BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 11:18 AM

Jack - Good soldier Schweik and, more recently GUEST,Dick Miles AKA SidMelick. Heaven only knows how many others!

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 11:12 AM

My own Handle was taken up as a result of the long-deceased Diane Easby trying to insult a small group of us on a thread about ‘chatting-up’ girls at folk clubs, by referring to us as ‘Backwoodsmen’. My decision to thus become ‘Backwoodsman’ was made by way of being a bit of an attempt at a poke in the eye for DE, but I think it failed, and I don’t think she ever actually ‘got it’.

A couple of clowns have tried to piss me off in the past by corrupting ‘Backwoodsman’ to ‘Backwardman’, but they failed - AFAIC it says more about them than it does about me.

Whatever, I’m happy to be called ‘Backwoodsman’, or ‘BWM’, or even referred to by my real first name (it’s been out there for some time) - makes no difference to me, guv’nah! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 11:11 AM

Surprising that this Mudcat account still exists. I wonder how many more there are?

"captainbirdseye" search

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 10:36 AM

The sort of thing that happens. Who is Stringsinger (who is quite happy to be known by his real name) quoting? No such ID is used on Mudcat now.

https://mudcat.org/detail_pf.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2520765

Anahata (posting as "treewind") used the poster's real name a bit later in the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 07:57 AM

DMcG - I did 30 years plus in a shanty group and I consider it sentence served!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 05:11 AM

”Thanks BWM (if I may call you that).”

Absolutely, Doug, the pleasure’s all mine! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 05:06 AM

I am very dissapointed that is is not Dave McGnome :-D

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 04:59 AM

I've said it several times before, but DMcG has been a 'handle' in all sorts of ways almost all my life. My legal name is David McGlade, though I have always been Dave. In my first job the computer system we used only allowed four character user names, so DMCG it was. Then in around 1980 I started using ArpaNet and similar via that computer, so again DMCG made sense. In later life I was in a management team with someone called Debbie McLean, so out initials against actions in minutes were DMcG or DMcL.

And a few weeks ago I joined a shanty group with several other Daves, so I am Dave McG.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 04:32 AM

Thanks BWM (if I may call you that).

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 04:18 AM

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman - PM
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 04:59 PM

A couple of trolls, you two are easy to read,
what i do is my prerogative.
Michael Grosvenot Myer warned me about Shaw , how right he was.
Donuel described you two as not the sharpest knives in the drawer, how right he was.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman - PM
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 03:20 AM

So we have a situation where some members are deciding to ignore a request and not adress a member using their moniker.
we have mudcat rules which state categorically "You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT be unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."

So you mean it is OK for you to be impolite, argumentative or snooty byt not for anyone else? You went on to say "So a moderators states that there is one set of rules for some and a different set for someone else. What a way to run a forum". But it is not the moderators applying different rules. It is you.

As to If you say that someone is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, you mean that they are using stronger measures than are really necessary to solve a problem.
this is not a mixed metaphor, it is an accepted correct phrase used in many dictionaries on the internet, check it out

Check back on the thre thread. Your exact phrase was "When someone is either deliberately pretending to not understand or does not understand, a sledgehammer is need to kill a nut. , "

My comment was "A good mangled metaphor is a different bucket of kettles though... " Nothing to do with mixed.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 04:15 AM

Do we have in our midst a nut with a toy sledgehammer?

There's a lovely old song called "Oft In The Stilly Night..."

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 04:03 AM

What does DARVO mean Backwoodsman?”

Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 03:52 AM

What does DARVO mean Backwoodsman?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 03:20 AM

So we have a situation where some members are deciding to ignore a request and not adress a member using their moniker.
we have mudcat rules which state categorically "You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT be unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."
   if members decide to ignore those rules because they decide someone does not deserve respect, they are showing lack of respect for the mudcat forum and other mudcat members
As for so called moderator who states this quote
"When you've been around for a long time and when your reputation precedes you, things are different. It's just the way it is. Scolds and rants under these circumstances just make the complainer look petty"
So a moderator is in effect saying there are mudcat rules for some but not for others, so under certain circumstances mudcat rules can be ignored.
that beggars the question why have a set of rules?.


