BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook

Subject: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: keberoxu
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 12:12 PM

First of all, this thread is being opened with a post from
somebody who is outside of Facebook.
Hence, the question mark: a mark of my ignorance.

As an older Mudcatter, old enough that
I have never owned a cell phone
(I have a dreadful time figuring out
how to use one, by the way, the few times that I had to borrow someone else's cell phone because the car wouldn't start or something) and
my post-graduate education was completed before personal computers with word-processing programs supplanted typewriters,

well, because Facebook is so much since-my-time,
my ignorance is an outsider's ignorance.
It isn't as if I am unaware that Facebook exists.
I feel more like an insider about the internet,
since I'm on it every day, and have an e-mail account.
Although there is still much about the Internet that I have yet to learn.

So I simply find I am too ignorant to understand the suggestion
"... probably more suited to Facebook" regarding the content of my Mudcat posts.

More in the next post.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: keberoxu
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 12:22 PM

This elderly Mudcatter has apprehended two attitudes,
right here at the Mudcat Forum, regarding
Facebook and Mudcatters.

Attitude One.
Facebook is a place of hazards and pitfalls,
where people have gotten badly burned in the past.
Moreover, a further statement, when pressed, was volunteered that
Facebook is where talk is cheap, and that
if you want to cheapen something, just mention it on Facebook
presumably because info and opinions are cheap there.


Attitude Two.
Facebook is where the members from the old days of the Mudcat Forum
go to look each other up and make sure the others are alive and well,
because today's Mudcat, a place of hazards and pitfalls,
isn't the way that it used to be;
they would rather remember the Mudcat the way it was back then;
and they no longer have time for today's Mudcat.

Can you see how contradictory and confusing this all is?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 01:06 PM

Agree with some of that Keberoxu but, having made my first post here in 2006, I recall some very strong disagreement and occasional intervention from mods going on back then, and don't think the "hazards and pitfalls" are any worse now (but, then, I was away for about 5 years before last year).

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 01:07 PM

Ah keberoxu, how I agree with you! I've never been on Facebook and have no idea what goes on there. It seems rather churlish to criticise a post because 'it's the type of stuff that belongs on Facebook'.

Your thread was most interesting and in my opinion very worthy of discussion and I was moved to comment, in the spirit of the feelings it evoked.

I don't own a mobile phone either, but I hope that the fact I'm not 'savvy' forbids me to post about reactions to a tragedy?

I expect there are quite a few of us 'oldies' on here, and it would be an awful shame if only young Twitterites and Facebookites who avoid duplicating their ethos are allowed on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: keberoxu
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 01:41 PM

To be honest, for some people,
Mudcat would be better off if I would leave for somewhere else.
Now I am most mindful that Mudcat has a policy
that one does not post remarks about, erm,
a certain way that things are done here.
That said, the fact is that of my many posts at Mudcat,
numerous posts have prompted others to correct me outright
or to suggest that I ought to have said/done differently.
I do take direction, sometimes more graciously than others.
So I ought to hold myself accountable. I attempt to do so.

"More suited for Facebook," though, confounds me
because I am not in a position to know that that means exactly.

Now if this post provokes sarcasm and irony and cynicism, too bad.
But this thread is in earnest, because I might get that suggestion again with some future post
and it would be well to have a clue what is being talked about.

Here's another one:
why on earth would I subscribe/enroll at Facebook
1. because everybody else is doing it
2. because talk is cheap over there
3. just to find out what all the fuss is about?

The way I understand it,
at Facebook I am required to give my legal official name
which I am cautious about putting online on the world wide web.
Can't come up with a membername such as I use for my Mudcat membership.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 02:08 PM

I use both, although I don't subscribe to the Mudcat page on FB. I like Facebook because the only personal prejudices I have to cope with, are my own. I don't have to avoid criticising those who obviously are too thin skinned to cope with any whiff of disagreement, and................I can ban posts form disagreeable people.
If I complain to the management of FB I get an acknowledgement of said complaint, and either it is dealt with as I ask, or I get an explanation as to why it is not actioned. This reply is couched in neutral terms, and no personal points are made in passing.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 02:32 PM

To be honest, keb, if you start a thread and just want to get on with it here, just get on with it. Ignore the bloody naysayers. You have been challenged a bit for sure, but no-one has really excoriated you, have they! I know as well as any of the the rest of the below-the-line roughnecks what it's like to be scorned, insulted, decried, ridiculed and demonised, often all at once, it feels. But I'm still here. We get called Usual Suspects and a damn sight worse by biased anti-Brit mods (they're just jealous, cue big eye-winkie emoticon) but we can ride the tide and still enjoy life. You could say that it's not worth being here at all, and I think that sometimes meself, then I get educated all of a sudden by none other than Dick (with whom I have frequently locked horns, eh, Dick?) when he links to an amazing interview with Bertrand Russell. Made my day, that did, but even Dick got a small bollocking for posting the link... You're not the only one who thinks they can't win...

