btw: The Guest ain't a dog!

Subject: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 01 - 06:21 PM

Hi All

I didn't want to add the the RF is not god thread. What I wanted to say was

1. I am not god

2. Rick is not god

3. The guest who started the thread is not god

4. I do not believe in god

5. God probably doesn't believe in me either.

6. Why the bloody hell do some people in the Mudcat think they are god and believe they know why guest posted; why Rick needed defending; why they believe that they talk for everyone on the Mudcat and why do they think it is Ok to use personal abuse to deride a poor soul who only said something that is true?!?!?!?!

Finally, I could not care less about flames, abuse, personal or otherwise, and all who know me know that I am pretty laid back. Please feel free to flame away. Water off a ducks back and all that (no offense Mr and Mrs D!) Please feel free to have a go. I will pick my nose in your general direction and wave my private parts at your aunty.....

Stop picking on the poor bugger who is supposed to be our guest though. By definition a guest is a welcome stranger to a closed community. They may drop b!""ocks occasionaly but as gracious hosts we are obliged to forgive them.

Cheers and a happy new something or another

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: paddymac
Date: 06 Jan 01 - 06:27 PM

Gee, DtG. I thought this was gonna be a thread about the trials and tribulations of dyslexia, and all that tihs.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 01 - 06:30 PM

Happy New Year to you, too, Dave the Gnome.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 01 - 06:34 PM

Should that be

Dave

Our

Gnome

(DOG for short)?

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: sophocleese
Date: 06 Jan 01 - 10:22 PM

Thanks Dave, for this thread here. Really it was just a little bit of easily ignored shit. I figure people are coming down from the holiday peace-and-goodwill-to-all high and looking for something to vent on, sensible or not. Either that or now that the supreme court has chosen a new American President they're finding new things to argue over. Disappointing the way long term members have showed up in force doing exactly what they are not supposed to do and then getting self righteous about it. Some kind of failed logic circuit: if you ignore flamers they will go away - someone is flaming Rick and we wish they would go away - therefore we will feed the flame, telling it to go away and make it continue - we do this because we like Rick. Ummm... think it over guys and gals. Think it over.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Gary T
Date: 07 Jan 01 - 01:49 AM

I couldn't help but notice that the original post was not attacking Rick, but rather taking to task unnamed Mudcatters, presumably for fawning over him. Now, the post was in poor taste, unnecessary, and picked on Rick some to make its point. Still, posts of this nature seem to generate highly emotional reactions (I would say overreactions) out of proportion to their import.

I don't know if that thread originator was a slightly misguided soul deserving of some charity, or a clever fiend desparately in need of major psychotherapy (and/or severe punishment). Whichever it was, I found some of the responses more unsettling and disturbing than his posts.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Sorcha
Date: 07 Jan 01 - 02:13 AM

Gary, me too. And I hope that I have grown up enough to not have to post to the Crap Threads......I am trying. I try very hard just to ignore all of it and not post more "Ignore this". (oops, I just ignored my own rule, didn't I?)

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: John Routledge
Date: 07 Jan 01 - 02:23 AM

Thanks Dave for detaching this issue.

Well said Sophocleese.

Gary T's summary is spot on.

LEARNED MUCH FROM THE DEBACLE - HOPEFULLY WE ALL HAVE

2001 starts today. Best Wishes to all Catters. John

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Greyeyes
Date: 07 Jan 01 - 06:35 PM

I agree, I just thought it defied belief that "the thread we don't mention" generated over 100 posts, many of them along the lines of "let's not encourage this guy by posting". For fucks sake, trolling got its name from a fishing technique where you drag a lure through the water hoping to provoke a reaction from a fish. People like that get a hard-on every time someone reacts. Over 100 reactions, imagine the sexual gratification that resulted. People who respond are effectively tossing the troller off. He may claim he has problems and needs help, but the best way to make him realise that that is not the way to go about it is to ignore the thread.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Jan 01 - 09:37 PM

So the remedy was to start a thread about how silly it was to respond to the other thread..............Brilliant!!! I think I will ignore this thread. LOL.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jan 01 - 11:27 PM

No no, ignore THAT thread. I didn't even click on it and seeing this I'm glad I didn't. But I like Davetg's post a lot... If I were a god, I wouldn't worship me, either!