If you say that someone is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, you mean that they are using stronger measures than are really necessary to solve a problem.
this is not a mixed metaphor, it is an accepted correct phrase used in many dictionaries on the internet, check it out

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Mar 23 - 02:17 AM

There would be more chance of respect being earned if the tactic of DARVO was abandoned by its regular practitioner. It’s Gaslighting, it’s dishonest, it’s shameful.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 11:42 PM

Nowt to do with "He started it", Doug, and all to do with respect being earned.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 10:10 PM

I've called him "Shaw" and had a response telling me that it was inappropriate. :)

For those who know who I am, no problem with the first name. When I first signed up at Mudcat (~1999) I did use my full name, but then was away for a while and upon return, adopted the moniker. That first visit was as the child of a deceased folksinger who had been contacted by friends of said folksinger (who were Mudcat members - boy, would Dad have loved this place!) Coming back with a moniker meant I was a separate person from Dad. Perhaps a small distinction for some, but it was important.

I do love Dave's "bucket of kettles" remark. There's nothing like a good mangled metaphor to send me running to Bulwer-Lytton for more examples.

As far as the latest example to spring fully-formed into this thread, I'll mangle Shakespeare and suggest that "the folk singer-songwriter doth protest too much, methinks." When you've been around for a long time and when your reputation precedes you, things are different. It's just the way it is. Scolds and rants under these circumstances just make the complainer look petty.

It's like Leonard Nimoy trying to say that "I am not Spock."

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 08:01 PM

I'm not really a titfertat sort of chap. The only thing about my calling Dick Dick is that I've been doing it for donkeys' years, and he's suddenly started to object. I mean, huh? I call Dave Dave, John John and Maggie Maggie. Doubtless others. Don't really give a flying doodah, but my real name is Steve, all who love me call me Steve so that'll do me. The only exception is when I've done something wrong, in which case my missus calls me Stephen. When that happens, I know I'm in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 07:00 PM

Oops! That was supposed to be a preview, not a send. Sorry about all the italics.

DC

---

Fixed. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 06:58 PM

Yebbut again, Doug, he calls me "Shaw."

Yes, I know what you mean. I have a couple of times here on Mudcat when I have been addressed as "Chadwick". My response each time was:
"If you want to use the name Chadwick to address me, it comes attached either to Doug or Mr."
In each case it had the desired effect and that was an end to it.

We all have the right to object if addressed in a disrespectful way, but equally there is a responsibility to show respect to others. Tit for tat does nobody any good.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 06:21 PM

Yebbut again, Doug, he calls me "Shaw." The last person who did that was my headteacher in 1977. He'd just come to the East End from a posh Scottish school and thought he could do his arrogant public school thing with us hard-bitten types in Poplar. One day, he hailed me from 30 yards behind me as I walked along the corridor one lunchtime: "Oh, Shaw, a word, if you don't mind..." I paused for 1.7 seconds, then carried on walking without turning round.

He never did anything like that again! I'm Steve, and if you call me anything else you can just bugger off!

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 06:16 PM

"But he started it!" belongs in the playground.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 06:09 PM

Yebbut, Doug, just look at the post dated 01 Mar 23 - 04:59 PM

Doesn't exactly earn any respect does it? While I will also stick to the request if I can it would make it a lot easier to be respectful if that respect is warranted

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 06:06 PM

Though I do accept SPB-Cooperator's proviso.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 06:03 PM

Date: 28 Feb 23 - 01:43 PM
......there is no other Sandman on this forum, refer to me as Sandman.

--------------------"--------------------

Date: 01 Mar 23 - 01:29 PM
Anyway I think my question is pretty much answered now that etiquette says that we should answer people by their handles rather than their real names, but I would add a proviso - unless a post is signed off with the their real names.

--------------------"--------------------

Date: 01 Mar 23 - 03:35 PM
Thing is, Dick....

Date: 01 Mar 23 - 03:43 PM
.....We can read Dick like the back of my book.


The Sandman has made it clear how he wants to be addressed . I, for one, will make an effort to meet that request. I feel strongly that others should do the same. Anything else is simply disrespectful

DC.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 05:41 PM

MGM and I did knock sparks off each other at times, but we had a respectful and quite affectionate relationship here most of the time with a twinkle in the eye that you clearly didn't understand, Dick, a bit too subtle for you. I'm afraid that you do Michael a huge disservice. What a shame we can't ask him, and what a shame that you should misrepresent us in that way.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 05:22 PM

Oh, and goes on about not bringing things in from other discussions then does exactly that! I think that post actually belongs on the joke thread but I guess it is the time of night when some may be less than compos mentis...

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 05:11 PM

Eeeeee, I love it when someone goes on about trolling by posting personal attacks and can't even see the irony. Brings back my faith that I must be doing something right :-D

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 04:59 PM

A couple of trolls, you two are easy to read,
what i do is my prerogative.
Michael Grosvenot Myer warned me about Shaw , how right he was.
Donuel described you two as not the sharpest knives in the drawer, how right he was.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 03:43 PM

You're not wrong about those mixed metaphors, Dave. We can read Dick like the back of my book. It's hardly rocket surgery, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 03:35 PM

"I am now going to log out and just use the music forum until i feel like returning, that is my prerogative, do you understand that?" ....said he.