It's only my opinion but I don't think you do yourself any favours when you reopen ancient threads as often as you do. Not saying never, you understand. Start new ones instead, but not too often...

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 02:51 PM

Steve is right keberoxu, ignore the naysayers. I'd be gutted if you left Mudcat, so don't you dare go!

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 03:43 PM

FB has several advantages.

- it's much easier to use images or videos to say what you mean
- you can select your audience
- you can avoid hearing from people you want to ignore
- you can use several different methods for notifying people about events
- you can find lots of people with similar interests or complementary expertise.

Downside is that messages easily drop out of sight much too fast. Mudcat is superb at long term memory.

Mudcat could usefully be complemented by an image/video store and diary system of the sort FB has. In practice when I've tried to use Mudcat's FB page that way, I got hostile responses from people who couldn't be arsed looking at the thread I was illustrating and got a diary-like post (intended to be of only short-term relevance) sabotaged by a power-crazed mod who didn't see the point of me doing it that way and couldn't be arsed consulting me.   So I'm not on Mudcat FB any more.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 06:01 PM

I'm not on facebook either, but every night I look at some cartoonist sites & a few others. On rare occasions facebook sez. join up! & I say p*** off & close the page & return the following night. I value my privacy (you have privacy when you are contact for several organisation?????)

As a non-member I can't see everything on a facebook page & last year when friends were involved in a controversy I asked a member if he would print out the comments for me as I wanted to see what was going on, so he sent me a file & I had fun reading it. The representative of the other organisation involved was very good at publishing false news/total lies & got pulled up every time.

I also don't have a mobile phone, tho I'll be getting a stupid phone soon (our national internet & phone system is changing, not for the better) & I don't want a smart phone. I don't even want a stupid phone, like previous posters I've had trouble using someone elses phone on the rare occasions I needed to make a call. When I bought a mouse from Apple last year I had to type in my email address to get the receipt & it never turned up, I couldn't manage the bloody tiny buttons.

grumble over

sandra

it anyone wants to see an exercise in political stupidity & national unhappiness look up Australia's NBN (National Broadband Network) Most folks lose internet connection after they are connected, some for up to a month, some for longer, & as landlines are gone, we do need mobiles ...

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 06:13 PM

What was the question?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: keberoxu
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 07:09 PM

I'm gonna catch it for this, but
here's the quote from the post:

... probably more suited for Facebook, dontchathink?
... too smarmy for Mudcat.

And my question was:
whaddaya mean?
How does Facebook differ from the Mudcat forum ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 08:41 PM

Where would you like us to start?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Helen
Date: 26 Jan 20 - 09:41 PM

Where I worked until I retired mid 2019 there were a bunch of self-regulated behaviour codes which would be updated every few years.

When I first started there, the code of accepted behaviour incorporated responsibility, integrity, teamwork and achievement. Changes to the accepted code over the years included trust, service and accountability or other variables in the same vein. It was up to the individual to follow the code unless a serious breach of protocol occurred, in which case the manager could call it into play.

I'm starting to wonder whether a similar code might be useful here. Self regulating would be the norm, I assume.

Maybe we could all take note of our contributions to the Mudcat discussion forum and evaluate them against a similar set of concepts.

First on my list would be, "have I contributed positively to the discussions?" (i.e. achievement) and I would evaluate that not only on personal "tone" of interactions but also on the percentage of my posts which add sufficient value in the form of folk and blues related information to justify my being here on this forum.

If I was not contributing folk and blues related information or value for a significant amount of my time on this forum, then I would seriously consider finding another forum more suited to my preferences, which may perhaps be debating or arguing a case, for or against, etc etc.

Another criterion could be accountability or responsibility, i.e. being adult and mature about my own actions, owning up to mistakes or errors of judgement, learning from those actions or errors and hopefully working towards a better outcome in the next situation. That would include listening to and evaluating genuinely honest feedback from other Mudcatters and taking it on board.

Teamwork or community interactions: "how well do I contribute to the positive outcomes of this online community which has been in existence for over 20 years?"

