BS: Emotional Subjects

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:22 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 05 Jun 18 - 04:15 PM

Uh oh   /^O

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: keberoxu
Date: 04 Jun 18 - 11:51 AM

overcome with emotion, that last post ?