MUDCAT VOW.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:10 PM

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: SharonA
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:37 PM

*refresh*

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 01:52 PM

MUDCAT VOW II

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 12:42 PM

Could someone maybe explain why anybody might intentionally post as plain GUEST? I mean, not even a temporary pseudonym to indicate that two posts come from the same person.

Maybe there is someone who used to do it, but doesn't now, who can suggest a reason or two. (I'm afraid I've decided never to enter into any kind of direct discussion with unadorned GUESTs, which may seem unfair, but it is based on hard experience.)

I'm not being sarky here, I'm genuinely curious, because I can't think of any reasons (apart from simple shit-stirring of course, but I'd like to think there might be something more to it than that).

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: SINSULL
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 09:24 AM

Anyone who suggests that a disabled child should be taught to play with himself (in response to a request for appropriate instruments) deserves to be shunned. We have an obligation not to encourage this behavior by giving it creedance and arguing with the author. This isn't censorship. It is common sense. I apply the same common sense to the poor unfortunates I see on the subway every day who in their mental distress suggest outrageous sex acts. There is no logic to their suggestions. There is no point in encouraging their behavior by arguing with them. I am not judging them, not censuring them, not even trying to shut them up, just plain ignoring them.
Shambles has it right, in my opinion.
SS

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 09:05 AM

...then there's the other kind of GUEST, who says something that actually may have some socially redeeming value, but is largely ignored because of prejudice (some of it justified, some of it not) against anonymity.

Just consider the words; not who (or what) says them, or whether or not they came from an identifiable pseudonym.

The Shambles has demonstrated repeatedly throughout this forum, that he/she is a thoughtful and considerate individual. Some may take issue with his/her topics of discussion and thoughts thereon, but his/her heart's in the right place, and therefore IMHO deserves the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I still can't take The Sambles' vow.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 06:44 AM

As I've said elsewhere, noone is saying that censorship should be imposed on us.

And bobjr, the combination of no capital letters and no paragraph breaks really does make it hard reading a post that is more than a couple of lines. It makes me eyes go funny, and I'm sure that kind of thing makes people skip the post pretty often, which I am sure is not the idea..

Just look, and see what I mean:

as I've said elsewhere, noone is saying that censorship should be imposed on us.and bobjr, the combination of no capital letters and no paragraph breaks really does make it hard reading a post that is more than a couple of lines. It makes me eyes go funny, and I'm sure that kind of thing makes people skip the post pretty often, which I am sure is not the idea..

But please yourself, of course.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: bob jr
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 01:19 AM

i live in canada now though i was born in england and over here we have laws against some forms of freedom of expresion such as child pornagraphy and hate crimes (ie rascist literature although not every kind but thats another kettle of fish). freedom of speech and expresion is always a hard fought right and always under attack where ever you go ,instead of being cherished it is scorned because if you line up for it you line up with a certain percentage of creeps (ie child pornagraphers and hate mongers) but to be against free speech is to be for cnesorship of ideas and language , the question often asked and hard to answer is "where do you stop?". this thread shows that different people have different ideas of where to stop but it all leads to some kind of restrection of ideas which considering musicians political temperment (or often lack of one altogether) is suprising to me. here we have people who wish to express themselves in anyway they want talking about how they dont want others here to express themselves in ways they dont like.its called censorship and it is not something you should be fore because the next idea to get censored could be yours shambles...................dont be a bunch of hypocrites just learn to accept that the price of free speech is a few bad apples and the price of censorship is a whole basket

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 00 - 07:54 PM

Yup - but without the GUEST prefix there'd be no way of knowing that a post in the name of The Shambles or whoever didn't actually come from some joker trying to turn people against each other. So it's a price we have to pay. It's a pity.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jul 00 - 07:29 PM

Are you a lumper or a splitter?.

Just trying to point out that it used to be easier, before the 'guest' prefix.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 00 - 01:37 PM

There are three sorts of GUESTS. There are those who have just found the Mudcat, and call in to ask a question. These should be welcomed, because they'll very likely wish to come back, get rid of the GUEST prefix, and be valued members of this odd virtual community.

There are those are in reality members of the community, but can't take the magic cookie that gets rid of the prefix GUEST. Maybe they're using a computer connection that won't allow cookies, or something like that. Anyway, they identify who they are with a real name or a pseudonym, and accept the possibility that some joker will use their name in vain, and say thing that will make people think they have lost their marbles. And the sensible thing should to treat them with the courtesy we should treat each other generally. (Which means maybe being irreverant and even offensive at times, but never saying anything we wouldn't say to each other if we were face to face in a session.)

And there are people who sign in as GUESTS, maybe without anything extra, maybe with some additional pseudonym, but who demonstrate that they are just stirring the shit because that's what they like doing. And the only thing to do with them, is ignore them completely. They just do not exist.

Which means I'm the fifth person to respond to this thread since you refreshed it, Shambles.

That word "vow" seems to worry a few people. Maybe "resolution" might be a better word. As in the New Years Resolutions we most of us make, and most of us break as well. Making a resolution or a vow is like making an appointment with yourself in the future. It's just a way of declaring an intention to do something or not to do it. Some of us find it helpful sometimes. I can't see how that can be much a problem to anybody, provided the intention isn't something harmful.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Barfy
Date: 09 Jul 00 - 09:15 AM

Yes...Yes....OOOOOOhhhhh.....OOOOOOhhhh
That's right..........Yes...Yes....OOOOOOoooohhhh
OOOOOhhhhhh Yessssss......AAAAAAhhhhh
Nearly There........YYYYYYYYyeeeeeeeeeeSSSSssssssssssss.....
AAAAAAhhhh...AAAAAhhh...AAhhhhhhh....
Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Phew

That's the last time I'll pedal my bike to the top of that hill!

Go away, Shambles. Or I will wave my testicles at your aunties.

Oremus

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: zonahobo
Date: 09 Jul 00 - 06:47 AM

You regular and informed posters to the forum are like the chefs in a restaurant serving up your knowledge for many minds to consume. The occaisonal wise cracks, taunts and spicy discourse are the seasoning. If a poster must be a seasoning, may it be a light sprinkling. A meal of pepper and parsley would not be very satisfying nor would the meal be complete without it. We consumers would soon tire of too bland a diet. As for humor, it must be the sugar we seem to never get enough of.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Callie
Date: 09 Jul 00 - 06:20 AM

Shambles, I appreciate the sentiment behind your posting. However, I would have phrased it more succintly, and less generously: Anonymous Posters Bugger Off!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jul 00 - 04:25 AM

This is intended as a helpful, and useful reminder?

