This is really poor

Subject: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 02:59 PM

No, it's really, really poor.

I've been coming to Mudcat for over 15 years. I thought that it was a place for the open exchange of views.

Clearly not.

I have no idea as to the identity of the individual who is closing threads. But he or she is making very poor decisions.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:08 PM

She keeps coming on and telling us. It's the mod who calls herself SRS isn't it? She really does seem to be a pernickety one. I have sent a formal protest to Mudcat about some posts of mine that have been taken off for no reason I can identify. Awaiting a response.

~M~

---

Wrong. --mudelf

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:08 PM

I agree totally Ed. I'm considering not coming here any more. Threads which are going well with many posters are being closed suddenly. Also, a post from someone using my name has been appearing. Musket found the same thing happening.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:11 PM

while this thread is still open.....

I've been coming here 10 to 12 years.

Today's duty mod is well out of order.
Just like the bad old days when a minority [?] of mods
were very antagonistically petty and arbitrary with deletions and unjustified interference.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MMario
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:12 PM

if certain threads are attracting spammers or spoofed identities that could be the reason they are being closed.

MudCat is one of the least moderated forums I have ever attended on any sort of regular basis.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:13 PM

I expect this will be closed too in a minute.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:21 PM

"if certain threads are attracting spammers or spoofed identities that could be the reason they are being closed."

maybe, but today it seems more like a pretext for a cranky ill tempered mods poor instant decisions.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:26 PM

Well, to be fair, we don't yet know the reason for the closures. Maybe the moderator will explain.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:26 PM

Comment from moderators please.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:34 PM

Okay, I've seen one of the threads that has just been closed.

Points
I personally don't think this particular forum is the right place for discussing judiciary matters no matter how strongly people feel.

If they were to be discussed they are surely nothing to do with folk music. Yes, Rolf was involved on the fringes of the folk scene in Britain but as far as we know these issues do not concern his folk involvement. They certainly do not belong above the line if at all.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:45 PM

Very fair points Steve.

We could spend forever debating what should be discussed at Mudcat, or what should be 'above the line'

However, officious editing strikes me as wron

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:46 PM

If so, Steve, maybe we could be provided with a list of acceptable types of thread before we waste a lot of time and thought posting to 'unacceptable' ones!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:19 PM

BS, or below the line is open for any type of discussion and has had some very interesting and informative threads. which have raised many different issues. Unfortunately this area also attracts some who just enjoy argument rather than discussion as well as the odd hysteric or two. Because the site is not heavily moderated there is of more a preponderance of these types, which can spoil it for those who just would like to find out different views on a subject without having to wade through a load of invective from others who believe that they have the only valid view on a particular subject. When there are two or three of this type joining a thread it's time to bale out because it is clear that there will be nothing of any real value happening there again.

I don't know why the thread in question was closed, but it was becoming very circular and seemed to be attracting trolls who were usurping the identities of Mudcat regulars and I guess that factored into the equation.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:20 PM

You guys crack me up. You complain about fake guest posts, you complain about each other, you attack and point fingers and call names, you write to mods protesting the poor treatment, and the moderators who end up having to read all of this spew finally see the "discussion" puddle into a morass of back and forth accusations. At that point it is closed, and someone starts a thread to ask about it. If a moderator says why, they are attacked. If they don't say why, they are attacked. Everyone is a critic and these days words are cheap and everyone is talking at the same time. Then there are those who do huge cut and paste entries, or post search results and expect participants to accept that as proof. Some of you need to learn about logical fallacies. Circular reasoning, ad hominem attacks, appealing to beliefs, burden of proof, and many more.

Use your heads. There are a half-dozen people, more or less, who have a hand in moderating these threads. They aren't all me. Most of them aren't me. When any of us have to read this to take out the really mean-spirited stuff it's pretty clear when the gloves have come off and the discussion is over.

Is there REALLY another single thing that Lizzie can say about Mr. Harris? This seems to me a graphic illustration of "she protests too much." And some of you, Guest, 3:21pm, and all of your Guest appearances, are particularly dense. If you keep bringing up the troll red herrings and trying to discuss them even after they have been deleted several times, don't keep trying. If you can't be bothered to log on so people can contact you via PM, then don't be surprised if you're not consulted on the reason your posts are deleted.

Most of this place is great - but you who are in there duking it out on this thread and several others, you're the reason a lot of people have left Mudcat. It isn't the moderators taking away your precious right of free speech, it's your inability to participate in intelligent discourse.

Acceptable threads? How about those that stay on topic and are conducted politely. In another short-lived one Lizzie protested that we should be able to see and block the bad guys. If it could have happened, it would. Some folks are blocked, accounts are closed when they are spoofs, but it's the Wild West out there and here's a new flash for all of you: some of the more argumentative folks who are attracted to the site are looking for targets who whine about their treatment. It makes them feel good to make others unhappy.

What are YOU going to do about it?

SRS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:27 PM

Yes jaqui c, thanks, we understand, and are well aware of all you say;
and despite all that, we were coping reasonably well with no real need for all of today's heavy handed uneven mod interventions.

Who was actually causing the most disruption and antagonism - the cowardly ID imposter, or the over officious mod ???

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:32 PM

Very well put, jacqui.c. I'm not sure what can be done to stop trolls faking identities and pretending to be us. I was very angry when my name was used, as the post did not at all reflect my opinion. And one of those which pretended to be Musket was exceptionally crude and disgusting. It's a technological problem and I don't know if there's a way round it. I do feel that one is perfectly capable of scrolling down past a long, rambling, 'hysterical' post and ignoring it if one wishes.
I do hope I'm not driven from Mudcat by all this, as I've so much enjoyed the discussions and found the majority of folk here so likeable and interesting to have contact with. I hope that I've always tried to be polite and courteous, if sometimes drifting off-thread a bit. But for an old lady, perhaps that's forgiveable!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:34 PM

In case someone doesn't know, those pretending to be other people have been here for a long time. That's why Max created memberships, so you could join and no one else could be you as a member. We'll delete the fake posts if we see them, but know that interrupting a thread to talk about them serves only the troll/spoofer.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:39 PM

I have been a Mudcat member for many years and I have made some great friends on this forum! I have posted often when I thought that I could help others with music questions and have in turn have found great help with ones I posted myself. I have not always agreed with other members and at times have let my temper show, but my intent was never malicious! That being said most of those internet friends have passed on or have left this site because of the crap that keeps surfacing in recent years. I post under my own name although in the past I have used a pen-name also.
If Mudcat is to survive I believe that stricter moderation is required! Anyone wanting to comment or crap on others below the line should be signed members. Guests should be allowed to query or post information above the line for music related issues only! Otherwise I fear that Mudcat will not survive as the great resource that it was!
I implore Max and Joe to tighten, not loosen, the moderation on this forum! From someone who considers himself a socialist and a free thinker these comments pain me but my desire to see Mudcat survive as a music resource remains paramount!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:39 PM

But Musket is a member and his name was spoofed by a troll.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:47 PM

The "spoof" was of "GUEST,Musket". The troll can't sign is as a specific member.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:51 PM

Ah, I see Jeri, thank you.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:56 PM

I know who some of the mods are but probably not all. Mostly they do a good job. I don't always agree - I'd have banned Teribus, KeithA, and Akenaton long ago and I'm not sure about Bobad. Or indeed Bearded Bruce. I know which side of teh Spanish civil war I'd have been on and I believe they'd have been on the other. Some of the anti-British ranters (only one I still often see) I think go too far in suport of terrorism and I's personally mod them down a lot more. I definitely agreed when Martin Gibson went. I was saddened when Bruce Murdoch (under his member name) was discouraged at the height of the troll saga (the correct name being not to be used) but glad when Gargoyle was. The long since past decisions to ban MLC were IMHO then right and allowing her back is a mistake (as indeed seems now to be evidenced). I'd personally have a special category of ban for the other wholly irrational - eg climate change deniers and evolution deniers.

BUT, whatever one feels is right, the mods have decisions to take and the only person they take orders from is Max (with whom I don't always agree either).

Without them we would not have the simplest to navigate, easiest to read, and best informed acoustic music site on the web. Let them deal with trolls as necessary, chaps and chapesses. It ain't a democracy.

It does even have some effect. The recent thread on the Irish famine, while a bit leery in places, was very informative - and (shhh!) altered some of my views about that event.   

Remember, if sonar is picking up noise from both left and right, the captain is probably on course.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:02 PM

Hi Jeri, that's a reasonable explanation.

Over the years, you and Joe are the fair minded mods I most respect.
Other mods may have more prickly dismissive superior attitudes and temperament

Here I submit a revised version of my earlier post today:....

Folks are right to be upset at noxious imposters attempting to discredit members & named guests IDs.
But please don't get too carried away in anger at the antics of a minority of cowardly creeps
abusing the privelege to post as 'Guest'.

I applaud Max for championing [ or at least accepting ] the condiderable positive value
of anonymous guest status.

I for one prefer to post as either 'Guest', pick a jokey 'one shot' disposable name related to a particular point I am making,
or adopt a temporary name for consistent use in a thread I anticipate continuing to post in.

Please don't conflate the 'good' reasons for anonymity
with the imposter scumbags who hijack members names to cause disruption and rancour.

Also consider, if a post that could have taken anything up to 1/2 hour or more to write is apparently arbitrarily deleted
because a minor part, a sentence or 2, can be regarded as 'troll serving'
you might agree that is frustrating at the very least....?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:02 PM

Musket is a member but he frequently posts as a GUEST because the device he is posting from won't take cookies. That, unfortunately, leaves him open to impersonation. You are also open to impersonation, Eliza, because you haven't joined up and always post as a guest.

The best way to prevent impersonation is to prohibit GUEST posting. Something I'd welcome.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:06 PM

I only have this laptop and it doesn't take cookies either. So I'm afraid I'd sadly have to bow out if it were made compulsory.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:07 PM

I have another suggestion or two. When a thread is "closed" delete it, all of it, immediately. And enforce the rule (it used to be a rule) that a thread protesting a mod decision (or resurrecting a closed thread) will be immediately deleted. IF there is room to argue about a mod decision it should be done by email or PM.

I also fail to see why MLC is frequently permitted latitude that no-one else is.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:14 PM

"When a thread is "closed" delete it, all of it, immediately. And enforce the rule "

No.. that is always an open invite to deliberatley disrupt a thread positing argements one disagrees with,
with the intention of getting it closed down so all contents are 'disapeared' from posterity.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:18 PM

"Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza - PM
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:06 PM

I only have this laptop and it doesn't take cookies either. So I'm afraid I'd sadly have to bow out if it were made compulsory."

Eliza, you wouldn't be prevented from being a member, but you would have to log in every time you came to Mudcat. I think in Musket's case (and he'll no doubt correct me if I'm wrong) his GUEST postings are made from a device which is related to his NHS position, and which is subject to their security restraints.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:23 PM

Eliza's laptop may be set to not allow cookies, ever. She could probably figure out how to change it, but she may not want to. THAT really is the point. I wouldn't want to see her not be able to post. Having cookies doesn't seem to stop anyone from being nasty.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:24 PM

I see, Backwoodsman. It sounds a bit complicated if I had to log in every time. This all seems such a shame. For a few years now, there don't appear to have been any problems like this. (Well, not during the time I've been posting on here.) I expect it will all come right in the end. Things generally do!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:32 PM

'...figure out how to change it...' I'm smiling at that, Jeri. I can just about turn the thing on and off and do a bit of Googling. My husband's a bit better than me at this techno stuff, but not much.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,gnuonlaptop
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:37 PM

Yes. I am gnu. I am watching Germany destroy Brazil in the World cup so I don't have time to log in. Just now 7-0 for Germany... holy crap!

Max and the mods do a great job. The best site I have ever seen. You don't like it?.... piss off.

One more thing. How can anybody name a mod and point an aimless finger at them? Bullshit.

Piss off ya broke dick fucks.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:38 PM

Suggested Methodology for cleaning up Mudcat:-

1) No GUEST postings allowed - prevents impersonation and trolling by non-members.
2) Strict enforcement of the rules re: ad hominem attacks, abusive language etc. - all posts falling into the proscribed categories to be deleted immediately.
3) Strong action against perpetrators of (2) - e.g. 'three strikes and you're out'.

The rules are already there - they just need a bit of beefing up, and strict enforcement.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:42 PM

Somebody here (or there) could probably help you, including your husband, if you wanted.
Frankly, I waffle about mandatory membership for posters in BS. Sometimes it sounds like a good idea, and sometimes it doesn't. The mods have differing opinions as well, and Max, who is the ultimate guy, hasn't wanted it.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:43 PM

4) personal attacks against moderators to be deleted immediately as in (2) above, and strong action against perpetrators as in (3) above.

Thanks gnu.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:43 PM

or.. having fixed members only names makes it easier for stalkers and ad hominem attacks...

