 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Emotional Subjects
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Jun 18 - 02:19 AM And so yet another thread gets closed. A subject which many of us have thoughts and feelings and areas of ignorance that would bear discussion - but dammit here we go again - unable to lend any governance to our tongues in the freedom offered us by cyberspace. Actually - a thread getting closed is not the worst of it The worst of it is the number of people , who just look over our shoulders and say - I don't want to be part of donnybrook like mudcat - I'm off. A couple of times, I've disappeared for a few months, driven away by jeers, amateur Paxmans picking me up on my political correctness on subjects close to my heart, but folk music (or my vision of it) has been my life and mudcat is a place I have a right better than most to occupy. The point is that a lot of people don't come back.. They piss off and that's it - the last we see of them. Good people with interesting and different points of view from our own - divergent thinkers. Often they are people who don't express themselves like some guarded politician with nothing more than a gobfull of platitudes to offer. They have lived close to the nexus of a situation and they see it and express it in stark terms. You have the right to demand blandness, uniformity, conformity to every convenient truism designed to paint the world in magnolia and pacify the hard of understanding. but i wish you wouldn't. if you never listen to other people, and take in the way they express themselves. you will never understand any other point of view than your own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 02:34 AM I have always respected what you are trying to do Al, but you really are asking a lot None us us are skilled debaters, but most people bring something to these discussions, if it's only passion for the subject I found the closure of the last thread unnecessary, but that's my opinion - I accept part of the blame for once more becoming exasperated over something that is very much a part of my life at present - not an academic subject but a part of day-to-day living I've said we need to clean up our own act rather than rely on the mods to do it for us - so far, we've failed to do so I have little doubt that this thread, if it is allowed to continue, will eventually degenerate into a blame-game and go the way of all the others Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: DMcG Date: 02 Jun 18 - 02:38 AM if you never listen to other people, and take in the way they express themselves. you will never understand any other point of view than your own. I agree with that 100%. As I have said over on the Brexit thread, I am happy to talk to anyone as long as they appear to be making a serious attempt to understand other's remarks. And to stress, understanding is not the same as agreeing. But being passionate about a point of view should never blind us to the fact that other people can have a passionate point of view of their own that is different. If it does, we get into a row where one view tries to batter the other into submission, which never works, often turns into abuse and ultimately thread closures. So if we do want to "understand", rather than "win arguments", we need to let other people have their say without feeling the need to attach everything they say, and trust to the intelligence of third parties to judge who has the better case. There are cases where you have to take a stronger position, but they all happen in real life, not in forums. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:03 AM Oh wouldn't it be excellent if all posters had the same wise and measured style as the three posters above? Discussions could continue ad infinitum, and we could reach interesting conclusions, learn about eachothers' viewpoints and have a lovely, informative thread. Sigh... if only... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:17 AM I concur. I find the statement about understanding rather than winning of particular relevance. This forum is not a debating society, it is for discussions and in discussions no one loses. Everyone should feel that they have gained knowledge, even if they disagree with the points made! Unfortunately not everyone will agree and sadly, Al, when the ones who want to win get on here your well intentioned thread will most likely suffer the same fate as many others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:58 AM Wild unsubstantiated statements designed purely to goad have no place on this forum. It is not a difficult task to distinguish between fact and your opinion when posting. Deliberately mixing the two and tying to act the innocent when called out leads to unnecessary argument and strife. Facts can always be checked and verified irregardless of source. Where these facts lead in the way of interpretation and opinion is entirely subjective and can lead to interesting discussion. It is entirely possible to debate opposing views without resorting to exaggeration, provocative, totally unsubstantiated labels and insults. To impose bigoted views on the forum and allow no counter view is guaranteed to kill a thread. This is in essence what we are repeatedly seeing. It is not a game of winners and losers, it is a case of outlining your point of view and attempting to understand the rationale behind opposing views. Getting upset and creating progressively more inflammatory responses only achieves negatives. The thread closes and good people run away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: peteglasgow Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:20 AM yes, i've pushed off a few times. recently it has become common to bicker about whether particular frequent posters should be ignored in the hope they will be encouraged to stop posting. i tend to post occasionally and rarely get any response at all - while reading all sorts of rubbish about intricate points of ancient squabbles and how best to ignore each other. it's not a very kind or interesting place really..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:21 AM All excellent points. There are ways (in real life as well as on a forum) of putting across a point of view in a discussion without being goady or confrontational. For example, one can say, " However, I believe that..." rather than this or that 'is definitely the case and you're totally wrong'. And to show one is listening and learning, one can say, "That's most interesting..." before giving an opposite idea. Things like 'Have you considered?', 'That might be so but...' 'I respect your view, however I see it rather differently...' are much more polite than 'At it again (name)? More of your usual rubbish? You're an idiot/racist/anti-semitic/etc The saddest thing is Iains' last point: 'The thread closes and good people run away.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:40 AM Well there's already one post in this thread that's got me scratching my head in disbelief. ............................................................................................. Sorry, Pete, but I disagree about ignoring repeat offenders. It's by far the best way of frustrating them and not getting drawn into pointless squabbles. I also think that, in an honest forum, we shouldn't pussyfoot around people who post intolerant, insulting, lying or bigoted things. Of course, there are diplomatic ways of handling those things, but a blanket "let's try to understand..." philosophy is pusillanimous. Some people just need to be told. Perhaps in a slightly nicer way than we sometimes manage. Sorry for denting the delicate tone of the thread, but... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:43 AM Going back to my earlier point about this not being an formal debate, I think that 'wild unsubstantiated statements' are all part of the rich tapestry of discussion. If you know it is not correct it is easy enough to say 'I think that is not right because...' and leave it at that. No need for insults or requests for justification. As DMcG said let other people decide which point has more merit and don't try to browbeat anyone. Use the old salesman's rule - put up and shut up:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:43 AM if you never listen to other people, and take in the way they express themselves. you will never understand any other point of view than your own. I so agree Al, and I live by that. I engage with anyone whatever their views and never resort to abuse or personal attack. I also believe that the belligerence and abusiveness of a group here towards anyone who challenges their own prejudice and preconceptions deters people from contributing and drives them away. Most people do not like to be so abused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:47 AM You're right of course Iain, there are ways of expressing yourself that upset no one. But the point I'm trying to make is, the reason that there is a situation in NI, Israel/Palestine, cowboys/red indians , etc is that there is conflict. you will not ever come to understand another person's view unless at some point you take on board what he is saying rather than poncing around saying - oooh that's not very nice! -if he expresses himself in language that he naturally uses, and the sheer depth of feeling inherent - which has its root somewhere in his/her understanding. in a minute, the all important lie detector results..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: peteglasgow Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:47 AM steve, i think you have misread my post. i'm not talking about whether anyone should or shouldn't be ignored. i'm saying that it is a bit boring (for me anyway) to be forever reading about these squabbles - while being ignored myself |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:52 AM Al, I did object to Jim's use of "prod." I took that to be a sectarian term of abuse, equivalent to racism. Sorry if I got that wrong, but are you sure that it is not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: peteglasgow Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:55 AM thanks, keith for immediately illustrating the point i was making. top squabbling! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:02 AM I am going to step back for a while and see how this thread develops. I have some strong views on the subject of emotional subjects, but for now I merely observe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:03 AM Personally I believe that constant repitition, twists of logic, pre judging any individual or group as enemies and blatant dishonesty are far more off putting than robust rebuttals or ribald language. But others may well disagree. Others will never see anyone else's POV and try to force other people to agree with them. When that happens too often it is far better to just ignore them than engage in pointless, circular arguments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: peteglasgow Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:05 AM what post got closed and why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:12 AM Like the statues argument. The statue may be anachronistic. However - does that mean that the person and the reasons for erecting that statue were without honour or just cause? And the same with language. Oliver cromwell did all kinds of damage , vandalised all sorts of beautiful artefacts - even the crown of England. Churchill's wife ripped up the Graham Sutherland 's painting of the old man. Sutherland was a much greater artist than her old man. We destroyed all the Nazi works of art we could lay our hands on after the war. But did we miss a truth hidden somewhere? When we say - your mode of expression is so unutterably vile that we must stall the conversation. I think its a sort of defeat for us all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:16 AM http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14781611.Use_of_word__hun__and__Jock__of_limited_concern_but__fenian__and__prod__is_unacceptable__says_Ofcom/ The link does work. try it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:16 AM "Wild unsubstantiated statements designed purely to goad have no place on this forum. Nobody individual the right to decide what has a place here and what doesn't (within reason) What you may regard as wild and unsubstantiated seldom are Even if they were, nobody has any right to censor anything they don't agree with - statements are made to be challenged What has no place here are hate postings; they need to be reprted and dealt with by those in charge What is unacceptable is the serial abusing of other posters - one of the conditions of membership is that we respect each other's right to post; some people have been barred from this section for such behaviour; quite rightly I am upset that the thread on Northern Ireland was closed - it is very much an ongoing issue I intend to attempt to start another today and respectfully request that it is treated with the gravity it deserves Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:18 AM Could be a reference to the second go at an abortion thread, Pete. Pete, I've always respected your views and appreciate the measured way in which you put them across. If a post doesn't get a response it doesn't mean it's been ignored. I read every one of your posts,which is more than I can say about a lot of people's. Sometimes, if "you've said it all," a response may be superfluous. Backwoodsman is rather good at this: he's been known to tear me to shreds over the odd issue, but when he agrees (especially about brexit) he might just post "Amen to that, Steve!" Maybe a bit more of that wouldn't come amiss... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:21 AM Can somebody please ask Keith to stop posting his argument dfrom another thread before he closes this one Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:25 AM I dunno Keith. I was doing a gig in Nottingham in a pub, and knowing next to nowt about anything, I was playing and singing On the One Road. The landlady rushed up to me and insisted that I stopped immediately in case her patrons and customers (whom presumably she knew) started fighting. I was re-telling the incident to Bob Stokes (The Dublin Busker) and he said, that's a rebel song...? I never knew that! we all used to sing it when we were being marched to the swimming baths in a crocodile, when we were little kids... I don't think the intention to inflame is always there with the song, or with the term proddy dog. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: DMcG Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:37 AM I second Steve's remark, pete. I have always read your posts when I come across them. Whether I respond or not is much more related to whether I have anything that even I imagine is remotely worth saying than on the post I appear to be ignoring. (I do try to read everyone's posts on threads I am active in, but if one is more than a screens worth, or there have been dozens appeared since I last looked, my patience may give out. That's my failing, not the posters.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Backwoodsman Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:43 AM "Pete, I've always respected your views and appreciate the measured way in which you put them across. If a post doesn't get a response it doesn't mean it's been ignored. I read every one of your posts,which is more than I can say about a lot of people's. Sometimes, if "you've said it all," a response may be superfluous. Backwoodsman is rather good at this: he's been known to tear me to shreds over the odd issue, but when he agrees (especially about brexit) he might just post "Amen to that, Steve!" Maybe a bit more of that wouldn't come amiss..." Amen to that, Steve. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:44 AM In the interests of economy and my sanity, I rarely bother with links that are posted without supporting remarks, or links to the Daily Express, Daily Mail or Guido Fawkes. I've generally found that these "sources" fail to distinguish between fact and opinion... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:01 AM Well.... Lets take it as its worst interpretration. This term me and my Catholic cousins from the green side of the family, and me and my orange ones have been using since we were five. honestly Keith and Iain are you spluttering with rage. unable to continue, angered to the bone, reduced to speechless fury... I mean seriously...are we buggery. Fess up, it carries all the conviction of Jeff Thompson's appeals for LBW. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:04 AM "Amen to that, Steve." Amen to that Baccy :-) Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:18 AM I used the terms prodydog and catlick on another thread with no censure. They were terms we used as kids in fun but if anyone was seriously offended I would have apologised and stopped. It is as much context as the terms themselves. Take the word 'Brit'. It can be a simple description of someone British or, in context, be derogatory. It is not beyond any of our wits to see how it is being used yet someone will undoubtedly take offence regardless of the intent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Backwoodsman Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:24 AM "In the interests of economy and my sanity, I rarely bother with links that are posted without supporting remarks, or links to the Daily Express, Daily Mail or Guido Fawkes. I've generally found that these "sources" fail to distinguish between fact and opinion..." Amen to that, with bells on, Steve! ;-) On the subject of agreement with the views of those with whom one usually disagrees, or disagreement with those with whom one usually agrees, IMHO doing either of those things is not in any way a sign of 'weakness' or that one has 'lost' the argument. In fact, acknowledging worth in something your opponent in discussion has said, is a sign of one's own strength of character and strength of confidence. I've had strong disagreements occasionally with Big Al, Jim, Steve, and Musket(s), all of whom I'm generally in alignment with as far as our respective viewpoints go, and I've agreed with Teribus/Iains, whom I usually regard as being positioned slightly to the Right of Attila the Hun but who, in his more rational, lucid moments, is very capable of making balanced, thoughtful contributions. Perhaps if we all tried to acknowledge the good, as well as challenge the bad, in others' posts, and respond to the entire content of posts rather than selective isolation of one individual point amongst a number being made in those posts, the level of heat might be kept within acceptable limits? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:37 AM "I used the terms prodydog and catlick" Me too - one is a lighthearted taunt, "Prod" is an abbreviation and nothing more There are far more vitriolic words to give offence if that is your intention I have always made the point that my argument is with the church and the bigots - not the believers Perhaps we can finish with this once and for all Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:49 AM Al, I did not splutter with rage. This was my whole post, "I do not think you should use your sectarian language on here Jim." Ofcom says that word is unacceptable too. Jim, "Paki" is another unacceptable abbreviation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:58 AM I asked can we finish this - my posting was designed to do just that and stop people speaking up on my behalf I suggest if you have problems with what other people are saying you open a thread - maybee you'd like to make it on all forms of abuse that people have to suffer in this intolerant wporld Jim Caarroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:59 AM You may totally disagree with the slant on events given by outlets like Daily Express, Daily Mail or Guido Fawkes, as is your perfect right. However the factual content has to be correct otherwise they would be pilloried pillar to post. When does this happen? You may dislike intensely the political slant of a source but the factual content may often be the only place you will easily find it. Too many on this forum are too ready to condemn the messenger outright and are blind and oblivious to the message. Is this not short sighted? Even the guardian has something to say although it would give a met. forecast with a lean to the left despite the coriolis force. As a very minor example Tommy Robinson. In his early days he was far more of a thug than an angel, there is no dispute on this. On the mainstream media he is still portrayed as a thug. However study the youtube talk he gave to the Oxford Union in 2015.(I believe) Then form your own opinion. At the moment the online petition for his release stands at 573,000 signatures. Ask yourself the following. Did people sign because they believe his mainstream depiction as a thug is accurate? Or did they sign because they feel he has a valid statement to make and is being stifled? Do you think his arrest was legitimate, or was he stitched up? As I have said before bias exists in all reporting. If you refuse to acknowledge that the opposition may on occasions be more factually correct and therefore modify your previous convictions, then you are the one that is disadvantaged in the long run. The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant. Maximilien Robespierre |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 07:13 AM There is a huge difference between fact and opinion. The sources quoted do not differentiate between the two and an alternate version should always be given to aid balance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: DMcG Date: 02 Jun 18 - 07:32 AM It is not a difficult task to distinguish between fact and your opinion when posting There is a subtlety in that that is easily missed. It is indeed easy to distinguish between the original article and *your* opinion. Rather more difficult is when the original article freely mixes the 'fact' and the opinion. And then the facts themselves are not always easy to get at and understand. Financial and other economic data in particular is extremely sensitive to the time period chosen and the precise measurements taken and definitions used. Such bias in determining economic 'facts', intentional or otherwise, is commonplace. The Sun, Express and Daily Mail tend to be more prone to mixing fact and opinion than most of the others, in my opinion, though all media is prone to it to a greater or lesser extent. You are entitled to disagree, naturally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 02 Jun 18 - 07:45 AM There is a huge difference between fact and opinion. Yes but does the BBC, Times, Guardian etc always clearly differentiate. They are all equally guilty - some more than others. On a related note referring back to the Robinson case. A 'D' notice was put in place to stifle debate. D notices were originally designed to cover security matters.To impose it on the Robinson jailing smacks of Orwellian abuse of power. Does that not worry you ? It has been discussed worldwide and also spread by alternative media, but initially not a peep from British sources. I recommend you read the article linked. Look at the reporting of the numbers involved in the protest outside Downing Street by various sources. Very interesting! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 02 Jun 18 - 07:46 AM https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/tommy_robinson_case_gag_order_on_british_media_lifted_in_the_face_of_worldwide_prot It helps to paste the link - Apologies |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 08:26 AM I do not take any one source as being the end of the story. All news sources display some bias of either commission of omission. Some are worse than others. I do tend to provide links that are an alternative to the sources we are discussing purely for balance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 08:30 AM Why are we going over closed subjects ? A sure-fire one to make this one of them Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Jun 18 - 08:49 AM well i think you have to show a certain circumspection when dealing with known villains. I think it was wise to keep the bathroom door locked if George Joseph Smith had taken out an insurance policy on you. https://soundcloud.com/denise_whittle/george-joseph-smith |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: bobad Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:05 AM Ah yes, squabbling about squabbling, this is what the forum has devolved to. It's no wonder the smart ones have left. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:33 AM oThere is a fair amount of wisdom and gold dust on BS, but occasionally there are some large nuggets. for example: Creation doesn't "come from" somewhere. It is what you bring into being from nothingness, an act of aware will, POW! That's where inspiration comes from. Hooking up with enough of your lost, scattered, disconnected, discombobulated, or denied bits of awareness to bring some back together again with a rush of accompanying energy, a proper Shazaam of the soul. Why go around painting yourself as another power? Amos on the care and feeding of muses. We all know there are people who do not possess a flexible and open mind and feel assaulted if you call upon them to even temporarily adopt a new POV. Perhaps when conspiracy theories crossed over into the mainstream we all have become more callous to protect the truth in which we respect. I now have a President who says "Remember that shit I just made up, get to the bottom of it!" And there are people who will take that job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:45 AM " It's no wonder the smart ones have left." You're still here Bobad - that's an admission of your own limitations I presume It's comments like that that case half a good deal of the trouble, Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:49 AM There is nothing wrong with challenging nuggets in order to learn more. What if its only fool's gold? Colbert invented the word 'truthiness' to describe a lie that feels so good its got to be true. When pilots make this kind of mistake they often crash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:51 AM Steve, Sorry, Pete, but I disagree about ignoring repeat offenders. It's by far the best way of frustrating them and not getting drawn into pointless squabbles If you mean me Steve, I am not in the least frustrated by your silly embargo. You could never answer anyway, and that is the real reason for it. What is a "pointless squabble?" A discussion where you are unable to produce arguments in support of your case! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jeri Date: 02 Jun 18 - 10:28 AM At some point, these fights become 100% personal. That point is, with increased frequency, the first post. "Pointless squabble" - click on Keith's name in his posts. These things can go on for years, with no resolution, and none intended. Just an excuse to bloviate, ad barfium. It's the geezers meeting at the country store, the breakfast club, the pub, and just taking up the fight where they left off, and they figure if they sound passionate enough, people might think they actually care. If they sound knowledgeable enough, somebody might think they're smart. Newsflash: the likeliest thing people might think is "Oh, does he never shut up?!" But then, the internet is a write-only medium. Nobody cares about who's doing the reading. It's easy enough for me to ignore, but imagine what a newbie might think. I doubt the usual 5 or 6 combatants (with occasional drop-ins) care, and that is a shame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 10:29 AM Part of the problem is people who only come on to argue rather than to just chat to others and learn. Couple of prime examples have already been demonstrated on this thread and if it continues the thread will inevitably go toxic and be closed. Shame really but it was a nice try, Al. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 10:49 AM Cross posted. Well said, Jeri. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Jun 18 - 11:03 AM Dave, Part of the problem is people who only come on to argue rather than to just chat to others and learn. That is not how I see it. I like serious discussion including of "emotional subjects." Is that wrong? Is that being argumentative? I can discuss food and nature any time so I tend not to join such "chat." is that wrong? The problems only start when people get angry and post in anger. Why do they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 02 Jun 18 - 11:15 AM What do readers think when a person agrees with a previous poster and in the next sentence says something nasty about them, something tells me that they have a problem about knowing when to finish a post in quality not quantity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Stilly River Sage Date: 02 Jun 18 - 11:32 AM Agree with Jeri. Some good threads have been rescued, but it involves a very close reading and finding the point to start removing the insulting personal slug fests. When it turns personal and "the usual 5 or 6 combatants" pile on threads generally can't be restored to the original conversation. Too bad, because some of them start out interesting and informative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 11:58 AM Agree with that too, Acme. I have been guilty of joining the club tests on occasion but I do try avoid the more confrontational posters nowadays and have been a lot happier for it. I highly recommend just making your point without being sidelined into pointless justifications and verbal gymnastics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 18 - 12:00 PM Club tests=slug fests. Damn you auto incorrect! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jeri Date: 02 Jun 18 - 12:18 PM "What do readers think...?" "Readers" don't exist. People don't write for other people. or You folks who get involved in these arguments constantly, answer this (silently, please - it's not rhetorical, but I'd really like people to THINK about it) - 1. Why do you write? 2. Who are you writing for? 3. What outcome would make you think you could stop? My opinion would be 1. I write because I like the sound of my own "voice". 2. I write for me, because I know people (other than opponents) don't read this stuff. 3. Stop!!!??? As if... In short, I think the fights are carried out by people who have a psychopathic belief that they are the only people who matter. A universe of one. And yes, I'm one of those sad people who remember being able to talk to people who seemed like friends, and during the discussion, at least, we seemed to like each other. We wanted to find how we could fit our violin brains in with their guitar brains and make good music. I miss it, but I think Mudcat BS is over the edge and plummeting into just-another-online-hatefest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Jun 18 - 12:32 PM Jeri, my answers, 1. Why do you write? Like so many people, I enjoy the exchange of views. I like having mine challenged and questioning those of others. Think debating society or TV/radio current affairs debate progs. I love those too. 2. Who are you writing for? The other contributors. Mostly I respond to something they have said and put something to them. 3. What outcome would make you think you could stop? I do stop when the discussion has run its course, or the others resort to abuse. I do not like "hatefests" either. Why do some people get so angry when disagreed with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 02 Jun 18 - 12:45 PM ..so far i am exercising heroic self restraint... I might start another BS thread later on a particular topic of interest to UK mudcatters, if no one else does before me... But even now I can predict how it will run and be ended... and by who... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 02 Jun 18 - 01:09 PM Jeri I'm mostly a reader along with a number of others and I write mostly when I see people making uncalled for attacks on other posters or attempts at cyber bullying. I find Mudcat with no equal in the field of international folk music. Recently I posted a link to a thread from a number of years ago where the emotions were as high as now but with different personnel but not so personal and nasty and I thought "come back Conrad Bladey all is forgiven" after a further read and think I agreed that his departure was a good thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:16 PM Jeri I can only speak for myself, but I have been left with the impression that most people here post for the same reason I do, because the subjects we post on interest us I have had a lifelong interest in both politics and music - I've been active in both since I was a teenager This forum satisfies both in enabling me to share ideas with others I had no problem doing so regularly in Britain where I lived in three major cities - no longer the case in rural Ireland, so I am grateful to be able to continue to share ideas with people who share my interests Over the time I have been here I have learned a tremendous amount from others and have been inspired to look elsewhere based on these discussions Most of us have no voice, no outlet for our ideas and no opportunity to add or subtract from them Without naming names, the few who don't and who give the appearance of treating these discussions as a win/lose game spoil it for those who don't behave like that A few, a believe, come to use this forum as a propaganda platform - I know some people in the past have been thrown off for doing so. I was appalled recently when this forum was used to promote a known Nazi and collect signatures to protest his arrest To be honest, I take offence as your "psychopathic" reference - you would have closed a thread if one of us had said similar Some of us take our interests seriously and blow our tops occasionally - I may be disremembering but wasn't it a mod who blew her top and became abusive at an adverse comment about Bob Dylan ? It happens to the best of us I was asked to ne a mod once - a long, long time ago - must have been far more moderate than I am now! Personally, I wouldn't have your job for a big clock - it must be as difficult as herding fog and certainly as thankless Some of us have tried to clean up our own act and those of others - it's worked to a degree but some differences in attitude seem impossible to resolve I decided to handle one of my main problems by ignoring the person involved and I suggested to some I knew felt as I did that they did the same - reading some of the comments here - it seems your damned if you do, you're damned if you don't It's never a question of disagreement - happy to disagree until the cows come home - I sorely miss a poster who died some time ago, though, whenever certain subjects came up we virtually spat at each other, yet we continued to be friends - there aren't many MtheGMs around It really is a matter of self-awareness and behaviour - that goes for all of us. I think there has to be a Plimsoll Line of behaviour below which we don't tolerate I have always been disappointed that there are not many people from other cultures on this forum, both above and below the line - If I were an immigrant or a Traveller I wouldn't come near this site without protective clothing - it's bad enough having Irish connections sometimes. There are nowhere near enough women posting - this does tend to be a WASP boys club I too am sad to have seen people depart, and I feel guilty that I may have been part of them doing so That feeling appears not to be shared by some people until it is we will continue to have these problems Sorry to bang on - thanks fro your toleration Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:17 PM Whoops - sorry Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Backwoodsman Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:45 PM Amen to all of that, Jim - a considered, thoughtful, well-articulated post IMHO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:49 PM Jeri poses a good question: Why do I write? I don't know that there's an easy answer to that. I suppose I write mostly for myself, but always with others in mind. I suppose I'm not as certain about my thinking as other people are about theirs. One big reason why I write, it to test out my thinking before myself and those who read what I write. If I can put it down on paper (or a computer screen) and have it make sense, then I think I'm getting somewhere. The process of writing, is part of my process of thinking - writing things out helps me to formulate my thinking, to put shape to what was nebulous. Most of the time, I find that once I write things out, my ideas are not quite as profound as I thought they were. The exception is, that the messages I post that don't "take" and disappear forever, are my most profound thoughts that would really impress all of you with how wise I really am..... -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:25 PM "I was appalled recently when this forum was used to promote a known Nazi and collect signatures to protest his arrest" So would I be! Hmmmm! Is this not a prime example of the wild and inflammatory statements that generate the nastiness that leads to thread closure(and very rightly in my opinion) Who is the nazi? Who is collecting signatures on this forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:35 PM I post on various threads because I love to chat and to learn about other people's views and experiences, especially those from other countries. I've learnt an awful lot on here over the years. I suppose I just enjoy making contact with my fellow human beings and exchanging thoughts and ideas. I do love people (always have) and talk to anyone, in supermarkets, at bus stops, at the doctor's, and most folk love to respond and have their say. Mudcat is like that too. I don't mind strong opinions, but there comes a point where it gets unnecessarily nasty. I wish folk wouldn't write vicious stuff or get personal. Insults aren't helpful, neither do they contribute to the discussion. It would be awful for a new visitor to the forum to see some of the hideous wrangling and decide not to join. Every group needs new blood, and these types of threads give a bad impression in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:50 PM I was wondering about this campaign to get signatures in support of a Nazi. I suppose this is the Tommy Robinson thread. I suppose there were some people here who might support Robinson. I don't find it appalling that they should be allowed to express their opinions, and I hope that Mudcat is never forced to resort to that level of censorship. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subject From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:05 PM Just because people recognise the mistakes that get in the way of threads surviving without degenerating into mud-slinging exercises that never seems to get in the way of them going on, often within a few posts, to do the very things they've rightly identified as toxic. In all my life I doubt if I've ever run into anyone who shares my set of opinions on everything. But just about invariably I've found that however deep and wide the disagreement is, there'll be other things where we agree. And one of the most important aspects of the Mudcat is that it's got a solid foundation in love of the music (even though we disagree about that too). The sad thing is, that's been eroded in recent years, with too many people who never seem to venture above the line, to post or, I suspect, to read what others have posted. (Can you trust anyone who never posts on the music side of the site?....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:30 PM Nazi-ism has always had that 'sprat to catch a mackerel' sort of approach. They confront you with statements its hard to disagree with, but as Eliot so succinctly put it - its 'a tedious argument of insidious intent'. Everybody loves their country, everybody detests the actions of the Asian sex grooming gangs....but if you're a certain age , when you're dealing with certain factions, you know fucking well, theres going to be two gates at the end of the line with 'Arbeit Macht Frei' over the top. I suppose I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I certainly get upset at the way some of our gang get routinely turned upon - with what seems like very little evidence of evil intent, to me. Not sure I'd give TR the time of day, with his track record. The right wing groups are scary people in England. I've seen them outside school gates trying to recruit children THey made a mock website with me and Nick Griffin on - they must really fucking hate me, for some reason. They used to have summercamps round where we lived on the Notts/Derby border. Hordes of weird bullet headed looking guys. Nah...don't take the sweets. 2468 motorway notwithstanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 18 - 07:29 PM "I suppose this is the Tommy Robinson thread" That's the one Joe - a member of at least five racist organisations, one of them the British National Party whose members have been exposed in this forum, warned against and prevented from posting - two of the other organisations he started himself He was arrested, charged and found guilty of attempting to influence the result of a trial of suspected Asian Sex groomers - think David Duke without the pointy hat and with a Limey accent If this is the type of person you think fit to be heard on this forum, we come to our individual conclusions from different ends of the moral spectrum The OP more or less described his arrest as the actions of a police state and we were treated to a running commentary of how many people had signed the petition for his release by another poster - that particular poster continues to defend him here Things must be very different in America, but there again, you did elect a racist, misogynist, war-mongering moron to led your country Free speech comes with the expectation that you use it responsibly and, in Britain at least, if you don't you find yourself in trouble with a legal system set up to protect the most vulnerable of our sociaty On more than one occasion, those laws have been breached by members of this forum A site such as this one proclaiming an interest in traditional music would benefit greatly from the presence of peoples of other cultures - I believe there were a few at one time - no more Something to be proud of, eh! I became used to hiding my Irish family connections in London; I was not surprised when I leaned that around a quarter of indigenous British people were reckoned to hold and have expressed racist views. It is sheer pleasure to be able to discuss Irish traditional song and music but of late I have become somewhat irritated to find myself as "living in a bog" with a few snide references to my age thrown in for good measure (this from a member who began to post personal abuse to those who disagreed with him shortly after he joined us and has continued to do so for several years, up to fairly recently - I have posted lists of at least a hundred of his examples with varying degrees of effect - you commented on one list recently (rather unsatisfactorily in my opinion) before you punished us all by closing the thread. I love being a member of this forum and am constantly knocked sideways by the knowledge psessed by the members collectively - I find myself overwhelmed by people's reediness to help and to share their material It only takes a couple of gluggers (a good Irish word I must post to the 'strange words thread) to fuck that up for the rest of us Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jun 18 - 11:04 PM Hi, Jim - I am appalled and insulted and morally outraged almost every day by the statements of Donald Trump. He's the President of the United States and he's supposed to be representing my country and me - so I think I'm right (maybe obliged) to be outraged when he recites his racist, nationalist crap. When Tommy Robinson says something racist, I am not outraged - I just think he's an idiot. And if somebody posts something at Mudcat supporting Tommy Robinson, I feel no obligation to be outraged or to take action against the poster - I just think he's an idiot, too. He's not representing me and he's not representing Mudcat, so I feel no obligation to be outraged. There are lots of idiots in the world. I don't have enough energy to be outraged by every one of them. But Trump, well....Trump is another matter. I despise the bastard. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jun 18 - 11:11 PM Jim, here's the Original Post (OP) of the Tommy Robinson thread. The post seems to me to be quite objective and dispassionate, and I don't find anything objectionable about it at all: Subject: BS: Tommy Robinson's Arrest From: Tunesmith - PM Date: 27 May 18 - 10:49 AM Tommy Robinson is a Brit and is outspokenly critical of many aspects of Islam in the UK. Yesterday, he was arrested for "breaching the peace", and immediately sentenced to a 13 month prison sentence. This has caused a lot of outrage, not only of Tommy supporters, but from many who feel that free speech is under attack. I'll be interested to see how this plays out. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 03 Jun 18 - 12:51 AM Joe - a long time ago I learned it's the persons behind the words they utter that must be evaluated and judged... Their words in themselves will often be feigning innocence, mealy mouthed, and deceptive... hint - the mudcatter I most have issues with... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 03 Jun 18 - 01:05 AM ...and... some while ago British far right neo n@zis worked out that they would be far more appealing to middle of the road conservatives if they tidied themselves up and dropped the skinhead gear and facial tattoos for smart casual wear, or business suit and tie... Likewise, their skills of PR communications are a lot less ranty and now more even tempered and 'objective' in insinuating their propaganda... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jun 18 - 02:11 AM You make a valid point, PFR - but I, for one, don't want to see Mudcat moderators charged with sifting through posts and deleting posts because somebody thinks them objectionable. Content-based moderation gets far too arbitrary, far too quickly. The reader is a far better judge of such things, than is the editor. Are you afraid Mudcatters are going to get brainwashed or something? Do you think this petition got lots of signatures because of the Mudcat thread? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: DMcG Date: 03 Jun 18 - 02:38 AM The reader is a far better judge of such things, than is the editor Following the recommendation above: Amen, to that, Joe! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 03 Jun 18 - 03:11 AM I am pleased that this thread has not degenerated into a fight but I don't think resurrecting closed threads on it is a wise move. That will only serve to get this one closed too! If we go back to the good advice given earlier about discussing to learn rather than to score points I think we may get a much better result and begin to understand why some people have certain views even if we disagree with them. I have had a think, Jeri, but as per your request I will keep it silent :-) I do think you were wrong in your assessment for most people though. I think most people just like to share. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 03 Jun 18 - 03:16 AM Oh, and I forgot to ask. Joe, could you please reiterate the rules of posting and your advice on how to handle trolls. I think this would be a good time and place for such a reminder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Jun 18 - 03:56 AM "When Tommy Robinson says something racist, I am not outraged " Tommy Robinson is not just an expresser of opinions - he is an creator, organiser and leader of racist parties "I don't know anything right off about the Mudcatter named "Tunesmith," but this particular post seems to be quite objective." You obviously didn't get as far dowwn his postings as his diatribes about the Muslim religion - the final one closed the thread I'm quite sure you would have been quite happy to accept it if it was aimed at your own religion If you believe that Mudcat is a place to allow the promotion of Tommy Robinson and his hateful (and highly dangerous message in today's Britain) we have nothing more to say to each other The only difference between the Robinsons of this world and Trump is that wants the power that the other has already been handed by the American people Shame on you for turning your eyes away from these people and what they represent Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 03 Jun 18 - 04:23 AM Tommy Robinson I suggest before automatically dismissing the man that you take the time to listen to his speech to the Oxford Union. This speech is why he has attracted so many signatures in support of a petition to free him(579000) Oxford Union Speech You may wish to judge the man by his mainstream media depiction. That is your choice. His arrest is in reality to silence him, because he is publicising facts that the government is reluctant to publicly acknowledge. That in essence is what the modern Tommy Robinson is about - not his freely admitted, loutish past. Study footage of his many arrests and discover just how flimsy the pretexts were. Then come back here and see if your outrage has changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 03 Jun 18 - 05:09 AM What he was arrested for is on the court records and is quite clear. Any suggestion that the government is interfering in the judicial system to silence its opponents is nothing but a conspiracy theory. But, as I said before, using this thread to resurrect old arguments from a thread that has already been closed will only result in this one being closed too. You have been warned! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 03 Jun 18 - 05:26 AM You have been warned! Do you really think a D notice was issued because he is a thug? Do you seriously think the government would miss an opportunity to throw his name all over the media and further blacken him if the reasons are as transparent as you make out? Do try and justify the D notice in terms what you believe the situation is, and ask yourself. How plausible is that? First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Jun 18 - 05:32 AM This thread has now turned into a promotion for fascist politics I doubt if it will be closed for being such I'm outta here seig heil to you too Iains Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Jun 18 - 05:50 AM The gagging order on TR has been lifted. Free speech was not an issue in his arrest. The child grooming trial is being conducted with reporting restrictions. There will be good reason for that to do with ensuring justice and it will all become public eventually. Anyone streaming to Facebook video of suspects and jurors is jeapordising the trial and that is why he was arrested. This is the whole story as reported in a Right Wing paper. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5796759/RICHARD-PENDLEBURY-Tommy-Robinson-global-celebrity-jailed.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 03 Jun 18 - 06:08 AM A subject may be emotional to a poster but if emotion overtakes sober reasoning we end up with the slanging matches often seen here. What sort of rational discussion can occur when emotions are high. My attitude is that if you cannot control yourself, do not post until you can. Ranting incoherence adds nothing to the debate and merely disgusts the innocent visitor. Is that the behaviour we wish to encourage in order to attract more postings? It would be interesting to see see who is actually posting on closed threads and run a little sweepstake on the guilty person who comes out on top for causing the maximum grief. I have a sneaking suspicion I could place the name out front right now. I have no problem with posters using any language they like to describe a situation or event, but when these insulting libelous labels are attached to people posting I feel a line has been crossed. Being labelled scum, nazi, racist, antisemite because I simply disagree with the views of the person posting is a guaranteed way of closing threads and we all know who I am talking about. What gives anyone the right to use such terms when it is done purely on what they think, rather than what they know to be a fact. I find this even more galling when the poster applying the term is in one instance supporting , no advocating, totally illegal actions that I and others clearly pointed out to him. The most hilarious point about this is that this person acts outraged when a response includes a little jibe. In fact he collects and posts collections of such jibes carefully omitting his prior postings that led to such jibes. The ludicrous attempts to play innocent fool no one but himself. Robust discussion is fine, swearing is fine(if your command of language is insufficient to find a better way of expressing yourself. But attaching bogus inflammatory names to people in a pathetic attempt to give more authority to the post simply leads sooner or later to thread closure. I would regard it as a deliberate troll. That is no way to have a discussion. Or perhaps that is the intention. We all know the sort of threads and we all know the major contributors. How in the hell do you expect to attract more sensible, rational, ordinary people below the line if they see the sort of behaviour referred to. How can a new contributor be expected to put his/her head above the parapet when they run the risk of abuse being heaped on them the first time they post. There is one dominant poster here that calls for free speech for himself yet insists that subjects he disagrees with be censored. How skewed a level playing field is that? A subject may be emotional to a poster but if emotion overtakes sober reasoning we end up with the raving and ranting diatribes often seen here. Do we want bully and bluster below the line or some sort of rational discussion? There are one or two that post somewhat infrequently but they post in a calm measured way that should be an example to us all. If they can act in this extremely polite, thoughtful way, then there is no reason the rest of cannot. Irregardless of subject matter under discussion. Using passion as an excuse to insult is merely a very robust reason to be deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Jun 18 - 06:10 AM Thank you Keith Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 03 Jun 18 - 06:11 AM Apologies for nor using preview to edit the repeats Tidied a little, but there are probably still some repeats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Backwoodsman Date: 03 Jun 18 - 06:23 AM "But attaching bogus inflammatory names to people in a pathetic attempt to give more authority to the post simply leads sooner or later to thread closure. I would regard it as a deliberate troll. That is no way to have a discussion. Or perhaps that is the intention. We all know the sort of threads and we all know the major contributors." Would that include inflammatory names like 'Jom' and 'Jimmie', clearly jibes aimed at an individual because of his Irish heritage and domicile? As I said in another thread recently, people in glasshouses... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: peteglasgow Date: 03 Jun 18 - 06:35 AM does anyone know of any similar sites to mudcat? i enjoy a political discussion but..... i'm on the dick gaughan page which is more respectful but there are very few posts. i guess most of us here are often grumpy old blokes so maybe it's an age thing - but there must be a livelier debate somewhere |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Backwoodsman Date: 03 Jun 18 - 07:21 AM I'm a guitar-player, with an interest in a few specific builders' instruments, so I generally haunt forums related to those. Fortunately, politics is a subject which is banned from all of them, and trying to get 'political' in a thread will get you removed from that thread, as will bad or profane language, trolling, and flaming. They are very nice places to be. The 'Cat could learn a lot from them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Jun 18 - 07:49 AM Chiff and Fipple once had a very argumentative below-the-line part, full of right-wing bolshie yanks and pro-Israel warmongering types, etc., good fun but it was abruptly demolished without trace. The place has been heading into the sunset slowly for a few years. The Gaughan forum has gone rudderless, especially since Dick got sick, and the few people left posting are totally unrepresentative of what the place used to be like. A couple of others I was on just died the death (without my help, I hasten to add). To some extent this one has bucked the trend for such forums to go into decline. We all love it really! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: peteglasgow Date: 03 Jun 18 - 09:26 AM good point , steve - and ta for earlier comments |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jeri Date: 03 Jun 18 - 10:31 AM If you can find the Mudcat FAQ, you can find that Joe wrote: "the best way to deal with both flamers and trolls is to ignore them. Give them silence, and they'll go away. They feed on attention - don't give it to them." Several problems with this. 1) I'm willing to bet a troll will never starve for attention at Mudcat 2) Joe pretty reliably responds to trolls 3) One person's "troll" is another person's "interesting post" Trolls provoke emotional reactions, and those reactions are WHY some folks post. The biggest problem I have with it is when someone's hatred of another person makes them think taking over a thread to go after that individual is a good idea. And DtG, what you're responding to is possibly beyond my remembering skills. I don't know if "wanting to share" means the same thing as "help me beat up this nerdy kid". (No, seriously, I don't know.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 03 Jun 18 - 11:31 AM "Would that include inflammatory names like 'Jom' and 'Jimmie', clearly jibes aimed at an individual because of his Irish heritage and domicile?" Hardly.I have been called inanes by numerous posters. I also have Irish heritage and am domiciled there, so what? Inflammatory names are racist, nazi, antisemite, You know. the ones that a certain person flavours every post with. Mispelling a name or using the diminutive is hardly in the same league as the insults above. I think I can say with a degree of certainty, I have been to more countries, worked with more nationalities been exposed to more cultures and religions than most posting here. This makes me acutely aware of the sensibilities of differing cultures. As a result I am very wary about placing any sort of political label on anyone posting on this forum beyond left or right. I do think a couple posting here have given premier displays of hypocrisy. Very impressive! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Jun 18 - 11:44 AM "As a result I am very wary about placing any sort of political label " Hence your refrence on several occasions to my living in a bog Racist as they come Iains Probably used regularly by you're mate Tommy Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Jun 18 - 11:48 AM "Jom" was a direct lift from your now departed counterpart Teribus - a display of your childish lack of imagination All this measures extremely small next to your hundred or so attempts to insult and put down anybody who disagrees with you I'm sure you don't want me to put them up again Self-awareness is the key to cleaning up this thread - maybe there are night classes in your area |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jeri Date: 03 Jun 18 - 12:14 PM And that's what it looks like when it goes personal. Shortly thereafter, the thread is closed. And it doesn't much matter who started it. If enough kids want to play, that's the way it goes. You see why I say that when it comes to trolls, some folks are "anybody's"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Jun 18 - 12:28 PM I'm trying to stop this Jeri - closing this thread isn't goint to help You may as well close down this section altogether Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 03 Jun 18 - 01:14 PM This thread has had a variety of responses with a range of conclusions. I would be extremely interested to see others contribute, so to maintain harmony I will withdraw for a while, ere temptation strikes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jeri Date: 03 Jun 18 - 01:33 PM Jim, I hardly ever care enough about making nasty people look nice that I close threads. Personally, I'd be happy if the BS section disappeared. I have an extremely low opinion of the denizens here, and I'm sure that includes me when I get involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Jun 18 - 02:14 PM Then, with respect, you should resign as a moderator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 03 Jun 18 - 02:41 PM No, Jeri. No hidden agenda. Nothing to remember. 'wanting to share' simply means that most people just want to share their opinions and knowledge with others. Hope that helps. Thanks for the reminding us how to deal with flamers and trolls. I am trying to do it but, as you say, one persons troll is another persons interesting post. Best way to deal with it either way is if you think a person is trolling, ignore them. They may not go away but they cannot interact with you if you do not interact with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: pdq Date: 03 Jun 18 - 02:42 PM It has been said that a skunk cannot smell his own stench no matter how horrible it smells to others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Jun 18 - 02:54 PM "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." [Eric Cantona, footballer, philosopher, alpha male] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jun 18 - 08:37 PM I think the word "troll" gets thrown around here, far more often than it needs to be. Some Mudcatters seem to think that anybody who disagrees with them, is a troll. Trolls are people who come in and post for the purpose of causing trouble. I would suggest that while we've had a few off and on, they're not the "usual suspects" who continually bicker at each other. For the most part, if you believe in what you're saying, you're not a troll. https://www.urbandictionary.com has a pretty good definition of "trolling:
Trolling on-line forums as described above is actually analogous to the fishing technique of “trolling”, where colorful baits and lures are pulled behind a slow moving boat, often with multiple fishing lines, covering a large bodies of water, such as a large lake or the ocean. The trolling lures attract unsuspecting fish, intriguing them with the way they move through the water, thus enticing these foolish fish to “take the bait”. Not unlike unsuspecting internet victims, once hooked, the fish are reeled in for the catch before they realize they have been duped by the Troll/Fisherman This guy made a really rude and off the wall comment about my You Tube video, I think he was just trolling for a response, but I ignored him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 04 Jun 18 - 02:14 AM Joe Wikipedia uses a slightly different definition: a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement. As we cannot know for sure what motivates a particular post we similarly cannot define the intent, but superficially there would appear to be a few posting here fit the bill. But at the end of the day making unsubstantiated attacks on people by attaching unwarranted labels is a sure fire way of getting a response and quickly terminates a thread. It really does not matter whether you want to label it trolling, stupidity or a personal attack |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Bonzo3legs Date: 04 Jun 18 - 02:40 AM Yawn yawn!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Jun 18 - 02:43 AM " making nasty people look nice" It's a little daunting to find that someone who doesn't like you and shows little interested in the subjects you discuss holds the power of life and death over what those subjects we are allowed to share It's rather like being taught by a schoolteacher who hates children - I've met a few of them I don't think there are many, if any "nasty people" on this forum -there are a few who react badly to being talked down to (a few only do that), and there are a few of us who don't express ourselves well in print, but beyond that, we're a bunch of people who have never met each other (I know two people who post regularly on music - both I like and get on with in real life), the rest are strangers who are happy to take time out to share their opinions - that's a sign of not being "nasty" as far as I'm concerned. Any persistent "nastiness" becomes obvious - if it is not sorted out in infects our discussions and degenerates into shouting matches - we all become "nasty" for a time - that becomes all our faults We really do need to be able to sort out the persistent offenders, but when we try, the thread gets closed down A bit of a stalemate really Unless we are able (and allowed to) sort out the wheat from the chaff in our midst forums like this have no future, in my opinion - a crying shame - there's far to little talking to each other in this world as it is. It's relevance may not be immediately obvious, but our old friend, Norfolk singer, Walter Pardon had a family saying which may be of assistance here A Toast “Here’s to those who love us and those who don’t love us. To those who don’t love us, may God turn their hearts. If he don’t turn their hearts, may he turn their ankle bones so we know the buggers when they walk”. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Jun 18 - 10:20 AM You've just had your claim proven Iains - Don't think anybody else does that ras regularly as Bozo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 04 Jun 18 - 11:51 AM overcome with emotion, that last post ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Jun 18 - 12:54 PM "overcome with emotion, that last post ?" Do you remember when English politician John Prescott had a can of paint thrown over him by a protester ? He described himself as being "overcome with emulsion" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jun 18 - 01:46 PM ...it's the persons behind the words they utter that must be evaluated and judged... That sounds sensible, but in practice I think it's a mistake. Or rather, it is sensible to hold those kind of things in your mind, but I believe that holding rigidly to the actual words that have been used in a post, when responding is likely to work out better. It keeps the discussion more open to others, for one thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Jun 18 - 01:57 PM I don't see the definitions defined above as too different. They both detail behaviour likely to cause arguments. There are those on here that do just that and it has more to do with their attitude than what they are saying. Talking down to people, insulting their intelligence or laying traps for them is just dishonest trolling in my book and I will no longer interact with these people. Whether they believe what they say or not is irrelevant. I recommend everyone just ignores those who annoy them. It is very liberating :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 04 Jun 18 - 01:57 PM McGrath - for the most part, I try to give BS posters the benefit of the doubt and take their words at face value... Otherwise, over-scrutinising for hidden agendas and duplicity... well.. that way paranoia and madness lies... However, over the last decade and a half, certain mudcatters have occasionally caught my attention and raised alarm signals... so they get a bit more attention and critical analysis for their 'real' motives... seems a fairly sane approach...??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jun 18 - 04:05 PM What I mean is, while it can be right to take into account what you believe the person means, it is self defeating mistake to frame your response in a way that implies that they actually said more than they have. We should never assume that someone may not have modified their views in some way, or may have in some mistake have misstated their actual views in previous posts. Treating each discussion as totally separate from any previous discussion makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 04 Jun 18 - 04:34 PM "overcome with emotion, that last post ? " No! Brain was disengaged and simply hit the wrong button. That is twice today. I had meant to see preview on my previous post, but forgot to tick the box. I was just kicking a few thoughts about to maybe save for later. A white haired moment as opposed to blond perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 04 Jun 18 - 04:43 PM While BS may be a long process both wise and tenuous, ya gotta admit it serves as an interesting democratic therapy. Ya can't beat the fee. It's free. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 05 Jun 18 - 02:41 PM No readers? writers only? If I respond with the word "lurker" does that clarify the question? I accuse myself of one heck of a lot of lurking. I lurk about on threads like this one. Sometimes my lurking means repeated perusals, and, I have to say, it's an investment of my time. Must be the time factor, and the value of time as a resource, that is the sore spot. When a posted text is perused, studied, lurked-over -- I prefer to say, when a post is "read" but you say there are no readers -- without a posted response from the, er, lurker, then the lurker's investment of time takes no time away from those of youse guys who say there are no readers. I resent being called "no reader." Simple as that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 05 Jun 18 - 02:55 PM keberoxu - a very important point, and a good reminder... Everything I write here is offered up for anyone who bothers to read it, not just any named member it might be addressed to... That's why I believe we should all show consideration for readers, and take responsibility to keep our posts as brief and concise as possible. I also read more threads than I respond to, 'lurking' is the default mode... Mudcat accounts for a lot of my time online, when I should be getting on with more important chores in the real world. I self-justify this because it is a familiar convenient forum for breaking 'news' and mental stimulation... ..meanwhile, the shower isn't fixing itself, and the back drainpipe is still blocked... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Jun 18 - 02:58 PM It's not good when your back drainpipe is blocked! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 05 Jun 18 - 04:15 PM Uh oh /^O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Nigel Parsons Date: 06 Jun 18 - 09:01 AM I realise it's a bit late now, but should the heading have been "Emotive subjects"? "Emotional subjects" sounds like people throwing themselves on their knees in tears before the Queen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 06 Jun 18 - 09:11 AM You are a subject I am a citizen but we are both subjected to the inane |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 06 Jun 18 - 11:58 PM A bit like saying that one feels nauseous when in fact one is nauseated, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 07 Jun 18 - 11:57 AM If subjects are emotive the response should be measured, not hysterical exaggeration or simply outright lies. Example: Grenfell tower Assertion:the obvious fact that the building was shoddily built. Fact: After the Ronan Point disaster high rise building codes were revised, prior to the construction of this tower block. The fact that the building maintained structural stability, despite a severe fire, is a testament to its rigorous design and construction. After all similar buildings in America went into freefall after a severe fire. If the official story is to be believed. The events concerning the fire and it's aftermath are the subject of an ongoing public enquiry. For a complete amateur to assign blame to a specific cause is ludicrous. The issue of cladding, fire prevention and potential overcrowding all need to be unravelled and any other factors the enquiry may feel to be germane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 01:03 PM "For a complete amateur to assign blame to a specific cause is ludicrous. T" Like who ? The report is ongoing and we already know for certain that the fire started in a specific kitchen and the cladding selected for cost rather than safety (probably the greatest factor in the spread of the fire and loss of life. The first and last of these was known immediately - it's acceptance led to emergency replacement throughout Britain. At present the Government and the Tory Council are desperately playing pass the parcel between each other as to who was to blame - the track record of the laatter does not work in their favour Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 07 Jun 18 - 01:29 PM The cladding was part of a retrofit to comply with EU legislation. The structural integrity of the building that you commented on is another matter entirely. Are you trying to conflate the two issues deliberately? Remember you said :the obvious fact that the building was shoddily built. The evidence does not support your assertion because the building still stands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 07 Jun 18 - 01:49 PM What was that cold war mega bomb being developed back in the day...??? The one that was invented to destroy human populations but leave the buildings and infrastructure standing... So the winners could then just march in, clean up, and take over... Remembered now.. the neutron bomb... International building standards need to be a bit higher quality than Grenfell to make that kind of near apocalyptic population control warfare viable for the future... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:12 PM International building standards need to be a bit higher quality than Grenfell. At ground zero you would still need a substantial buried bunker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:28 PM "Are you trying to conflate the two issues deliberately?" NO I AM NOT Are you deliberately trying to get this thread closed by using abusive language Please refrain from doing so UNBELIEVABLE PASSING THE BUCK Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:28 PM "Are you trying to conflate the two issues deliberately?" NO I AM NOT Are you deliberately trying to get this thread closed by using abusive language Please refrain from doing so UNBELIEVABLE PASSING THE BUCK Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:32 PM AND AGAIN Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:32 PM AND AGAIN Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: robomatic Date: 07 Jun 18 - 03:23 PM Okay I'll join in, we've got plenty of 'usual suspects' in the pile already, let me go back to something Big Al Whittle posted last week that went under the radar: Like the statues argument. The statue may be anachronistic. However - does that mean that the person and the reasons for erecting that statue were without honour or just cause? Depends on the statue. I think a thread could be devoted to the American demolition of the Saddam Hussein statue early during the Iraq war. The more recent statues that have been taken down are for Confederate military leaders, this has been intensely interesting because in more than one case living descendants of said Confederate leaders have endorsed taking them down. And the same with language. You'd have to be more specific. The English language is a street fighting language with multiple changes per year, many of them contradictory (because they're out fighting in the streets). Oliver cromwell did all kinds of damage , vandalised all sorts of beautiful artefacts - even the crown of England. Churchill's wife ripped up the Graham Sutherland 's painting of the old man. Sutherland was a much greater artist than her old man. I don't know what Oliver Cromwell vandalized, but during the Puritan revolution, all sorts of statues were removed from Churches within England because in the Puritan view they violated the Second Commandment. Sometimes the statues were destroyed and sometimes they were stored and reappeared during the next phase of the revolution. I've seen Sutherland's portrait of Churchill and I'm not surprised at Churchill's reaction. Presumably Pamela destroyed it because of her concern for her husband's feelings. We destroyed all the Nazi works of art we could lay our hands on after the war. But did we miss a truth hidden somewhere? I'm aware of lots of Nazi works of art undestroyed and so I'm wondering what you are talking about, Al, and also what 'hidden truth' did we miss? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jun 18 - 05:45 PM I wonder about "Nazi works of art." What I think of first is propaganda, and stuff glorifying the perfection of the Aryan human form. Is there some that's worth preserving? Wikipedia has an article titled Art of the Third Reich that's quite interesting. I was stationed in Berlin for 20 months, 1972-73. The city had days when residents could put out junk for pickup, stuff that didn't fit in garbage cans. We Americans enjoyed going out junking, looking for treasures the Germans had thrown away. One think I found was a grandfather clock with a swastika on the face. It had a severe, Germanic style to it, but I kinda liked it. I wanted to take it home, but my ex-wife talked me out of it. It would have been an interesting thing to have, I think. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jun 18 - 06:11 PM Interesting topic. If you're talking about Nazi works of art, what about Wagner? There's no doubt that, had he lived half a century later, he would have been Hitler's cheerleader and would have applauded the Holocaust. He's not alone. If you love Carmina Burana, or have ever sung in it, a bit of research into Carl Orff's predilections may make you uncomfortable. The conductor Herbert Von Karajan was an enthusiastic signed-up Nazi party member during the war. Daniel Barenboim, a Jew, one of my very few musical heroes, caused a stir by conducting Wagner in Israel. I won't listen to any Wagner (I find his music to be an overblown, egotistical musical blind-end in any case, but of course I'm biased) and I turn off the radio if a piece with Karajan conducting is broadcast. That's just my visceral reaction, not a moral crusade. I think I'm keeping within the spirit of the thread: I'm being emotional! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 07 Jun 18 - 06:33 PM Jim the building was not shoddy.It is likely the later addition of cladding was, but that has yet to be determined by the public enquiry. Your original statement is factually incorrect. The WTC high rise buildings collapsed in a fire, Grenfell tower retained it's structural integrity. I do not believe it is abusive to point out your errors.Would you like me to refresh your memory where you recently asked me to? https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Grenfell-Tower-still-standing-after-burning-for-almost-24-hours-while-the-WTC-Towers-collapsed-after-burning-for-just-a-few-hours |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 07:44 PM "Jim the building was not shoddy." I never mentioned the standard of building Iains - you did "International building standards need to be a bit higher quality than Grenfell." I said, "the cladding selected for cost rather than safety (probably the greatest factor in the spread of the fire and loss of life). You responded "The cladding was part of a retrofit to comply with EU legislation. " - and went on to accuse me of deliberately "conflating the two issues" Within weeks an enquiry into the cladding used was carried out - the result, presented in a BBC documentary, found that the cladding was dangerously inflammable (a terrifying demonstration of how inflammable was part of the documentary) It was also discovered that the originally cladding suggested by the planners was rejected by the Builders because of the cost From what has emerged so far, it is obvious to all that someone is to blame - this was an accident waiting to happen, hence the undignified rush put things throughout the country where similar materials have been used In the early part of December last year the estimated cost of that replacement had reached £600 million According to the BBC at the time "The figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate because many public and private landlords in the UK are still calculating their budget for safety works prompted by the fire in North Kensington six months ago." Nobody is going to come out with clean hands from this; certainly not by dragging out red herrings about "illegal immigrants" or "illegally passing on homes to other tenants" or "false claims for compensation" Public pressure has forced this into the public eye as much as was the O. J. Simpson trial It would not surprise me in the least if indictments for manslaughter were to follow this enquiry Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: robomatic Date: 07 Jun 18 - 08:31 PM Supposedly Verdi said: "Wagner has great moments but terrible half hours!" That's such a good line I haven't researched it for accuracy. I believe the Bayreuth observance is still pretty anti-Semitic, but of course, it long predates National Socialism. I love Carmina Burana, and I'm sort of aware that Carl Orff was not a good guy by our current standards. But what about German science, the development of nuclear theory on the threshold of the Atomic Age? You can't put that back in the bottle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:07 AM Maybe because ideology is not all that important to me, I guess I measure music and other art by how the art impresses me, not the ideology or conduct of the artist. I'm glad the #MeToo movement is changing the attitudes of the entertainment industry (and others), but I don't see a need to remove all performances related to the offenders. I still like reruns of Prairie Home Companion and Weinstein movies, and I'd probably still enjoy watching or listening to Bill Cosby. And I like (some) Wagner and von Karajan. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jun 18 - 02:31 AM "I do not believe it is abusive to point out your errors" Neither do I Iains, but your accusation that I deliberately put up false information was highly offensive - that is the type of behaviour that closes threads You still haven't explained who your "For a complete amateur to assign blame to a specific cause" referred to I was a self employed maintenance and installation electrician for over 20 years, the area covering From Chelsea, through Notting Hill, up Ladbroke Grove and into Westminster was my busiest area for ten of those years Not only did I work in and became very familiar with much of that property including the high-rise dwellings adjacent to Grenfell Tower, I also became very aware of the highly explosive property battlefield it became following Mad Maggie Thatcher's 'Buy your own homes' scam. The appalling 'Lady Porter (Mad Maggie's close friend) scandal' took place within walking distance of this fire Porter "temporarily" moved the occupants out of an entire block similar to Grenfell under the pretense of modernising it She then informed them that the property was to be sold off to private buyers (a ploy to alter the balance of the electorate from Labour to Conservative) - it transpired that the property they had been moved into was riddled with carcinogenic asbestos. Porter's behaviour led her being penalised to the tune of £42 million. She eventually settled in 2004, paying a "full and final settlement" of £12.3 million, owing the British taxpayer the balance - in order to avoid paying her dept in full she took up permanent residency in Israel, depriving Britain of the benefit of one of the most ruthlessly crooked brains in the Thatcher arsenal. Property dealings in areal like this in the South-East rich underbelly is representative of everything that is evil about this terminally sick system - I doubt if this wiill be part of the enquiry. "Wagner has great moments but terrible half hours!" Rossini is reputed to have first said it but Bernard Shaw used it often - I agree with it wholeheartedly (except for the "great moments" bit!) Interestingly, I've just checked it for accuracy and the only place it appears on is "Stormfront" - the World-wide White Supremacy" site WAGNER AT HIS VERY BEST Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 08 Jun 18 - 05:50 AM Jim your post Jim Carroll - PM Date: 05 Jun 18 - 07:42 PM containing the words I copied "obvious fact that the building was shoddily built" was deleted. Very convenient for you but you have a history of criticising building standards in London. Would you like examples? Are you still going to deny it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jun 18 - 06:06 AM "obvious fact that the building was shoddily built" Prove it - as far as I can recall none of my postings have been deleted I made my position quite clear - I saw the programme on the cladding when it was broadcast I know that these buildings were in fact not shoddily built, hence Lady Porter's move to gentrify one of them Please respond to what I have said rather than what you mistakenly thought I said Feel free to provide examples of criticising building standards in London - I have a massive admiration for its Victorian architecture and little experience in any other period As a whole, London building standards are quite high, as is the case throughout the country. I was part of the building trade for long enough periods of my life to be aware of that Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:22 PM g'bye Jim Carroll you ol irascible virtual friend and passionate advocate for your cause. I didn't listen as well as I could have. They're not listening they do not know how they're not listening now. . To underscore this notion of not litening I will point out I have given away millions of dollars in several invention and investment ideas up to 3 years before they were eventually marketed. Granted. plenty of hard work would have been required but there is no replacement for a valuable idea. Also I do not know how many if any did listen. They would not want me to know. examples ; my evercool pillow idea posted 10 years before "my pillow" My smart phone door bell posted 4 years before its introduction and several bigger ideas hidden in plain sight in black and white |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:22 PM To clear it up: "Wagner has beautiful moments, but awful quarters of an hour." Rossini on Wagner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:50 PM it don't sound as good as it is M. Twain |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 08 Jun 18 - 11:35 PM Talking of Nazis, try this on for size. History of the Salzburg Festival |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jun 18 - 11:46 AM Or try the history of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. Don't forget to contemplate the misogyny thereof while you're at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Jun 18 - 12:06 PM The reality is a lot of highly esteemed artistic creative folks, are, one way or another, really shitty human beings... So.... do bastards and arseholes make better art than happy kind hearted nice folks...???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jun 18 - 12:39 PM It's OK to have individual human failings. Beethoven never emptied his potty, even when guests arrived, and Mozart was obsessed with smutty jokes about poo and bottoms. Sibelius gave up composing and lived on champagne and lobsters for decades. Picasso was an inveterate womaniser and Schubert probably died of syphilis contracted from one of the many prostitutes he used. It isn't OK to have a fascistic ego bigger than my arse and preach that Jews were poor composers because they are an inferior race, or cheerfully promote the Nazi party during the war in your concerts. Such individuals suffer from far more than common human flaws. I don't see how they can create beautiful, life-affirming art when they're like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Jun 18 - 01:13 PM phew... at least as far as we know evil kiddie fiddler Gary Glitter wasn't a n@zi... ..so I can still continue enjoying his greatest glitter glam rock hits behind closed curtains on headphones... Same with Led Zep despite their 1970s satanistic excesses... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 09 Jun 18 - 01:19 PM Steve "I don't see how they can create beautiful, life-affirming art when they're like that." Isnt it that times and standards have changed and the media wasnt as adept at demolishing reputations, also the people who financed most of these folks didnt care..... well maybe times havnt really changed till the folks get caught. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 09 Jun 18 - 01:40 PM Wagner, in my opinion, was an anomaly. A one-off. Which is different than being a charlatan. I had the life-altering experience, getting my applied-music degree at university, of taking a course on the Life and Music of Richard Wagner, taught by a musicology master (that's music history) whose ancestry was immigrant Russian Jews, escaping the pogroms. But he was born and raised in the Bronx, with the accent and the bellicose attitude to go with it. He remarked candidly once, that he could not happily teach a course on the Life and Music of Beethoven because he was too in awe of Beethoven to do the job properly. But, he said, with Wagner he had a love-hate fascination, and he found it deeply satisfying to work this out by teaching a course on the subject! Parsifal will never again sound the same, not after the lecture on the Nazis' Final Solution relative to the -- shoot, what was it? a spear, or a sword? -- touching the Holy Grail, and purifying the "blood"/contents. There is actually an impressive panel of experts, figuratively speaking, throughout history, testifying for the influence -- the constructive influence -- of Wagner's music, regardless of Wagner's person. They are classical music composers themselves. And I don't mean the composers of weak character who were stunned by the force of Wagner's compositions. I mean composers as disparate as Debussy and Brahms. Debussy, a force to be reckoned with in his own right, had to grapple with the Wagnerian influence as he matured. And while Brahms was famously pitted against Wagner by the critics, Brahms, with his sense of inferiority, his crippling perfectionism, and stubborn persistence, added music scores of Wagner to his library of Bach, and Schubert, and so on, and studied Wagner's music with diligence and thoughtfulness. Verdi, finally, is a good example of the resigned ambivalence of other composers to the presence of Wagner in their midst. I don't dispute the Verdi quote in earlier post on this thread. It is also a fact that old Verdi outlived Wagner, and his letters/journal record his response: "Sad, sad, sad. Wagner is dead!" Not to mention, that Rossini acquitted himself so well, in Wagner's presence, insults or no insults, that Wagner would later confess that Rossini was one of the greatest men he had ever met. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: robomatic Date: 09 Jun 18 - 06:16 PM It's a kind of prejudice to confuse the works of people with the personal histories of people. But the nice way of saying it is that it's a judgment call. It's the kind of thing that bigots do when they find out that a nice piece of music was written by someone they don't like (or even worse, someone from an ethnic group they're not supposed to like, and they're committing mind control on themselves for cryin' out loud. But it is human nature like everything else. There is undoubtedly a big split in listeners to those old Bill Cosby comedy albums. I can understand that. Listening (or not) to Von Karajan recordings or the works of Wagner or Orff, I can understand it being a factor that people may judge in the artist's history versus the art; I personally do listen to 'em all, although I personally feel that Porgy and Bess, Oklahoma, South Pacific and West Side Story are greater works of art than the entire Ring Cycle. That's my judgment. Is it prejudice? Possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Jun 18 - 06:34 PM Tonight on All Things Considered Saturday the host interviewed an author and film maker (Death and the Maiden) who had Roman Polanski direct it because he brings many experiences and points of view to the project. 10 minute interview, film discussion about 5 min. in. Michele Martin was clearly emotionally ready to jump down his throat over the choice, but restrained herself. Good journalism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 09 Jun 18 - 07:11 PM Note for note Mendelsohn outwrote Herr Wagner without any swagger. If we all remain completely objective it is clear Trump is an objectively unique corrupt, hateful, history free autocrat. Of course that requires some expertise in US Presidential history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jun 18 - 07:22 PM Two very thoughtful posts there, so cheers to keberoxu and robomatic. Wagner thought he was changing the world via his music dramas, but, apart from the influences that keberoxu alluded to (which in my view shackled those composers), he really didn't change much at all, and I'd suggest that you'd find it hard to find many twentieth century composers after Debussy who showed that influence to any significant extent. OK, Richard Strauss. I love Strauss and I've tussled very hard with myself to exonerate him sufficiently from Nazi influences in my mind (I've managed it). I find a beauty and lyricism and humanity in Strauss's music that I can't find in any Wagner, not even the Siegfried Idyll. Long before I read the one book I'd bought that pointed sharply to Wagner's vicious antisemitism, I'd found his music to be overinflated, overblown and full of ego, not to speak of replete with longeurs. I haven't experienced the phenomenon outlined by robomatic, but I'd say that suddenly deciding you don't like a piece of classical music because you've just discovered something unsavoury about the composer would mark you out as somewhat feeble-minded. My view is that composers are human beings with human failings like the rest of us, and their amazing talent in their field doesn't make them saints. Schubert and Benjamin Britten both had alleged predilections for the "company" of the underaged. I love Schubert and dislike Britten. I'd better try to unravel myself I suppose (but not un-Ravel myself - he's one of my very favourites). My beef with Wagner and Karajan is that they mixed up their disgusting and detestable politics with the genre of music that I love the most, in their different ways, and that obliges me to blank them out of my life. A personal view only. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: robomatic Date: 09 Jun 18 - 10:21 PM Ok, I'm gonna try a less solemnly emotional tack but on the same subject. I disagree with and detest Mel Gibson's views on his version of Catholicism and his apparent view on Jews. But, I sure love his Mad Max flicks. And his early lethal weapon movies. And, in a perverse way, Apocalypto. Many of his other flicks are self-serving in character and presentation, and he is limited as an actor because of that. But he is clearly talented, entertaining, and has a large solid body of work to be proud of. This possibly is a distinction between Americans and those on the East side of the Atlantic. We Yanks like being entertained even if we are not politically as one with the entertainer. There are many right wingers who bitch about the reds out in Hollywood, but they go to the movies without vetting them first. I learned this when all the Alaska oil business folks I worked with went to see Avatar with their families and loved it without spending a lot of time or attention on its environmentalist message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jun 18 - 11:13 PM I gotta say, this is working out to be a fascinating discussion. But before I go any further, I have to tell Robomatic that I think Mel Gibson movies are really creepy in their fixation on violence. I suppose I could find Wagner creepy, too. I remember visiting one of the palaces of Mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria, hearing about the King's fixation on Wagner and the King's subsequent suicide, and something about half-naked servants pulling him through the water in a shell-shaped boat. But there's a bombastic extravagance in Wagner's music that I enjoy despite myself. I find I take wicked pleasure in a number of things that my idealistic self says I shouldn't enjoy. But then I say, what the hell? And I like what I like, and don't get too moralistic about it. And when I find myself getting moralistic, I know the best response is to laugh at myself. But that brings up a much wider question about art and moral turpitude. It seems that society has a constant urge to suppress the artistic works of those who have violated the current mores of society. The kerfuffle around the #MeToo movement is the current example of this. Is it wrong for us to enjoy the artistic output of people who have violated the mores of society? If a person is immoral, does that mean that he/she cannot product any work that is of value? I have known and liked people who were later accused of molesting children. How do I deal with that? Is the good that happened in my relationship with that person invalid? Does their horrible crime invalidate all the good they have done? I had a Music professor who wouldn't perform the works of any composer he disagreed with. I disliked the professor, so of course I thought he was full of shit. But was he? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Jun 18 - 11:44 PM Joe, you hit the nail on the head - there just doesn't seem to be a suitable answer. I think we must separate the art from the flawed artist for a number of reasons - first and foremost, as fashions and mores ebb and flow, behavior is often scrutinized and either rejected or ignored. The whole moral turpitude complaint against gay men (lesbians were below the radar for a really really long time) is meaningless now for reasonable people. There are great films out there made by nasty men; but they didn't make the films by themselves, they simply got to hang a name on it. Consider the contributions of the others as something that lets you continue to love those films. The name can be separated from the work of art. When the reverse happens, when the behavior was ignored for so long and now is so hugely in our faces, like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein, again, they didn't do all of that work by themselves. Cosby is like some kind of split personality, knowing what to say onscreen, doing the absolute worst offscreen. The link I posted earlier to the discussion of the work of Roman Polanski ties in. He was charged with rape a very long time ago; he says he has "paid." Who gets to decide that? All of these bad-behaving men - many are nasty SOBs, but what they did isn't given the death penalty. Shunning is alive and well, not just the practice of cloistered Mennonite or Amish communities. How will those individuals who were cast out, the really bad, the kind of bad, and those who probably have a good answer but no one is listening, how will they support themselves? Do they have residuals to tide them over? When will they be allowed back in society? To again perform their art? Actual criminal prisoners who are released are on their own to try to start over. How does that happen with some of these shunned folks? Don't get me wrong, Harvey can rot in Hell. Bill Cosby was a handsome, gregarious, rich guy who could have had affairs on the side, little harm done, but he preferred to drug and rape women. He can rot right alongside Harvey. Others I see stepping aside for the good of their party or organization, and I think maybe there's a more complex story there. Perhaps as time passes, some will speak up. How come that whole Kobe Bryant mess hasn't come up again? There are some messed up women in the world who will be contributing to this for their own reasons. What brought this about? Trump. He's getting away with his bad behavior toward women because a ton of enablers (mostly rich white men) want him to dismantle social programs and economic protections and taken back federal lands from protected status and give industry a shot at polluting land and water, not until he has done as much as he can get away with will they rein him in. The ire of American women is up, and until they can take down the worst perpetrator who cheated and lost the popular vote to Hillary, who still ended up in office, heads will continue to roll. As they should. (The difference between Trump and most of these other guys? Trump is all about Trump, everything all of the time must reference him. At least the others produced art.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jun 18 - 12:48 AM Hi, Acme - The move to remove Garrison Keillor's A Prairie Home Companion show is very problematic to me. I don't doubt that Garrison was guilty of the misconduct he was accused of, but his archive of programs has some of the best performances of modern American folk musicians - and it appears those great performances will be forever unavailable. I'm sure some of those performers, were Keillor's victims. Same with performers who were victims of Cosby and Weinstein. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Jun 18 - 12:55 AM Good read - I was thinking of him as I wrote. I have only seen the Keillor accusations referenced, I haven't actually read anything from the women who accused him. And there is a line to acknowledge - famous people attract attention, and sometimes get attention from disturbed people. Most of this is probably regular rational people speaking up, but there will be a subset needing closer examination, probably away from the public eye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 18 - 03:21 PM The question becomes, is one judging the work ( of art) or the artist? All the Greek philosophers lived in slave holding societies. So would NOTHING created from before, say, 1700 be acceptable? What about 19th century "poor houses"? Are they fundamentally any different from slavery? IMO one should judge the work without regard to the artist- One thing I dislike is so-called "art" that depends on sympathy for the artist. I have great sympathy for the child dying of cancer, but does that make his/her poetry or crayon drawings any better art? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: robomatic Date: 11 Jun 18 - 03:40 PM It is scary to think of such things as moral boundries being less than hard edged, but this is the way it is. One of my favorite actors, Hal Holbrook, started young with extensive makeup and did very creditable performances as Mark Twain who travelled widely and performed solo for audiences. In one of his monologues from Huckleberry Finn, Huck finds himself in a moral quandary, because Jim is running away from his legal owner. Huck lies to the slave hunters and feel guilty about it, but he reflects on the fact that if he'd turned Jim in he'd feel bad: "What's the use you learning to do right when it's troublesome to do right and ain't no trouble to do wrong, and the wages is just the same?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 18 - 04:14 PM And of course, what New England colleges would there be today if not for the wealth generated by the "Triangle Trade" "The best-known triangular trading system is the transatlantic slave trade, that operated from the late 16th to early 19th centuries, carrying slaves, cash crops, and manufactured goods between West Africa, Caribbean or American colonies and the European colonial powers, with the northern colonies of British North America, especially New England, sometimes taking over the role of Europe.[1] The use of African slaves was fundamental to growing colonial cash crops, which were exported to Europe. European goods, in turn, were used to purchase African slaves, who were then brought on the sea lane west from Africa to the Americas, the so-called Middle Passage.[2] Despite being driven primarily by economic needs, Europeans sometimes had a religious justification for their actions. In 1452, for instance, Pope Nicholas V, in the Dum Diversas, granted to the kings of Spain and Portugal "full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens [Muslims] and pagans and any other unbelievers ... and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery." A classic example is the colonial molasses trade. Sugar (often in its liquid form, molasses) from the Caribbean was traded to Europe or New England, where it was distilled into rum. The profits from the sale of sugar were used to purchase manufactured goods, which were then shipped to West Africa, where they were bartered for slaves. The slaves were then brought back to the Caribbean to be sold to sugar planters. The profits from the sale of the slaves were then used to buy more sugar, which was shipped to Europe, restarting the cycle. The trip itself took five to twelve weeks." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: robomatic Date: 11 Jun 18 - 10:10 PM There's a small museum in Milton, Massachusetts: I remember it being called The Museum of the American China Trade. Now it seems to be Forbes House Museum . It was a sea captain's house. The docents were lovely elderly New England ladies who gave very personalized tours. One of them was talking about the opium trade which was mostly English, but she said, in a low confidential voice "we had ten percent of that trade." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 13 Jun 18 - 01:53 PM I visited that museum, years ago, robomatic. I remember the images (artistic, not photographs) of adult Chinese women with the consequences of foot-binding. Another angle of the influence of Wagner. There is an essential genre of music, essential to the twentieth century and the present century, of sound-tracks for motion pictures. Not Wagner alone, of course, but the whole legacy of opera in general is brought to bear in composing feature-film sound-tracks. Recall Erich von Korngold, sound-track composer for such films as "Captain Blood," who got his start composing both light operetta and full-on serious operas in Vienna. Hollywood was quite the destination for emigré European composers, especially Central Europeans, in the twentieth century. I reckon that film audiences, especially younger-generations of film sound-track composers, have been soaking up that European influence -- which decidedly includes Wagner -- more than many of them appreciate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: robomatic Date: 13 Jun 18 - 09:31 PM K: I think that is an excellent point. When I was learning music in the public schools it was called 'programmatic music' I believe and I don't recall Wagner nor Opera being used as examples, rather the music of Strauss and specifically his compostion: "Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks" because the events depicted by the music are damn near oenomatopoetic: Till riding his horse and splashing the noblemen, Till before the judge, Till's neck being snapped by the rope... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Jun 18 - 03:27 AM I've never liked Wagner, and I think he found a comfortable home with the NAZIS I'm not sure how I'd have got on if I liked his music - my late fried, Tom Munnelly shared many of my political views but his (unfulfilled) ambition was to attend Beyruth - we argued endlessly on the sunject into the early hours over several pints. I was delighted to have found him a second-hand copy of George Bernard Shaw's 'The Perfect Wagnerite: A Commentary on the Nibelung's Ring' Maybe the most suitable use his music was put to was in Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now - certainly a fine backdrop to those helicopters Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Jun 18 - 06:00 AM "my late fried," A typo, not a reference to a cremation Tom Was buried in w wicker coffin in Ballard Road Graveyard, Miltown Malbay Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Jun 18 - 06:09 AM Wagner's alleged influence on film score composers is at least arguable, I suppose, but in the wider context of the direction that classical music has taken I think his music represented a dead end. Of course, his followers would claim that his music reached a pinnacle which couldn't be surmounted, but they would, wouldn't they. I see very little of his influence on composers beyond the early part of the last century, with the exception of Richard Strauss, who at least managed to move away from the heaviness and overstuffedness of it. I'd ten times sooner see an opera by Mozart, Verdi or Puccini than anything by Wagner any day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 14 Jun 18 - 06:19 AM My sister went to Bayreuth many years ago to experience Der Ring Des Nibelungen, and said it was fabulous. But I don't like Wagner's bombastic style one bit, and being subjected to it day after day, hour after hour would have driven me round the bend (or 'wahnsinning'!). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Jun 18 - 06:26 AM I find his music suffused with ego. I find the same thing with Liszt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Jun 18 - 06:46 AM Coming back to the original subject in a roundabout sort of way, I watched the end of the BBC drama 'A very British Scandal' last night. I do remember it happening but could not recall the details. What struck me most was how the jury was manipulated by both the defense and the judge. The defense ripped into witnesses for the prosecution, which was their job of course. But not with anything particularly relevant to the case in question. It was all about scoring points by presenting the 'truth' with the slant in their favour. The judge, in his summation, was ridiculously biased but somehow got away with it apart from having the piss taken out of him for years to come by contemporary comedians. What happened in the end of course was that Thorpe, who in all probability was guilty of inciting murder at the very least, got away Scot free (no pun intended) There are those on here that would have us believe that such manipulation is perfectly acceptable and they indulge in it regularly. I do not accept that it is is and, even though this is a very trivial forum, we should not allow such dishonesty a foothold or we may end up seeing it everywhere. Just my 2p and bringing us back to Al's original point of being able to discuss without getting so serious and emotional about it. Eventually :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Jun 18 - 06:49 AM Still reckon Bugs Bunny's "Kill the Wabbit" was Wagner at his very best It used to drive Tom Munnelly spare - I still giggle at the thought of it Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Jun 18 - 06:55 AM I'm very emotional about the fact that Morrisons Nero d'Avola is currently two for ten quid. If that was you, Dave, well done me old son! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Jun 18 - 08:11 AM I'll just take the credit anyway. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 14 Jun 18 - 09:28 AM And their Shloer is only £1 a bottle, so thank you again Dave! (And I'll be suing you if I get type 2 diabetes from all the sugar therein!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Jun 18 - 09:55 AM Did you see the programme about type 2 diabetes remission, Sen? I didn't watch it but Mrs G was telling me it is quite promising. Very low calorie diet for a number of weeks then gradually reintroduce normal eating to keep the weight off. Worked for a lot of people but hopefully you will never need to try :-) Steve - I am going to get some Nero d'Avola to take to my mate's next week. Can you recommend a complimentary white? They usually have a Sauvignon Blanc from Chile or some other such furrin parts... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Jun 18 - 09:56 AM Most of the survivors of the Grenfell Tower Fire are still homeless, and that's how it will remain, PROMISES THE HOME SECRETARY Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 14 Jun 18 - 01:24 PM Yes Dave, I did indeed watch it, and it looks very promising that Type 2 can be reversed. It was my bossy sister on the phone who said that I was a (insert very rude word here) to touch Shloer, and was asking for diabetes. I haven't told her I'm now on it again and need rehab!! Jim, I quite agree about the Grenfell survivors, and the story of the treatment of tenants over quite a long period of history of the area was heartbreaking. (I watched that too on TV last night) Exploitation and complete lack of interest in conditions, safety, fair rents etc by landlords, including the local council. They seem most reluctant to do anything much for the survivors. They should be falling over themselves to help them (and offering huge compensation). I bet they won't though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Jun 18 - 01:41 PM "I bet they won't though" I don't think this will be allowed to slip out of sight Sen The Borough and the surrounding ones are the wealthiest in Britain and also the most socially unequal I worked for a cousin of the Queen, Lord Snowdon, Ruby Wax, Shirley Bassey's manager, Joan Collins, The Duke of Westminster, Nicholas Roeg and and his wife, Theresa Russell and a leading Q.C. who played Bruce Springsteen guitar and used to date a Northern Irish republican girl... and many more, all at the same time as servicing some of those awful slums - talk about seeing how both halves live! Today's commemorations suggest that these survivors will get what they are entitled to - hopefully! Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 14 Jun 18 - 01:53 PM That would be excellent Jim. Let's hope it comes to pass. As you say, there are a lot of people watching the situation who won't sit idly by while these poor folk are ignored and fobbed off. My father knew Kensington like the back of his hand. His job meant he had to visit the extremely wealthy to arrange telephone services etc. (Telecommunications Officer, London Western Area Manager for the GPO) Like you, he too saw the deplorable contrast between the rich and the very poor in the Borough (and this was in the fifties). He even had to personally visit Princess blooming Margaret in Kensington Palace (who was as arrogant as heck). People like that make my blood boil... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Jun 18 - 02:55 PM I think I told people about the time The Duke of Westminster locked me in his kitchen because he thought I might steal the family silver Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 14 Jun 18 - 03:02 PM They live on another planet don't they Jim? Arrogant pigs! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 14 Jun 18 - 03:04 PM Hi Dave & Sen I watched the program and am recording second episode tonight. I don't have Type 2 Diabetes but have recently been informed by my Doctor that I am at risk. He has got me to apply for a place in "A healthier Group which is held in many areas of the UK. I have applied to take part but not heard anything yet. I understand it comprises eating healthy combined with doing light exercise. The latter bothers me as I am 82 and have an arthritic knee. I do limp around as much as I can, but it is not much. I am not unduly overweight - I have recently cut down on food mainly by having smaller portions and cutting down on alcohol, In doing so I have lost a stone in weight. I will report what the Healthier Group come up with. Regards MikeL2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 14 Jun 18 - 03:36 PM You did well to lose a stone Mike! Do you think you might get a replacement knee joint in the near future? Apart from Shloer, my sin is dairy, since I love full milk, cream and butter. The doc talks about 'good' cholesterol and 'bad' cholesterol, and apparently mine is erring on the 'good' side. I'd be very keen to know how you get on in the Health Group. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Jun 18 - 03:37 PM I am also at risk, Mike. Purely weight related. I managed to lose a bit and came out of the red zone but never really succeeded in getting a healthier lifestyle. Recently though I have managed a couple of lifestyle changes that are helping a lot. I will rarely eat anything that is heavily processed and I try to exercise every day even if it is only 30 minutes walking - Often more and including cycling now. I am also making good use of an extra day a week off work I now have and using to go for a much longer walk in the surrounding countryside. Up to now the weight is coming down but the biggest bonus is I feel so much better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 15 Jun 18 - 10:58 AM hi Dave Pleased to hear that you are having success with your life-style changes. It is early days for me. But I am determined to keep going in my task. I am trying to increase exercise gradually and it seems to me that I feel better for the weight loss. I have been in sport all of my life and feel frustrated at not being able to do only very limited exercise now. cheers Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 17 Jun 18 - 08:59 AM Walking is a great way of exercising, Mike. I guess you are retired and may have time for it. I would strongly advise getting a pair of decent shoes or boots to cushion the impact and protect you from jolts. I am wearing Sketchers at the mo. Great for urban pavements but not good for anything rougher. I have a pair of good hiking boots for rough terrain and some lighter hiking shoes for anything in between. It is not Emelda Marcos syndrome. Just a great belief in looking after my feet :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Jun 18 - 10:18 AM Introducing a different kind of "emotional subject." I just listened to an interview with writer/director David Lynch (Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet, The Elephant Man, Eraserhead, etc.) on NPR (Weekend Edition Sunday morning). The host asked him why the women in his films suffer such anxiety and hardship and he talked about "falling in love with an idea," and not having to suffer himself in order to portray suffering. Would his films be as successful if the women were happier? I haven't seen all of his films, and it has been a long time since I've seen any of them, but I have to agree with Lulu, the NPR host. His women characters can be grim. Not every film in which women face hardships is going to end up like (for example, all by different writers and directors) Shirley Valentine and Norma Rae or other strong female characters (The Piano, Heartland, Places in the Heart, etc.) but I certainly enjoy those more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 19 Jun 18 - 02:53 PM " I'd be very keen to know how you get on in the Health Group." Sorry to be so long in replying. Misplaced the request and just turned it up now. I was told by my GP that I was a risk for Type 2 diabetes. He told me to join this Group and Gave me the referral information. Here is the info to the web site http://preventing-diabetes.co.uk/selfrerral/ Also here is telephone no. 0333 577 3010. It is a National Organisation with Branches pretty well all over England, It is run by a Company and the NHS and is free to people who qualify. I have self referred and have been accepted. They are trying to set up a Group close to me but they say they will contact me in about a month with information of the local Group info. I have not heard yet, but will let you know more when they contact me. I think you come from Norwich ?? I know there are groups there but no more than that. I had no problems in getting in contact and the web site and Phone contact dealt with me and gave me all I needed to know. Hope this is of interest to you. Regards Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 19 Jun 18 - 03:18 PM That was very kind of you Mike to set out the information! Thank you so much for that. I might see my GP and get a referral to a group. I see there's one in Fakenham (not too far from us) It's always easier to make changes when one has the encouragement of fellow pilgrims! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 20 Jun 18 - 05:25 AM Hi Sen I am glad that you found the information useful and interesting. I will let you know when I actually get involved with a Group. Please let me know how you go on. Regards Mike the Pilgrim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 20 Jun 18 - 05:41 AM Hi Dave thanks for the comments. My wife and I have been keen walkers for many years and have walked regularly - particularly in the Granada & Sierra Nevadas in Spain and Madeira along the levadas. I have been retired now for 25 years and at 82 have had to slow down somewhat. But we still walked in Scotland and in Wales. Recently though I started to suffer from arthritis in my knee and for a while could not walk at all. I am getting used to and despite the pain we have started to walk locally again. But long walks are out. We both use Echo boots and walking sandals and had no problems. Thanks for your comments I welcome them. Cheers Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 22 Jun 18 - 08:43 AM MikeL2, are you quite sure you don't mean Ecco boots and walking sandals? I adore the walking sandals myself, and I miss the Ecco Shaker shoes, good-looking and hardworking. And talking of emotional subjects, I just heard one on a news-radio soundbite: cannabis versus opioids for pain relief. This in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which has just legalized RECREATIONAL cannabis as well as medical cannabis. Count on Americans to make a business competition out of it. Meanwhile, casualties mount from overdoses amongst other things. It's sickening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 23 Jun 18 - 04:05 AM Hi Sen Yes I meant Ecco Boots -smack my hands ...lol. We still use them as we have started walking again. We both live in the sandals and find that they last much longer than most other makes. Many years ago we had not seen them in the UK but we spotted them as we were walking Italy, Of course now they are easy to find over here in the UK. We find them the most comfortable to wear. Regards Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 24 Jun 18 - 01:14 PM Hi Keberoxu I apologize for confusing you with Sen. So thanks for the info. Very interesting. Also apolgies to Sen for the confusion in my brain. Regards Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 24 Jun 18 - 01:30 PM Hahahaha Mike! I hold the Olympic gold medal for confusion. Just today I stupidly left my husband's bank card wallet on the counter of a souvenir shop (National Trust property at Blickling) He gives it to me when we go out together to put in my handbag, and I laid it down and forgot. Fortunately the shop lady had noticed it and had kept it safe. We fled back and she handed it over. Phew! Major Senile Moment. Have you heard of CRAFT groups? Can't Remember A F****** Thing... :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 24 Jun 18 - 06:40 PM No worries, MikeL2. Senoufou/Eliza, if that moment was not an emotional experience, I don't know what would be! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 25 Jun 18 - 03:46 AM It was a bit emotional keberoxu. It was very hot (although we're fine in the heat usually) and the wallet had my husband's bank cards, driving licence, some money etc. so it was very worrying. He owns one or two 'men's handbags' but seldom uses them. The worst thing was my concern that i'm getting a bit 'dotty' and forgetful. Age I suppose... :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 25 Jun 18 - 10:09 AM hi sen Don't worry your not alone. My wife left a bag in a bar in Menorca. It contained all our cash, credit cards and Air tickets; we were returning home that evening. We both walked away and some hours later we discovered the bag was missing. We rushed back to the bar fully expecting it to have gone. But much to our surprise and delight it had been handed in by someone who found it in the toilet. The owner of the bar would not accept even a drink. I am happy to say that we had no such moments since. Mind you we still do some silly things. Even last week my wife rang to pay off our credit card which she does every month. She rang to pay our bill. They informed her she had already paid it. She got mixed up with June and July. regards Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jun 18 - 11:43 AM A few years ago I was standing on the end of the quay in Amalfi. I put my hand in my pocket for a tissue, a ten euro note came out alongside it and I had to watch ruefully as it fluttered gracefully into the Tyrrhenian Sea below. If anyone finds a ten euro in the Med, it's mine. I still feel very emotional about it. That was three gelati up the Swanee, that was... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 25 Jun 18 - 01:03 PM Oh I'm so glad I'm not the only one! We were both emotional this morning because we decided to sell our much-loved Vauxhall Meriva to the garage chap in our village. It's got so many problems (13 years old) and we still have the Fiesta, so we took the poor old car round there and filled in the V5 logbook doodah. The chap looked at us sideways as we patted it and said our goodbyes. It's called 'Assita' after my husband's mother.... The seats were so comfortable... It was a lovely silvery colour... Goodbye Assita... (sobs noisily into handkerchief) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 25 Jun 18 - 01:36 PM Hi Steve Hey I found your note as it floated into valetta......lol And last year I found a £20 note in the grass by the side of the canal as we were out walking. Not yours is it''lol cheers Mike PS Now off to watch Spain and Portugal games. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: MikeL2 Date: 25 Jun 18 - 01:39 PM Hi Sen Don't get upset, you looked after it well for 13 years. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Senoufou Date: 25 Jun 18 - 01:48 PM Aw, thank you Mike. But the chap said he might use it for spare parts or scrap... (sobs even louder) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 25 Jun 18 - 03:00 PM Emotion is very uncomfortable for us to the point where we often joke it away. If losing a twenty could be an emotional loss how about joking about real loss. Avoidence works, at least in mixed company. If you don't laugh you would cry but laughing is easier. A WAGNER ride of the Valkeries to me is a Holcauster ride in an amusment park compared to the real emotions of what the Wagner loving Nazis felt. Emotions are suppressed hidden or denied. I think we would be healthier with emotions up front and center. When Trump jokes about Ann Frank having a 'staycation' it is for other purposes entirely. If you were asked why you ever liked Catspaw and thought it was because he shared his knowledge freely, you missed the point. He was emotionally free. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 25 Jun 18 - 08:36 PM Civil protest can be emotional but it is not a call to harm someone. We have come to expect Trump actually calling for physical harm. |