I would like to point out that it may be wise (in the long term interests of The Mudcat, to consider views expressed in posts from ALL posters with a GUEST prefix, the same way as you would views from an unsigned or anonymous letter writer or a nuisance telephone caller?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Dr. Ruth
Date: 08 Jul 00 - 09:46 AM

Shambles,
Perhaps in future, you can masturbate offline?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Barfy
Date: 08 Jul 00 - 09:34 AM

"it can and has been demonstrated that it is possible to discuss anything here"

Indeed, but Shambles takes discussing nothing to new levels of mediocrity

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Pepi LaPu
Date: 08 Jul 00 - 09:20 AM

Combien détruirions-nous si Shambles partait de ce forum?

Vous êtes un être indulgent d'individu total.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Jul 00 - 09:04 AM

If you read this thread carefully you will see what course of action many people have taken and why. There is no serious obligation on anyone to take oaths or follow suit. Just an inherent request that the wishes of those that have taken this course of action be respected.

If the writer respects the reader and the reader respects the writer, it can and has been demonstrated that it is possible to discuss anything here……. Also that when this course of action is generally followed, the climate will improve.

Whatever petty squabbles, quibbles and differences there may be among contributors to The Mudcat, I would hope that we are mature enough to put those aside and work together. To try and ensure that those that would ONLY seek to divide, do not succeed and do not receive any encouragement on this thread or any other?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 06:49 PM

"Even when we use the same language, we are not talking with the same cultural expectations.

That is especially true when we talk of our Ringmaster In-Waiting

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: RichM
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 06:01 PM

This is a world forum. As such, we constantly meet diverse opinions-- on music, life, sexual orientation,religion, philosophy, politics, guns, "freedom", women, men, so-called"inappropriate language", rules on exclusion/inclusion: ie, the man-woman thread about hearme)... In other words, anything where *I-we-you-they* agree or disagree. The key is not to be concerned about who is *right*...but, rather, the manner in which we choose to respond to the person whose view raises our hackles.

Some choose to be confrontational, with the defense that they "say it like it is"...proclaiming that they are open and honest and blunt. That's BS. YOUR belief doesn't have to be pounded into me. You can disagree, but do it with respect. Respect is a much abused word these days. It has come to mean "don't tread on me, man (woman)!

It should mean : I don't hold the same belief as you, but I can discuss it with you civilly. Without name calling. Or I can choose to ignore the discussion, and NOT reply.

I believe this is important, because more and more, we are talking in these forums across cultures and countries. Even when we use the same language, we are not talking with the same cultural expectations.

My vow is this: To try to avoid responding in kind to flames or unkind words.

"The Sufis advise us to speak only after our words have managed to pass through three gates.

At the first gate, we ask ouselves, 'Are these words true?' If so, we let them pass on; if not, back they go.

At the second gate, we ask, 'Are they necessary?'

At the last gate, we ask, 'Are they kind?'"

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Barfy
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 05:30 PM

"And he goes on again on again on again on again.
Making sure that we all know he is a blasted pain
Right in the buttocks, and
All we ever seem to do is scratch our heads in vain. While he goes on again on again on again on again"

Jake Thackray (sic)

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: bbelle
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 05:20 PM

I think you would have done better to leave this thread in the archives. This is a public forum and people come and go at will. As a matter of fact, folkies are know for being free-willed. What you are suggesting pigeonholes us. I didn't respond to this thread the first time and was glad when it died. I will respond now ...

I do not vow to do anything. I don't like clubs that require an oath and could never join the military for the same reasons. If an individual is honest and direct in their dealings with people, why should they have to make a public vow. Seems to me that they have made a personal vow to themselves.

If you have to make a vow to do something, rather than doing it naturally, I would have to wonder about "you."

moonchild (whodoesn'trequirethatherfriendstakevowsofanykind)

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Barfy
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 05:11 PM

Oremus; Spiritum nobis, Shamble tuae caritatis infunde, ut, quos Sacramentis Mudcatibus satiasti, tua facias pietate concordes. Per Dominum nostrum Shambleum, Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate eiusdem Spiritus Sancti Deus per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 03:55 PM

refresh. Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 06 Apr 00 - 01:36 AM

That's just human nature Roger, and nowhere near as simplistic as your last statement might make it seem. If we ain't complex..we're nuthin'.

Rick

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 05:44 PM

I do always welcome the debate even though I had hoped that the thread would give a strong and clear message and that the flamers would receive little or no enouragement in it.

I don't suppose I should have really expected Mudcatters to agree on anything and I seem to have received a lot of answers to questions I didn't ask. Oh well. My guitar playing may now improve a little?

It seem to be in the nature of Mudcatters to stuggle to find some good in the most obvious flamer and to look and find some bad in the most well-intentioned post?

Thanks again Roger.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 05:22 PM

I think there's a certain amount of discipline and solidarity required here, but it shouldn't be too hard to do. What Roger is asking is very simple, and very wise -

Take the pledge:
Don't respond to flamers (people who say nasty things) and trolls (people who goad flamers, and then play the martyr).
Just act as they did not exist.

If you want to discuss flames, you should generally do it privately. If you want to sympathize with somebody how has been targetted by a flamer, you should do that privately, also. Flamers and trolls crave attention - don't give them any. None at all.
So, when is all this unpleasantness going to be over?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 04:54 PM

Good point Rick, I did the same thing.
I am not one for pledges, I just try to do my best.
I should have just sent Shambles a personal message.
Sorry Rog, see cause of that darn human thing, I keep making mistakes.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 04:38 PM

Shit! Roger you are RIGHT! and I apologize.

Sham wrote me a private note asking what my suggestion of two forums had to do with his "VOW" proposition. At first I thought "Jeez Roger..everything, 'cause it might cut down the frustration level of the truly (and often legitimately) annoyed." But I re-read his initial post and sure enough..I forgot his main point. He doesn't ask for a debate (he welcomes people who disagree to personally send him a message) he just wanted those who agree (I don't, 'cause I think human nature messes up ALL systems) to sign up..no more..no less. Sounds valid to me Rog. Sorry.

Rick

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 02:55 PM

It is surely part of the deep style of Max's Mudcat that we tolerate divergence of views and diversity of voices. Only in instances of extreme abusive language or ad-hominem vitriol have I ever seen any intervention occur.

