 sj |
||
|
||
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: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.
|
|
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
|
| Share Thread: |