Integrity: now this one is the biggie for me. If you act with integrity, then the other criteria are also easier to achieve, in my opinion. In Oz-speak integrity = being fair dinkum, i.e. genuine, honest, no game-playing, straight-up, no underhandedness, no manipulative behaviour, fair dealing. The list goes on and on. Being known as a fair dinkum person in Oz is high praise indeed.

Being a fair dinkum Mudcatter is my aim while I am here. I strive to contribute positively to Mudcat and the people who belong here, and one of my main aims is to keep the Mudcat community going in a positive, healthy, socially interactive manner by discussing folk and blues music with like-minded people.

I'll repeat that for emphasis:

I come here to discuss folk and blues music with like-minded people.

That's what this forum exists to provide, an opportunity to discuss our mutual love of folk and blues music, and to share information about it for the benefit of all Mudcat members.

I refuse to engage with any post or person who refuse to act honourably, sincerely, genuinely in the promotion of Mudcat's purpose.

And as an example, if I say I will not post any more to a thread, then I will follow through on my stated intention. I won't keep jumping back in to throw another few hand grenades into the discussion.

If I finally get jack of all this negative behaviour thrown in (or thrown up?) just for the sake of winding other people up, or shoring up fragile egos, then I'll regretfully leave Mudcat, which I have been a member of for 23 years.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 03:55 AM

I used to tell people that if they were starting more than one thread a day, they were probably starting too many. There are certain Mudcatters who are extremely prolific, and the messages they post and the threads they start are often not the most thoughtful things posted at Mudcat. Quantity does not necessarily mean quantity.

And resurrecting old threads is another issue. It can be good at times, but not usually - especially not with BS threads.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 04:13 AM

Goodness Helen that's a most thoughtful and useful post indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 05:18 AM

"I come here to discuss folk and blues music with like-minded people.

That's what this forum exists to provide, an opportunity to discuss our mutual love of folk and blues music, and to share information about it for the benefit of all Mudcat members."

But, er, you're posting below the line.....?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Helen
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 05:47 AM

But, er why, don't you post about folk and blues music, and share information about it for the benefit of all Mudcat members?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 06:49 AM

Coming from a classical background I walked in here backwards and have learned a great deal. Below the line I relearned english. Now I have as many folk instruments as classical but not the talent to play them all.

20 years ago flame wars here were the norm. As I evolved mudcat became more civilized on its own. I miss the wild west legacy of Spaw and the like but generations change.

I don't touch facebook and expose myself to 20,000 beardedbruces.
Many comments here are cringeworthy in their racism or condesention etc. but calling out each one may teach the individual but harm the overall good will of the community.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 06:55 AM

Not fair, Helen. I do.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 08:35 AM

Hey JOE didja know - (npr) the global electricity cost of data processing and down loading one popular Salsa song off Youtube is the same as powering 40,000 average american homes for a year?
China's data processing centers use 70% coal powered electrity plants.

I don't know Mudcat electricity costs but it ain't free.

Going green in the future will mean more self control using the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 09:47 AM

I admit I get set off by neediness. Whether its "hey look, I can refresh threads, I can START threads, hey, talk to ME" or "I'm mad at Mudcat, and taking it out on everybody else, and I need some attention, too."
The culture of the place has changed over the years, and not for the better. It's no longer the place where a guy could say his kid with special needs will never ride a bike, and a guy in another country would tell him where to get something that would help. It's no longer the place where someone would have a gathering just for Mudcatters, and invite anyone on the forum.
There will never be a thread like this. (Don't even look for threads titled "american attacks" with the filter set to "all".) For the most part, no one wants to be vulnerable. No one wants to craft and edit their post - it's all rapid-fire chat room stuff, and most of it is arguing about anything. There are those who like to piss in the pool, and the only people left here are those who like swimming in a pool full of piss, and the odd person who can tolerate dipping a toe in.
Helen's right, but
we can't vote, and decide what everyone will do. The only thing each of us can do is contribute to threads we like, and refrain from complaining about threads we don't like. Basically, the idea is "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS", when "troll" means anything that pisses us off.

But it doesn't work at Mudcat.
Why doesn't it?

It's never happened here.

So, this is a comment, not a start to an argument, although yes, it's mostly complaining. There are no fixes, except for myself only. There will never be a consensus, and there is no way to enforce anything. Despite what some have said repeatedly, Mudcat is NOT "a debate forum".
...but I found a small vial of katlaughing's ashes I forgot I had. I'm going on a cruise, and I wonder if she'd like St Croix or Antigua.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Mossback
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 10:07 AM

What use is Farcebook?

Well, idiots can use it as a source of fake news, innuendo, misinformation and falsehoods instead of relying on actual news media and factual information..