Posting as GUEST - either anonymous, or named - places emphasis on the points being made,
not the identities and personalities of those making them.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:45 PM

Well, sad though it is, as I'm obviously not welcome here as a guest, I'll bow out now and stop posting on Mudcat. I've enjoyed it, and wish everyone well. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:47 PM

Jeri, seems to me it's the only logical way to control GUEST trolls, and make life a bit easier for the mods.
It's the old syndrome of the many being punished for the sins of the few but, hey, shit happens.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:48 PM

No Eliza - don't let the bleak minded miseries drive you out.
You are one of the few remaining jewels here.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:50 PM

Not at all Eliza - the debate here is about badly-behaved GUESTs. Nobody puts you in that category, exactly the opposite. I apologise if my posts have offended you. That was absolutely not my intention.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:57 PM

Guest,Eliza,
You say "I'm obviously not welcome here as a guest"
You have posted here over 5000 times and your comments have often been insightful and welcome! If you feel that have overstayed your welcome as a guest please consider being a member!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:58 PM

You're welcome here as a guest, Eliza.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:06 PM

It's probably not the laptop, Eliza, but the browser. Check the security settings or get someone to do it for you. Not a bad little article on it on ehow

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:16 PM

Eliza... you ARE a decent, honest poster who always identifies yourself. Max allows GUEST postings to make sure that new folk, those who can't log on because of cookie or work restrictions ...and those who simply forget... to have access.

Those who use multiple guest identities, trolls, and spam entries can easily sneak in under those rules. Also, I believe blocking 'usually' involves blocking an entire range of IPs, which 'could' block innocent parties.

As SRS says, (and THIS thread shows), some want more moderation, some want less... and many are willing to argue incessantly for their viewpoint.

There is no simple answer. Max said years ago that his job was to provide the forum... keeping it decent was largely up to members and those who care. He realized that some moderation due to spam and genuinely nasty posting was necessary. It is easy to decide about the very worst posts... but how can a moderator cope with those which are slightly less than that? Who draws the borderlines?
The only way to be sure your post is left alone is to **monitor yourself**. It IS possible to debate without cursing, personal attacks and repetitious crap... try it.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:23 PM

"It IS possible to debate without cursing, personal attacks and repetitious crap... try it."

Absolutely correct, Bill. Sadly, not everyone agrees - I made that very point some time ago to one poster who regularly resorts to abusive language and name-calling, and his response was that he reserves the right to abuse those whose opinions (in his own opinion) deserve it.

This world would be a wonderful, blissful place if everyone in it pursued their differences in a civilised manner. Some hope!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:36 PM

"There is no simple answer. Max said years ago that his job was to provide the forum... keeping it decent was largely up to members and those who care. He realized that some moderation due to spam and genuinely nasty posting was necessary. It is easy to decide about the very worst posts... but how can a moderator cope with those which are slightly less than that? Who draws the borderlines?
The only way to be sure your post is left alone is to **monitor yourself**. It IS possible to debate without cursing, personal attacks and repetitious crap... try it."

Well said Bill !!!

I would politely point out how some of the most vociferous 'anti-guest' proponents
can also be seen as those most keen to scapegoat guests,
perhaps, in order to distract & deflect from their own anti social tendencies...???

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:53 PM

As an aside.... think about various forums (fora?) .. where total moderation is employed! Some even require review before a post is allowed to be seen! These are usually 'special interest' place (you know.. the "Cannonball Collectors").. where there are a very limited number of posters.

Some..as noted.. require membership & cookies for ANY posting, even though this precludes some from registering.

Mudcat has a VERY wide following for various reasons... and as total numbers of followers rise, so does the total of disparate opinions...and as an obvious corollary, so does the total numbers of those who cannot or WILL not compromise or practice restraint.
It's just math... the more attending, the more chances for problems.

Would YOU like to moderate the United Nations or decide immigration policies for the USA & the UK?...well, perhaps you would, but you wouldn't expect to do it with no complaints....

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:59 PM

So........someone who has gone to the trouble of becoming a member, with a name that he can be identified by, and a registered email address that the moderators can use to verify his identity is 'antisocial', whilst a 'GUEST' who likes to skulk around and doesn't even take the trouble to follow the rules and post under a regular GUEST name isn't?

Sounds like false logic at work there, Sunshine. How does that work then?

No-one, AFAIA, is 'anti-guest', just anti-troll and anti-impersonator, that's all.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:17 PM

No.. not really..

.. and anyone else care to help illustrate my tentative case for me.. ??? thanks ...

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:33 PM

Sorry, that was a bit of a weak response, It's past midnight and I was not concentrating fully while posting.

I can only speak for myself as a GUEST.

"someone who has gone to the trouble of becoming a member, with a name that he can be identified by, and a registered email address that the moderators can use to verify his identity is 'antisocial', whilst a 'GUEST'"

Done all that in the past. Like many others I now prefer not to.

But I do try to never be beligerent, insulting, spiteful, cruel.. etc
Sarcastic ? yeah I hold my hands up to that one.. but a sense of the 'absurd' is essential for mudcat discourse.

Now rightly or wrongly, the way I look at it is that deep down in mudcat central admin bunker complex,
there are hi tech machines that constantly monitor my IP and geo location..

They could find me if they wanted too.. I aint got anything to hide.

---

Have already done that, but your insistence in pursuing troll topics makes those posts undesirable for the mudcat community. The stubborn pursuit of a topic by unnamed guests, guests who the moderators have to look up, merit less consideration than named members who post under their accounts. --mudelf

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:42 PM

Eliza, don't leave us - I always enjoy your posts

sandra

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: PHJim
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:04 PM

I started posting here many years ago as GUEST,Jim. It took me a few years and a suggestion from Joe to realise that it might be a good idea to join up. I finally realised that I was not the only one posting as GUEST,Jim, and rather than take credit/blame for the other GUEST,Jim(s), I joined. It never occurred to me that someone was trying to impersonate me.

I do feel that guest postings should have the decency to use a constant name for each thread, in order for us to be able to follow their arguments. Eliminating anonymous GUEST postings would not be a big burden on anyone. This thread, for instance, has had at least ten posts from someone or a number of people posting as "GUEST". Are we to assume that these are all from the same person? It's sometimes useful to be able to say, "GUEST, on 08 Jul 14 - 03:21 PM you said, 'Blah, blah...'..." but it's hard to do when you may not be talking (typing) to the right person.

GUEST posters, please choose a name and stick with it for the whole thread. If you want to change names for every thread, I have no problem with that, but let's have continuity through each thread.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:22 PM

How do we know that it's really Eliza posting that she is leaving and not someone spoofing her?

---

It was a spoof. It has been deleted. --mudelf

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:13 PM

The Gaughan forum permits posters to post under pseudonyms but the real name of every poster is always available to all. Guest posts are not allowed. The debate is often robust, often quite bad-tempered, but always under control, mostly of the "self" kind. There is little moderation of the overt kind. Allowing anonymous guest posts on any forum that might even vaguely court controversy, even if it's about the latest Billy Bragg song, is completely and laughably head-in-clouds insane. There are people pontificating here about guests, etc., who might as well be anonymous guests themselves because we can't find out who they are. Actually, you can't find out who almost anyone is if they don't want you to. I regard that as extremely unhealthy. There are people in this current thread who are pretending to be all reasonable and nicey-nicey who, under their cloak of protected anonymity, have, in the past, posted far-right, racist and homophobic bile. I say what I think here and the only thing that reins me in is the fact that I use my real name and make no secret of where I am. I feel certain that I'm one of the forum bad boys who is, among the others, only pusillanimously mentioned behind the hand, never by name. Makes me laugh, does that, the sheer irony of it, considering how open I am myself. Post under your name and let's never see the word "guest" ever again. You're not all spies or murderers or important politicians who'll lose their careers if anyone finds out who you really are.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:18 PM

And, to revert to bad-boy type, anyone who uses the word "fora" is a complete twat! :-)

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: maeve
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:20 PM

Gentle, laughing Eliza, you are always welcome here. The only reason I myself would love to see you (and other interesting guests)as a member is that I could send you a private note or query from time to time.

Maeve

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:57 PM

Actually, I do think that real names are a good idea too.

And I've thought of another member (in addition to those I have vilified above) whose posts are consistently asinine too.

I do not support the suggested rule that one may not criticise a poster. If someone is posting stuff that is idiotic, why not call them an idiot? Duck, quack! (that is not a reference to Geoff the Duck who is always fun). It's only the people posting rubbish who object to being called on it.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Janie
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 12:04 AM

Nothing is perfect, and human beings in relationship with one another is a messy business.

I heartily second Richard Bridge's first post to this thread.

Also applaud the healthy debate (thus far) that is taking place. Good posts all, whether I agree or not.

Mudcat at its stimulating and insight provoking best.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 12:26 AM

"Actually, I do thing that real names are a good idea too."

If that's the case, and assuming that Richard Bridge actually is your real name (bearing in mind that most of us, including me, don't know you from Adam), why then do you post under a pseudonym on the Mudcat FB page? Isn't that some kind of double-standard?

I'm of the belief that everyone has the basic right to protect their identity, for all sorts of reasons. If someone is comfortable using their real name on a forum such as this one, no problem, they can do it but, if an individual chooses the anonymity of a pseudonym (or as close to anonymity as it's possible to get), that's their right. Membership under a pseudonym still provides a constancy of identity.

"I do not support the suggested rule that one may not criticise a poster. If someone is posting stuff that is idiotic, why not call them an idiot? Duck, quack! (that is not a reference to Geoff the Duck who is always fun). It's only the people posting rubbish who object to being called on it."

Well, the problem with that approach is that, in stooping to insults rather than debating the point with reason and logic, you lose the argument. There are certain individuals whose views I find absolutely repugnant, but who wipe the floor with their regular opponents because those opponents choose to insult the person rather than challenging his arguments. The whole point of debate is surely to persuade an opponent that your views hold greater validity than his, and thus to move his standpoint closer to one's own, or to learn from one's opponent and modify one's own perspective?
Calling someone "Idiot" or some other insult won't persuade him of anything other than that the one hurling insults is himself an idiot, and serves to entrench his views, however misguided or repugnant they may be.

If you want to "Call" someone on the rubbish they post, you need to challenge the rubbish. An insult is just an insult, a release of testosterone, it's not any real kind of challenge.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 01:13 AM

Steve Shaw: fora - much better than forumses, dontchathink?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 01:40 AM

Rest assured, Richard Bridge is the real person. Whether a real name or a moniker, a person who is registered as a member is no longer a moving target, they are a known individual. At this point if I stopped using a moniker most people wouldn't know my real name. The only people who use that are trolls, and in their mendacious world, they try to turn using someone's personal name into an insult. Who knew? [shakes head]

Richard, I agree. Characterizing an argument as flawed or misguided is one thing, but some of the posts that appear go far beyond that, they assassinate character and cause mischief. They are mean-spirited and predatory. Those are the guest posts we need to curtail. Name calling comes from someone whose arguments are otherwise bankrupt. We have no need of that kind of argument.

Mudcat management has no reach beyond the Mudcat.org venue. The troll has victimized various mudcat members with fake accounts on lots of social media over the last five years or more. Until he's back in jail, regular users should realize that the spoof guest posts in your name, and some of the unnamed guest posts, are placed exclusively to start or inflame arguments. They are the product of a mind that thrives on discord. It is worth your time to select and consistently use a guest moniker if for some reason you can't join. (And Eliza is fine, today's earlier deleted post supposedly from her was another troll spoof).

SRS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:29 AM

Mmm... As my name gets mentioned in dispatches, I may as well clear things up.

I am posting as guest Musket this morning for, as Backwoodsman correctly identifies, the quid quo pro for having a certain MS Exchange account on my iPhone is not being able to log into accounted websites. (Including on line banking Grr)

However, this particular Musket just retired (again, watch this space) and shortly, once the excitement dies down, the account will be deleted and I can log on in Mudcat on the phone.

So shortly, if it says guest Musket, it ain't the three musketeers.

For now though, only mods checking IP addresses know whether I am me or that other bloke taking the piss right now.



Oddly I was agreeing with one false Musket till the final sentence on one particular post on a thread. A bit like those who say they like my posts but why do I have to use words such as nipple, poo and orifice?

Steve Shaw got one little bit wrong... Regarding real names. If Akenaton used his real name, it would be easier to ask the police to investigate his incitement to hatred. I have tried as gay people on Mudcat shouldn't be confronted with such wicked lies. Opinions are one thing and Mudcat should support the free speech principle. But coming out with twisted and false information to encourage people to distrust a section of society? It's quite rightly a criminal offence where he lives.

Just thought I'd mention that. This being about moderation.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:06 AM

Richard, what is it that you so hate about me? You can be really vile to me at times. I don't do the same to you. I don't complain to the mods, ask them. Nor would I ever seek to do so. Even when people write vile things about me I don't ask for those posts to be removed.

This all started because I used to champion the music of Show of Hands, a band you all loathed...and for THAT, I have been followed around and quite frankly, been verbally abused for years.

What is wrong with you?

I never tell any of you how to write, what to write about, how much or how little to write, how often, etc...but all you seek to do, is control me, over and over and over...whilst I have never sought to do the same to any of you.

At times I DISAGREE with you, yes. But surely, that's my right, is it not?

How many of you use the 'guest' button to insult me, cowardly hiding behind it?   I'd expose every single one of you, if this were my site, shaming you into being seen as the bullies so many of you are.

I know that many in here are teachers...maybe you're the kind of teachers who can't let go of always demanding your students obey you in every way. Maybe some of you have Aspergers, so you can never see anyone else's view but your own, having to control everything about folk music, about this board, for your own ends, wanting no-one on here who disagrees with you in any way, or writes in a way which almost physically seems to upset you.

