ago, and haven't drunk any alcohol for 12 years or more; and I suppose we all have a tendency to a self-destructive addiction of some sort to keep going...

So go on with your gay exchanges -- straight on.

Don't mind me... I'm just the OP

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 17 May 14 - 08:25 AM

Err... I just posted as Mudcat rather than Musket.

Could be conceit on my part. Could be iPad ^##^!! Autocorrect..

Take your choice.



Michael. Nobody cares who is gay. The nobody sitting at the side of his loch being a nobody in point.

You should care about elements of society shifting blame on minorities though and finding ways to incite people into hating them. After all, you are old enough to remember the blackshirts. Didn't civilised society go to war to prevent such despicable views becoming the norm? Isn't there a reason why the popularity of right wing fascist groups a concern for us all? Haven't you heard UKIP, BNP and others giving their views on who is to blame for their lack of a better lifestyle?

Nobody stole this thread. It started as a rambling nonsense anyway... If you post a view aimed at fellow members, you can't exactly call reaction rude can you?

Oh. You just did.

Dick. If Jesus was gay, the Christian churches are going to have to aim their bigotry at another group instead. Hamster owners or ginger people...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 14 - 09:57 AM

It did not "start as rambling nonsense."
It was a discussion about obscene language posted on the forum by some people including you.

You people did not want that discussed so you made it into just another thread about gay marriage, "765+" not being enough for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 17 May 14 - 10:11 AM

GUEST,Musfucket trolled in the fifth post to the thread, both Keith & Ake bit the bait and the thread went to hell. This is probably a Mudcat version of a troll "singularity". I don't think a significant number people are capable of talking about a subject if they haven't rehearsed their lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 17 May 14 - 11:59 AM

Life in a revolving door.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 17 May 14 - 12:11 PM

Troll Jeri?

I was about to PM you and apologise for questioning your public health comment in another thread the other day.

You can get fucked now..

And now to address the comment by Field Marshall Keith A Hole of Hertford TC&bar.

What is obscene language? Is it use of fuck, shit, cunt and thick? Or is it discriminatory comments aimed at whoever The Daily M*il has told you to point and stare at today?   Gays, Arabs, Muslims, banjo players whatever?

Michael tried making a point and I disagreed with it by posting. The fact that neither you nor Jeri understand irony is not my concern.

Mudcat language is an interesting subject. One excellent example that can inform debate is the homophobia that pollutes threads.

Or is that too uncomfortable a subject for you Keith?



Keith?




TC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:15 PM

No subjects make me uncomfortable TC.
Homophobia pollutes the threads because you bring it into them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 May 14 - 04:57 PM

Ian: What made you so excessively unmannerly to me? Quite uncharacteristic.

I quite enjoyed this thread of mine for a while. It seemed to me, for all your finding it 'rambling' for unspecified reasons, to make a valid point which needed considering, and attracted some responses which struck me as intelligent & reasonable & worthwhile; unlike your most disappointing, peculiarly facetious & [in the literal sense] impertinent, ones, as I mentioned to Janie above.

However, as you & your mates have succeeded in mugging me of my thread, & then proceeded to abuse me when I mildly protested at this impudent & unwarranted intrusion, feel free to continue. I shall not return to it, & I wish you joy of continuing to mutilate it with your and your mates' obsessive irrelevant maunderings about the homoeroticists who would appear to constitute the only topic of any interest to your scintillating intellects.

All yours...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:21 PM

Speaking as one of the few posters around here who has (albeit infrequently) posted from the vantage point of being an actual homoeroticist (nice term!), may I just record my fairly mind-boggled startledness at how obsessively a few of you straight lads circle around gay themes like carrion crows in search of a meal.

Truly, heterosexual masculinity never ceases to amaze me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:36 AM

I doubt anybody seen to be circling gives a fuck about gay people Smedley, myself included. What some of us do appear to give a fuck about is people demonising sections of society, especially when bastardising something as serious as sexually transmitted disease erroneously in order to further their pathetic agenda.

Gay people certainly don't need me to wave their banner for them. But what anybody in any situation should expect us that bigotry is shunned in order for everybody to live the way they choose.

The link to this thread, to address Michael's confusion, is that Mudcat language is the topic. My point from my first post is that the most awful disgraceful language on these threads doesn't contain the words fuck, shit, willy, cunt or thick. In fact, there are no Sweary Mary words at all.

Akenaton thinks people might agree with hatred, Keith could make an Israeli General want to blush and Goofus?

PM him. He reckons he can cure you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:10 AM

Good to hear from you again Smedley.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:27 AM

I tried, in a long-distant thread some years ago, to reason with Akenaton and GfS over the matter of sexuality. It was not successful, for all-too-evident reasons, and eventually I cut my losses and bowed out of the fray. My blood pressure isn't up to another bout. They are never going to change their views. So tackling them, even with the best of intentions, only gives them more opportunities to talk their prejudices for a walk.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:29 AM

That 'talk' should be 'take', though I quite like both versions!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:22 AM

I always have this (maybe misguided) hope that by patiently refuting nasty prejudices and putting forward more tolerant views, one might gradually influence people to see things differently in time. Perhaps the gay-haters on this thread are actually thinking a bit more deeply about their standpoint and coming round to a kinder acceptance. I do think one can change, but not instantly. After all, times have changed radically regarding gay rights and many other contentious, prejudiced issues.
Michael, you're quite right and your thread has drifted horribly off course. I apologise for my part in this lapse of manners.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:35 AM

I hear you Smedley. I also accept that challenging them gives them the oxygen of publicity and in their simple way, makes them think people are engaging them in debate, which they take as acceptance of their views as valid if not popular.