Then people can voluntarily post all sorts of personal information, photos, etc & then be surprised and appalled when its used against them.

You can purchase advertisements containing utter bullshit and no-one will fact check you or them. Farcebook is a Trump asset like Faux "News" [sic].

You can further enrich Zuckerberg - since the whole point of Farcebook is to make obscene amounts of money. You thought it was to "communicate" and to "exchange [mis-] information"? Sorry.

And these examples are only scratching the surface.

But take heart - Twitter is worse.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 11:42 AM

Twitter is easier to filter and I find much more useful information there because of who I choose to follow.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 12:33 PM

Thanks Jeri, Katlaughing gave me a happy feeling of belonging greater than anyone before or since on Mudkat. Her love light was uniform and ubiquitous to everyone. Well except for Spaw, mike, Bobert,Amos,Ebbie,you...

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: gillymor
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 12:44 PM

Kat's ashes might approve of resting on Mt. Obama on Antigua. I was there long ago when it was still Boggy Peak, a lovely place.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Helen
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 02:32 PM

One way to self-regulate is to click on your own Mudcat name and look at the list of threads you have posted to. You can see at a glance whether most of the threads are in the BS section, and more interestingly, whether you have posted repeatedly to the same thread.

If you click on the thread name you can then review the posts you have made in that thread to check whether you have contributed quality instead of just quantity. If any of the threads you have repeatedly posted to are of the more negative variety and if your posts have contributed negatively to that, then you may want to re-evaluate whether your contribution to Mudcat has been negative and not positive.

As I said above, taking responsibility for yourself and self regulating would be a mature, adult thing to do. No-one else can do it for you.

Thanks for your comments, Jeri, especially about the philosophy I adopted a long time ago: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS". It works for me.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 06:09 PM

There are no threads of the negative variety. There are threads in which various persons can behave negatively. I'm not all sweetness and light and would never claim to be. I don't think that Jeri would argue that she is either. I'm in a lot of threads down here that are generally light-hearted. I'm a big contributor to joke threads, recipe threads and weather threads. I'll willingly post to other threads of that ilk, the archaeology and bird ones for example. You came below the line (oddly) to declare that you come here to chat about folk and blues music. You unfairly insinuated that I don't. Actually, a snapshot today revealed to me that I'm in eight threads above the line, just in the threads that appear on the three-day page. Counting people's posts above and below the line is fraught for the reasons I've given. If you're involved in a discussion about politics, it's likely that you'll post to that thread a number of times. In music threads you may contribute just two or three times (unless you're one of those who wish to discuss Ewan MacColl, etc., until kingdom come, of course). You'd have a case if you found someone who never, or hardly ever, posted above the line. I play traditional music but I don't sing, so I'm not going to post much in threads about songs and their lyrics, etc. But I am involved in traditional music and within my limits I do know my stuff, and will post about it if I find it useful. You probably wouldn't want to know my methods for fine-tuning diatonic harmonicas, so I don't start too many music threads. I imagine that that applies to the majority of people here, bar those who have doctorates or long years of song-collecting, etc. My interests in traditional music are not particularly Mudcat-mainstream but I do read far more music threads (and learn stuff), than I post to. Be judgemental if you like, but try not to see the world in black and white. And check your facts before you post, then you won't get shouted at.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: keberoxu
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 07:17 PM

Gee,
I thought Helen came below the line in order to
post in accord with Eliza / Senoufou about
things like empathy and domestic violence.

Maybe she stayed to do something further,
but she started out being supportive of some fellow Mudcatters.
Too bad you weren't one of those.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 07:23 PM

It was an observation, not a criticism. The post that suggested that I don't post about music WAS a criticism, quite unjustified, and not to do with supporting others. Anyway, I've stayed polite about this and that's more than enough from me about it.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Helen
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 07:30 PM

Did I mention your name or any names in my post, Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 08:07 PM

Helen I enjoyed your medical posts the most.

Its safe to assume that I am the TROLL since I am no authority of folk music. sniff Thats OK. I wouldn't want Steve to suffer needlessly. Its better to suffer for a good reason.

At least I did spend 2 hours practicing today without repeating a tune. :^/ Its getting better all the time.

PS My long running feud with Steve (we've been on vacation) is mostly fabricated. For example if given the choice of whom to have dinner with, living or dead, it would be Steve - dead. :^)

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: gillymor
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 08:18 PM

lol, Don

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 08:23 PM

Well it's crystal clear that your 08.35 AM post was aimed at none other than me, Helen. Another lapse in fact-checking... But never mind. Over to you for any last word.

