 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat 'was' great???
|
|
|
Subject: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: canoer Date: 02 Apr 00 - 01:08 PM I have been around Mudcat for a couple of months and find it delightful. I notice in some of the BS threads an occasional statement to the effect that Mudcat is not "what it once was." Clearly those folks feel that "was" was better. I would like to know what "was" was? – Respectfully, Larry C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 02 Apr 00 - 01:14 PM A darn sight friendlier and less judgemental..... It was also a lot sillier, and didn't care a hoot who knew it. It also covered a great deal of musical material, both lyric, tune and history. That bit hasn't changed. It got a lot less flaming too, til some users started to jump down the throats of others, concerning personal issues of religion, race, preference, that sort of thing. The flamers started to get flamed and it just went downhill from there. Used to be you knew which threads you could be silly and run with. Now, with some, you hardly dare make a flippant remark in case you are shot down in flames by someone who doesn't agree with you, but won't let you live your own. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Apr 00 - 02:56 PM Like anything that is alive, the Mudcat changes all the time, but at the same time essentially stays the same. That's one definition of being alive.
In normal definitions of time, the whole Mudcat is really pretty new - the internet gives a distorted sense of time some time. I've been coming around since September last year, and that's enough to make me feel like a veteran. Other people whom I'd think of as real veterans have maybe only been here a few months more than that. Nobody's been here more than a few years, because it wasn't in existence. (The Digital Tradition is a bit older, but not what in normal terms you'd call that long.) It goes through silly phases and pedantic phases and happty phases and angry phases. But at any time, there are some threads which fall into all these categories. And it is fascinating and encouraging and instructive - and creative.
What messes it up every now and then are a handiful of people who like to come on as defenders of "the good old Mudcat", ostensibly trying to bully people into falling into line with some ideas about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate here. But in most cases I think it is pretty clear that they are messing around, trying to stir people up for fun.
One or more of them will quite likely turn up in this thread. Best advice is, if anyone says anything that seems like it fits in that category, just totally ignore them. This is a great place - stay and enjoy it. "You can get anything you want at Max and Dick's Restaurant" .
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Peter T. Date: 02 Apr 00 - 03:03 PM It was always like this, but as Liz says, we have had a variety of small episodes of flaming and grumbling. We shrug it off and continue. The big difference is that, thanks to its success (and the growth of the Internet) there are often 100 or more threads a day. This makes it hard to keep the community threaded together -- but it is still the best place on the Web: go elsewhere and find out!!! yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: The Shambles Date: 02 Apr 00 - 03:04 PM This thread is one year old. . Judge for yourself if things were much different. It would be fair to say, I think, that the flamers were less of a problem, before the date of this thread, than they were after it? There always will be more good things than bad here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: The Shambles Date: 02 Apr 00 - 03:07 PM Sorry I forgot to put the link in. Think Not Etc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Big Mick Date: 02 Apr 00 - 03:19 PM Weeeellllll folks, I have just about had enough of this shite. Could we all quit obsessing with "how it used to be" and "the good old days". I was there for quite a lot of it, not as much as others. There was some good, and some bad, but our town was, is, and ever shall be vibrant and alive. Just like your 3-D towns, there are those people who are horses asses and judgemental and feel it is imperative that they tell everyone what we should look like. I suggest we all do what we do in 3-D land. Just don't associate with those that make us uncomfortable. These so-called "consciences" are no different than the "conservatives" in US society that want to save us from ourselves. They sound a great deal like the people who tried to say that the only thing wrong with Ireland was the Irish. My buddy KathWestra left her hometown to get away from these. Let's just get on with the music, discussion, and kidding around with each other that we do and ignore them completely. They will never tire as long as we continue to start these threads. These are the food they crave. I say starve them. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Rick Fielding Date: 02 Apr 00 - 03:49 PM One of the things that I remember when I first joined (a year and a half ago) was that a stern word from my friend Big Mick or a Joe Offer admonition would have it's desired effect, and cool things down a mite. With all the new folks here and people with skills to be anonymous, seemingly everywhere, that just doesn't work anymore. Goodness knows we all TRY to ignore the ones who's frustration gets the better of them, but sometimes it's well nigh impossible, and we all (including Mick and Joe) jump in when we KNOW we should just head off to the basement for a jar and a pluck or two. Perhaps there are a couple of things to keep in mind though...and these I've found to be ABSOLUTES over my year and a half here: The eruptions last no more than a few days (or as long as it takes them to get REALLY bizarre) and Mudcat is still simply miles better than anything else of it's kind on the net. Until a similar net-area comes along with enforced guidelines of behaviour (which I wholeheartedly support with anything connected to cyber-space) I'll stick it out and try to be a productive member. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Little Neophyte Date: 02 Apr 00 - 04:19 PM What I would like to know is who were all the skilled knowledgable musicians that I was told use to make a valuable contribution to the Mudcat but are not seen posting to this forum anymore? I have been given the perception these musicians use to be around, but now they are not. I guess this was before my time. But I am just wondering, does the perception I have been given really have any true merit to it? Little Neo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: JamesJim Date: 02 Apr 00 - 04:35 PM I've been frequenting the Mudcat Cafe for only about 5 months. Don't get here as often as I did in the beginning, but still look forward to a daily fix. I pay little attention to the "flamers." They can be found anywhere in life and you can choose to igore them, as I have, or if you'd rather jump in, be my guest. I find this to be a gentle place, friendly and welcoming. Just like my home in Kentucky. Glad to have you here, Canoer. Oh, by the way, I'll bet you find the "whitewater" a little chilling this time of year. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Apr 00 - 04:38 PM Two quotes:
"Nostalgia ain't what it used to be"
"These are the Good Old Days" - that's from a song I was looking for but couldn't find (not the version I hald remmeber anyway) - but as a sentiment, I hold that it is it is always true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Apr 00 - 04:57 PM I haven't been here long enough to know what the good old days were like but I think people do tend to drift in and out of these forums. I haven't been taking much notice of newsgroups for the past few months but have just had a look at umf,rmc and rmf and there seem to be very few "familair faces" from say 6 months ago. There are various reasons for people changing habbits and I believe that the odd outbreak of unpleantness or maybe a persons dislike of certain content (eg to much BS) are too often given by others as reasons for the loss or reduced presence of other posters. Regarding the skilled knowlegeable musicains, I think that there plenty here (wish I was one of those) and as somebody leaves, somebody else is likely to come in... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: ddw Date: 02 Apr 00 - 05:16 PM I've been hanging around this place for about 15 months and I haven't noticed all that much long-term difference. Maybe some of the really witty members don't post as often as they used to, but there are still enough zingers flying to know I can come here at the end of a tedious work day and always have a laugh before I go home. I can also ask a question and usually get an answer as quickly as I did when I started — which was and is really impressive in terms of speed, depth and breadth. 'Catters were and still are a pretty amazing bunch. If there is any REAL difference, IMO, it's that there are a lot more people who are friendly, articulate, knowledgable and helpful to tap into. Sure, there are things that annoy me sometimes. I've suffered through the flaming and nastiness with the others — occasionally more in agreement with the flamers than the flamed and vice versa. But I still think — as was so well put by Rick Fielding — that it's still the best place on the net to be. I can't say I remember the OLD old days, but for the time I've been here I've been pretty satisfied with what I've found. And my position on those who want to change it to suit their tastes — either to what they think it was or what they want it to become — is that if they don't like it they can brush up on their programming skills, go start their own village and play God there. david |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: MK Date: 02 Apr 00 - 05:44 PM It all reminds me of the old Mafia wars. I believe the Clemenza character in Godfather Part I was explaing things to Michael Corleone, while teaching him how to cook for many who have hit the matresses, that every ten years or so these things happen and it's a chance to clear out the old blood and refresh things. Only with all these consciences, it's more like every few months...or weeks. As others have said, don't feed them, and they will die. The overwhelming good will, encouragement and generosity of spirit so prevalent on this Forum, has proven time and time again that it conquers all trollers and flamers, under any adverse tones or conditions imposed, that these few attempt to set. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: kendall Date: 02 Apr 00 - 05:47 PM Change is inevitable.. resistance to change is also inevitable. If the universe were static, we would all be back in the caves trying to invent fire. In the final analysis, who is in charge of where the Mudcat goes?? WE ARE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST,Pete Peterson Date: 02 Apr 00 - 05:51 PM Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine (Spider Robinson) and BTW who ate my cookie? I'm now a Guest. (Well that helps to remind me to behave as a Guest ought to behave. . . ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Escamillo Date: 02 Apr 00 - 07:39 PM Little Neo, I agree with Big Mick and Rick and others, this place IS great, it is full of gentle and knowlegeable people, and is a living organism which will change for better or worse, but seems to keep a high quality, musical and personal. As to HOW those old days were, I notice that almost all complaints come from people who like to attack others, under anonimity, to say how we all should behave (to his/her taste), who should stay and who should leave, what subjects should we deal with,etc. Then I don´t trust them, and ignore their attacks and every concept they may express. I consider them not morally authorized to qualify anything. And keep the doors open for them when they grow up and contribute with something, be it musical or simply friendly comments. Un abrazo - Andrés |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: kendall Date: 02 Apr 00 - 07:42 PM Sure, but, remember, Hitler got real famous doing that |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Rick Fielding Date: 02 Apr 00 - 08:45 PM With a huge grin on my face Little Neo, I can tell you I asked THE VERY SAME QUESTION THAT YOU JUST DID, about a year ago. It was at a time when the actual IDEA of non-musical threads seemed to be the big issue. I was firmly on the side of those who wanted to be able to discuss politics, current issues, philosophies etc. In fact Heather and I used to read many of the threads together just for the interesting and skillful way many presented their arguments. You'd get the occasional "hey stick to music", or "I'm outta here" comments, and Gargoyle could be counted on to intersperse knowledgable posts, with real nastiness, but since we knew what to expect from him he was often a "unifying force" (which probably annoyed him even more. The main argument for the "Music only" folks always seemed to be that good resource people couldn't take all the "Chat" and "self-revelation" and were leaving in droves. I believe Joe Offer answered my query and named quite a few who had departed. I took his point, and modified my position slightly. Something that I feel is totally neccessary every so often unless you really enjoy "diggin' in yer heels fer a fight". I guess a lot do. But for heaven's sake, most (not all) folk scholars are gettin' up in years and if 250 newbies have joined us in recent times it's pretty unrealistic to think that more than 10 or so of them are REALLY "trad knowledgable". No one seems stingy about passing on info, so I'm happy with that. The only problem (if it's REALLY a problem) is that there are so many more of us here now. It's simply harder to control when folks go nuts. If this thread carries on in a civil and mannered way (not passive, just opinionated without fear of flaming or reprisal) then you'll be able to see EXACTLY what the old Mudcat was (and can certainly still be at anytime when folks choose it) I guarantee you'll enjoy it. If it reaches 50 or so without any "oh yah, yer mother wears army boots" stuff, you'll probably see some unfamiliar names pop up to give their points of view. They may be folks who have been around for awhile looking for a spot to jump back in where they might actually be listened to. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST, Another conscience.... Date: 02 Apr 00 - 09:24 PM Andres, for one so new to the place you are now judging the 'morally authorized'.
And Mick. You and I would probably agree on most things in the general run of things. However let's not put the cart before the horse here. The point was made in the Honesty/compassion thread that this has invaded the threads where people who are looking for advice on whatever, find themselves trying to take on board some other discussion which really belonged in another thread. This normally happens because two or more of the contributors to the chit-chat have come over to be of 'assistance' in the music one and have carried on in the new thread, therefore taking the subject matter in hand. This kind of behavior; and it is far from rare, has got worse in the past year. There is no need to categorize the people who are perpetrating the counter-measures as 'gutless shitheads'. The self-seekers on this forum, the ones who's personalities take over on the Tavern, Song Challenge etc. spread their mediocrity over other threads which has a call for a little higher degree of knowledge. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" Perhaps I should expand a little on what Jon has said to further illustrate. Jon reckons that people tend to drift in and out. Absolutely. Such is the nature of this place. But they are doing it a lot less oftener than before. This place is famous. I don't think the Taverners, and Challengers realize how famous. Consider, if you will, a concentric circle. On the inner one are the 'members'. Fully signed up 'members' Out here lie quite a lot of the people who the others are discussing. We pop in from time to time to enjoy the atmosphere and craic. Sometimes a personality as forwarded his own name, and has joined in the discussion about one of his songs. Only to be told that you must come back here 'cos I want to interrogate you about the reasons for so and so' I , who am not the person I have just referred to, but I know of the incident, have seen discussions of songs where the writer has come in and qualified his song has ben told that he didn't write the song. It is unfortunate that some of us can't use our name. The people who think that our names are important, in order to qualify ourselves as 'people' are mostly those who inhabit the inner sanctums, and while using (it's quite amusing, actually)the reason that if your not 'man' enough to post your name, then your opinion is of no worth. It's a bit like the elections really. The percentage of people voting, compared to the registered voters, is in fact quite small. Add to that the 2 parties to split that vote. Add to that again the divisions in the various parties. And by the time the President is elected a very very small of the overall people vote. The same analogy works here. Those who are on a 'side' in this forum are a small percentage of the people who hit these pages. Those who see themselves as being 'elder statespeople' and therefore 'guardians of the Mudcat in it's present form' are not actually seeing the whole picture. They haven't fathomed the outer circles that I have talked about, and unfortunately some of them don't think that any one except the inner circle should be allowed to exist. That is arrogance, and when I have seen it in the past, I have shrugged it off, turned this computer off, turned the studio one on and jammed. Two weeks later, perhaps, I'd surf a bit (my start page on my browser is the Mudcat), check back on a few threads (technical, musical, whatever), and see that the top ten threads are about, lets be honest, nothing. It is all very good to say "well why don't you go off and help somebody if you are that concerned." That's exactly my point. The answerers are leaving. Bit by bit, but they are leaving. That leaves the 'inner circle' who then become teacher, mentor, spiritual leader. The thing is very few people see the join, and in fact this 'evolvement' that is talked about is the 'morphing' of a totally different animal. I was saddened to see a few of what I shall, for want of a better word, call good people, coming to a few threads yesterday and saying things like "...well, I don't like this and I think such and such..." These people don't like what's going on, and remember there are people who have opinions, who don't post their grieviences, for fear of 'falling out' with someone. That is only natural. That's not why I do it. Other factors rule my life, but names aren't really important. Some people at this forum know when I'm online, and I recognize one, at least, other old pal and storehouse of info, who has shown up after a long abscence.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Bert Date: 02 Apr 00 - 09:29 PM Yes, it's still a really good place to be. But even when our old Gargoyle was kicking up a fuss he had the guts to admit it, I've not seen him around much so I suppose he's a bit peeved about being grouped along with the likes of 'he of the little font'. Last Friday I decided that I was going to have some fun with all the gutless wonders that seem to be springing out of the woodwork. If we don't know who they are, then we can't talk TO them. But we can sure have some fun talking ABOUT them. I did a quick count of the threads. There were 88 music related threads and 16 BS threads. I don't know what the gutless wonders are complaining about, but one things for sure, 'They can't bloody count'. I don't think we necessarily have to ignore these silly sods, especially when we can have so much fun with them. So, let's enjoy talking about them as though they are not there, and only acknowledge them when we know who they are. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Bert Date: 02 Apr 00 - 09:29 PM Yes, it's still a really good place to be. But even when our old Gargoyle was kicking up a fuss he had the guts to admit it, I've not seen him around much so I suppose he's a bit peeved about being grouped along with the likes of 'he of the little font'. Last Friday I decided that I was going to have some fun with all the gutless wonders that seem to be springing out of the woodwork. If we don't know who they are, then we can't talk TO them. But we can sure have some fun talking ABOUT them. I did a quick count of the threads. There were 88 music related threads and 16 BS threads. I don't know what the gutless wonders are complaining about, but one things for sure, 'They can't bloody count'. I don't think we necessarily have to ignore these silly sods, especially when we can have so much fun with them. So, let's enjoy talking about them as though they are not there, and only acknowledge them when we know who they are. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Bill in Alabama Date: 02 Apr 00 - 09:35 PM Awright, here's my dime's worth: Rick, thanks-- I'm much obliged for your level-headed approach.