I am VERY emotional, Richard. You are not. You cannot cope with emotions, it seems to me. You have been insulting me for years and years, as have many others. Why?

I happen to believe that Rolf Harris has been set up and the more I find out, the more I believe that. It is horrendous what has happened to him..but what is also horrendous is the way the British people have become so stupid, so ready to turn into a Baying Mob, calling for him to spend the rest of his life in prison....

I've tried my damndest to open the eyes of some on here, but no, all you want is to believe the worst about him that is possible to believe.

Today, hopefully, I will finally get to talk to one of the Operation Yewtree officers, as I was told last night they'd phone me back. I doubt they will though, but I can live in hope. You can't even email these guys. You have to go through to the Met Police, then dictate your message to them, word by word, to one of the call handlers, who then email Operation Yewtree...

Last night I put the post explaining what I'd found yesterday, on here. Today, it has been removed. I have no idea why.

I also have no idea, Maggi, why you have such a downer on me. But you do. Yes, I DARE to have opinions. Yes, I DARE to write in the BS section. Yes, I DARE to have DIFFERENT opinions to many in here, but that is my right, surely?

Tell them, Maggi, tell them that whilst they're busy complaining to you and other mods about me, doing their damndest to get you to ban me from 'their' site, that I NEVER complain to you about them.   I think that only once have I done so, years back, to Joe, about a particularly venomous woman. (No, it was not Diane)

Oh..and Richard, in relation to me saying what I did about Diane the other day, how one of the rare compliments she ever gave me was about my ability to search out interesting and unusual links, she DID say that, on the BBC board, years back. Diane and I had a grudging respect for each other, understood one another far better than any of you knew about.

You all think you know everything about everything and sometimes, I come along to remind you that actually, you don't.

This place is now the venue for bullies and control freaks, little else...and it's no wonder that so many of the best posters in here have left, driven out by constant allowance of 'guest bullies'

I'll leave you all to your narrow-minded, vitriolic, bullying little world now.....

And yes, Eliza, it hurts doesn't it, when they do it to you. That person used my name too. What you don't realize, Eliza, is that they've been doing this to me, in many different ways, for YEARS and YEARS...and THAT is why I have tried so hard to stand up to them...They took me to a very place emotionally, years ago. They've driven me away from the music I once loved, which once I used to write so much about, loving it with a passion...

Not now though, for these folks have poisoned it.....The English folk world, in particular, has a Foul Group of Folks inside it...personally, I blame Ewan MacColl, who attracted like-minded bullies into the folk world, serious, humorless people with no empathy at all, and who have to control, at all times......


I'll leave you to do just that, Richard, and all the others....

Here, have BACK your nasty, narrow-minded, unpleasant and vitriolic little world.....

I'm done with it.... and mods, I will never again post as 'guest Lizzie Cornish 1' so please ensure that anyone who uses my name is zapped immediately.

This place has come to stink and I'm not surprised Bruce left.....

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:17 AM

For those who don't belong to the inner-circle of Cognoscenti, will someone please tell us - WTF is 'Bruce'?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:38 AM

I dunno. (Cookied, did you notice?)

She just said "you all" which presumably means err.. us all? Apparently I loathe Show of Hands now? I must mention this the next time I speak with Phil Beer, I'd hate him to think he has been a mate since Arizona Smoke Review days....

She also blames Ewan McColl. That's buggered it. Jim will weigh in now.

Have you noticed that those who shout Bully! use lots of capital letters in their posts? A psychiatrist friend once mentioned that to me. He also pointed out to beware of people who wear tinted glasses indoors..... Shepherds tend to get to know a bit about sheep.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:42 AM

Mmmmm, nice cookie! :-)

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:50 AM

I never knowingly post untruths.
I never curse or use personal insults.
I never knowingly cut and paste from "right wing" web sites.
I make sure that all the data I post can be verified, if I am posting an opinion I make it clear that it is an opinion.

Ian on the other hand, is guilty of misrepresentation, downright lies and disgusting personal abuse, not only to me but to anyone who dare to contradict his egalitarian dream.

My views on the promotion of homosexuality are controversial on this forum, so I suppose most of the membership quite enjoy the personal abuse being directed in my direction.

People like Teribus and Keith, although I oppose them politically, make excellent points in debate and only fools would wish to see them banned, or call them "thick c***s"...the use of "c**t" as a term of abuse should tell thinking people the measure of the man who does it and how "strongly" he holds views of gender equality.....he is a fake ladies.

Finally, the points I make concerning male homosexual health rates and other matters are not "hate speech" and are backed by Health agencies like CDC and PHE. If these points were actionable in law, Ian would have made damned sure that I would have been charged with some offense by now.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:50 AM

There are certain individuals whose views I find absolutely repugnant, but who wipe the floor with their regular opponents because those opponents choose to insult the person rather than challenging his arguments.

Do you really believe that, Backwoodsman?

Because someone says please and thank you they are better people? Sorry, but I just cannot understand that. What about content? If a repugnant view is packaged in flowery language is it any less repugnant? I think not. You seem to be suggesting that as long as the argument stays within within what is deemed to be acceptable behaviour, it is an acceptable argument. Is that right?

I don't often use bad language or insults but sometimes I feel it is the only response. Sometimes I get frustrated and just use it in anger. Wrong, I know, but even if my moniker says otherwise, I am only human. Anyhow, I believe that it is a far better person that opposes bigotry, in whatever language, than one who is a bigot but polite.

And Lizzie, this thread is not about you or Rolf Harris. Try opening your own thread.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:53 AM

...nor is it about you ake. Likewise, start your own thread.

D.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:59 AM

"Controversial" doesn't exist alongside homophobic, criminal, disgusting, bigoted, ignorant or disgraceful in Roget's thesaurus.

Yes, I have reported you. My good friend Seaham Cemetry gave me your full details and I passed them on via my ISP. Look on the bright side, you aren't dangerous, nobody on Mudcat has ever supported your odious hatred and you haven't exhibited any understanding of the information you use to persuade people to judge others. I doubt the police are interested in insignificant small people, what with resources and all that.

Still, I have reported you twice and Mudcat once to date.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:08 AM

Dave....if I am named (twice) in a thread, I have a perfect right to defend myself.

You are also quite wrong to assume that your definition of "bigotry" Is the correct one. Who do you think you are?
There is no rule against posting on controversial subjects.
Backwoodsman is correct, as long as members tell the truth and avoid personal abuse, all subjects should be open for discussion.

The moderation is pretty good here, with the exception of allowing the use of the word "c**t" as a term of abuse.
Which is of course a denigration of women.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:19 AM

How do we know that it's really Eliza posting that she is leaving and not someone spoofing her?

It was a spoof. It has been deleted. --mudelf

-------

(And Eliza is fine, today's earlier deleted post supposedly from her was another troll spoof).

-------

The last post still standing from GUEST,Eliza (at 08 Jul 14 - 05:45 PM) was saying goodbye. That doesn't sound fine to me.


DC

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:22 AM

DtG - there you go, the favourite Mudcat pastime of challenging something that wasn't actually said (or rather, interpreting what was said in such a way as to suit your own purpose).

It's nothing to do with using flowery language, repugnant opinions are just that -repugnant. But put yourself in the position of someone undecided, with no axe to grind, reading a thread - if one party puts their arguments in a civilised manner, no insults, no shrill screams, just points made as they view them, and the other party relies on "thick cunt" or shrill screams of "bigot" or "homophobe", which of the protagonists is likely to have the most influence on that reader?

Insults are not debate. I completely agree that bigotry needs to be challenged but, if you tell a bigot he's a "thick cunt", do you really, honestly believe that he will be influenced by that to change his bigoted views? I'd suggest that solid logic and reason would have far more effect than insults.

I don't post a lot, but I read a great deal, and I'm conscious that I modify my own position on various subjects on the basis of the influence of well-reasoned and well-presented arguments of others. However, when the "thick cunt" stuff starts, I just switch off, and I'd like to bet that's the case with many others too.

Anyhoo, I don't propose to allow myself become the next "thick cunt", I've stated my case, now I'm out. Insult away - I won't be listening.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:22 AM

OK, ignore my last post.

Good to see you're still here Eliza.

DC

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:28 AM

I would not have a problem with having to log in with user name and password before posting, if it would reduce the problem of fake and multiple identities. This is the norm on just about every other forum I visit (as well as, of course, banking, email, etc.) Usually you can read other posts but not post yourself without logging in.
As it is, I often get logged out, either when the site is down for maintenance, or when my security software does a clean-up. This results in my next post here going up as a Guest post unless I notice that my Personal page and traced posts have disappeared. On other sites I use my own name, as that is the preferred option. I only use a pseudonym as it was suggested that that was what Mudcatters do, at the time I joined some 14 or so years ago.
Trish

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:43 AM

Backwoodsman: if you tell a bigot he's a "thick cunt", do you really, honestly believe that he will be influenced by that to change his bigoted views? I'd suggest that solid logic and reason would have far more effect than insults.

I don't believe that a bigot will be influenced by solid logic and reason anyway. Bigotry is illogical and cannot be reasoned with. As to your assertion that I am 'interpreting what was said in such a way as to suit your own purpose'; how do you know what my purpose is?

Ake: You are also quite wrong to assume that your definition of "bigotry" Is the correct one. Who do you think you are?

I have not attempted to define bigotry. Why do you think my definition is incorrect? And I know who I am thank you. No real need to think about it.

And I have changed my mind. Please feel free to stay on this thread. If it keeps all the crap in one place it is doing a good job :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:57 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1 - PM
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 02:08 PM

...I no longer want to be a full time member of Mudcat...

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Lizzie Cornish 1 - PM
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:06 AM

...I'm done with it.... and mods, I will never again post as 'guest Lizzie Cornish 1' ...

No wonder I get confused. If someone no longer wants to be a member and will never post as a guest, how do the posts get here?

:D tG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:00 AM

I'm confused too! Is Eliza still here or not? If the "Guest Eliza" post at 08 Jul 14 - 05:45 PM was a spoof and is supposedly deleted, why can I still see it?

Eliza, if you're still with us, YAYYYY. If not:

I really hate to see you go, and can't understand why you think you're not welcome as a guest (if that undeleted 5:45 message is genuine). As Backwoodsman pointed out, his comment was referring to those non-members who troll - which certainly isn't you. But there are a lot of them about, and it's hard to know what to do. (Then there are the members who troll…)

I hope you will reconsider your decision and stay around. Do you have an iPad or Android tablet you could perhaps use for online things requiring cookies? Those generally don't contain such sensitive info (or wouldn't have to, if you've got a laptop) and I think they're less vulnerable to malware (no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong). Then your identity would be safe from impersonators.

We've lost so many good members over the past couple of years, many from circumstances not of their choosing, that I hate to see another one leave over an issue that has a fairly simple fix. (IF that's the reason - if not, my apologies.)

I know what you mean about the unpleasantness (and feel the same way) but this is still one of the best forums out there for extended discussion and exchange of info, which you can actually access even years later. In the age of the severely-restricted tweet, the ephemeral Facebook comment, and disappearing snapchat, it's all the more to be valued. Please give it another chance -

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:03 AM

Backwoodsman, you have in the past posted offensive prejudiced material, if I correctly recall. I cannot immediately bring to mind exactly what your view concerned. I accordingly class you as one of those who would better this place by leaving.

MLC - once upon a time I thought and said that some were unnecessarily beastly to you. Your irrational illiterate and verbose rantings soon cured me of that weakness. For the sake of accuracy I will say that I don't dislike Show of Hands. But the way you wet your knickers over them was toe-curlingly embarrassing - to the extent that one of them had to come here to ask you to stop.

Names - remember the fun we had with a thing that is not a political party and is now bankrupt? There used to be a facebook setting so that one could not search for you by name. I used it in that connection. Then facebook removed that setting. So I changed my facebook name so that those neanderthals (I know, the real neanderthals were better than that) could not look me up by name.

Eliza - I have long wondered if you are in fact real. Did you meet any nice people at the recent Sheringham Potty festival with whom I might check?   I know quite a number who went to it.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:07 AM

You are one of the people who has consistently attacked me over years, Dave (the gnome), to the point where you were actually forbidden to even mention my name at one point.   So yes, I've left, then come back when I was not feeling so down about this place...

Again, WHY do you do this???????

WHY do you and Richard, and others, consistently do this?

And the fact I type capitals (which I use on my OWN facebook page) means nothing, other than trying to get some emphasis and intonation into a Silent World Of Words...nothing more, nothing less.

The fact, Dave, that you also copy my posts, to use them against me at a later date is more than somewhat disturbing. 'folkiedave' used to do this too. He rarely posts here now, other than if I turn up in a thread, it seems, when he appears as if out of the blue....

This forum should be fixed so that no-one can post unless they are a registered member, traceable via email and whatever other techy things are needed to trace a person.

No duplicate names should ever be allowed to come up on here, being used by sick individuals who only want to cause hurt and upset to others, whilst sniggering behind the Cloak Of Do JUST As You Want, which Max provides in having this 'guest' button in the first place.

It has spoiled this site for many years now, many..and it merely encourages the kinds of people who use the internet for these very purposes to come here to this site too.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:36 AM

This is something I have said before , and will no doubt have cause to say again before too long

In MY opinion , Mudcat is a Community , like ALL communities has a wide variety of different characters .