I can cook, Donuel. I'm famous for it in my house and I remind you that there are almost three people living here. Just don't go bloody vegan on me before you show up. Mind you, my grass is getting long.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 08:32 PM

Sorry, that should have been the 05.47 AM post.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 09:01 PM

.
When I think of gourmet chefs I think of Steve as the fabulous foundation of fine flavorful tastes. Foundations are always found at the lowest point. ;^/

But seriously cooking is an art for the eyes, ears, mouth and tongue.
While food can incorporate sculpture if sculpture was enjoyed like food one would be arrested.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 09:07 PM

In 1968 I kissed the foot of Jesus on the Michelangelo Pietà sculpture in St Peter's. That's as near as I ever came to eating a statue.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Helen
Date: 27 Jan 20 - 09:48 PM

Well Steve, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction so when you asked about me posting below the line, I asked about you posting above the line. Fair's fair. Tit for tat.

Playground rule 1: you can't have it both ways. You can't go on the attack to someone else and then cry like a sook if the boot is on the other foot.

Playground rule 2: play nice.

Playground rule 3: see playground rule 2.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 03:12 AM

but it is not an even playing field is it?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 03:17 AM

facebook is a professionally run business, whos primary concern is advertising it employs people who are presumably paid to watch transgressions ,
mudcat is moderated by volunteers. this forum is not an even playing field

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 03:46 AM

Helen, I’m a singer and a musician (some would dispute the latter, but I feel sufficiently competent to claim the right to describe myself thus), but if you checked my posting record above the line, you’d find I seldom post there. But hell, I read a lot up there!

I don’t post much to music threads because I don’t feel there’s much I can add - lots of folks know far more about their subjects than I do - but I can learn from music threads.

They also serve who only stand and wait.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Helen
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 05:37 AM

Backwoodsman, it's the quality of posts which matters, in my opinion. The balance between positive and negative. Not the quantity.

It doesn't matter how much someone posts on Mudcat as long as their posts add value to the forum.

It's only my opinion. I'm just tossing some ideas into the mix to generate discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 06:09 AM

Your posts would be of far better quality if you checked your facts before posting. You insinuated that I don't discuss music here. Unfair, untrue. I gave you the facts about my above-line posting. For reasons best known to yourself, you won't concede this clear and obvious point. Your posts would also be of better quality if they refrained from whingeing about "what Mudcat has become," etc. Actually, I seem to recall reading a heartfelt cri de coeur about trollery from Max from about 2002, for those who love to hark back to the Golden Age. Just post to threads that you're interested in and sidestep the others. There's a lot of good stuff here. But check your facts. You can insult people by calling them names. You can also insult people by making unjustified insinuations about them.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 06:20 AM

One advantage of Facebook is the way it discourages anonymity. Which doesn't just get people to take more responsibility, it means you get to leave more of a legacy. Two of the most interesting posters here were M.Ted and Volgadon, both of whom have disappeared, and I have no way of knowing who they were. Volgadon was an Israeli soldier, and posted one message in a different forum after the invasion of Gaza, which seems to have put a stop to his internet presence. M.Ted stopped abruptly with no warning or explanation so I think he died. If I knew their names I'd have some chance of tracing them.

I don't remember more than one name for people. I know Gordeanna McCulloch used to post here, and at one point I knew who was behind her pseudonym, but I don't have a prayer of remembering it again. There was a very nice bloke who used to post here as "Zen" - I actually met him, but because he'd been using that pseudonym for years, his real name never stuck. Keberoxu told me her real name once but now I have no idea what it was. (Reminders won't work, either).

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 07:01 AM

The mudcat expanded 'like' feature.

inane absurdities - bad
quantity - bad
nice - good
quality - good
anonymous - bad
picture - maybe
get togethers - good

2 goods out of 3 ain't bad
3 goods make you a saintly mudcatter.
2 bads make you suspect
3 bads is a Troll not to be spoken to

This is a good measure of our similarities
But but not our differences

I got 3 bads...
Like Frank Zappa who saw this quantum world as absurd

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 07:32 AM

Not disagreeing with you, Helen, just putting my view in response to what I’ve taken, rightly or wrongly, from your posts which seem to have a theme of ‘lots of posts in music threads = Good ‘Catter, lots of posts to BS threads = Bad ‘Catter’. Apologies if I’ve got that wrong.

My point was that there are far more posts from, for instance, me in BS than in music threads, but that isn’t an indication that I don’t venture ‘above the line’ - i do, but I don’t tend to post there because I’m there to learn, not necessarily to assert my opinion.