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Peg
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 12:01 AM

Greyeyes?

um, are you sure you don't mean "trawling?"

as in the boat used for suhc fishing being a trawler?

trolling sounds better, tho...

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Margo
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 12:10 AM

So is that like " I wouldn't belong to a club that would have me as a member..." ? Haha Groucho Marx

I am amazed too that people here try to interpret what the motive is behind some of the wierdo posts. Without the benefit of hearing tone of voice or seeing body language or facial expression we are very much cut off from some very crucial communication tools.

There have been people whose posts have left me just puzzled.....I have no reaction other than "I don't get it". Then someone else reacts badly to the post, and I reread it to see why, and I still don't get it!! It seem like everyone wants to read into other people's posts what ever kind of meaning they want. Is it just me or does anyone else see that too?

Margo

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Gary T
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 01:12 AM

Peg, trolling is correct in this case. Trawling is also a fishing technique, using a trawl net or a set of multiple lines called a trawl. A boat used with such equipment is indeed a trawler. Trolling is using one line with bait or a lure, generally from a slowly moving boat.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: little john cameron
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 12:02 PM

Aye Margo,it's aw a great mystery tae me anaw. ljc

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 12:14 PM

Peg: trawling and trolling are 2 different fishing methods. One involves nets (generally, conical ones), the other baited lines. I found this out on the online Webster's, at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Alex

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 04:48 PM

I ignored the other thread and was prepared to ignore this one. But what you said makes perfect sense and I applaud you for saying it.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 05:07 PM

Arf! I am too.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 06:40 PM

So Dave the Gnome, are you saying that something is true, no matter how insulting, rude, nasty, or uncivil it may be, that the person saying it should not be taken to task for being insulting, rude, nasty, or uncivil? Your phrase "only saying something that is true" seems to imply you think truth the only relevant criterion for a posting. With which I must vehemently disagree.

Whether or not this "guest" is in fact a "guest" or a long-timer is something we don't know, and your snide comments about "playing God" applied to others must perforce come around and bite you in the buttocks logically on this one -- are you God that you know that this person posting as "guest" is in fact a stranger? I think not.

And your paragraph about waving private parts shows that you really don't care what we think, so in effect the post initiating this thread is a flame/troll, because all you seem to want to do is stir things up, yet be unaccountable for your words or the effects they may cause.

What an example to set for us. Thanks heaps.

alex

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 07:02 PM

Margo, motives no but I see a very common method of operation in many of these threads. It doesn't mean that there is only one person trolling but I do think that it is a tried and tested method here in Mucat and it works like this:

1. Set the mood. You do this by using an inflammatory tile, e.g. "Americans are fat", "Rick Feilding Ain't God", etc. This is a great policy and has several advantages in that it attracts attention, causes anger and you know that people will be thinking of the title when they respond (not read the actual message in isolation).

2. Make sure that your message says something which in itself can cast a little doubt over a person or group of people but doesn't actually say what the thread title says. This is great as it catches many out and gives a line of defense for later if required.

3. Keep an eye on the thread at say 5 minute intervals to begin with and where possible, reply to the early posts to "help thing along".

4. When the fire is well and truely burning, sit back and watch or possibly even come back as someone else to defend the missreading of "Guests" initial post and intentions.

One can argue that to ignore is the best policy but unfortunately, for ignoring to work, it needs everyone to ignore and that does not happen. I joined in this one and have stayed out of others but they still carry on and will do until everyone stays out.