Sadly , some of these characters are a tad dubious , and as the Community grows ,the dubious characters become more numerous , and , even more sadly , they seem to make more noise than the less dubious characters .

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:38 AM

You are one of the people who has consistently attacked me over years, Dave (the gnome), to the point where you were actually forbidden to even mention my name at one point.

Not true. I was asked not to post replies to your posts in the hope that it may help cut down your barrage. Feel free to provide evidence if you think I am wrong. Otherwise it is just the say so of an unreliable witness :-) Unlike you, I have never been banned from any internet forum.

The fact, Dave, that you also copy my posts, to use them against me at a later date is more than somewhat disturbing.

I don't. I just have an attention span slightly better than a goldfish and can remember things that most people said a few days ago. I am also quite capable of finding them again without keeping a copy anywhere. You, or anyone else, are more than welcome to search my computers for anything I have copied. I can quite assure you that none of it includes your inane ramblings.

Anyhow, I will take the advice that I received before. I will try my best not to encourage you but, as I said earlier, I am only human.

DtG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:50 AM

MLC - your inane, childish and grammar-free ramblings are what I object to. Your glorification of self-centred refusals to learn are what I object to. Your childish crazes are what I object to. If you feel that you absolutely must propagandise, for goodness sake learn to write. MtheGM may be an objectionable prig, but at least his use of English is largely impeccable. At present your outpourings are much like those of an undisciplined child intruding into (occasionally) adult conversation.

Mither - I am sorry to say this but again I agree with you.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:55 AM

. . . and it's off the rails again. Go to sleep for a few hours and the UK crew goes nuts. Lizzie, sometimes the first time you post, I agree with you. Ocasionally we agree about political things. I also think Peltier was set up. But it sounds like they got Harris dead to rughts and by the dozenth or so post you lost anyone who thought your anguish had to do with a court case. And you have an amazing capacity to dredge up old wounds but rarely recall favors and olive branches.

In other business glanced at via my small phone screen, so far it is Musket. All of the rest can wait till morning.

I'm going back to bed.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 06:00 AM

Oh, thank you, Richard. You had left mention of me out of your previous scattergun animadversions on this thread, and I was beginning to think you didn't ♥ me after all! Phew, what a relief.

Yours, objectionably, priggishly and largely impeccably,

~Michael~

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 06:04 AM

If Mudcat insists on membership, it will lose many posters, but the average level of manners and brains will not necessarily increase. This has been observed many times.

Posters who, however vaguely, consider taking part in a discussion evolving from their message, need a moniker, preferably protected against spoofing.

Such a protection, while preserving anonymity, is fairly easily implemented technically:

1. Where we now read "Subject:" and "From:", a third entry field labeled "Password:" should be visible.
2. Guest messages with empty "From:" or without a password of at least six characters will be rejected.
3. If the "From:" name of a guest message is identical to an existing member name, the message will only be accepted if the password is identical to that member's password.
4. If the "From:" name of a guest message is unknown yet, it will be entered in an internal database, together with the chosen password.
5. If the "From:" name of a guest message is identical to one found in the database table mentioned in 4., the password must be the same.
6. Messages that are rejected for these or other reasons do not simply vanish, but the poster is given the opportunity to correct typos.
7. Names and passwords are case sensitive. If "GUEST,Joe" is reserved, "GUEST,joe" is available for a different poster.
8. Monikers that have not been used for more than three months can be deleted from the database and are thus available again.
9. Guests who want to document their unwillingness to discuss about their single post, can use the reserved moniker "guest" and "ISolemnlyDeclareMyUnwillingnessToDiscuss" as password. Thus those who are merely lazy will be deterred.

This will take two hours of programming and save countless hours of deploring spoofs. Against "astroturfers" there is no such easy remedy, unfortunately.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 06:09 AM

Forgot one point:

20. There will be a little checkbox "I am a new poster". If it is not checked, but the moniker is not known either, a typo in the moniker will be assumed, and the poster is given the opportunity to correct it.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 06:45 AM

BTW - Is Guest, Ed, the opening poster, really Guest, Ed, or an imposter

It's getting like an Agatha Christie whodunit here!

DtG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:17 AM

PS. I should say however Eliza that you seem to have improved over the years. When you first came here you were very ready (far too ready in my view) to condemn young women who assumed the same liberties as young men. I have not seen you do that recently.   I also felt an air of unreality about the way you revealed your husband (and the fact that you did not I think have a language in common when you met) - I seem to remember it was in a discussion of racism (or maybe it was homosexuality), and you I think sought support from your husband's nationality. My thought at the time was that it seemed a bit too convenient.

M the GM - you should try to find a more accurate adjective than "scattergun". My condemnations benefited from precise and disclosed aim.

Grishka: Although the 'cat seems to be running well right now (thank you Max) she has been a bad tempered lady in the past when her internals were fiddled with. Your solution might well be harder to implement than you think. If it does work, why not seek a real name - no penalty at that stage but quasi-member ship lost if found to be false. Indeed why not start a real name policy for all new members and seek to get existing members to rename in real names?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:25 AM

Richard: You are not altogether a bad old stick, at that -- even if something of a poor old stuck-in-the-1960s leftie self-abuser.

But, dash my old boots, can you ever be bloody patronising! We will charitably put it down to that weary old bromide of a get·out, "an unfortunate manner", shall we?

But be so good as to bear in mind that you have absolutely no warrant even to think about patronising ME.

NONE

ABOUT ANYTHING

EVER

Geddit?

~M~

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:34 AM

If anybody did patroniseMichael, how would he tell?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 09:04 AM

Richard - By starting your last post "PS" does that indicate it follows from another one? If so, something seems to have gone missing :-( Or is it just my brain cell that has gone AWOL?

DtG

---

The post by a fake Eliza was deleted, and so was Richard's reply. The last post by the usual GUEST,Eliza was 08 Jul 14 @05:45 PM.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 09:39 AM

i disagree, i think some threads should have been closed before, I think the mods are doing a good job

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 09:48 AM

Ah - OK, thanks mudelf. How do you keep up with it all!

What are you disagreeing with, Dick? I think the mods are doing a good job too but just saying 'I disagree' in amongst this lot does not really let us know anything!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 09:55 AM

Ah - I seem to remember that my deleted post was not wholly about Eliza, but I am open to being corrected. A thought, however. If the real Guest Eliza (supposing, etc) did post from a different place eg on a relative's computer whilst visiting, the IP address would show up as different and so she would be thought an impostor. Unless the test is a certain band of IP addresses... on which Eliza would be unlikely to be.

M the GM - you are normally fastidious about language. Many posters I would not have bothered to pick up on the misuse of "scattergun". But my do those capital letter seem to be catching? Excessive propinquity to fwuffy ickle squiggles, I fear.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 10:12 AM

the rolf harris thread should have been closed, that is my opinion.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 10:26 AM

Ok - Thanks Dick.

D.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 10:26 AM

"SCATTERGUN adj: referring to a way of doing or dealing with something by considering many different possibilities, people, etc. in a way that is not well organized" - online Oxford Dictionary.

Seems to me a perfectly acceptable term for your somewhat random accusations and denunciations throughout this [& other] threads, Richard.

YMMV; but my "normal linguistic fastidiousness" is perfectly well satisfied with my use of the term within this context.

~M~

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 10:35 AM

"GUEST posters, please choose a name and stick with it for the whole thread. If you want to change names for every thread, I have no problem with that, but let's have continuity through each thread."

Absolutely agree with you PHJim.

It's one of my personal rules of conduct;
though for reasons mainly of tiredness and/or lazyness,
it's a rule I'm often guilty of failing to adhere to.

However, in this case, I didn't expect the thread to survive for more than a few minutes before being summarily deleted.

But, considering how the OP started this thread to berate over officious modding,
just sticking to "GUEST" as a constant name for this particular thread
serves my purpose, no matter how problematic, perverse of daft that purpose may be..???

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 10:47 AM

2nd thoughts.. I might stick this thread out to the end.
So in honour of one of my favourite "C" words which has already made several appearances here today,
and my Geo location so that mods can verify I am 'me'.

For the remainder of this thread I shall be known as "CL!NT WESTWOOD"..

.. alright with you mods..???

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:27 PM

Steve Gardham: "Okay, I've seen one of the threads that has just been closed.
Points
I personally don't think this particular forum is the right place for discussing judiciary matters no matter how strongly people feel.

If they were to be discussed they are surely nothing to do with folk music. Yes, Rolf was involved on the fringes of the folk scene in Britain but as far as we know these issues do not concern his folk involvement."

However, 'folk music' VERY OFTEN incorporates social issues, so methinks it not inappropriate to 'hash out' social/political issues.

Though my personal outlook is in agreement with the lyrics of this folk/rock song...especially the fourth line, third verse(actually all the third verse).

For What It's Worth

    'For What It's Worth'

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Enjoy(?)

GfS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 07:40 PM

This is a massive forum with tons of posts per day. I absolutely hate (I jest, of course...) what the moderators do at times, but, mostly, the poor dears, they do nothing at all. Because they can't. They have day jobs, etc., and there are far too many of us wankers posting complete shite for them to get on top of. The whole bloody shebang is a voluntary effort. Stop telling the moderators what they should or shouldn't do. Yes SRS et al. have made some daft decisions. Especially SRS. But this forum isn't yours. It's theirs. If they delete your posts or give you a bollocking, tuff titty. If you let that get to you, then get a bloody life why don't you. You have grass to cut, a missus to make love with and a supermarket to buy wine in, and you can always watch Argentina slaughter the Krauts on Sunday. If you're lucky. And, if you're not, ask yourself why not.

No guest posts. Real names only. You're not signed in? You don't post! No self-important pseudonyms, as if you're someone really important ("exercising your right to anonymity," you pompous twat), which you are not. Angst-ridden problem solved, mods, at a stroke. Stop bloody whingeing at us and just do it.

---

As has been mentioned before there are a half-dozen moderators behind the scenes watching over the BS threads. Your speculation about who makes what decisions, and why, is just that: speculation. Stop worrying about who does what moderation-wise and worry about how you're behaving in the forums. --mudelf

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:18 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with Steve. But it's up to Max, not the mods.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:20 PM

Except the bit about Argentina slaughtering the Krauts. Not gonna happen.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:48 AM

I wonder if TheSnail counts as a self-important pseudonym.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:09 AM

That definition, MtheGM, is not in my Complete Oxford Dictionary (Compact edition). It simply says that the term "Scatter-gun" is a US colloquial term for a shotgun. Your use was metaphorical, and I correctly pointed out that my targets were precisely named and precisely picked off. You might have done better to say "laundry-list".

For once I have to agree with some of what Goofball says (or what I think he is trying to say) "However, 'folk music' VERY OFTEN incorporates social issues, so methinks it not inappropriate to 'hash out' social/political issues."

I disagree with Steve Shaw in that I think the mods mostly get it reasonably close to right.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:24 AM

I might have said "floccinaucinihilipilification" or "Renaissance neo-Platonism". Or "aardvark" or "zymurgy". But the term I elected to use was, as I demonstrated above, an accepted metaphorical usage for the concept I wished to express; which your suggestion covers no better, if as well, so far as I can see. If that use of the term was new to you, then I suggest you take this opportunity to learn it and add it to your vocabulary, to which no addition should ever be unwelcome, rather than carping so captiously and reproachfully about the term I opted to employ.

~M~

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:30 AM

So, ok, if we all at least agree it's sensible and courteous for guests to adhere to a consistent mame,
either overall or per thread;

here's a constructive suggestion [maybe it's already happening???]:

we don't need to know the identity of mods [unless they choose to 'out' themselves],
but how about mods choose a consistent individual coloured print for their comments in threads ?

[That is a fairly reasonable idea]

ie. Colour coded mods - that'd be equally fair.
We'd soon get to recognize each of their individual strengths, quirks, and foibles..

It'd work a treat - eg. "Oh ****, purple* mods on duty - now we're in for a spanking !!!"

Seriously, more comments & communication from mods explaining actions which might be seen as unfair & antagonistic,
adding petrol to the flames of an already overheated thread, would be apreciated.

eg " 2 posts deleted due to gratuitous vicious insults - guest CL!NT WESTWOOD - you may resubmit your post
if you edit out references to shoving something large and spikey where it would cause injury and much pain - thank you.
Have a nice day"

See. give and take, it can work both ways to keep this community ticking over nicely....


[* - no offence intended if purple is already in use.]

---

How about we try this: you stop fighting among yourselves and then kvetching when one of the mudelves deletes the nonsense. No other action is necessary. --mudelf

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 09:15 AM

Sorry - I had no idea that this thread was going on. If I had known I would have brought the popcorn earlier. I'm always up for this summer sequels. They make for great boxoffice even if they are repetitive.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 09:58 AM

Must agree with Richard on this one, Michael, sorry. Scattergun is used metaphorically to describe an imprecise approach. The scattergun would spray everything in it's path with pellets. Richards approach was, as he said, precise. I do not believe that Richard was saying he was unfamiliar with the term per se but was rather suggesting it was not a good description of what he did.