I grew up in a tiny Appalachian community which had a full complement of eccentrics and hard-headed Scots-Irish mountain folks along with a few Indians whose ancestors managed to dodge the relocation to Oklahoma. If I could survive to maturity in that community amongst the snake-handlers, moonshiners, trotline rustlers, and assorted other individuals, I reckon that Mudcat can't fling anything on me that I can't handle. Let me say also that, while I often wish the Mudcat had not changed to the extent it has, I have tried to adjust to its evolution, and that, while I am deeply disturbed at what I consider to be the dippiness and the shallow nature of much of what goes on, I manage to (a) remind myself that it is a community, and (b) refrain from expressing my frustration and disappointment on the open forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Apr 00 - 10:04 PM It is a pitty that there is no way (at least none that I know of) to put a date filter on the forum. I am not argueing against those who say that Mudcat has changed but I would like to be able to read a cross section of threads from a few periods in time just to try to get the feeling of what it was like. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST, Another conscience.... Date: 02 Apr 00 - 10:04 PM Thank you Shambles for that link. Read the second paragraph. Hell... read it all!! This is an example of what I'm saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: The Beanster Date: 02 Apr 00 - 10:16 PM First of all, I would like to apologize to anyone who was recently an unfortunate innocent bystander who stood witness to some of my exchanges on this forum with certain others who shall remain nameless. I am the type who likes to get in to a bit of a scuffle now and then (sheepish) but this mess just deteriorated so horrendously that I decided to just pipe down, take a shower and wash the filth off of myself (and now, I feel much better, thank you)! Unlike many of yourselves, I am not a musician but stumbled upon this place about three weeks ago and thought it seemed like a fun place...nice people, friendly atmosphere. Since I don't have the knowledge or experience to contribute in any musical way, the way I chose to "pay" my way, was to do searches for people requesting lyrics, history on bands/songs, etc., and the like. I have what I consider to be the Mother of All Search Engines and decided that that's how I could contribute. It's the only way I can contribute. I have grown attached to you folks. I feel protective, I guess. So, when I saw certain people attacking other people here, it made me angry and I decided to provoke those others with the stupid thought that maybe, if they attacked me, they would leave the others alone--nutty, narcissistic and naive, I know. But how it worked out was (of course), they just had one more target in addition to the other people who served as fuel for their fire. (And I am proud to tell you, that I didn't even read the posting above--and you know which one I mean). lol I have now decided to stay on the higher ground where I feel most comfortable (along with the rest of you) and this is where I will remain. By the way, wanna hear something funny? There really is no other place like this that I know of because in my searching travels, I have come across rock, pop and blues forums and have posted questions on them from time to time, trying to answer questions for people here at Mudcat and you know what? Not one single answer yet--not via e-mail nor on the forum itself--and I don't expect to get answers--ever. This has really confirmed my belief that Mudcat is really unique, really special. I'm happy to be here and I'm in for the long haul. ...you put your right foot in and you shake it all about... The Beanster (Jeanie) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST,Wavestar Date: 02 Apr 00 - 10:20 PM Hmm.. Because I'm new, I've stayed out of the mudflinging as much as I could until now, and I don't plan on flinging, really... Having watched for a little while, though, I'll say this: When I first came, what really impressed me was how rapidly a somewhat complex question was answered, by knowledgable and helpful people. I've asked several others since then, some of which have attracted wits, and most of which have been clearly answered. That, in my opinon, is the primary wonder about this place, and what should be preserved overall- everyone's combined knowledge of music as a resource for each other and anyone who wanders in. There's nothing else like it. There are a lot of questions, posts, etc about things other than music, which are entertaining, but the question does remain, are they suitable? And given that they are, can we accept that this is tolerance on the part of a music based site, and communication between friends and strangers (who may become friends) giving advice and thoughts on other subjects? I don't think (My opinion, of course) that the sort of biting response that Bert gave above, referring to the 'gutless' is neccesary, coming from TTCM, Bert, or anyone else... Those two names come up, and I'm not trying to link them too much together, since one is nothing but nasty, and one is striking back, but nothing in AC's message suggested that that kind of response was appropriate, and I think that should be respected. Otherwise, my approach has usually been to ignore flamers, particularly ones like TTCM, who, although they clearly have an opinion, don't (from what I have seen) seem to really have an agenda other than being nasty. I'd like to think I won't have anything more to say on this subject- That's not a promise, but then, my opinion doesn't count for much anyway. -J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: The Beanster Date: 02 Apr 00 - 10:48 PM It counts as much as anyone else's Wavestar--a lot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST, The Thread Watcher Date: 02 Apr 00 - 10:52 PM Beano. Have you no engines to search? Fetch!