It is a real challenge to apply any kind of benevolent policy to those who have abandoned all pretense of benevolence. So I concur, in such instances, that instantly dropping the communication is the best policy. This is not so much a sending to Coventry as a matter of personal integrity not to be connected to certain kinds of bestiality. I get to choose when I will converse and when I will not.

Anyone who wishes, under any identity through which they can be personally reached in return, to communicate freely to me is welcome to do so and can expect a reply. Hidden communications, hidden sources, and sheer bitterness unmodulated by a sense of human decency, however, fail the standard as far as my own choices are concerned.

A

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Bert
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 02:32 PM

Shambles,

One of the main problems that the flamers seem to have is the amount of BS on the Mudcat. Splitting the forum has been suggested as a way of resolving this perceived problem.

Your 'Mudcat Vow' would also help. I must admit to have had some fun getting at 'TTCM' at times and I'll probably have a go at flamers in the future. It's probably the wrong thing for me to do so I'll try to resist it.

Bert.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: SDShad
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 02:22 PM

I, like Jon, have a guitar with a wide neck--an Ovation Folklore, six steel strings but with a neck about as wide as a twelve-string's--so I'll give your suggestion a try, Rick, but I'll probably also add in Jon's thumb-over-two-strings trick to see how it works.

Thanks,

Chris

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 02:15 PM

Could someone please explain to me what having two or three forums has got to do with the object of this thread, which is dealing with flamers?

Did some of you even bother to actually read the first post?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 02:12 PM

I totally agree with bbc when she says "I'm sorry Mudcat's in such a state that this thread was felt to be needed. There are at least 2 points of view here. Both deserve to be heard, but only in polite forms."

Mind, I suspect I disagree with the point of view she holds about these things, since she indicates she's in agreement with one of the anonymous/invisibles. But that's fine - open disagreents addressed in a way that respects other people are no problem, even when they are uncomforable at times.

With anonymous posters, I think it has become clear that the only way to treat them is the way you treat obscene phone calls - never reply, and hang up.

For the intruders who are just playing silly games, there's no question about that - the problem lies in identifying them, maybe. (Obscene phone callers who start off by pretedning they are doing a survey, for example...) But maybe it's a bit unfair to the occasional person who has a genuine interest in the Mudcat's wellbeing, but has some kind of hang-up about being a member or about laying themselves open to personal messages.

However since the only people I've become aware of who fall into that category have no hesitation in being gratuitously and personally abusive towards other Mudcatters, I can't worry too much about them.

If there's anyone I've missed who is anomymous, and critical of current Mudcat behaviour, but who does not go in for being abusive, I apologise. Since I'm going to ignore your presence in the discussion threads, if you want to exchange views with me, you'll have to do it some other way. If you really want to.

But I much prefer talking about music and about writing, and ethics and politics and so forth, rather than naval gazing into the reasons why people want to mess up the best site on the Internet, and disagreement about which people are doing this.

As for F chords, they're a doddle, really - the problem is Bb. I've being playing the guitar for 40 years now, and I still hate Bb chords.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 01:56 PM

1. While I will try to be polite, I will continue to be myself whatever that is.

2. I have just tried the thumb method and found that I can manage a 6 string F (covering E and A strings with my thumb) on my Fylde which has a fairly wide neck. I think I will stick with Mbo's method though.

3. I have noted Bert's comments but Rick, I certainly would not shoot you down for suggesting 2 forums.

Jon

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Bert
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 01:46 PM

Right on videlis, there's been too many of us growing prickles around here recently. But it's dying down now, so things are going to be fine.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: vindelis
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 01:36 PM

It sounds to me as if it's a case of who do you want too be? 'Mrs Do-as-you-would-be-done-by'? or 'Mrs Be-done-by-as- you-did'? I know that 'The Water-Babies'by Charles Kingsley, doesn't have a musical theme, but the message is the same.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Bert
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 01:03 PM

Rick,

You're right Shambles does have a valid point. Problem is that the buttholes who are causing the problems ain't gonna sign any vows anyway. Personally I always 'try' to be nice, that's the best I can do.

The problem with separate forums is maintenance, believe it or not it takes twice the amount of work to maintain two forums. Max is stretched to the limit just trying to keep one going. I spoke to him a few weeks ago regarding the possibility of a separate forum for us songwriters and he said no. So those Catters who think the there's too much of 'this' or too much of 'that' please bear in mind that splitting off the BS or the Songwriters is not an option at the moment.

Bert.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 12:47 PM

A narrow neck (the guitar's not yours) like Gibson or some Martins, a five string "F", and train your thumb to catch the sixth string at the first fret. It will take a week of hard practice, but you'll have it for a lifetime. Oh, an absolute must is a proper low action set-up on your instrument. Don't worry if the 1st or 2nd strings get damped out a bit. They'll come around, and the fullness of the mid-range and bass notes will make the chord sound good.

I was only partly kidding about "trivializing" this thread. I consider that Shambles has a right to ask his question, and get "real" answers. My vote has always been for separate forums, but I get shot down every time...and "C'est La Vie".

M. LePetomaine

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Mbo
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 12:45 PM

I'm not sure Chris...I'm sure Rick could give you advice, he's the well-respected guitar teacher! All I can say is, keep playing them over and over, it WILL come to you. I have short, rather stumpy fingers, and I got the hang of it, so it's not impossible! Also, maybe, when I switched over from basic guitar technique to classical technique back in '95, there were so many weird things you had to learn to play, a full barre chord became nothing. I'm talking six fret stretches here...and that's going DOWN the neck, not across! Mind over matter, maybe...

--Mbo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: SDShad
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 12:34 PM

Talk about yer thread drift. So...whaddaya recommend for wimpy index fingers that still don't do barre chords all that well?