Am I a ‘Good ‘Catter’ or a ‘Bad ‘Catter’? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 07:43 AM

Dogger?...


Sorry, John, couldn't resist! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Senoufou
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 07:45 AM

I'm like that too Backwoodsman, I often read and enjoy the music threads, and have occasionally posted there, for example about lyrics from days gone by (old lady). But I do like to participate frequently in the BS section, where there are lots of extremely interesting and entertaining posts and posters.
I suppose that makes us both very bad and naughty 'Catters, and we deserve to have our bottoms firmly smacked!

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 07:56 AM

Are you offering again?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 08:06 AM

Sen - I’ll smack yours if you smack mine! :-) :-)

Steve - LOL! I think I posted in ‘that thread’ that I like cats, I kept cats for twenty-odd years. I just don’t go for the ‘cats good, dogs bad’ nonsense, and every time it gets trotted out I’ll kick it into touch. But here and now are neither the place nor the time, eh...??

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Senoufou
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 08:40 AM

Hee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 08:42 AM

A mere jest, John!

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 09:54 AM

I know. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 09:55 AM

That made you giggle Sen, you little tinker! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 10:53 AM

That's the second time she's alluded to botty-smackie. Watch that woman!

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Helen
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 02:21 PM

Nope, I definitely *did not say* that quantity matters more than quality.

In fact, I repeated another person's post who added that in his opinion, quantity does not matter as much as quality, and to me that means posting a lot or posting a little does not matter as much as contributing positively to the discussion on that thread.

My original intention for posting my ex-work related personal code of conduct was simply to raise the issue of self-regulation with the intention of contributing positively to this community. Open up a discussion.

I come here to learn more about music, to help out if I can with my knowledge or my research skills as an ex-librarian, and because I got sucked in (in the best possible way) to the community spirit here by engaging with other like minded people.

Basically, my intention is to keep my eyes on the prize, which is to do all of that within a music related forum which builds people up rather than trying to vie for supremacy in personal spats and disagreements.

I discuss the music or the topic.

If I have to air a grievance or raise an issue which is affecting my ability to participate in the forum effectively and fully, then I raise it in a diplomatic and caring manner and then I don't keep niggling on about it, destroying the topic of the thread in the process. If it is too personal for the forum I would raise it privately in a personal message. I can't remember ever doing that, as a matter of fact.

I would never take my niggles over onto whatever thread another person was posting to just to hound them until they don't feel comfortable posting here at all.

And if I open a thread and think, this is not a topic that interests me, or I don't wish to participate in the topic or the manner in which it is being discussed, I just don't go back into the thread.

If on the other hand, I read something which appears to disrespect a Mudcat person or that person's life choices or life situation then I call it as I see it. As in my real life, I won't stand by and watch someone being disrespected or harassed or bullied. I try to contribute positively in a way which might bring the topic under discussion back to the forefront and hopefully to ditch the personal jibes and niggles.

So Donuel, no I don't agree with some things on your likes list:

The mudcat expanded 'like' feature.

inane absurdities - nope -sometimes the inane absurdities make a thread worthwhile e.g. Spaw's absurd contributions to threads used to sometimes make me laugh out loud.
quantity - Nope. It's irrelevant.
nice - good
quality - good
anonymous - Nope - only if someone is deliberately covering up their identity to rip into someone anonymously i.e. being a troll

Like I said, I only offered my opinions on ways to contribute positively to this forum and its associated community.

Someone can have a go at me if he wants, but I'm offering information on a code of conduct I have worked with and seen it working well in real life in contributing to positive human interactions. That's it. No hidden agendas. No nasty intentions.

Self regulation and positivity and working together to achieve the aims of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 02:31 PM

On the other hand, we could just move on.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 02:52 PM

Nobody ‘having a go’ as far as I can see...certainly not me.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 02:56 PM

My point about what constitutes a good or bad cat is that you can't measure some things and when you try, other things get ignored.

I said for years that Steve has the ego of 10 men. I say thats bad, he says thats good. So if you injure his ego its 10 times worse.
But we need good cooks so he's OK. ;*}

If you guys think you will 'best' a strong woman you are delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 03:26 PM

Something that would not go over with facebook is;
Guys and gals who play with balls for millions and millions of dollars make Earth a better place in every way. Lost games cast us into an abyss of sadness and doom, may be overstating it but balls make the worl go round.

Sports are a physical calculous that entertains us.
Granted balls have a slight anti gravitational freedom in one plane but mastering a stapler is not much different.