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST, Another conscience.... Date: 02 Apr 00 - 10:55 PM Could I have something by the Buchan Humlies please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: canoer Date: 02 Apr 00 - 11:11 PM I'd like to thank everyone very, very much for working on my question. I see that the answer does not seem to be as dramatic as some have stated. I also see that a lot of the casual stuff is sort of the price of fame. I can't help but believe we will all get more skilled in sorting through the "static" as time goes on. I would like to ally myself with Bill of Alabama: "proud to be here under any conditions." Thank you all again -- Larry C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST,Dan Healy Date: 02 Apr 00 - 11:34 PM I have only been here for a couple of days. Today I posted an answer to a thread and received some darn nice comments and advice. Actually the reason I came here was I had asked once before about the lyrics and chords for a song. I received an almost immediate answer from an individual whom I suspect was the author or was a collaborator on the song and lyrics. I have seen this type of unrest occur in other places and realize that you will have that 2% who just cant remain civil. One of the things you can do to avoid this is not feed the fire. Something that you will write as I am doing now will stomp on someone elses keyboard. It is not meant to do so. But you know, YOU dont have to post a nasty reply. YOU can also let it slide. One way to put out a fire is NOT TO FEED IT. eventually it just burns itself out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST, Another conscience.... Date: 02 Apr 00 - 11:54 PM But Dan, the ones that we refer to believe that they have the monopoly on this forum, and the rot spreads. It is brave of TTCM to have run the gauntlet and perched himself on the walls of the rapidly becoming chicken coop; I don't have the time, to be honest. I come here, do my thing; things in the line of what Dan (fair play to you) refers to, check the BS content, if I have time, maybe laugh along with the others, maybe not. But the quality of the BS has got even worse. That is undeniable. The Mudcat always had a bit of BS knocking around, and I used to be on the floor with tears in my eyes sometimes. Oh... Beano?, I know they're cows, I was thinking more of the group. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Sorcha Date: 03 Apr 00 - 12:45 AM Oh for pity's sake---it's not about "NAMES" or public information, it's about who is "Who" and who you were on your last post. There is no continuity, because it is so easy to delete a member cookie, and post as "Guest Whatever"....it is also about maintaining an identity that is consistent. It is about calling an "I" a "We". Just who is the "We"? Queen Victoria? as in "We are not amused"? It is about inaccurate comments such as "Whosis never posts musical stuff" I checked my own posts, and by my count, 2/3 of them are music related, one way or another. It is about "Who" is counting what. It is about "What is Folk? What is Blues? What is music related?" Just who elected THEM the God of Mudcat? I thought that was Max. And while I am on Max, it is his site, and his radio show, so HE can decide what to play. If THEY don't like it, THEY don't have to listen! Just what depression are THEY talking about? If you think this place is depressing, see the BS Tavern threads, NOT! depressing at all, I assure you, unless you think everything not music related is depressing, and just who gets to say what is related to what? Soooorrreee, but in this place, it is MAX! Thank you and rant off. Sorcha is always Sorcha, and the same every time. What you see is what you get, buds. Also, "monopoly"= control by one, hey, We, contol by ONE here is contol by Max, he is the ONE, not some other poster. No ONE poster has a MONOPOLY on anything!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST, Another conscience.... Date: 03 Apr 00 - 12:53 AM Yes, but Sorcha, You may have posted to musical threads, but what did you talk about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Sorcha Date: 03 Apr 00 - 01:21 AM Modes, lyrics, tunes, history, that stuff. Go pay a bill, friend. Just what "musical" content has "another conscience" posted? Show it to me bud! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Clifton53 Date: 03 Apr 00 - 01:37 AM I've been watching all of this unfold, and as a newer 'catter with maybe 7 months under my belt, I do not know what the " good old days" were like. I was using the DT for several weeks before I started wondering what all this other stuff below the DT grid was. As I got further involved and started posting, it became clear that this was a pretty special place. And when gatherings within my reach were announced, the only thing to do was go and check it out. Didn't know what to expect, was kinda nervous, but I had enough faith in my ability to sit down and let 'er rip. I'm not a pure trad guy ( Jeez I hate using I so much, bad writing), mostly stick with modern stuff and Irish songs. I have some knowledge but not too much in the trad vein. Anyway, it seems to me that sitting at the computer and fighting with someone is not as pleasurable as duking it out verbally in person. I get little satisfaction from flaming somebody and going into the kitchen for a bite. Only one time did I actually get pissed, and I let the offender know it rather quickly. But, as in real life, you can get in a fight every day if you try, especially here on the east coast! I've had to bite my tonque and ignore a lot of shit, just like in 3D. My point? Hell, don't even know if I have one! The Mudcat is not my life. My life is working hard, playing as much music as I can, and getting my kids into adulthood. It pains me to see such animosity, for whatever reason, and from both sides of this issue. I can't with clear conscience ridicule the efforts of anyone musically, because I sounded like shite once too. I don't need anyone telling me to bend over and spread 'em, nor do I need to be watchful of my words for fear someone may dump on me. And I don't discuss religion with anyone, because all it does is start shit. Let's just let it grow, and not try to train it up the stake. Clifton