Dreads F chords,

Chris

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Mbo_at_ECU
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 12:19 PM

Check it out guys! We just turned a BS thread into a musical discussion! YES!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 12:03 PM

Oh, if I could get you two into a room by yourselves!! I'd show you mine and you could show me yours and.....ooops, didn't wanna get back in this thread for anything, and now I've really blown it! I'm making bad jokes (which may trivialize the serious intent of the thread) AND doing "tech stuff" which should be in a music thread! Oh Lordy, lordy, lordy, I guess you just could never trust a VOW from someone like me! (other than to NEVER be anonymous)

Rick

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Mbo
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 11:54 AM

Fulle barre chords are easy on the steel string (if you practice enough), and I don't use my thumb. As a classical guitar crossover player, you don't use you thumb for fretting...you should try to execute a full bar on the big fat ol' neck classical guitars have! Like bert says, your finger joint falls over on of the strings and buzzes, so you never really get a perfect sound out of it. It takes an amazing amount of strength and precision placing to get it to sound right--neither of which I have!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Bert
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 11:48 AM

I try Rick, I try! but I can't hold the b string down properly, it falls right under my finger joint and buzzes.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: kendall
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 08:53 AM

Hey Rick, thanks to the design of the Taylor neck, I do play all 6 strings in F. (and, I use my thumb)

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GeorgeH
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 08:41 AM

The problem I have, Shambles, is in conceiving what, exactly, constitutes "the positive nature of The Mudcat Forum". Life ain't universally positive, and (in BS threads at least) Mudcat reflects that. I guess, in your assessment, I'm probably guilty of "deliberately disrupting" that "positive nature". And while I may have got it wrong on occasions, there are more instances where I don't regret my postings. So - while I agree with what I perceive as the sentiments behind your efforts, and will try to avoid upsetting anyone unnecessarily, I don't feel able to sign up.

G.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: bbc
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 05:53 AM

Generally, I agree w/ AC, although I might not express my thoughts in exactly the same way. I will give it one more try & post to "The Way Mudcat Used to Be" tonight. I'm sorry Mudcat's in such a state that this thread was felt to be needed. There are at least 2 points of view here. Both deserve to be heard, but only in polite forms.

best to all, but losing patience w/ some,

bbc

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Hyperabid
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 05:32 AM

Oho! This one's got hot and steamy whilst we european's have been asleep.

"Arm yourselves everyone... Their good intentions are different from our good intentions!"

I think I might return to the gun debate thread for some gentle reasoned argument laced with views that arn't set in stone. ***VBG***

Neither the "freespeachers" or the "be politers" are wrong in what they have to say. But anyone who has read Swift's "Gullivers Travels" will remember that the Lilliputians went to war over breaking open the big-end or the little-end of a boiled egg. Personal experience tells me that everyone I have met in the threads so far is far bigger than that.

"If we shoot now we'll be right because there'll be no-one left to compromise with."

Personally I think "sending people to Coventry" or "shunning" them is no solution and stifles free speech. However, I've seen voluntary codes of conduct on other sites. I guess it can get a little easy to have a go when your correspondent can be 1000s of miles away - a reminder that they have feelings shouldn't be too much to bear.

Perhaps that was all the point that Shambles was trying to make.

Regards

Hyp

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Escamillo
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 03:32 AM

I have some 8 months here and received much more than contributed, and learnt to ignore those messages long ago, but if you allow me an opinion, I would suggest that instead of a vow for ignoring attacks and nasty posts, the Mudcat should show to all of us a simple set of rules (who are in effect in many sites), to be agreed upon when you enter, for example:
- Respect among members and guests of this site is of primary concern to all participants. - Personal attacks, insults and sarcasm against another member, are not allowed.
- All members do have a personal page, where you can address your complaints on their behavior, if you consider so, instead of making them public.
- If you want to remain anonimous, there's no way a person can send you a reply, so your complaints should be sent to Max, the creator and maintainer of the site.
- If you don't agree with the subjects or orientation of threads, please be nice and explain your concerns, or address Max.
To illustrate this, I have carefully read the post from Guest A.C. above, and I find that indeed he/she has a point. Perhaps we sometimes cross the line and insist too much with jokes and "relaxing" subjects, and this may have a negative effect to musicians coming for the first time, or residents who do not like those subjects. (However IMO there's a vast majority of musical subjects, and even the BS become musical very often, and the BS is clearly marked "BS"). BUT !.. but unfortunately he/she introduces many "YOU ARE..", "YOU STOP..", "YOU SHOULD..", "THERE'S NOW AN INTELLECTUAL VACUUM..", "YOU CLEAN UP..", "YOU ARE NOT..", "YOU ARE CROWDING..", "I KNOW THE WRONG..". That was too much for me, so.. IGNORED the whole speech, and his/her point.
Now let's suppose that a newcomer, serious musician, well intentioned, lands here and see A L O T OF NASTY ACCUSATIONS AND FASCIST ADMONITIONS ON WHAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED, WHO SHOULD STAY AND WHO SHOULD LEAVE. (Because those threads ARE SEEN TOO).Do you think he/she will gratefully appreciate those reprimands and joyfully stay here ? I bet NO. If somebody stays here is because of the amazing knowledge and kindness of the enormous majority of Mudcat people.
Myself, will leave when more than 1% of the Mudcat people ask me to leave. Sorry for the extension of this BS
Un abrazo - Andrés
PS:Yes, I'm South American, and I know a lot about fascism.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: tradsteve
Date: 05 Apr 00 - 02:02 AM

Count me in -Steve-

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, Threadie
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:49 PM

Because he had brains!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Mbo
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:46 PM

Yes I have, Catspaw. Wonder why no one told him to bugger off to a chat room? **BG**

--Mbo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:36 PM

Well stroked Meebs, extremely well stroked. Have you read it all? Very uncommon man, Mr. Joyce.

Spaw

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Mbo
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:11 PM

A new generation is growing in our midst, a generation actuated by new ideas and new principles. It is serious and enthusiastic for these new ideas and it's enthusiasm, even when it is misdirected, is, I believe, in the main sincere. But we are living in a sceptical and, if I may use the phrase, a thought-tormented age: and sometimes I fear that this new generation, educated or hypereducated as it is, will lack those qualities of humanity, of hospitality, of kindly humour which belonged to an older day. Listening tonight to the names of all those great singers of the past it seemed to me, I must confess, that we were living in a less spacious age. Those days might, without exaggeration, be called spacious days: and if they are gone beyond recall let us hope, at least, that in gatherings such as this we shall still speak of them with pride and affection, still cherish in our hearts the memory of those dead and gone great ones whose fame the world will not willingly let die...

But yet...there are always in gatherings such as this sadder thoughts that will recur to our minds: thoughts of the past, of youth, of changes, of absent faces that we miss here tonight. Our path through life is strewn with many such sad memories, and were we to brood upon them always we could not find the heart to go on bravely with our work among the living. We have all of us living duties and living affections which claim, and rightly claim, our strenuous endeavours.

Therefor, I will not linger on the past. I will not let any gloomy moralising intrude upon us here tonight. Here we are gathered together for a brief moment from the bustle and rush of our everyday routine. We are met here as friends, in the spirit of good-fellowship, as colleagues, also to a certain extent, in the true spirit of camaraderie....

