MUDCAT VOW.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 01:52 PM

MUDCAT VOW II

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

*refresh*

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