BS: Is this logical?

Subject: Is this logical?
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 01:21 PM

I've seen this in a few threads recently. Post as an anonymous Guest. Take swipes at Mudcat regulars. Then whine that the Mudcat has an inner clique that attacks non-members.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Is this logical?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 02:33 PM

The guest that took a swipe at a member may not be the same guest that whined about cliques. That's why the only rational approach, as 'Catters Jeri and CarolC wisely insinuated, is to evaluate each post on the basis of its content alone. Then one may argue whether it's appropriate to take anonymous or identified swipes at members (No) or to whine anonymously or openly about cliques, real or imagined (not worthy of discussion, IMO). It's impossible to attach some sort of historical connection between anonymous postings, which may partially explain why some members find responding to anonymous guests so unsettling. You just never know how an anonymous guest is going to respond, because it may be the same guest, or a different one, or a guest with multiple personality disorder. Regardless, the content of the message is the main course - the personal info is only filler.

Subject: RE: BS: Is this logical?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 02:51 PM

Alex, you are correct in your perception that there is a pattern with many of these situations. However, the purpose of the vast majority of them is to get people stirred up and start a flame war among members.

Taking swipes at members and whining about cliques are calculated attempts to push peoples' buttons. Clearly someone has pushed yours, and now you've started this thread, which has the potential to further their agenda.

You're playing right into their hands, as are the people who respond to these kinds of posts with anger, or any other negative response.

The best way to not be manipulated by these people is to view all such posts as having the potential to be an attempt to push your buttons. Think about whether or not you are going to let them manipulate you like that, and then go post something funny to a joke thread. Ok?

Best wishes,

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: Is this logical?
From: BlueJay
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 03:02 PM

Not logical in my opinion. The only inducement I ever felt to join The Mudcat Cafe was a spirit of communion, (and to get rid of that "Guest" tag). This seems to me to be a time honored "divide and conquer" technique. What exactly these guests would like to conquer escapes me. Perhaps it is that we, as members, can state our opinions freely, get savaged by others who disagree, yet in a different thread exchange musical info with our "enemies" on another thread. I think it comes down to an abiding respect for one another that goes beyond any particular thread. If these "Guests" would identify themselves, the arguments would be more credible.

So "Guests", I suppose you have your reasons for remaining anonymous. For our true Guests, who have just discovered the Mudcat, ask questions and explore away. The Mudcat can be a fabulous resource.

For you anonymous flamers, I'm not sure what you expect to get out of your exercize. I, for one, have a real, three dimensional life, and anything you say about any of our regulars pales in comparison to that.

What's pissing ME off right now, is that my five year old grandson has been going to a local "kid's church" thing, though irregularly. So one of the ladies calls up my daughter, explaining that if the parents did not join the church, then my grandson wouldn't be able to get the badges and other "perks" of membership. (Salvation is probably included in the deal).
This is a FIVE YEAR OLD KID we're talking about, for crissakes. "No badges for you kid, unless your parents tow the line". Even though the church has invited the public to bring their kids. Now if that's not pressure to join a group, I don't know what is. I doubt I'll see anything like it on the Mudcat.

You can flame Fielding, Spaw, Kat or whoever. Hope you get your jollies, fine. Mostly, I ignore that sort of shit. You must have a lot more time on your hands than I do. BlueJay

Subject: RE: BS: Is this logical?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 03:18 PM

I would like to make just one more point. Just because someone posts as a "guest", doesn't mean that they are not a member.

I would propose that most of the "Guests" that Alex/mousethief is referring to are people who have been members for a long time. And if so, it's not really an issue of getting them to "join up" at all.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: Is this logical?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 03:27 PM

P.S. BlueJay, it's all about power and control, and has nothing to do with issues, or any points that the "guests" want to make. People who do this kind of thing feel powerful and important because they can make you do what they want you to do. It's as simple as that.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: Is this logical?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 04:26 PM

Is it logical to pay any attention to such posts? I just ignore them.

Subject: RE: BS: Is this logical?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 04:29 PM

My life isn't perfect, and I want ALL OF YOU to do something about it RIGHT NOW!!!

(sarcasm...)

*Sigh*

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is this logical?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 01 - 04:57 PM

THe best way to respond to anonymous GUESTs is to ignore them. Maybe sometimes they're lovely people saying sensible things. In which case the sooner they become members the better.

If for some reason they don't want to, or can't, or if they are in fact existing Mudcatters wanting to post anonymously, they can at least add a pseudonym to that GUEST to make it easier for other people. An unadorned GUEST makes it harder for others to say what they are agreeing or disagreeing with, or make any other sort of comment. If the GUESTs have some kind of hang-up about not being judged in the light of previous posts they have made, they can even use a different pseudonym each time. Seems a silly sort of game to play to me, but noone will know.

Where people don't even do that, the simplest and most sensible thing is just to ignore them, and assume that they are just stirring for its own sake - which I suspect is true most of the time. But since I normally make a principled point of ignoring them, that means I don't read them, and I can only go by the comments other people have made, so maybe I'm being unfair to them. Tough.