--James Joyce, The Dead


--Mbo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Caitrin
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:09 PM

:) As long as everyone includes me, you probably won't be resting for a while, Rick.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:06 PM

I solemly vow not to rest until everyone plays all six strings in their "F" chords. YES, you may use your thumb.

Darn it, nobody takes an agnostic's vow seriously anyway!

Rick

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, The Thread Watcher
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:18 PM

....Come....Come....little children
.....follow.....me......

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:10 PM

I am sorry, the only people this thread was intended to be critical of was " those who would insult, provoke or in any way, intentionally attempt to disrupt the positive nature of The Mudcat Forum".

INTENTIONALLY was the important word. There are other issues but this thread was addressing this one only.

My thanks to those who did understand the subtleties and also the spirit in which this was meant and to those who were already (quietly) ignoring the above mentioned posters. This was a chance for them to say "I am ignoring you".(smiles)

I am now going to be gently critical of some…. In the past and especially over the past couple of weeks, I have read many posts, urging others not to respond to flamers (definition above). I have seen later posts from these same people, then responding to the very people they have urged others not to. No big deal, we are all human, it is a big temptation and mistakes are allowed. (smiles)

What these and some of the posts to this thread are saying in action and effect is, "I reserve the right to respond when I decide to but for the good of The Mudcat but you (meaning everybody else), must not".

I understand that all of us would not wish to have conditions imposed on us. That is why I imposed the condition on myself and asked you to remind me if I strayed.

The wisdom of ignoring these posters seems to be pretty much accepted, if with some sadness. The difficult part is actually doing it. It will not work if we do not all try and ensure that all such posts are ignored.

The only true conscience of The Mudcat is yours..

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Barky
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:32 PM

Sign me up, y'all! Barky Jessup

~Barky

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Mooh
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:19 PM

I will vow to be a good little boy, of course, but I don't accept your retribution, or whatever. Peace and Love. Mooh.

Subject: Anonymous=Invisible
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:14 PM

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,The Yank
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:13 PM

Now, now, children. Play nice, can't you?

Nice gesture, Shambles- Really! Shame some folks can't take yes for an answer.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, The Thread Watcher
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:05 PM

Can't be anything worse than the stuff you're putting up

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Pustule
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:03 PM

Fascinating, 'Wotcher'- you think you've a right to complain about others' postings, after the crud you've spashed about?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:02 PM

AC, contact me via [e-mail]

Need to speak with you.


(Edgar)

...and anyone else who wants to send ''fan mail'' as well...

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, The Thread Watcher
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:54 PM

Shag off you asshole

You're helping to keep this at the top remember!

Go and help somebody, will you?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Pustule
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:50 PM

A.C.:

¡¡POTENTIAL PUSTULE ALERT !!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, A.C.
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:21 PM

Mick - it is reasonable to assume that the 'side of the coin' we represent, was only brought into existence because of the original existence of the 'sect', I think, is the only way I can describe them.
What would any 'stranger' think when on hitting these pages, which we all agree (that's you plural, and me) is a valuable and worthwhile place; what would they think when they see that the 'hot' threads on prime internet time in the United States, in the Mudcat Café, are about virtually getting drunk while watching the sun sinks over a virtual horizon? Or this thread, for instance?

The only kind of people that this sort of advertising attracts, are those kind of people. I don't doubt the musicality of ANYONE on this forum. Not at all. But I do think that once this snowball starts rolling, you will find, as a lot of other people have found but are not as inclined as we are to air our grieviences, that the balance has shifted.

Anybody who doesn't admit at least that, in all it's minimalist form, is NOT aware of the situation, and is living in a egotistical bubble, where self-appointed 'guardians of decency and moral etiquette' recruit un-suspecting (and suspecting); plus the afore-mentioned like-minded people, who are joining up like wildfire, to their cause.

I know this is a community, and I have been proud to be a member of it. I don't wish to be a 'member' of a club, another wild follower of the terminally (as regards the computer screen) addicted who use this place as a 'fun place to hang out'. I uninstalled Microsoft Chat the minute I got this computer. But I never thought it would happen here. Not in a million years.

The questions that have been asked about things musical are starting to decline in quality. The interesting discussions we used to have here; as The Shambles inadvertently linked us to on another thread, there were only 19 posts for such and such, 12 for this one etc. The favorites were of course the BS. And that was a year ago.

Fair enough, you might say. And to a degree I would say the same. But come on now: "A jolly heave-ho and scupper me barnacles"?
Or the 'Solemn Oath and Covenant'? Or discussions about healing?

I don't want to rake up too much of this because it was an emotive subject at the time, but when 'The Great Cookie Cock-up' hit (and it wasn't Max's fault), a lot of people didn't post votes of either agreement or disagreement. They voted with their mice, and shagged off over to rec.folk and the likes, still under assumed names, leaving a certain, I'm sorry to say it, intellectual vacuum in this place. To some eyes the difference is more subtle than to others. But I don't think that this resource should be dominated by, or sullied by the amount of un-readable trash that sports those threads.
I know Max is working on a 'chat' experiment (You may remember seeing it).
If he has success in this venture it may take a lot of that kind of stuff off these pages. Those threads are posted to, more or less, by the same people. So why not take that off to 'Chat' when it comes to pass.

Why not act out 'Wuthering Heights' on ICQ for the time being?

Why do you have to say that you are representative of this Forum?
YOU ARE NOT!
You are a small bunch of people who are attracted to a little bit of Folk, a little bit of Blues, per'aps a li'l Country, and a whole lot of noise.

Once people see that noise when they surf-on-over, they either surf-on-in, because this is a fun place to hang out, or they surf-on-elsewhere. I have talked to a LOT of people who used to be here from 3 odd years ago til the day the cookie crumbled: Mudcat's Darkest Hour. They had been getting sick of it for a while anyway. Apparently it wasn't the same as it used to be. Strange they should say that.

Stop this Shambles. Stop it before you and your 'true believers' ruin the place. Your name has been mentioned in lofty places. You are famous among us, man.

You are famous for the wrong reasons though.

You should not toy around with this place. YOU don't have the right to do that. None of you concerned have that right.
I'm just a musician. Nothing more, nothing less. But I know a wrong when I see it done.

You really want to clean up the Mudcat and not have angry, disillusioned 'members' complaining all the time?
Clean up your own house first and leave a bit of room for others in this place.