As for Dave the Gnome's comments, I am quite convinced that the iniator of this thread was a regular Mudcatter and almost certainly a member. It is kind of hard to imagine that a new person would study the forum closely enough to have a clue about any group of Mudcatter's (apparent) relationship with Rick Fielding.

I am less than certain about knowing who the poster was alhough re-reading the thread does leave me with the impression that Guest did know that his/her cover had been blown or was in danger of being blown. I can only think of one fairly relialble way of doing this from the threads(and even this is not 100% short of checking with an ISP - most are allocated dynamically) which is viewing the IP addresses which is something I believe Max logs. I doubt that this is the case in this instance but oddly enough, Bert is one of the few who visit the Mudcat office where this data would be held.

There are of course other clues but they are less reliable and I think dangerous to speculate over (at least publiclicly) as they could lead to the wrong conclusions. An example of this was I know a Mudcatter who was pretty sure that TTCM=MK. The reason being a peculiar and unique (within MC)usage of &npbs; in the HTML. It is true that you would have to be God to know for sure but there can be give away signs...

Jon

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Snuffy
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 07:43 PM

Do you mean &nbsp? (non-beaking space). I use it frequently in my HTML (nice for insetting), but I don't think I've ever had cause to use in Mudcat posts. <BLOCKQUOTE> is much better for lyrics

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 08:48 PM

Yes Snuffy, that's the one. I never use it but like yourself, I do find <BLOCKQUOTE> handy in Mudcat.

Jon

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 01 - 09:15 AM

Well done mousethief!!! The only one to take me up on my offer. The only sensible way to flame is to do it to someone who couldn't give a !"£$. Hope you feel better for having got something off your chest and feel less inclined to flame someone who does not deserve it.

For the record, I am god really so I do know who posted everything, everywhere.....

Dave the God

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Jan 01 - 10:22 AM

Jon,
if I was the GUEST poster I'd think you know me too well.
May I only add to your list of how to do it that if you (GUEST) do it perfect then you do not have to come back to post as another supporting the initial poster for an innocent Mudcatter will do that for you:
Why is for instance Catspaw so mean to the initial poster when (s)he only has asked an innocent question on the pricing policy of Camsco or has just told that Rick plays even better than he sings.

For a Mudcatter or an occasional visitor who does not know the history of all these threads, the initial reaction of regular Mudcatters to GUESTs postings can be extremely irritating.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 Jan 01 - 10:39 AM

Ah Wolfgang, if you were the GUEST, I would expect a minimum of "Hurrah to the Fenians from Cahirciveen). I think I know you well enough to know you know the song and I love the Johnstones.

Jon

(trying to lighten things up a little rather than detract from Wolfgang's point)

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Jan 01 - 01:07 PM

I've never flamed someone who didn't deserve it.

Alex

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jan 01 - 06:03 PM

Whether or not people deserve to be flamed is irrelevant. Flame wars hurt the entire Mudcat. So when people participate in or help to spread flame wars, they are hurting a lot of people who don't deserve it.

Flaming serves no useful purpose. The trolls don't give a shit, and the people who are hurt, in most cases, are the innocents.

And, AND... Flame wars hurt Max. So those of you who can't seem to resist, cut it out for Max's sake, if for no other reason, ok?

Carol

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Jan 01 - 06:05 PM

Okay, mom.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: Snuffy
Date: 09 Jan 01 - 06:06 PM

"I've never flamed someone who didn't deserve it."

I think every flamer who ever posted would say that applied equally to them.

Subject: RE: btw: The Guest ain't a dog!
From: John Routledge
Date: 09 Jan 01 - 06:24 PM

The concept of Mudcat is tarnished by any war.

The value of the MANY GREAT ASPECTS OF MUDCAT is still of course there but as a newbie poster my view of Mudcat has changed quite dramatically over recent days.

I am however hopeful that with the use of the undoubted skills of many many Catters my initial view of Mucat will prove to be right in the long run.

Some work needs to be done.

Take Care Everyone John