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: The Beanster Date: 03 Apr 00 - 02:13 AM I keep coming back to this thread to see what's new and it's great to read people's thoughts on this subject. (And though certain others are clinging to their usual tactics, attempting to grab attention, it's not working this time). It's nice to see that we can ignore inflammatory posts and go back to the usual: helping each other, welcoming newbies, lending assistance, knowledge and good will. Go, Mudcat, Go! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST, Another conscience.... Date: 03 Apr 00 - 03:37 AM Sorcha, those places that I have posted to, you probably have never been, thereby depriving yourself of a certain education by others who actually utilize this place. No doubt you were mind-melding with someone, and your time here too taken up to be of any real value to the Folk and Blues musician who would value your deep insight into certain subjects, considering, of course, you know something about it in the first place. Instead of telling us how bad your cat farts, and things to that effect. Any luck there, Beano? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Magpie Date: 03 Apr 00 - 07:48 AM I'm still quite happy with the Mudcat. I still enjoy the music-oriented threads, the jokes and the advice. I can't be bothered to post to the bickering threads, but some of them are actually quite interesting. At least they tell me who's worth paying attention to, and who's not. Magpie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler Date: 03 Apr 00 - 08:32 AM I find the best way to retain the Mudcat the way it needs to be to keep me coming back is to refrain from reading small print postings and to refrain from getting drawn in to flaming posts. It would be a pity to throw out the baby with the bathwater (or down the plug'ole) as many of the BS threads and thread-creeps on to food, humour and the meaning of life are entertaining (excluding my poor attempts of humour, naturally)and the forays into popular song, music hall etc. do interest non-purists like myself. (Too many refrains here so I'll refrain from joining in the refrain and get back to work) RtS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST,Dan Healy Date: 03 Apr 00 - 11:29 AM To Sorcha & conscience -- had you heeded or even understood what I wrote before about not feeding the fires you both wouldn't be writing and sending fuel, the fire would have subsided by now. Have a GOOD day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST,Peter T. Date: 03 Apr 00 - 11:50 AM I think there has actually been some decent criticism on this thread among the jerks (unlike most of the others on this topic). It seems to me, however, to be eventually based on the paradox of the success of this place. When this began, it was a very small group of people, with no more than 15-20 postings a day -- and apart from those of us who were lucky enough to stumble on to it looking for songs, I guess it was a word of mouth thing. 4 years ago, there were a lot less people using the Internet, period, and only 2 or 3 search engines. We did chat and have stupid remarks, and so on (heaven knows). I don't think it is worth doing the percentages, but I suspect the ratio of music threads to non-music threads is still about the same: the problem (I don't think it is a problem) is the sheer volume of everything. It is more work, even just to scroll. I think it is great: others don't: it is just too noisy for them. I would become worried if the music threads turned into crap, were infected with nonsense: but I don't by and large see that happening. The music threads, and there are tons of them every day, go their way, excitingly. I can see no way out of this except to privatise Mudcat into a club: but happily up to this point Max has made us thrive on openness, and I subscribe to that. I think we just have to live with graffitti: everyone else does in a well-travelled place. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: GUEST, A.C. Date: 03 Apr 00 - 01:53 PM So I take it then Peter T, that a 'jerk' is someone who can actually reason something out without you agreeing with them. How many other jerks do you know then? I see that a lot of you people haven't taken the lid off your jamjar yet and tried to look further in to this place. Privatization eh? Good lad Peter. Just keep the suggestions coming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Apr 00 - 02:44 PM What puzzles me is anonymous posting. I don't just mean using a pseudonym, or even insisting on coming in as GUEST, because of fear of poisonous cookies, or because they are doing it on the firms conmouyter and the firms time maybe. I mean the genuinely anonymous ones, who flame in as GUEST without a handle of any mind, or use some label that other people use as well, and then proceed to sneer and insult the rest of us.