To put it in terms that you understand: You're crowding up the bar, and nobody else can get a drink

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Bartholomew
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 05:18 PM

I have no objections to making any pledge public that I have already made in private. I will always try, in my own fumbling way, to add to the dialogue that helps us discover and explore aspects of our humanity. I have always seen that as being closely interwoven with my personal musical journey of discovery and exploration. That's why I don't object to purportedly "non-musical" threads in a music forum.

I am strongly opposed to censorship of any sort and have often seen how a somewhat uncomfortable statement of position can help even onlookers get a better reading on their thoughts/feelings about something. That being said, personal attacks are never acceptable, in my humble opinion, even when confrontation seems to be the quickest way to evoke an honest response. I like the idea of denying oxygen to the truly rude and unnecessary remark and agree that the best response can be a profound silence(it helps a lot to look profound while you're being silent, but that's hard in a cyber context). If something must be said, support for those attacked is often a needed antidote to things that hurt.

As my grandma used to say, BE NICE. And my own observation - don't be afraid to wade into the muck from time to time; you may find some diamonds in the dreck.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Caitrin
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 04:31 PM

Count me in with Ceitagh.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: skarpi
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 03:17 PM

Hallo all , Well this is what I have been doing - I just ignore them all, this last week has been like a bad dream. If this is the coming future ,well then I have to re-think about my being on the mudcat forum.

Love thee others like you love your self. If we want people to be good to us , be good to them.

All the best skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 03:12 PM

in case no one has noticed, I ain't been gettin' into it NOHOW recently, how's that for a pre-emptive vow?...I have my opinions, but they seldom make any difference.

OLD Peanuts cartoon:
Lucy-(standing in various characters faces."Change your mind!"..."Change your mind, I say!"..."I insist you change your mind"...

Lucy-(looking grumpily puzzled).." Hmmm..wonder why it's so hard to get people to change their minds these days?"

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:37 PM

The Shambles has consistently demonstrated through his postings that anything he chooses to submit for consideration respectfully deserves same. This posting is no different. I know it was done with careful forethought to its consequences, and to the circumstances which spawned it.

It seems as though the anonymous intimidators have won a victory of sorts, for I perceive, in the hope that I am mistaken, the people to whom Mary in Bluegrass alludes have held themselves in check, a lamentable state of affairs. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their beliefs/philosophy/outlook on life/what-have-you, the exhuberance and joy with which those people expressed themselves on topics musically related or no, was a welcome respite from the harsh and abrasive gridlock of everyday living. Guests and passers-through looking for this or that appreciated it also, evident in their virtually unvaried responses to greeters: "Wow thanks..this is a friendly place..." etc. To borrow from the cafe analogy prevalent in the heading of this forum, it was comparable to going to a friendly and unhurried restaurant in a small town, where the waitress had a little time to take a load off and talk to you about anything on her mind, not just what was on the menu, although the menu was a sumptuous and varied read. Evidently some people prefer the institutional chrome and porcelain decor, antiseptic in nature and sterile in creativity, where hamburgers and nothing but hamburgers are served. I surmise it would ruin their day to enter McDonald's expecting the standard fare, instead hearing, "Well, you deserve a break today...just to mix things up a little we decided to serve shitake mushrooms, day lilies, and herbal tea." The pleasant surprise of the unexpected would make my day. Some people don't like surprises; others welcome diversity, change-ups, new experiences - and activel seek them out.

In the free spiritness of annap, the insight Neo brings to the human condition, the thoughtfulness and practical considerations Big Mick exudes, the responsibleness of Chet W., and the rebelliousness of harpgirl:

I reserve the right to be human, to occasionally make stupid mistakes, to apologize for them when I realize they are mistakes, while striving for perfection and realizing it will never be attained. Hopefully I won't hurt anyone else too badly in the process of conducting myself as an inherently flawed human being.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: TerriM
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:24 PM

You can sign me up since that's exactly what I've been doing anyway. Quite frankly, I just find these people very dull and so far up their own backsides as to be unbelievable but I approve of discouraging anyone who wastes my time .

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Áine
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:18 PM

Dear Roger,

*Smoles* for your good heart and concern for the 'Cat.

Here's the saying I try to go along and get along by -- Those that want respect, have to give respect.

All the best, Áine

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, A.C.
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:15 PM

Oh stick around, you're in for an education.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Dulci46
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:14 PM

I'm fairly new. What is Thread Cops. Do agree

Judy

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST, A.C.
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:09 PM

........Just in!.....

....Reuters News Agency....

The Mudcat Anthem

One.. Two..
One.. Two..
One. Two. Three. Four.
One. Let-me-hearye-now

On - ward Mud - cat so - oh - ho - hole
Jers. Marching as to - hoo war.
With the cross of Sham
Bills, burning as before.

© 2000 Our Rog.

We'll ask The Thread Watcher to write a Midi program.
That would be nice now, wouldn't it?

Later.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 02:01 PM

Well, I'll do my best. Currently that means anyone who signs on as a guest and starts making personal comments ort writing in an innofensive way doesn't exist. And if in response to what some civilisd member or GUEST has to say, if it bvnecomnes appropriate to say something relating to one of the tiny band of non-existent regul I mentioned above, I'll do so in an oblique way that avoids any reference to them.

And I reckon any member has stepped over the line in a discussion, I might send them a personal message, but won't start or continue a slanging match on te open thread.

So help me Max!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Mudjack
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:35 PM

I took a long break from responding to ANY threads thanks to the THREAD COPS and those who responded to my offerings in a lecturing manner and I am certain they did'nt mean to be offensive. From that I thought maybe it was time to leave the site for a long needed break. > Coming back I found A whole new litter of cats digging in the same old crap box.> I think lurking might suit my Mudcat needs for yet another long break.> Mudjack

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: harpgirl
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:21 PM

...PS and to those who espouse their religious beliefs on this forum I do not promises politeness!!!! (hell, I've been a candyass grosse pointe girl all my goddamned life...but no more)

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Mrrzy-at-work
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:21 PM

I agree that it sounds a) like common sense and b) like censorship. But I haven't been personally insulted yet. I have read some really obnoxious and abusive threads, including one listing people whose posts to avoid, and I must say, I would take it as a great compliment to be included in that list, which seemed to name all the 'Catters whose posts and responses I really enjoy reading! Also, I tend to take life as a floor show, and thus laugh a lot at what bothers others tremendously (need I add, that very attitude had bothered others tremendously. But it has kept me sane through 3 mergers and 5 company names in the last 6 years). But, again, I haven't been personally abused. I would like to think that if I were, I would be able to "rise above it" and not respond, at least not while still mad... and I am willing to promise or affirm my willingness to attempt such maturity and restraint... but that sounds like promising to act my age, or be civilized, or something I shouldn't have to promise.