But I for one challenge. You see, bowing out gives them a self styled victory and adds smugness to stupidity on their part. I don't try to educate them as you can't educate pork, so why bother. The good news is that they are becoming a less vocal part of society, and the veneer of respectability by religious clubs is slipping too. Not as fast as it might, but it is. Before long, Akenaton won't be able to goad religious people by saying their church hates them too...

People can change Eliza. But thats up to them. I am merely concerned with ensuring they don't ever feel their bigotry is acceptable.

I don't actually think the thread has drifted off course. When you start a thread, you can't control where it is going, and creepy posts by creepy people are as much an aspect of offensive language as my tits and bums. The difference being my tits and bums are there to put that in relief. Their bigotry is their natural position.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:27 AM

Eliza, I admire your optimism, but what the prejudiced duo were saying then and now seems pretty identical to me. Musket, I respect your energy. One comfort is that those really homophobic views are only expressed on Mudcat by two individuals.

And no, I won't be drawn by that pair into a debate about whether they are homophobic. They don't get to define homophobia, that's my privilege as a recipient of and observer of it.   If it quacks like a homophobic duck, it's a homophobic duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:58 AM

"The link to this thread, to address Michael's confusion, is that Mudcat language is the topic."
.,,.

No -- sorry, Ian, but the topic was not "Mudcat language", but "Mudcat 'language'"; those quotes were put there to establish this distinction: the fact that "bumtitwillyfuckshitcunt" was the topic, and "down with gays" wasn't. If you choose to ignore this distinction that I would have thought patent to any person of intelligence who had read my OP where this particular usage of "language" as a denunciatory interjection is specifically defined, that's up to you. But fancy giving yourself airs for being such a self-evident thicko. Who's "confused", you silly old booby, you!

Right: carry on; mug away! Enjoy! Have a ball!

(Oh, and Eliza, thank you for your perceptive comment of understanding where I was coming from, unlike poor old Thicko here. Of course your apology is more than accepted.)

~M~

OK: so I said I was off; so I'm back. Wanner make something of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 07:40 AM

Yeah

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:17 AM

Handbags?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:19 AM

10 %#!!ing paces.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:24 AM

Onononononono

handbags has 2B

☛ to ☚

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 18 May 14 - 10:50 AM

Well I suppose it makes Smedley feel better to parachute in with a heap of personal abuse. I thought it might have been a chance to hear the views of a homosexual on the severe problems associated with male homosexual practice......Sexual health rates, "open" relationships etc, but no just the usual cop outs.

If anyone sincerely thinks that discussion on these important health issues is "hatred", then I am extremely sorry about their state of mind.
The truth is, that debate and discussion is unpalatable to those who hold a specific political agenda, the facts are incontrovertible, so the facts must be hidden.

Concealment of the facts is very good for the political agenda of "liberal" activists, but very bad for male homosexuals in general.
No good purpose is served by ignoring serious problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 11:30 AM

I thought having a Scottish bloke on would be an opportunity for him to explain why the Scots are all heroin addicts, feed their addiction with crime and die younger than they should do through coronary heart disease....

If I were a disgusting puerile bigot, I could provide health statistics that such a conclusion could be taken from.

What is a liberal activist? What facts are you talking about? If you have any, give them.

Have you noticed that every member on Mudcat who expresses views on the subject wishes you would stop posting lies and hate? Even your two apologists seem to have realised how embarrassing their support has been. Have you any idea how many decent people there are on Mudcat?   Perhaps someone could debate the positive aspects of armed robbery, or why rape is fun? After al, we don't want liberals stifling debate do we?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 18 May 14 - 01:44 PM

Mr Naton, I attempted a civilised conversation with you on such matters some time ago, but got nowhere. I haven't read anything recently in your comments on the topic to indicate you ears are any more open now than they were then. I trust this is not too 'insulting'.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:02 PM

Akenaton cannot be insulted. His views are not what should be expected to be available without prior warning on the website. Preferably they would be deleted.

How do you debate with this? You can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:20 PM

found on a wall in Pompeii all covered in the usual graffiti like: "I visited Constantia last night and, boy, she was good at it", "Kilroyus was here" etc (translated from the Latin and bastardised by me)

"Methinks tis a wonder this wall does not fall down with all the drivel written hereon"

Methinks this factoid has context in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:25 PM

"This section of Mudcat was not devised for people with one strict ideological view, but a platform where all issues could be discussed; whether the issues are "inflammatory" or controversial is neither here nor there, it is the job of administration to decide which subjects are up for debate and which are beyond the pale.

The sight of a group of childish bullies, setting themselves up as self appointed arbiters over what is debated here is unfortunate."

How come you, with at most two very fixed, and unsavoury ideological views, feel that you have the right to decry other people's expressed opinions as to the nature of your input.

If you post what I consider to be egregious rubbish, ditto bigotry, ditto xenophobia and homophobia, I will tell you so, and since you initiated that discussion, you have no right to stop me from posting MY view.

Same goes for KA of H and all the other axe to grind denigrators of whole sections of the human race.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:34 PM

MtheGM said:

"I have been staying away as I am somewhat bemused as to how this thread, which I OPd with the clear object of testing out how many Catters were as fed up as I am with the extremely high incidence of mindless and meaningless phatic obscenity on the forum, has somehow transmogrified into yet another ill-tempered spat about gay marriage and the comparative incidence of STDs in the gay community: most worthy topics to be sure, but I absolutely fail to see any relevance whatsoever to the thread's evident subject."

Simple answer!

Ask the Pharaoh why his was the first post to slide in that general direction, turning your reasonable, if naive, OP in the direction of his favourite rant about the sexual practices of others, which are absolutely none of his business.

He does it on every thread of this type and many others besides, as I suspect you actually knew when you started it.

How about that for a fuckless response?