But what do I know, being neither a lawyer or journalist :-)

DtG

BTW - I started to use the word shotgun rather than scattergun but mistyped it as shitgun. Maybe I should have left it? :-D

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:42 AM

Pedant alert: In the U.S. the term is "shotgun," not "scattergun." Maybe the compact Oxford Dictionary definition should indicate that "scattergun" is what some individuals in the UK think people in the US say."

SRS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:51 AM

DtG

"I am not bound to please thee with my answers"

The Merchant of Venice IV i 65


☺〠☺~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:59 AM

Fairy Nuff

Guide to talking complete bollocks. P147

:D tG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 11:25 AM

... yeah.. see that... only a small gesture of compromise and concession;
but colour coded mods could actually make a positive difference !!!!

cheers...



Btw, knowing our love of history and tradition.. Blunderbuss???

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 11:33 AM

Pedant alert also: I've heard both "scattergun" and "shotgun" used. In the US.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:01 PM

Scattergun is more like a blunderbuss than a shotgun...though they are similar.

GfS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:34 PM

Scattergun is also a term denoting a rather interesting curry, served in The Taj Mahal in Sheffield. Not so much a vindaloo as a where's the loo.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:39 PM

Probably a regional thing. Calling A Way With Words for analysis would solve this one!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:57 PM

What a great blog, Stilly - cheers. Duly RSS'd & Followed & Liked. (For all those aeons of spare time I dunno what to do with...)

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:42 PM

SRS: please correctly identify the Compact Edition of the Complete Oxford Dictionary - yes "the Complete Oxford Dictionary".

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:53 PM

LOL, my "shorter" OED is two thick (expensive) volumes.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:58 PM

Richard -- I have that: it is a very-small-print edition of the full dictionary in two volumes, in a slip-case, provided with a magnifying glass to assist in reading. There have been at least two editions, of which I have the first, 1971. Perhaps that was the one in question; and perhaps the later one gives the usage under consideration -- I have no access to it. But the definition I cited above is from an online edition of the Dictionary, which I found by googling -- '"scattergun" used as an adjective'.

~M~

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:03 PM

Or THIS?

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199532964.do

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:05 PM

Ahhhhh Michael, ya killjoy... beat me to it...

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:23 PM

MtheGM: ".....'"scattergun" used as an adjective'."

Scatterbrain is used as a noun!

GfS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,highlandman at work
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:39 PM

Random thoughts....

The only place I've heard "scattergun" is in Western movies. Maybe it's a regional thing. Then you've also got a "greener" (etymology unknown) referring to a sawed-off (illegal these days) shotgun.

Color-coded mods sounds cute, but we have enough colorful characters already, don't we?

My modest proposal - members and identifiable guests may only comment once per time period concerning moderators' actions. By serving as a mod for a similar term, with all the rights and privileges thereof, they can regain authority to make another comment before the waiting period runs out.

I joined Mudcat when the bad old internet days were still recent enough to make me chary of signing up for anything with a real name. I do have a membership, but I got tired of fighting to keep my cookies functional, so 99% of the time I'll sign in as guest, highlandman at work (or at home as the case may be). Perhaps the best way to not get spoofed or impersonated is just to be boring like me?

-Glenn

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,highlandman at work
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:42 PM

Ah, after hitting submit I see that the mathematics of my modest proposal don't work out.... my point, of course, is that the moderators really don't deserve all the guff they get for doing a job that nobody in their right mind really should want. I've served as mod on other boards and I know.
-Glenn

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Claire M
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 03:27 PM

Hiya!!

That curry sounds lovely. I'd better not try it though. Granddad on mum's side was always eating spicy food, then few hrs later he'd groan "oo …… gotta go…." & stagger off leaning on his stick. I think I may have inherited his funny stomach.

I agree w/ Steve. Nice to ☺@ & share long-forgotten good memories in said closed topic even if they are rather tainted now. @ the end of the day, as much as I enjoy coming here it's a website – if something offends me/stresses me out I'll leave. I just wish real life was that easy.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 03:34 PM

Leaving doesn't have to be permanent anyway (Eliza, please note!) - reminds me of the old chestnut:

"Quitting cigarettes is easy. I've done it lots of times."

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 06:25 PM

Gawd knows why some anonymous "mudelf" chimed in in critical mode on my last post, which, basically, was in sympathy with the moderators (do read the post again, carefully this time, "mudelf"). This place is someone else's gig, not mine. I'm totally relaxed about what posts of mine live to see another day or don't. I have a life, you see. Be like me, "mudelf": keep calm and carry on.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:07 PM

Steve Shaw: "Be like me....."

Are you fucking kidding us???????????????

GfS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:23 PM

Fifteen question marks in a row is definitely symptomatic of a mental condition.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:25 PM

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????!!!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:13 PM

Or maybe resting an elbow on the keyboard?

Or--Clint Westwood, eh? Didn't you star in a movie called "A Fistful of Question Marks?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:13 PM

Do note qualification applied to my comment, inflatus insanitas. Anyone died in your arms lately?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:45 PM

Hi, Don..

"Or--Clint Westwood, eh? Didn't you star in a movie called "A Fistful of Question Marks?""

.. if no one has a clue re your comeback joke responding to my now 'non-existent' innocuous silly riffing on your 15 ?s gag..

... go ask a mod, they work in mysterious ways ???????????????

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 11:44 PM

ahhhhh... it's back again now...

balance is restored in the universe...


[mimd you, I do have a shite sense of humour sometimes - ok, often...]

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 12:14 AM

Don firth: "Or--Clint Westwood, eh? Didn't you star in a movie called "A Fistful of Question Marks?"

..or a 'Few Question Marks More".................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..Or was that 'A Few Dollars More""""""""""""

GfS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 01:52 AM

A post from Goofus is usually one big question mark.

Or at least that's the image it leaves in my head.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 06:20 AM

Be like me, "mudelf": keep calm and carry on.

This from a man who can wantonly accuse someone of being.... GASP!..... a neo-Darwinist.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 07:28 PM

Yes, Slug, but I'm very calm if I call you a neo-Darwinist (actually, I'm far too bored with you to remember whether I did or not). Very calm. Do calm down, very old boy, and be more like me. Very calm. Icily so. I find it helps me to not stalk people.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 12:34 AM

Calm?

Steve Shaw wrote "I say what I think here and the only thing that reins me in is the fact that I use my real name and make no secret of where I am."

15+ years ago people set up accounts with monikers because they feared being picked upon based on their gender, or because they feared predatory behavior if their real information was out there. It was commonplace. By now many of us are so well-known to each other under these monikers that we'd have trouble figuring out who we were speaking to if we switched to our real names.

Since then many of the outspoken mudcat members have dealt with a stalker who set up fake accounts at mudcat and elsewhere. There are still reasons for using monikers, but members who use monikers are registered with the organization and contact information exists. Guests who swing through using a proxy server only to cause mischief, with or without a consistent guest name, are the ones who are under consideration here. Members who come though as guests often have the same IP information and are confirmable by moderators if something doesn't seem right.

You may simply be the fortunate person with a commonplace name. The troll doesn't bother with common names because it is too difficult for the victim to realize they are being spoofed with many other people named "Steve Shaw" in the world. Consider yourself lucky.

SRS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 01:43 AM

..and then there are GUESTS such as myself, we are also genuinely decent people.

Irrespective of any mildly impish fun I might enjoy mucking about with my online forum identity,
or being sarcastic regarding the highly vociferous pompous self righteous authoritarian contrl freak egomaniacs..

my IP is never shrouded in guile or deceit.
It's always the one allocated by my internet provider,
and as consistent as it can be within the day to day loggings on and off of my computer.

Like I said - nothing to hide, and mudcat admin can more than likely find me if they wanted to

No proxies, no cruel insult or harm intended,
absolutely no justification for GUESTS like me to be constantly 'despised' by association
because of your unfortunate problems with spammers, imposters, shitebags, and 'trolls*'...

[* a perjorative term used far too indescriminately imho..]

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 03:54 AM

Shitebags have feelings too.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 08:42 AM

In which case those shitebags should have more consideration for the feelings of normal people.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 08:44 AM

Oh bollocks, I said I was out of this thread!
It's not my fault! musket made me do it! :-)

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 09:33 AM

GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD you're in the mix with everyone as a "guest." Normal guests to the left, trolls to the right for more rigid oversight - isn't going to happen. So far the most that was enforced (for a while, and not recently) was guests that guests were asked to use consistent names. You have found a couple of invisible lines drawn in the sand by moderators over which people generally don't cross and are trying to make a case that YOU can cross them even if others can't. You're special.

How did we miss that?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 10:23 AM

no..really.. I'm not the least bit special.... nothing special bout me at all.

Don't want or expect special favours or treatment;
just wanna intreract with people on a live and let live, give & take friendly kinda basis.

Words I like include - 'irreverent' 'respect' 'integrity' 'flexibility'..and so on..

I try to stick to my own fair & reasonable rules and boundaries of behaviour,
and definitely have no need to inpose them on any other folks, or try to control 'em...

get the drift..???

Guess i'm bit of a slightly unruly old hippy really..??? but definitely nothing special.

In fact I'm not that ashamed if big serious grown ups just think I'm a bit of a mischievous daft old CL!NT...

[though there's always a caring intelligent & positive subtext]

take care and have fun guests, members, and mods.....

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 03:42 PM

Calm?

Steve Shaw wrote "I say what I think here and the only thing that reins me in is the fact that I use my real name and make no secret of where I am."

15+ years ago people set up accounts with monikers because they feared being picked upon based on their gender, or because they feared predatory behavior if their real information was out there. It was commonplace. By now many of us are so well-known to each other under these monikers that we'd have trouble figuring out who we were speaking to if we switched to our real names.

Since then many of the outspoken mudcat members have dealt with a stalker who set up fake accounts at mudcat and elsewhere. There are still reasons for using monikers, but members who use monikers are registered with the organization and contact information exists. Guests who swing through using a proxy server only to cause mischief, with or without a consistent guest name, are the ones who are under consideration here. Members who come though as guests often have the same IP information and are confirmable by moderators if something doesn't seem right.

You may simply be the fortunate person with a commonplace name. The troll doesn't bother with common names because it is too difficult for the victim to realize they are being spoofed with many other people named "Steve Shaw" in the world. Consider yourself lucky.

SRS

Yep, calm. Point not taken. The internet can be an anarchic bit of rough and tumble. If you can't take it, don't post. There is life outside and plenty of it. And your last paragraph is just stuff and nonsense and you know it.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 04:26 PM

Unless you've be stalked by that troll and know how he works, you'd do well not to speculate. That is exactly how he operates.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 06:12 PM

Maybe he IS that troll!

GfS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 06:22 PM

Gwan back to sleep, Goofus.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 06:54 PM

You get stalked by internet trolls because you're on the bloody internet. If you're not on the internet you do not get stalked by internet trolls. There is no law that says you have to stay on the internet just so that you can upset yourself by allowing yourself to be stalked because you're on the internet. I'm 63, I've been on the internet for ten years, and, in my life before the internet, I was a very happy chappie, just like I am now. Avoid the things that upset you. You won't die if you stay off the internet, or, at least, the bits of it that are getting to you. In other words, stay rational. And keep cool.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 07:05 PM

Steve, that's like saying not to ride public transportation because some guy may sit down beside you and fart a lot.

Operating like that, sooner or later, you wind up being a hermit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 07:42 PM

You have to use public transport because your wellbeing depends on your getting from A to B. Internet forums and suchlike are entirely optional. If you're having an unhappy experience online, and you carry on torturing yourself by revisiting the places that upset you, you're barking mad. I can't avoid buses and trains because I need to get to the shops 50 miles away or visit my mum. But I can avoid internet locations that upset me. Or ones that I can see might upset me down the line. It's as simple as not clicking. Believe me, I've done it and it works. The feeling of liberation is mighty. Ask yourself: are you here because you enjoy it, and for no other reason? If the answer is no, well, you're a bit mad, aren't you?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 10:56 PM

Don Firth: "Operating like that, sooner or later, you wind up being a hermit."

Great!!

GfS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 11:45 PM

I'm far too handsome, charming, and popular to be a hermit, Goofy. I'm greatly in demand by vast numbers of intelligent, tasteful people. And I enjoy spending time with people of taste and intelligence.

In fact, my wife and I are hosting a group of very talented writers on Sunday, so I'm afraid I'll have to neglect your education and guidance during Sunday, so try not to do anything too--well--goofy.

À bientot,

Don Firth

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 12:29 AM

Steve, clearly you don't know the history of the troll at mudcat so you don't know what we're trying to tell you and consequently you don't know what you're talking about. Stop dismissing others' statements and being an expert on everything and just accept our word for it. Participating in Mudcat shouldn't result in being stalked for years by the cretin still who pops in on occasion. May even be reading this post as soon as I hit "send."

SRS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 12:30 AM

Enjoy, Don. But I am with Steve on this. Why come back here on Monday if you had rather not? No compulsion to do so --

(except, of course that you would miss this gem of wisdom of mine)

& neither has anyone else if they are getting a hard time here.

There are some people whose posts I don't even read because I know them from experience to be potentially offensive to me in some way, but just scroll straight thru when I read their names at the top.   Doesn't do me any harm.

~M~

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 01:15 AM

Credit me with some smarts. There are people whose posts I just flat don't read, and others I skip lightly through. With some folks, if you've already read a number of their posts, a glance at an opening line and a few key words tells you all you need to know about what they have to say.