Also, what Newcomer's packet? I didn't get anything when I joined, maybe a couple of weeks ago...

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: ceitagh
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:16 PM

And one I'm forced to keep to on the 'cat, too, since my father reads the forum and I'd like to keep his respect. (Hi Dad!)
Ceit

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Sean Belt
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:08 PM

Well said, Ceitagh. A sentiment we can probably all learn from.

Sean

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: folk1234
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 01:04 PM

I SOLEMNLY VOW to continue to be myself - a reasonable person of generally good judgement. One who has an opinion (not too often voiced) on many subjects, and real knowledge on just a few. The list of what I don't know is infinitely longer than the list of what I know. When I ask questions of the 'Cat, I seek answers. However, I gladly accept some diversion. When I contribute to another's thread, I 'believe' I have something to share. Sometimes, it's just humor. While wearing a 'Cat hat, I respect other's opinions, even those of the flamers. Some of what I've seen presents good points, although their delivery fails to meet my own standards of personal expression and conduct. My 'Cat hat differs not from my 'engineering', 'management', 'educator', 'friend', 'companion', 'loving husband', 'stern father' and 'folk singer' hats. Of course, there are many other 'hats' that I wear a week's experience. For 20 years, I wore an 'Officer of Marines' hat, which was still no different than my other hats.
In the words from 'La Cage au Folle', "I am what I am." Here in the 'Cat community, "We are what we are".

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: ceitagh
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:29 PM

Here's my pledge:

I vow to take in a deep breath and a good song before replying to anything that pushes my buttons. If, after much thought and folksinging, I deem the message worth replying to, I will not use any language or say anything I would not want my family and friends to hear from me.

I vow to uphold the peace of the Mudcat by being considerate of those who phrase their complaints in a polite and open manner, and ignoring those who are only out to cause trouble.

I vow to read as many music threads as I have time for, and in the chance that there is some relevant knowledge I can share, I will do so. If ever I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time on BS threads, or going days without participating in a music-related thread, I promise to step back and spend a day 'cat-free in the real world. I will refrain from posting BS to non-BS threads.

If anything I say is offensive or seems to violate these principles, I welcome personal messages containing suggestions for improvement, if phrased concisely and considerately.

I will assume that anyone who does post an uncharactoristic flame to me or any other is having a bad day and should be allowed time to cool down.

To summarise: I vow to attempt to do unto others as I would have them do unto me.

Ceitagh

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: annamill
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:28 PM

Shambles, I think yo're great and I'm sooo glad you returned to Mudcat, but...

To me, what you're suggesting sounds awfully close to censorship.

Also, I enjoy laughing at the idiots. I think they're funny sometimes. Stupid, but funny. The problem is we take them too much to heart. Way too serious. Generally I don't respond unless something just as silly comes to my mind.

I think the flaming has gotten, at times, hurtful and those I ignore.

But,umm, I can't take a vow never to respond to GUEST:

My freedom seeking brain just won't allow me to.

I don't want to perpetuate anything and I'll try not to, but on my own. No vows.

Love, annap

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Hyperabid
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:13 PM

Ebbie

I agree on almost every point...

Referring to the gun debate thread, I mentioned the lack of guns in the UK as an indicator - particularly with reference to a family member who is a policeman... and was almost instantly greeted by an anonymous "headline" suggesting the death of a policeman's family members was the only likely outcome of them not being armed.

Offensive no doubt and something I chose not to respond to...

But I guess we do need to know what other people think... The underlying belief could have been that it is unethical not to arm the police in a violent society... which is not an unreasonable point...

Anyway. I think the vow's a pretty good idea. I might even squeeze myself into taking it.

Hyp

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: harpgirl
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:12 PM

...I vow to continue to strenuously object to monopolizers!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 12:02 PM

What's been working for me lately is to just not read their postings- not difficult at all once I got the hang of it. G-l -i-d-e on by. I know me- when my rusty buttons get pushed, I scream. But certainly in theory I'm with you.
As for their wanting to join in on any subject, Hyperabid, all they need to do is change their name and jump in, and we'll all be the happier for it.
I don't believe that Roger is trying to stifle the legitimate but controversial debates. People learn from each other. (I'm just spilling over with cliches this morning!) And just as in the gun debate thread, which got pretty hot, it's easy to leave the room when I'm uncomfortable. Good people can agree to disagree- it's the people who don't allow disagreement that are so terribly frustrating, at best.
Roger, could you come up with a vow that wouldn't be just a bit off-putting? Somehow this one feels a little grim. If you would come up with an easy-mannered promise I think it would fit very well indeed into the Newcomer's Guide. Ebbie

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:43 AM

Sophoclees, I can appreciate what you are saying, but as a nutritionist/dietitian, I find everytime someone goes on a diet, it seems to never works. They always gain the weight back
My concern is after you restrict yourself from postings by limiting it to 4 posts per day, it might work for awhile, but the craving to post will come back and you might gain back the amount you use to post and more.

Soph, I hope you realize I am smiling as I write this.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: kendall
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:37 AM

I've only been flamed once, so, dont know if it will be a habit or not. The thing is, I'm a natural born counter puncher, and I do enjoy bringing assholes down to size, but, I will never START a row. Is that sufficient?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Hyperabid
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:31 AM

Umm... Personally I prefer good manners above almost anything. The odd quip should just add to the fun... without offending.

However, I guess there are also those who believe that debate has to be hot in order to reach a resolution and bring out all ideas / beliefs / and otherthingummies.

If we ignore these people we are prejudging them and ignoring what they have to say based on our assumpotions about who they are.

(I know - this is all "liberal hogwash" but I'm gonna say it anyway).

If you do reply to these people and they just continue grunting away being rude then you know to leave it, but they might just try and join in the debate and have something fresh to say.

Hyp

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Sophocleese
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:30 AM

Personally I'm not about to try and control other people through my responses. The best I can do is control myself. I'm not allowing myself more than four postings per day, maximum. I'll need to focus only on what interests me and think very carefully about what I write. I don't consider it a pledge but rather a challenge. Others might like to take it up as well and see what a weeks worth of such restricted posting leads to, but they don't have to.