When you have a point of view you feel like sharing,you want people you're communicating with to be able to understand what that it. You want top be able to make a follow-up post in a discussion trerad explaining what you meant, or modifying it to takem account of what someone else said.
Anyonymity gets in the way of that. And it makes it impractical for other people to either agree or disagree with you or refer to what you said - "At 3.32 on 21st March GUEST said on such and such a thread such and such a thing. Did he or she mean,...etc etc"
I am driven to the conclusion that the people who go in for this sort of thing are just playing around. Any talk about "the quality of the Mudcat discussions" etc are just sucker bait, to try and gte people talking about them instead of about music or anything else we might want to talk about.
It's a pity, because there are some issues that deerve to be discussed. This thread has opened up a few of them, and there are disagreements that are worth exploring. There may even have been posts from some of the anyonymous people I referred to just now which had something to say worth considering.
But until they drop the anonymity , they are invisible as well as anonymous,which means I can't even see them any more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Big Mick Date: 03 Apr 00 - 05:26 PM I am cracking up at A.C.. This person, for reasons of their own, chooses to remain anonymous. I have no quarrel with that as I suspect it is someone whom I know and probably like. I suspect that they remain anon because they don't want to incur "bad" feelings, so this way they can remain accepted within the community and use the alter ego when something bugs them. Fair enough. There are times when people that I have come to care about a great deal, go off the deep end and start things that drift far from where we started. And I am sure that in the estimation of other friends I have gone off the deep end as well. But what is cracking me up is A.C. uses a cover name and then takes it personal when they receive criticism. Wasn't that the point A.C.??? LOL. Another day in the village...............hahahahaha. I love this place!!! All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:57 AM If the songs we sing were not about the meaning of life, then there would be no place to discuss that meaning here. They are, so we do. For some of us, it is the only place we get to do so. There were better times, who's to say these aren't going to be better still? LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: canoer Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:46 AM Hey! Liz! Very, very nicely said!
Another nice thing about Mudcat, even the BS, is how many times I read things just perfectly or beautifully phrased. It's for such moments that wading thru a little low BS once in a while does not seem particularly burdensome.
Write on -- Larry C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Amos Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:20 AM I reckon the truth is that the Mudcat ain't "was" anything! It is. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'was' great??? From: Peter T. Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:52 AM A.C., lots of people reason here in ways that I disagree with completely, because although they reason they weigh the evidence and their experience differently. You should check out the Irish and gun control threads. I don't consider them jerks. It is trying either to shut down reasoned discussion or just saying that BY MY DEFINITION WHICH I AM NOT GOING TO DISCUSS this discussion(whatever it is) has nothing to do with folk music and should be banned from this site that bothers me. I have yet to hear, on any of the 1,000 threads we have had on this site, a reasoned argument why the very various discussions we have had have nothing to do with the guts of folk music, including ( God knows) the Irish question, which has generated a measly 1 or 2 million folk songs in its history. Not once. I -- and other people -- have put forward numerous examples of the diversity of songs, our reasoned and passionate support for a wide definition of folk music as incorporating the wellsprings of human expression and struggle, etc, etc. NOT ONCE has anyone replied to the marshalling of this evidence, the elements of the position, the structure of the argument, the history of folk music. NOT ONCE. It is all just snarky comments about how we should be sticking to some unspoken version of one person's definition of what things should be. Not argued, not defended, not put out here for discussion or comment. Just bitching. There is probably a good argument out there for having a very narrow definition of folk music: I think it would be a stupid argument, but we could fight it out, using reason, evidence, and a certain amount of passion (reason isn't everything). And that would only be the beginning of the discussion -- we would have to consider whether a narrow definition, while accurate, would serve the Mudcat community's desires as a whole, given its diversity. And so on. In the meantime, while awaiting such a contribution (mountains sink, valleys rise), we get piles of rude crap instead. yours, Peter T. |