Thing is, Dick, you said this about 18 hours ago, but you've already posted three more times since then as a non-guest. Definitely your prerogative, of course, but do I understand that? Not really!

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 02:09 PM

A good mangled metaphor is a different bucket of kettles though...

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 01:55 PM

Doug , I have done that because Jack is not appearing to understand. When someone is either deliberately pretending to not understand or does not understand, a sledgehammer is need to kill a nut. ,

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 01:29 PM

It is a pretty good quote, even if I say so myself :) :)

Anyway I think my question is pretty much answered now that etiquette says that we should answer people by their handles rather than their real names, but I would add a proviso - unless a post is signed off with the their real names.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 11:44 AM

I almost made the same point myself earlier today, Dave, but I didn’t want to be accused (wrongly) of ‘trolling’ or ‘bullying’.

It’s really not difficult to make it clear when quoting and, at the end of the day, it’s just good manners and best practice.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 11:43 AM

Sandman, I am curious to know why is it necessary to paste the same quote 5 times in the same thread, twice even in the same post?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 11:09 AM

I do wish you would make it known when you are cut and pasting, Sandman. Even if you just put "quotes" around it at least it would make us realise when you are using your own words and when you are using someone else's. It is another common matter of etiquette,

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 10:29 AM

JACK CAMPIN
CO OPERATORS post was not about guest posting, stop muddying the waters you have deliberately behaved in a flaming troll manner, bringing up matters from another forum from over 15 years ago.
your post was malicious, I had not even participated in the discussion, you had an agenda which was to make trouble, whch you have done, you alone made a malicous flaming post, it is you that has behaved in a malicous vicious manner, CO OPERATORS POST
Something that has just occurred to me.

We do not all use our actual names as our mudcat handles but we may know other people's real names.

When we respond to someone on a thread, should we always reply to them by their handle and respect that they may have a reason for their anonymity? Personally I do not mind if people refer to me as Steve or SPB (my initials) or even Co-operator (my profession/ideology), but it could lead to some confusion when other Steves who hold similar views to me are posting in the same thread.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 03:42 AM

Cheers, Dave. As far as I'm concerned, Helen can dig her own holes and I don't feel the need to try to defend myself. Her interventions are often lopsided and, I hate to say, rather shallow at times.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 03:21 AM

Well I will NOT make any effort to collude with Dick's manipulative games with pseudonyms. If he wants to conceal his posting history as "Captain Birdseye" or "Good Soldier Schweik" or whatever, his reasons for doing so can only be malicious. It makes replies to comments he made under those IDs unintelligible. This is vicious and dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 02:50 AM

The Mudcat has always had its share of troublemakers. You only need to look at the number of people who can no longer post below the line to see that the moderation team do indeed act on antisocial behaviour regularly. This is not a recent thing.

As I said earlier, I do try to stick to Mudcat handles but sometimes fail. As you specifically ask I shall certainly make more of an effort for you, Sandman, although I must point out that everyone knows who you are anyway and posting as a guest with multiple pseudonyms is also frowned upon by the moderators.

Helen, you need to take a look at your own posts before complaining about Steve 'jumping in'. It is very obvious that you have issues with him and cannot help commenting on many of his posts. If you dislike what he posts I suggest that you follow the advice detailed in the forum guidelines and ignore him.

Just my 2p of course.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 12:53 AM

Stilly river sage maintains that she and others suffered greater stalking problems. than myself,volume perhaps, 3 years ago I suffered a TIA I can do without Jack Campin attacks
it is not the fault of the victim if they are stalked, People who stalk have behaviour problems.
Likewise, Bullies have behaviour problems
People that bring up occurrences from another forum from 15 years ago,yes .15 years ago, have an agenda, that agenda is to cause trouble to flame and troll to bully and to intimidate another member.
This has been a classic example of an attempt by Jack Campin to flame a discussion. the original post and subject was relatively harmless
QUOTE


We do not all use our actual names as our mudcat handles but we may know other people's real names.


When we respond to someone on a thread, should we always reply to them by their handle and respect that they may have a reason for their anonymity? Personally I do not mind if people refer to me as Steve or SPB (my initials) or even Co-operator (my profession/ideology), but it could lead to some confusion when other Steves who hold similar views to me are posting in the same thread.