This planet probably employs 1 in 10 who directly or indirectly is involved in playing with balls, perhaps more. Ghandi MLK Eienstien
Newton will have to take a back seat to ball handlers in the meantime.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 04:05 PM

Oblate follicled spheroids.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 04:37 PM

is that a football?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 05:04 PM

You and I have never discussed my ego. In fact, I believe that yours is far bigger than mine. Only a bloody big ego would have the cojones to post confounded obscurantist rubbish most of the time. So don't be silly. Which reminds me of a joke.

Bloke sez to his mate, I'm going to a fancy dress party dressed as a Mediterranean island. His mate sez, Don't be Sicily...

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 05:27 PM

...I think planting all those exotics - because they can - on the Isles of Scilly is very silly, and locals should quickly convert to native gardening

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 07:42 PM

Well I know Scilly quite well. The exotic plantings are largely in the Abbey Gardens on Tresco and to a lesser extent in private gardens. I happen to love beautiful gardens and I see nothing wrong with growing whatever will grow and which is aesthetically pleasing. Gardens and cathedrals are what I make a beeline for wherever I go. Like everywhere else, on Scilly escapes from cultivation can be a nuisance. There are non-native daffodils everywhere but, generally no-one seems to complain. That garlicky three-cornered leek is everywhere, and that's a bit repressive, but I imagine that it wasn't deliberately introduced. It invaded my garden for the first time last year. Scilly has lots of wild places where only native plants hold sway. A walk round St Agnes and Gugh in late spring is a joy. Don't miss the amazing ice cream at the camp site on St Agnes. I stopped reading your piece when you chuntered out the utter nonsense that "God created evolution." Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 08:05 PM

Three years ago I wrote profusely about ego to you. Your response was that you had no idea what I was on about. I quoted 8 different psychoanalysts and you called it nonsense and dismissed my great labor of explanation. My son has a similar memory to mine. Do you remember his communication with you?

If you ever have a chance to see the movie REVOLVER and watch the last 10 minutes you would see the jist of my thesis.

This is not a memory test since a failure to actively read a long post is more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 20 - 08:24 PM

I have all my PMs for the last three and a half years and in none of them did you discuss my ego. Your son and you briefly discussed teaching with me two years ago. If you're talking about a thread post, I've completely forgotten about it and don't know where it is and I'm not searching for it. It's likely that I either skimmed it or didn't read it at all. I do that with several people here. I wish to inform you that from hereonin discussion of my ego with you will no longer take place.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 09:24 AM

It was not a PM but for everyone. Be that as it may..

Facebook does not like apostates but they burn heretics.
Heretics being actual truth tellers.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 09:35 AM

My uncle used to love me, but she died.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 11:40 AM

Re Scilly, Steve: your last/2nd last word (if we are calling "sheesh" a word) is key - EVOLUTION.

Whether or not we humans believe a god created it, we should always plant natives for the native fauna that evolved with them - unless you think Darwin, also, a fruitcake?

Nice to hear they have got it right in other parts of the island, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 01:58 PM

Nope, I don't agree. And you believe what you like. I don't need to believe. I have evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 02:05 PM

Nope, you have an ego you think is the boss.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: EBarnacle
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 03:03 PM

re: reviving old threads
Mudcat has a wonderful feature called Mudcat Search. It allows one to bring up information about other threads on a subject that interests you. If you feel that you have something to add to the discussion, it makes sense to revive the thread, no matter how old it is. I would rather see a long thread than several blue links above the title, all on the same subject.

I get really annoyed when someone posts an entry identical or almost identical entry to something which has come before in the thread. That says that the poster has not bothered to read the thread but just wants to make an entry.

re: Fakebook, I prefer not to deliver my eyes to a pile of advertising.
The fact that their data control is very insecure means that I would be more vulnerable to hacking. Why should I open myself to more garbage?

re: Phones, Lady Hillary and I both use cell phones. Mine is a flip phone, hers is a smartphone. Both meet our current needs. We have cut off the land line.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 04:16 PM

It's people who say they "believe" who have the big ego, Donuel. Me not agreeing is an opinion. Me wanting evidence is sane. Ego don't come into my situation, pal.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 04:34 PM

Man made god in his own image, and tries to get away with telling others how to behave and what to think because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 05:13 PM

You're not wrong, Maggie. But beware of Don telling you what an ego you've got for saying it... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 05:37 PM

"Evidence," Steve, backing native gardening (details linked above):

Scientists have linked loss of native fauna to loss of native habitat.