And rank insults and obscenity simply negate anything of value that the poster might actually have to say, so quick scan, if at all, and move on to something more civilized and intelligent.

There is the old adage, "Consider the source."

Don't let the Philistines drive you away. That's what some of them want.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 01:38 AM

"I'm far too handsome, charming, and popular to be a hermit, Goofy."

When I posted, 'Great!' I wasn't referring to you, but Steve.

"I'm greatly in demand by vast numbers of intelligent, tasteful people. And I enjoy spending time with people of taste and intelligence."

Don't flatter yourself! Most intelligent people don't.....but you did leave out narcissistic.

"In fact, my wife and I are hosting a group of very talented writers on Sunday, so I'm afraid I'll have to neglect your education and guidance during Sunday...."

SEE ABOVE!

GfS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 03:10 AM

What's all this about public transport?

If anyone would care to post their experiences of cohorting with the proletariat I'd be much obliged. I'm fascinated by the subject.

Yours

Major Misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 04:18 AM

I thought you had gone, Greg F. Or was that the troll again? Either way, for good of bad, good to see you back :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 08:03 AM

Stilly River Sage, now I don't know if you are a mod; and if you are,
if you are the over-officious mod with bad attitude who's actions caused this thread to be opened in the first place ?

I also don't know the full extent of any nasty experience you and your friends endured, inflicted by severe sociopaths
plaguing mudcat ?

But I do feel you may be exhibiting signs of almost paranoid obsession that there are 'trolls' hiding behind every tree,
under every tiny bridge, dark shady crevice or corner, just ready and waiting to jump out and shout Boo!!!

To such an extent you are now prejudging every guest, and at risk of seriously misjudging their every intent and behaviour ????

So while the 'public transport' metaphor is still fresh in the bus lanes of folks minds, here's another one.....

ok, METAPHOR ALERT !!!:
so you caught a masked pervert staring in through your bathroom window.
but he ran away before the police arrived.
You had a good idea of who the disguised intruder might be.
At the time you were understandably shocked and frightened.
But over time the fear has festered, and now you, your family and close friends are on constant vigil.
Permanently patrolling the perimeters of your property 24/7 with loaded shotguns, in case he returns.
All so unsettled and insecure you have itchy trigger fingers,
taking pot shots without warning at any misfortunate folk you don't immediately recognise who may pass by or approach
your fortress like property.....
METAPHOR ALERT OVER - Please resume normal functios....

Now, I'm certainly not mocking the real distress of your 'trolls' victims;
- you all have my and any sensible mudcatters sympathy -
but I do think this is all resulting in a pervasive unhealthy atmosphere & culture of anxious suspicion and accusations
here at mudcat...

Stay happy and alert, - just keep it in perspective - that's all..

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: caitlin rua
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 09:44 AM

> But I do feel you may be exhibiting signs of almost paranoid obsession

Clint - she's not.

And it isn't about distrusting every Guest. At all. Can you guys please just leave it alone?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 10:15 AM

I thought you had gone, Greg F.

I had, indeed, Dave. Bit of a misunderstanding with the moderators; all sorted now. So "The report of my death was an exaggeration."

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 10:47 AM

Agreed. If you weren't here, you don't know how bad it was (and you can consider yourself fortunate). It isn't paranoid, there is someone who still comes and goes but back before Max and Joe found all of his sleeper accounts was a pain in the ass. Many of us became instant experts on Internet security. There are lots of members who could chime in to offer accounts of his abuse across social media, but we all know that it would just tempt the creep to start over again. Here is a bit of history.

SRS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 12:06 PM

I suggest that anyone who missed it READ that bit of history. Then re-read any of your own posts about how easy it is to just ignore stuff you don't like- and how the internet is like the Wild West and how the timid should stay home & lock their doors.

THIS forum is for PEOPLE----all people who strive to get along with other people (read Max's 3rd from the last post in that thread). Even in the Wild West they knew that some people were needed to help police the bars, stores, streets...etc... so that even timid people could have a chance to work & play. Do not assume that having a thick skin gives you the right to harass those who do not!

There is no clear 'line' dividing friendly and helpful posting from meanness and obnoxiousness....it gets fuzzy in the middle... and as Max said, we do not need a site which keeps... "... moderators busy with circular logic, pedantic idiocy and political disputes in which it's obvious at least one of the participants doesn't actually care about the ideology..."

THAT is what is "really poor".

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 01:06 PM

Thanks Greg. Good to know it was all sorted.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 01:31 PM

The group of writers that's meeting at our place today won't be arriving for a couple of hours yet.

Goofus, in your post of 13 Jul 14 - 01:38 AM, other than the parts where you are quoting me, it's totally incoherent. What in hell are you struggling to say?

Note:   I've been posting on Mudcat since September of 1999, and for several years there, Mudcat was warm, friendly, and welcoming. 'Spaw was particularly warm and gracious in welcoming me to the 'Cat.   

But—gradually, within recent years, it has become a minefield of gradually increasing nastiness, coming, not from the original group, but from a relatively small number of people who are not that much interested in music, but who spend most of their time wanting to argue politics and just about anything else, as long as it's controversial. I think that's why Max started the B.S. section. To keep the Philistines from messing up the music discussions, which were intelligent, thoughtful, and informative.

Unfortunately, it's not really possible to have a rational discussion of anything controversial because Mudcat's B.S. section has become a gathering spot for internet thugs and hooligans, i.e., trolls. People who are not here to discuss music, and are only marginally interested in music, if at all. And many of them seem to be looking for a fight, because they are the ones who provoke it.

Frankly, it would not break my heart if the B.S. section were eliminated and Mudcat limited itself to discussions of music only, deleting any posts not having to do with music.

Now, I enjoy a good, hot argument over a controversial issue (and I have several hobby horses), but such discussions are best carried on face-to-face rather than anonymously on the internet.

Face-to-face forces a degree of civility.

Some cowardly types, hiding behind an internet handle, feel free to say things that, in a face-to-face confrontation, would provoke their adversary to grab their shirt front, shove them up against a wall, and slap the living snot out of them.

So, to start with, a troll is a coward.

Later. Got to get ready for our guests.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: kendall
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 02:13 PM

I've been a member here for many years, and, like the old gray mare, it aint what it used to be. It was taken over by malcontents and fault finders, and those in charge seemed to not care, so, I did what I could do, I left.

I rarely check in anymore, but I see things have not changed.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 03:01 PM

Kendall... it was not "taken over"... it was, if anything, abdicated. No one can "take over' a forum like this unless hoards of the good ones surrender and rationalize being like lemmings... or can't take enough time from Facebook to bother...

Once upon a time at the FSGW Open Sing, when we met at church with 2 levels, there was a group who decided that an "open" sing allowed..oh, horrors.. too many not-too-good singers who bored the 'anointed', so after and hour or so, there was a gradual sneaking away to the basement to have a private party.... thus making 'boring' become a self-fulfilling hypothesis.
There are STILL some who will not come to a sing which does not come up to their 'standards'... but Friday night we had about 25 folk sing & play and chat, and enjoy themselves....and yes, there were moments which were less-than-wonderful- but it was sharing and helping and being 'folk'. Not a bad thing....

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 04:29 PM

I wish sometimes, that those puffed up performers who don't want to listen to their lessers would stay away from the sings. then there might be just the respectful and encouraging participants left.
those that usually listen to others, rather than talk through and over others efforts.
and I presume, bill, that you are making an analogy to those on mudcat, and it has just occurred to me that educationally, I would be one of the lessers here!
.....that's assuming that THIS post takes!.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 05:46 PM

analogy? Moi? Perhaps a teeny metaphor. ☺

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 07:04 PM

Well bugger me sideways with a bent banana. I was a very active poster here at the time of all that shenanigans yet I didn't have a bloody clue about any of it. Not a bloody clue. Not the faintest inkling. I wonder why. No, actually, I don't wonder why. It's because I don't personally click on threads that might (a) bore me, (b) not address issues in which I have any interest, (c) upset me, (d) be populated by some tiresome pillock or pillocks who might get my goat (game not worth candle, sort of thing). A coupla things. Yes I feel sorry for moderators who have to read everything (though the moderators here actually do very little indeed anyway by way of effective moderating compared to every other discussion forum I've been involved with), and second, in spite of all the dark talk from SRS and the stuff on that link, I still haven't a bloody clue about what's supposed to have happened. I'm not a mind-reader. "Something horrible's happened and you'd better bloody believe it but I'm going to keep you in the dark so you'd better shut your face". Nice work, SRS and co. But hardly the way to get people onside. Do what you have to do. Shut down the BS section. Shut down the whole bloody site. Do what you like, because you can. No-one will die. There is no law that says you have to keep this going or that you have to stay here. Go for the sunlit uplands. You have the choice. Abandon ship. Believe me, you'll get over it within hours.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 07:23 PM

Good post, Clint.

As for this:

Can you guys please just leave it alone?

Leave what alone? If you want us to "leave it alone", don't you think it would be nice to tell us precisely what it is we're supposed to "leave alone"? Or do you merely want to do the "I'm in the in-crowd" secretive bit and keep us at bay?

Answers, if any, in the thread, please. I'm not the only one in the dark about all this dark talk. Plain speaking in the thread please. PMs definitely not welcome. Over to you. Or just bugger off.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 08:17 PM

Not the point, Steve.

Mudcat is a valuable, useful resource. Among other things it hosts the Digital Tradition database, which contains the words and some tunes of thousands of traditional songs, along with posts that talk about the histories and backgrounds of those songs. And if one has a question about a particular song or particular singer, a quick and generally knowledgeable answer is usually forthcoming often within minutes of asking the question. This, along with frequent bulletins about who is singing where—not to mention learning about good singers you may have never heard of before. Questions about musical instruments, the histories of songs, all kinds of things frequently answered by someone highly knowledgeable in the area you're asking about.

As to the B.S. section, you have a non-musical forum where, again, you're able to express an opinion on politics and world happenings in general and get feedback. Naturally, people being what that are and the world being what it is, not everyone is going to agree with you, but therein lies its value. One can read a variety of opinions and viewpoints, sometimes gain new insights, and hone one's debating skills for discussions in the 3-D world.

Or, perhaps, in the face of a cogent, intelligent, and well reason argument, one may indeed gain new insights into the issue ("I never thought of it that way before!") and change one's mind.

BUT—

Not if someone responds to your post with something like:

"What kind of a moron are you!!!?????? Where did you pick up a stupid idea like that, out of some so-called liberal propaganda sheet??????? Take your moronic opinions and stuff them up your ass, you retard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

……is not exactly conducive to rational discussion. Yet, that seems to be the style of an increasing number of people who have slithered their way onto Mudcat, particularly the B.S. section.

But fortunately, that number is small. This is where I think the moderators should be concentrating their efforts a bit more intently. People HAVE been blocked from Mudcat, including the B.S. section, for behaving like foul-mouth barbarians. Notably, "Martin Gibson," and a couple of others whose whole intention was to disrupt discussions and make people angry.

AND perhaps drive them away from Mudcat, thereby depriving themselves of a valuable resource.

I refuse to be driven off Mudcat, even off the B.S. section, by people who seem to be incapable of civilized behavior. That's THEIR problem, not mine!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 08:23 PM

Of all the times for the gremlin to eat a response.

Shaw, you're in no position to demand answers from anyone else here in the thread. Get over yourself. You'll find a PM. Let this be the end of it.

SRS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 04:16 AM

"I wish sometimes, that those puffed up performers who don't want to listen to their lessers would stay away from the sings."

Actually, pete, I don't see it as "puffed up performers" vs "lessers". At most singarounds that I go to it's serious, competent, entertaining/inspiring performers vs increasing numbers of lazy, self-indulgent, talentless gits who bore the pants off everyone - usually by droning tunelessly through some interminable ditty that they've got written on a sheet of paper or in a notebook. The very least that such bores should do is to learn the f***ing words!! If they did that, and then made an effort to inject some life into their 'performances', I might respect them more!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 04:42 AM

To an extent, we have obligations to ourselves to assert what we believe to be socially correct. Those of us who believe that rampant individualism impoverishes society in general tend also to believe that we have an obligation to society to assert what we believe to be socially correct.   If you do not assert the wrong-headedness of some things then Pastor Niemoller's warning becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thus, Steve, your isolation is an abdication - and a departure from the founding nature of what most of America thinks of as "folk music" - the things descended from Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie - even Bob Dylan. You did not receive the threats that many of us did. You simply do not know. Or perhaps you are pretending not to know.

The mods did then, and continue generally to do, an excellent job. That said, even Homer nods, and as you will have seen if you bothered to look or to try to understand, I had some differences with Max about the appropriate policy.   Nonetheless, he made resources available that led (apparently and eventually) to the marginalisation of the threat.

That threat is or was different to the issue here. I see the current issue as the relentless (laundry-list follows) right-wing, Zionist, racist, neocon (indeed "liberal" in the economic sense of the word - look it up if you don't believe me) militaristic and Xtian fundamentalist and intentionally ignorant rantings of a few. They, doubtless, see it as a relentless (laundry-list follows) left-wing, anti-semitic, politically correct "liberal"(in their usage of the word)pacifistic and godless rantings of a few. A different few.