SO THE SUBJECT WAS MUDCAT HANDLES OR REAL NAMES, it was not about anything else.

So spiteful attacks occurred ten years ago, that is not the fault of the person being attacked., clearly there was no protection ten years ago and according to mudcat rules from today still no protection.
All the more reason for people to be adressed by their moniker

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 11:12 PM

Maybe go back 20 years to take that look

From July 2003, in a thread discussing the song 'Dixie':
       "...I was just waiting for the usual venom from the usual suspects about the south.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 10:53 PM

It might be a useful training and awareness tool for some people to go back to Mudcat discussions from maybe 10 years ago and see what discussions used to be like. There was respect and a sense of community almost all of the time. It was very rare for spiteful personal attacks to occur.

I am afraid you are looking at Mudcat history through rose tinted spectacles, Helen.

I am not going to name names or even the thread title, for fear of opening up old wounds, but I have just looked at a thread from January 2013 which was discussing religion and sexual abuse. It wad notable that a number of contributors on that thread are no longer able to post in the the BS section because of their subsequent unacceptable behaviour. One of these joined the argument a couple of days in with the comment:
    Sorry to interrupt yet another 'hatefest'.

The thread was closed after less than two weeks.

I found this thread without a great deal of searching and feel confident that I could easily find similar examples from around the same time if I wanted to.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Helen
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 10:33 PM

Thanks. I forgot about that and wouldn't have remembered when it was exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 10:27 PM

Ten years ago we were in the throes of defending ourselves from the old Mudcat troll. Not a pretty time for many people. Maybe go back 20 years to take that look. Just ignore Shambles and jOhn from Hull (or however he typed his name.)

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Helen
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 09:44 PM

It's also a case of low hanging fruit when Steve Shaw can't control his impulses and then jumps in.

This is not a pub. The comments made here are in writing, they are part of the ongoing record of this online forum. It's not like when a bunch of blokes think it is great fun to get loud and have a heated discussion and/or disagreement at a pub and then the hot air just dissipates into the atmosphere. It is here on record.

And apart from that, you blokes might enjoy a stoush or pseudo-stoush, but it is not pleasant for the rest of us, especially when we also become a target which seems to happen much too often these days.

It might be a useful training and awareness tool for some people to go back to Mudcat discussions from maybe 10 years ago and see what discussions used to be like. There was respect and a sense of community almost all of the time. It was very rare for spiteful personal attacks to occur.

IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 08:29 PM

To quote The Lord High Executioner - I've got a little list. (Drives this English major nuts, because it would be better written as "I have a little list" but whatever)

I rarely remember real names versus monikers, but as a matter of courtesy I try to keep track, so when I notice someone signing their name in a post where their moniker is logged in I make a note. That means I can use their name if I send a PM, if I remember to consult my list.

It was low-hanging fruit when I made reference to someone I knew would rise to the bait, but it did serve to illustrate the point. We don't operate in a vacuum, and there are overlapping fora to consider. We do remove a lot of stuff that if people don't see it they don't know it was here. There have been many snide posts that didn't contribute to a thread that Sandman has participated in that have been removed before he saw them. The trouble is, he invites that kind of remark. It is my contention that all of the name changes tend to make him a target, on top of the argumentative nature. If Dick wasn't a damned fine musician we wouldn't tolerate it.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 07:47 PM

I won't try to stop you, Mr Revisionist. Get well eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 07:19 PM

Yes, I have referred to you on occasions in the past by your name.
I apologise.
Dave the gnome and Steve Shaw , i am asking to be refered to by my moniker
Whatever happened over a decade ago on another forum is not relevant to this discussion.
Jack Campin, was picking a fight, and trolling and flaming by bringing up something that allegedly happened on a different forum,over ten years ago, particularly as i had not contributed to this discussion at that point.
what i do remember is that several people were expelled from that forum at that time, and that one of them had said that he wished that someone would chop my fingers off, a terrible thing to say to a musician, and example of the bullying that was allowed to happen there.
Steve Shaw , you decided to continue upping the ante against me by mentioning that forum again, another example of trolling. I do not regard anything to do with michael g, as good old days.
I think he   bullied people and certainly wishing that my fingers were chopped of, is not my idea of good old days
Steve Shaw do i make myself clear.
Sometime ago, joe offer asked me to delete a post in which i mentioned in passing that someone on this forum, i knew had been a head master,i had not realised it was problematic,but out of respect for that person i deleted that post.
so please show me the same respect when i say i wish to be adressed by my moniker
I am now going to log out and just use the music forum until i feel like returning, that is my prerogative, do you understand that?