Our gardens take up a lot of land in sum and, if we plant natives, we help counter that loss of native habitat.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 06:26 PM

Don't try to scattergun me. In fact, I happen to be a scientist with a degree in botany and plant technology. When I spoke of evidence it was in relation to evolution, which you clearly haven't got the the faintest understanding of. My opinions as to what people should plant in their gardens is an entirely separate issue. Yes I know that accidental introductions have caused problems, but most of those problems have not been caused by gardeners planting ornamentals and you know it. You have a history of xenophobia in relation to flora, fauna and non-native human beings, and you are a misogynist when it comes to women in sport, according to your online burblings. I think that you and I would be far better off not engaging. That's what I'm going to do, though I do reserve the right to take you on over silly remarks. Thank you and goodnight.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 06:45 PM

I'm sure plants and animals have evolved together, although I have questioned some aspects of the theory that Darwin and, latterly, Attenborough have presented.

For example, in my poem "Paradigms" - "If we humans evolved from apes, Why on earth are there living apes?"

And other poems in WalkaboutsVerse, such as "Equal AWARD Pay" and "Land Rights" show your accusations of xenophobia and misogyny to be wrong, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Helen
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 07:03 PM

Steve, for the sake of clarity, if you are addressing a specific person, would you please use that person's name in your reply. I have no idea to whom you are addressing your current replies and it gets very confusing. In fact, I'm wondering whether your replies are addressed to more than one person, which is even more confusing.

But then again, maybe I don't care what you post or to whom you address your posts. Especially if it is not music related.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 20 - 08:35 PM

It's pretty clear that my responses are to WAV. What's your problem, Helen?


WAV, your comment about apes reveals only too clearly your ignorance apropos of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Jan 20 - 05:01 AM

Long acrimonious threads are less common on FB than on Mudcat. On FB people tend to unfriend or unfollow if they see something they violently disagree with, so long chains of comments tend to be boring "me too". In Mudcat there's no way to ignore people , so it gets to be like rats in a sack.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 20 - 05:52 AM

I tend to think of Ego as a possible enemy to myself and trust the more expansive subconscious that is close to the surface. My ego would say that my opinion must apply to others, my subconscious says "I could be wrong, maybe it is only my adaptation"

My conclusion is that some people haven't shared so much as a cup of coffee with their inner and outer voice. In some cases there is nothing wrong with that. Left unchecked it may turn into narcicism or delusion.

This may be old thinking since Freud was making it up as he went along.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Feb 20 - 01:44 PM

It is obvious that objective experience isn’t the whole story. Humans, unlike bees, don’t normally see ultraviolet light, we can’t sense Earth’s magnetic field, unlike turtles, worms and wolves are deaf to high and low pitch noises that other animals can hear, and have a relatively weak sense of smell.
Everybody knows that we don’t see all of reality. I say we see none of it.

The function of the unconscious is to present us with a totality of what we know to judge someting our conscious mind can't handle.

On top of this, our brain presents us with only a snapshot. If our senses took in every detail, we would be overwhelmed. Did you notice the last time you blinked, or that fleshy protuberance called your nose that is always in your peripheral vision? No, because your brain edits them out. A lot of what our senses are doing is something like data compression, simplifying, in order to be moderately aware .

In fact, most of what you 'see' is an illusion. Our eyes aren’t all frequency-seeing, but capture fleeting glimpses of the outside world between rapid movements called saccades. During these, we are effectively blind because the brain doesn’t process the information that comes in when they happen.

Remember Plato's cave where we only have shadow vision?

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Mossback
Date: 02 Feb 20 - 06:10 PM

"Big Tech has received its share of criticism in recent years, but in a new interview, venture capitalist and tech critic Roger McNamee specifically singled out Facebook (FB) and Google (GOOG, GOOGL) for their roles in spreading disinformation.

Why is it so important to address these companies?

“Because they’re the reason we can’t fix climate change,” McNamee, author of the book "Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe,” said this week on The Final Round. “They’re the reason why we have an epidemic of measles due to the anti-vaxers. They’re the reason why white supremacy and gun violence are on the rise because they empower the most disaffected people in society, and they give them a disproportionate political voice.” "

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/roger-mcnamee-on-climate-change-anti-vaxxing-white-supremacy-120859801.html

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Feb 20 - 04:51 PM

refresh
Mars misinformation

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Feb 20 - 11:55 AM

This is pinned to the top of my Twitter account for the foreseeable future. Facebook has too many ways that it doesn't kick out the bogus posts.

Subject: RE: BS: ? probably more suited for Facebook
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Feb 20 - 10:03 PM

Facebook has more members than any single major religion on Earth.
If you will, religion was the first social media and shares many of the foibles of current social media.