Those with views like mine (yes, there are differences of opinion amongst us - notably over Ireland and Argentina) or in part overlapping with or tending towards mine albeit perhaps, as to the many, less forceful about it, assert that we defend cohesive social values, the progress of the spirit (if any) towards a civilised society and away from barbarism. I cannot fathom any equivalent belief in the intent to better the world at large amongst the right-wingers and fellow travellers. We (I believe) see them simply as sociopaths, who should be tolerated only to a limited extent.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 05:34 AM

I cannot fathom any equivalent belief in the intent to better the world at large amongst the right-wingers
.,,.

Sometimes I wish I could be as sure of anything as self-proclaimed left-wing believers like Richard Bridge are of everything.

~M~

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:17 AM

So, is that a tacit admission?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 07:29 AM

"Definitions belong to the definers, not the defined."
― Toni Morrison

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 08:15 AM

"Definition of Poobad was bang on"

- Musket

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 10:02 AM

At least Richard, you have had a stab at defining the problem here.
We have two different views on how a "civilised" society should be constructed.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 11:29 AM

The problem is, ake, there are several views on how a discussion about constructing a civilised society should be conducted.

Like educating children, electing leaders, staffing an army... or even simple things like caring for a garden... there are far more ways of "doing it wrong" than doing it right (i.e.achieving a result that follows your intent.) The debates often get confused over both defining a sane intent and finding practical ways to achieve that intent.

I recently started that thread about "very hard things to do', and people made a few remarks about some of them- but no one seems to have gotten in to perhaps the hardest of all: )Being able to separate your rationality from your personality.

All too often people cannot really tell you exactly why they HAVE an opinion(part of their **personality**)... and it is a VERY hard thing to do to work out thru their childhood, their experiences, their peer groups...etc. etc.. how they came to an opinion...but once 'set' in their heads, they will adjust their **rationality** to defend it. "My mind's made up- don't confuse me with facts!" You get two people with different opinions nose-to-nose and they resort to "dueling facts" for awhile, then to "dueling insults" when facts fail.. as they usually do.

Everyone kinda knows that there are rules for sane, logical arguments, but those rules are long and complex and hard to remember in detail... and 'rules' are damned inconvenient when they might show YOU are inconsistent, prejudiced, illogical and just plain silly.

So.... debates over how much.. or little... the mods should exercise control over Mudcat gets hung up on "Being able to separate your rationality from your personality." It soon devolves into ^metaarguments and there's no end to it all............thus, someone occasionally points, as SRS did, to the owner's opinion (Max). This is his forum, and he has designated a few people to make some attempt to keep order. Do THEY occasionally get their rationality mixed with their personality? No doubt... as does the President of the US, the Prime Minister of the UK, members of all legislatures, and you own sainted Mother!~ That's how it is... someone has authority in most situations, and we'd all do well to remember that. There are ways to change WHO has authority....but.....hmmmmm.. it seems that those ways are determined by differences in rationality and personality...


ooops

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 12:02 PM

Bill, if you are not already a mod, you should be.
Or maybe even better still - head of training and supervision for mudcat mods.

                  +++++++++++++++

30 odd years ago, one of my favourite elements of my degree,
was part of the 'Ethics' course concerning concepts of 'moral education' and 'moral maturity'.

There were 2 key books that were a real inspiration.
now rotting away mildewed in a storage box somewhere....

But even after a lifetime of bitter disapointment, futile battles, day to day social pettyness & treachery,
failing eyesight and erroding memory;
that basic grounding is still deep down positively underpinning my core values, personality, and interactions with other people..

At whatever level I might be in any hierarchy of 'authority'.....

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 01:54 PM

What I am..(if you are too new to have known)... is a graduate in Philosophy. (134 hours and 1/3 of a Master's thesis). I never made a career out of it, but the basic lessons in what counts as logic and consistency have stayed with me..... and it can be scary. ;>0)
I can't read these discussions without wishing I could "train & supervise" all sorts of folks in basic logic..etc. Being aware of basic rules of argument would NOT mean that everyone would automatically agree on basic truth, morality and political correctness.... but it might avoid some of the most egregious errors in HOW to present & defend a position.
Some folks seem to exercise general 'reason' and fairness without resort to technical explanations... others never seem to. Why? Ask the psychologists.... who will give you answers that often only muddy the issue even more.

All this is why I type all these long, tedious attempts to make sense of an issue... I seldom have a clear, simple answer to the serious issues; I have MY opinions, and I have spent hours in the last 12-14 years on gun control, women's rights, political stances, 'fairness', language,... and arrrgghhh.. the "meaning of folk".

You may notice that disagreements seem to continue in spite of my inspired *grin* explanations....

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 04:32 PM

I agree the quality of discussion on this thread is really poor.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 04:52 PM

Well Bill, I do try to base my posts/opinions on verifiable sources of information, yet I am viciously attacked from all sides. because the subjects are deemed by the attackers as beyond discussion.

How does one counter that attitude? I have tried to remain civil throughout and put my case rationally, but some believe that their ideology/personality is beyond debate, and anyone who contradicts it, is a "racist", "homophobe", "bigot" etc, etc.

Even those with Master's degrees in Philosophy, have hinted at such things on occasion? :0)

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 05:42 PM

Hinted? At least I don't seem to have stated explicitly that I can read your mind....which of course I can't possibly do. And of course, neither can those who accuse the loudest.

It took what seemed like a very long time to get you to explicitly state your justifications for certain views..except for 'statistics'... and several- including myself- offered competing statistics that we felt pointed to different conclusions about what *ought to be done*.

If I at least managed to 'mostly' confine myself to debating 'rational solutions', I am glad. I do hope YOU see why those who disagree with you get so intense about it.

You did finally explain that you had a different 'world view'... which is a different discussion in itself. I spent years filling my head with different views about pragmatism, utilitarianism, hedonism, communism, democracy, monarchy, ... and all the variants on each one. It is an interesting exercise to imagine what would change if somehow any of those systems were adopted totally by some society or country.. (Most systems are an amalgam, no matter what they call themselves.)
I can only wonder why you...or anyone... with a minority view came to their position. Simple 'facts' are not usually the deciding factor.... we humans can't always explain our decisions.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:15 PM

Akenaton spews out views that are based on lies aimed at demonising gay people.

Under UK law, he has no right whatsoever in propagating hatred for that purpose and we have laws to protect people from abuse.

I would have thought that shouting him down was the most civil thing to do. I would like nothing more dearly than to see him with a criminal conviction.

There is nothing wrong in not liking, not understanding or not agreeing. But publishing hatred based on lies is a criminal act where Akenaton is situated.

I merely keep pointing this out. Not because I like laws but because gay people are as welcome on Mudcat as Scottish bigots. Equally.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:43 PM

Thus, Steve, your isolation is an abdication - and a departure from the founding nature of what most of America thinks of as "folk music" - the things descended from Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie - even Bob Dylan. You did not receive the threats that many of us did. You simply do not know. Or perhaps you are pretending not to know.

This is extremely offensive (though I always tend to regard people who give extreme offense as bloody twits, and never generally take offence). The only correct part of this scurrilous paragraph is the bit that says I did not receive threats. Too right I didn't. But the worst bit is the implication of dishonesty, that I was "pretending not to know". Whatever else anyone here thinks about my posts, I'm not having people say that I am in any way dishonest. Read my lips, arsehole (and stop sending me stupid PMs while you're at it): I did not know anything at all about what is now being alleged. Not the bloody faintest inkling. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, and I hope it bloody chokes you. Love Steve (in rare animated mode).

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:44 PM

offence the noun

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:51 PM

Hi Steve. I'm still wondering why you called me a neo-Darwinist.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:52 PM

"Under UK law, he has no right whatsoever in propagating hatred for that purpose and we have laws to protect people from abuse."

Does UK law allow for propagating antisemitic hatred as defined by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)? and are there laws to protect people from this type of abuse? Just wondering.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:57 PM

Shaw, you're in no position to demand answers from anyone else here in the thread. Get over yourself. You'll find a PM. Let this be the end of it.

You may call me Steve, as you do in your long-winded and somewhat unrevealing PM.

I'm not demanding anything. It's your gig. Not mine. I said that, oh, last week, I think. Don't dishonestly up the ante by implying that I'm somehow making massive demands. If this forum is supposed to be inclusive then don't raise issues that exclude people not in the know who might then display natural curiosity. That just looks like baiting. And I said looks like, not that you were baiting. But if I ask you about something you'd sooner not discuss, just say you'd sooner not discuss it. I do that in real life all the time. Don't go all dark and then say you don't want to discuss it. I'm shrugging here, thinking that I don't want to discuss what you don't want to discuss. If that's your idea of my getting over myself, you insulting bugger, then ask yourself what it is that you need to get over. You do appear to get a little upset at times.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 07:13 PM

"
Akenaton spews out views that are based on lies aimed at demonising gay people.

Under UK law, he has no right whatsoever in propagating hatred for that purpose and we have laws to protect people from abuse."

Ian, you know very well that I have published nothing which is in any way criminal. If my statistics are lies, they are not my lies, but lies propagated by the two premier health agencies in the US and the UK.
Their new infection rates for HIV and all other sexual diseases are almost identical, a huge over representation of MSM in the figures.

Are you seriously saying that this is a lie?

I can back everything I say with supporting facts, you on the other hand have nothing but abuse .....and a flawed ideology.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 07:16 PM

Interesting that we have a moderator who appears to be blocking one's PMs now! :-)

[This moderator has never heard of a way to block PMs]

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 08:20 PM

I tried to send a PM to SRS three times in a row ion the space of about twenty minutes but the sending was blocked each time. I managed, without difficulty, to send one to another member, at more or less the same time. What do you expect me to think? Whatever happened to honesty?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 08:23 PM

Hi Steve. I'm still wondering why you called me a neo-Darwinist.

I can't remember. Was it in this thread? Can't you see what I'm having to deal with here? :-)

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 08:45 PM

I didn't block anything. I have wondered that I didn't hear back.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 10:22 PM

I don't know what you mean by "block". There is no way to block PMs. If you can still post as a member, you can send PMs.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 11:13 PM

Steve Shaw - you have said that you knew nothing of the troll problem. If you were, as you say that you were, an active poster here at the time, then that is most improbable, given, for example, the thread linked to started by Max at the time and the considerable prevalence of the issue at the time. What you say on the point may or may not be true, but there is reason to doubt.

One factor that weighs is your wish to assert that the attacks of the time could easily be ignored. That is not so. It was and remains demonstrably not so. For example I and others received credible threats to family. Another 'catter lost gigs because of lies from the troll. I was questioned by a club as a prelude to a booking for a gig as to whether certain lies spread by the troll were true.

I have told you a little of this by PM and your response was to make the paranoid foolish and false claim that I was threatening your family! Regrettably you are choosing to deny the facts in defence of an unjustifiable assertion and argument.

You discredit yourself.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 11:16 PM

PS - Steve - you are party to this thread discussing related matters in 2009. It seems your memory is rather selective.

thread.cfm?threadid=121408#2651764

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 11:20 PM

Oh, and here you are again on a thread on a related topic at "the Session".

http://thesession.org/discussions/22571

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Janie
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 11:21 PM

Steve's I can't remember. Was it in this thread? Can't you see what I'm having to deal with here? :-)



Well done, Steve. Crowning jewel of your successively revealing posts here on this thread in particular. That last little smirk you ended the above on your last post sums it up quite well! I tip my hat to you.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 03:12 AM

Bobad wonders if there is a law against anti semitism. Quite possibly. There is a law against publishing hatred based on gender, race, creed and sexual orientation to my knowledge.

There is no law however against pointing out criminal carnage by the Israeli military aided and abetted, contrary to UN obligations by the Israeli government.

I assume you are calling criticism of the Israeli government "anti Semitic?" One of the most repugnant quotes I read this week was by an Israeli minister saying the West can't criticise their bombing of civilians because it would be an insult to European Jews and the holocaust.

You aren't his scriptwriter perchance?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 04:14 AM

Oh bum. There I go agreeing with Mither again!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 06:48 AM

What you say on the point may or may not be true, but there is reason to doubt.

What I say on the point is true. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt. Either accept that or accept that you are impugning my honesty.

I have told you a little of this by PM and your response was to make the paranoid foolish and false claim that I was threatening your family!

I did not claim that you were "threatening my family". Here is the relevant exchange between us. It's important to show any even remotely interested persons here how you're trying to misrepresent me.

YOU: I suggest you wait until you get emailed pictures of your daughter from a "political" group known to be violent thugs, before shooting your mouth off with greater follies.

ME: Haven't a clue what you're on about. Sounds all very dark. Read my post on the thread. Perhaps you'd care to respond there instead of here. I don't appreciate veiled threats, as I'm basically one of life's innocents and shall remain so.

Cheers

Steve

If anyone interprets that as "Richard Bridge threatening Steve's family", do apprise me. Further, my input to the Session thread was a single, jokey one-liner. Hardly input of substance. It's there, folks, to check. How you clutch at straws, Richard. Similarly, my input into the 2009 thread you link to was completely one-dimensional. It's the way I respond to any thread (if I happen to click on it at all) that is infested by fascists. And I soon lose interest. That's my track record. There is little or no substantial interaction between me and the other posters in that thread. I received no threats, nor any PMs as I recall. If there was dark stuff going on among other posters, then it didn't involve me and I was blissfully unaware of it. As always, I know how to keep myself at arm's length here (an annoying trait in the eyes of some but a good way of protecting oneself, I find). So far in this thread, our resident idiot has implied that I might be "the troll", you have persistently tried to cast doubt on my honesty, Janie makes snide remarks about what was a light-hearted exchange with a fellow well known for his little digs (with which I'm perfectly fine, actually - see you soon, Snail! Oops, sorry, Janie, for trying again to add levity to the heavy mix...), and a moderator unjustly accuses me of "demanding information".      