Sophocleese

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:22 AM

Thank you, Mick and Bonnie. What you've expressed pretty much sums up how I feel, too. In view of a few personal messages, I can read between the lines and know who it is aimed at, besides the usual flamers, and I question the motivation. Nonethelss, as Mick has said, we all should do.

katlaughing

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From:
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:07 AM

Mick, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Most of those "annoyance" messages are meant to provoke and get a response. If they don't get EVEN one, they'll soon learn to stop.

People, remember Pavlov's dogs. We WANT to identify ourselves as being in control, and not part of a stimulus and response cycle that is not controllable.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:04 AM

Good point Chet, I understand what you mean.

And thanks Sean Ruprecht-Belt for suggesting I should especially be given the "benefit of the doubt". Those were the exact same words said to me by my driving test instructor.

As for the Pledge, I guess unless I am waxing my furniture, I have not much use for it. I try to do my best and when I make a mistake, I try not to beat myself up over it. I guess that is where I was coming from.

What we see grows, so I figure I will look for the threads and postings that make this wonderful Forum thrive and those are the ones I will focus on and contribute to.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From:
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 11:04 AM

Shambles. I agree and hereby endeavour to follow your message.

Thanks!

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:23 AM

None of these comments should be taken in
any way that is considered personal. They are observations only which are being written to provoke examination and discussion of this issue.

I have a problem with the pledge. Who is to make the determination that one is flaming? Is flaming equal to disagreement on an issue with someone? With who? Does that mean that lively, civil discussion of controversial music, subjects, and issues that spawn music is considered flaming if someone doesn't like it? It seems to me that the important piece of the pledge is the first paragraph. I think my friend Roger was being a bit tongue in cheek with the rest. I have learned that his intent is always honorable and done out of a love of the Mudcat. But the reservations I have with the issues I have raised are real. It seems to me to be another side of the same coin that TTCM appears on.

This pledge does serve one very important purpose. It causes us all to think before we respond to those whose desire to make the Mudcat over in their own image. My own PERSONAL pledge is to simply not acknowledge the posts that, in my own opinion, have no value or do not further my study of the music and the issues that spawn it. I started advocating that long ago. That is a logical extension of the philosophy of not responding to posts or not participating in threads that don't interest you or which you have objections to. That is what will cause the pea brains to disappear. Creating a public vow will simply lend itself to the argument that we are elitist.

Big Mick

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:18 AM

Gee, Mary, that's worth saying several times!

Sham, I am with you in principle. I dunno about the penalty clause -- it's pretty rough. I am very glad to see your sense of humor breaking out!!

A

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: SDShad
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:17 AM

Amen, Mary. That's been much my experience, too.

Chris

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 10:08 AM

Sign me on...and let me say this once...the people who are attacked the most are the people, without exception, that have been the nicest to me in making me feel welcome, corresponding privately, sending me helpful info by mail, etc. I treasure their friendships.

Mary

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: SDShad
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:54 AM

Soon as I started regularly reading Mudcat, I pretty much took a version of that pledge in my own head anyway. It's an approach that can really cut down on the flamage, depending on just how motivated/angry/unhinged the flamers are. Nothing I've seen here compares, really, to what I saw happen on my favorite Internet BBS which was pretty much driven underground by hacking from a couple of people who really went postal when we started "shunning" them after months of abuse and threats that would curl your toes. (Of course, we discussed and agreed on the pledge on a message board that was open only to old-timers, if you wanna talk about elitist cliques in online forums).

I think such a pledge would go a long ways here at the 'Cat. Sign me on.

Christopher Hoover

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:42 AM

None at all, Brendy (as I'm sure you've noticed if you've read any of my contributions!)
RtS

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Brendy
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:38 AM

Deny the Oxygen?

That was helium!; Have yiz no sense?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Sean Belt
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 09:33 AM

While going on record as questioning the need for a stated contract like the one above, I'll certainly agree to keep a civil keyboard and treat others on the forum with the same respect and kindness I'd hope to receive.

And to always give Little Neo, especially, the benefit of the doubt.

Sean Ruprecht-Belt

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:24 AM

Testify, le'me testify. I won't respond to the small print either (damme, can't read it with these bifocals!).Deny 'em the oxygen of publicity (as someoneonce said). Won't rise to their bait (even if I'm a bit miffed not to have been flamed by them, isn't MY BS bad enough?).As has been pointed out many times, if they don't like non-music threads why do they add to them, which just keeps them going??
Well started,Roger. [But we Rogers are renowned for our common sense!]
RtS

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 08:11 AM

Aye, count me in mates... I am sick of the personal attacks on here.. This place is a cafe, decent behaviour or leave it.(especially cowardly annonymous attacks) Dave

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Chet W.
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:21 AM

Yes people make mistakes, but there's a version of that sentiment spreading wide today that uses the indulgence we naturally feel toward mistakes to give themselves permission in advance. I have had students, as extreme examples, who have committed all manner of horrible crimes and think it is awfully weird, or at least nonsensical, that anyone should think they should be held responsible for those and any future "mistakes". What Roger is suggesting is the implied contract that we all make in order to be a part of a civilized group. Mistakes will certainly be indulged, but self-control is to be an understood prerequisite before such indulgence can be meaningful. I'm in, for what it's worth, but I always have been.

Chet

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 07:09 AM

Roger, I think you forgot to factor one thing in........
That people are human which means they will constantly make mistakes.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 06:52 AM

Roger Gall

Subject: MUDCAT VOW.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 00 - 06:51 AM

I understand that I may be severely tested in this thread and that it could be viewed and criticised as bait. I understand and respect that view, but I view it as a necessary tactic to see if it can be done and if it will work, long term, to prevent us forever going over the same tedious ground. A link could be made to this and it could even appear on Joe's, Newcomer's Guide. If you agree then please say so or sign up and if you do not, just ignore it or send me a personal message. At worst it may just serve to keep the unpleasantness here in one thread, rather than everywhere.

I solemnly swear that I will make my very best efforts to always resist the temptation to respond, reply or in any way acknowledge the existence or effect of those who would insult, provoke or in any way, intentionally attempt to disrupt the positive nature of The Mudcat Forum.

I will make no excuse or exception to this rule for any circumstances.

I further request that if I should ever be seen to stray from this path, that a personal message be sent to me pointing out my fall into temptation? On receipt of this message I shall then immediately be liable to make a large financial contribution to Mudcat funds and have to listen to only the complete recorded works of the artist of the poster's choice, for one week. For that week my entire contribution to The Mudcat will be limited to hourly postings, saying nice things about Max.

This I do solemnly swear____________________