Yet you can say this to me,, eh? --- You discredit yourself.

Funny man!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 06:59 AM

I have wondered that I didn't hear back.

And you not going to now. The message, which took me a long time to prepare, got lost in the ether. The moment has passed. Suffice to say that I did not find your somewhat lengthy PM very enlightening. Which is hardly surprising with a bloke who didn't have the slightest inkling about any of it. Even some of the assumed names of the alleged culprit meant nothing to me. Cue Richard to cast doubt on that, of course. One person you accused of being involved has a track record here of opposing fascism and antisemitism at every turn, yet they appear to be on your list of troll names. I don't get that, but please don't bother explaining. I don't want to be accused of demanding stuff. This is your gig, not mine.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 08:02 AM

Steve, you said "I don't appreciate veiled threats". It seems you fail to understand what you actually said.

You don't even seem to understand how the troll picked the false names for his constructs.

You are behaving like a troll.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 08:18 AM

Steve Shaw
a light-hearted exchange with a fellow well known for his little digs (with which I'm perfectly fine, actually - see you soon, Snail!

Well, actually, you said "the likes of you and Adolf" called me a fascist and implied I was a racist. You included me in the same category as pete with the stars in his eyes and (I hesitate to use the word in polite company) called me a neo-Darwinist. I think your idea of light-hearted might not be quite the same as others.

(and you challenged my use of erstwhile!)

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 08:35 AM

"I assume you are calling criticism of the Israeli government "anti Semitic?"

I assume you are trying to dodge my question by ignoring what I did ask and replacing it with what you would like to think. So I will repeat; "Does UK law allow for propagating antisemitic hatred as defined by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)?"

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 08:57 AM

You reckon UN are anti semitic so what the fuck you think about the EUMC Clapton alone knows...

The regulators of such matters in The UK are CEHR, (Commission for Equality and Human Rights.) I helped them formulate an audit tool for monitoring public sector equality schedules. Fascinating subject when you strip away the ethnic skirt persona and look at how people and labels get pinned to each other.

A bit like your confusion between Israel and Judaism. Or Palestine and Hammas.

Poo Bad. Your convoluted attempts at defending the indefensible create an image of a one legged bloke at an arse kicking contest, they really do.

Still, you can make me smile, and that can't be that bad. Although smiling at dismal attitudes isn't really the best approach. I should ignore you really but you get better each time you try to attack people.

You can't even stand up to Jim and that old bugger could start an argument in an empty room.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 09:15 AM

I have merely dipped in a couple of places into this paper on the definition to which bobad refers.

The bits I have seen are gibberish, if one is looking for an actual definition.

http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/proceeding-all_3.pdf

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 09:29 AM

I understand why you are afraid to answer my question Musket.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 09:53 AM

When I say I don't appreciate veiled threats I know exactly what I mean. You implied that I was not qualified to comment as my family had yet to be threatened and that I should wait until they have been. I have no idea how trolls pick names any more than I understand how anyone else picks names. I never indulge in online subterfuge and don't investigate how I could undertake it. In my view, that leaves me in an eminently more sensible place than a few other folks around here. In fact, I didn't even know about the bloody troll at all until yesterday, and we do appear to be talking about not-so-recent history. If trying as muscularly as possible to prevent you and SRS from misrepresenting what I say is trolling, well that isn't my idea of trolling. I think you're acting like a bloody twit who can't put a coherent case together, as if you need to anyway. If calling you that makes me a troll, then your misrepresentations make you a quadruple troll. Now I'm getting bloody fed up of the tiresome both of you so I may just do my bored-with-this-silly-thread bit. Or I may not. God knows.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 09:59 AM

Snail, take it to thread it comes out of if you want a scrap. I have too much to do to be scrabbling round finding stuff from days of yore. That's homework I can do without. I've spent yonks already today looking up stuff from Richard Bridge that turned out to be irrelevant bollox from the past. I forget stuff in a heartbeat. Stick a post in the relevant thread, why don't you. Not here. Fer chrissake, not here. If you dichotomise, I may well lobotomise.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:01 AM

Which question was that?

Anti semitism is illegal in terms of publishing or otherwise influencing opinion without evidence. It comes under protection given to established religions.

Is that better? or do you want it easy read? Mudcat doesn't have the learning disabilities plug in I'm afraid so pictorial isn't available. If you go to BBC News and look at video footage of Israelis bombing civilians, that is pictorial enough though.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:07 AM

Still dodging.....it's ok, I understand.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:27 AM

UK Law does not allow for propagating anti semitic hatred.

Do you want it through the medium of fucking dance or what?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:36 AM

"UK Law does not allow for propagating anti semitic hatred."

So are going to report those here who have violated that law like you reported Ake?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:38 AM

"UK Law does not allow for propagating anti semitic hatred."

So are you going to report those here who have violated that law like you reported Ake?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:40 AM

Gonna name one? Any?

I have been reading most of your racist diatribe against the Palestinians so I am sure if I saw any, I would notice it.

Whether I or anybody else would feel the need to report it is up to those who feel strongly about it.

Show me some?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:44 AM

Lads.... Lads... just a reminder ... this is the 'mods bashing' thread.

"Small hope for Israel/Palestine" is further down the corridor between the Gents toilet and the pool table room......

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:45 AM

Musket - I quite like that sort of dancing... :-)

Steve - Maybe it is something to do with being brought up in a Manchester suburb in the 1950's? ;-) I thought it was just me had these problems but I can see you are also suffering from what I have termed different language syndrome. I can see exactly what you are saying but, having been spoofed myself, I can see what some others are on about too. Unfortunately my befuddled little brain usually gives up a this point. It's not like it matters. It is mainly a win-win. Those who want to win the argument believe they have and I, like you I guess, really could not give a shit.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:46 AM

Are you denying that no one here has ever drawn comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 10:53 AM

bobad, unless anyone is rash enough to compare mudcat mods policy to that of the Nazis?

Then I humbly suggest you have wandered into the wrong room.

...really, "Small hope for Israel/Palestine" is further down the corridor between the Gents toilet and the pool table room......

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:01 AM

It seems it's a generic thread for bitching, so of course, all the trolls and troll fuckers are going to post according to their usual scripts.

Maybe we should close it. (On-topic sarcasm.)

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:03 AM

What has Israeli policy to do with semitism or anti semitism?

I for one will happily denounce the Israeli government, but I fail to see the link you purposely make in order to try to make a case for the behaviour of a country.

Clunt. He followed me in, and if I stuff his head down the bowl and flush it, that's my business. 12 pints of Armitages' best usually clears the head.

Though I suspect Bobad will have enough of a hangover after he and his mate Beardedbruce have finished celebrating the deaths of hundreds of innocent people by a rogue nation.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:06 AM

Around and around he goes as he slithers away dodging left and right leaving his trail of slime behind.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:08 AM

Sorry if I'm not taking you very seriously Steve but you do seem to have descended into self-parody.
On this thread, you referred to our "light-hearted exchange".
On this thread, I pointed out that in our last exchange you had, in part, been grossly offensive and, in part, totally incomprehensible.

Stick a post in the relevant thread, why don't you.

I'm still waiting for your responses to a couple of posts of mine on that thread. They can be found here -

thread.cfm?threadid=154775&messages=198#3638007

thread.cfm?threadid=154775&messages=198#3638073

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:11 AM

Hi Jeri,.. right, I'm off for a mug of tea and a strum on me guitar.

Dunno if it's the hot weather but I'm starting to feel maybe my own latent 'inner mod tendencies'
may be trying to break out....???

..gotta fight the urge to keep folks on topic and make them leave their chairs tidily under the desk
before they leave to go home...


oh.. these damned inner demons....

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:34 AM

You quit the cider, then?
It's a turrible, turrible curse to not want people not to joltingly shift to the usual politics/religion/gay rights subjects. The whole BS side of the forum seems to be a self parody. I'm trying to learn to laugh at threads like this one.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:40 AM

Some laugh, some cry, some fight the good fight, others not so much.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:42 AM

Basic offences relating to racial hatred. See Part 3 Public Order Act 1986 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

Later bits about religion are inserted into the Public Order Act as Part 3A by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/contents

Then sexual orientation (the bit that puts Akenhateon at risk) was added to part 3A by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (see section 74 and Schedule 16) here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/contents


Make your own blickies, I CBA

You will note that the material has to be "threatening" to amount to an offence under part 3A whereas the original part 3 offences apply to "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or [the] display [of] written material".

I would need to think more about the importance of the difference in wording in relation to the differences in nuance between references to Jews and Zionists and Jews who had abandoned their religion.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:43 AM

Jeri, hmmmm... last I heard, the person you're maybe thinking of is rumoured to be in a deep coma
since a bizarre hazardous incident involving an englfing spillage from an overturned 'Thatchers' Cider delivery lorry...???

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:44 AM

Bob, at what point does "the good fight" become pointless, repetitive nastiness? I'm honestly curious about whens a person gets tired of the same old stuff and walks away to find something that's actually fun.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:47 AM

I'm on the verge Jeri.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:51 AM

CL!NT, thank you. I'll pray for him, in an atheist sort of way.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,CL!NT WESTWOOD
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:56 AM

cheers Jeri.. that's cool, he never could understand the need for deities .....


see ya...

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 05:58 PM

Post in the thread in question, Snail. I have given up doing links for Lent. Lent started this morning at the precise moment that Richard had me chasing around for irrelevant posts which he thought proved some silly point he was trying to make. There is a thread that contains the stuff you are whingeing about. If you don't post in that thread, I'm not listening. If you follow me into threads like this one that are entirely unconnected with your beef, then you're stalking. Post in the relevant thread, which will nicely rise to the top for you, or else just shut up.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 06:11 PM

Really poor? Yeah too bloody right. Now I've had a perfectly reasonable post deleted that had carefully addressed Richard Bridge's misrepresentations and other stupidities. The moderation here appears to be completely arbitrary and based on whether the mod in question (and, mod in question, you know who you are) likes you or not. Deletions of that nature make a complete nonsense of the thread and bring the place into disrepute. Maybe Richard is SRS's uncle. Go on, mod in question. Support a bloke who impugns someone else's rock-solid honesty, just because you don't care for that someone else. Consider yourself utterly diminished. That's how I see you at any rate.

---

Many would claim the thread is complete nonsense already. --mudelf

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 06:24 PM

The evidence, Steve Shaw, is against you. Your own conduct does not assist you. You are behaving like a troll. Unless and until you decide to stop acting like a troll, and cease so to act, I intend to treat you as one - viz and to wit, to refrain from feeding you. Good night, and calm down dear.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 06:56 PM


1) People might want to back off. That means everyone.
2) IF YOU'RE A MODERATOR WHO WANTS TO JOIN IN THE FIGHT, DO IT WITH YOUR NAME AND NOT INSIDE OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS.

Thanks for reading

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:34 PM

Alas, Steve, the thread (which was called "Scientific misconceptions") has been closed. Perhaps the moderators are trying to protect you. It stands forever in the archives looking very much as if I so thoroughly demolished your arguments that you ran away whimpering with your tail between your legs. It's still there for you (or anyone else) to look at by following the links I gave above.

Steve Shaw
If you follow me into threads like this one that are entirely unconnected with your beef, then you're stalking.

Previously from Steve Shaw
Janie makes snide remarks about what was a light-hearted exchange with a fellow well known for his little digs (with which I'm perfectly fine, actually - see you soon, Snail!

Be careful what you wish for.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:42 PM

Then, Snail, start a new thread. I refuse to go hunting for stuff you say I said yonks ago. Even if I said it, which I probably did. And I love your sense of humour, by the way. Moderators defending ME. Bwahahahaha!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:53 PM

The evidence is against me? When I painstakingly prepare a post that comprehensively ditches your idiocy, along with that of our resident very troubled moderator (God, why the hell does she bother??), and it gets deleted, whereas all your bile gets left alone, the evidence is no longer there. You calling troll repeatedly does not make it more true every time. Au contraire, it reveals the threadbare nature of your shoulder-chip. The only person around here who thinks that repeating a claim over and over again will make it more true is Sailor Jack, and you're making him look like a bloody paragon of virtue. You know summat? I thought you were OK on the whole, with only a touch of twattishness on occasion. Now I wish I'd listened to Musket all along. You are a thorough and complete twat of the first order. You make real trolls look positively respectable. Nighty night. For now.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:59 PM

Well Jeri (are you a mod??), I know not whether you're backing me up or not (never fear, I'm fine on me tod). But yes, that was a pretty inane intervention by "mudelf" there. Nothing to say, eh, mudelf, so best say nothing. Was it you who deleted my post, by the way? And, if so, why? Do bear in mind that, as ever, I'm not "demanding information". It's your gig, not mine. Keep calm and carry on, as my mug says.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:44 PM

Let's just call this thread a draw.