BS: Shamefull threads

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 01 - 04:55 PM

Bye, Bernard. Take care of yourself. And good luck with the depression.

Carol

Subject: Bigotry
From: Bernard
Date: 06 May 01 - 04:19 PM

bigot

n. a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own,
esp. on religion, politics, or race.

After some due consideration I have decided to withdraw from Mudcat.

Right or wrong (this is no longer open to discussion as too much has already been said), I posted some jokes at which someone else took offence.

Even though I apologised, this person saw fit to repeat and prolong the haranguing, and I'm afraid I'm not prepared to put up with such bigotry here, or anywhere else for that matter.

Anyone wishing to speak to me on the subject (or any other subject!) may do so via normal email...

Posting, or Personal Messaging, will be to no avail, as I will not be here. Those who know me well will realise that depression is getting the better of me once more - and this is one reason why I must withdraw from the Forum.

I am not a bigot, nor am I racist or homophobic (although people close to me find that quite surprising, considering what I was put through), and I believe in 'live and let live'.

I am not tolerant of bigots and I know what the term means. A bigot is not necessarily racist per se, but is very narrow minded and self-opinionated. I have always thought myself to be broad minded, and open to the ideas of others.

Children are among the worst 'bigots' imaginable, but they do not know any better. So, by definition, they are not really bigots, they are simply displaying such characteristic behaviour. An adult, on the other hand, does know better, and should, therefore, behave in a more adult manner.

Okay - perhaps it was a serious error of judgement on my part when I posted the jokes. But I believed that others were as broadminded as I - and that was my big mistake. I am renowned for my irreverent sense of humour, and still believe that someone who takes offence to such an extent is spoiling for a fight - just a little too indignant for credibility. I don't want a fight, so sod off!

I am not prepared to put myself at risk again (given my mental ill-health), as I feel I ought to be able to say what I like without having to censor myself. If someone takes exception to what I have said, and is prepared to discuss it in an adult, non-bigotted manner, I do not mind.

Mudcat is voluntary in more ways than one. It is free in more ways than one. If someone visits a thread expecting to be offended, they shouldn't be surprised if they are offended. Certainly, neurotic histrionics do nothing to give a complaint any credibility.

Censorship of the Mudcat Forum is a bad thing - members should accept that they aren't always going to find they agree with everything they find. Such is life.

I have said enough.

Goodbye...

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 01 - 02:35 PM

Anyone who posts to a thread validates and supports it.

I know what you mean, and agree with it a lot of the way. But there can be a trap of imagining that a thread has an existence over and above the posts that it is made up of, and that whatever the intent of someone who started it might be has some special significance.

If a thread has developed into a pointless row about nothing in particular, leaving it be is often the sensible thing to do. But other times an interesting and relevant discussion is developing, albeit maybe interspersed with ill-tempered coat-trailing and personal abuse from people trying to stir things up, and I don't think that the stirrers should be given the privilege of shutting down the discussion. (And that's not a comment pointing at anybody. I feel it prudent to emphasize that, because sometimes people can be a bit thin-skinned here on the Mudcat, or something you've said with one meaning can take on a new one you hadn't meant, because of an intervening post etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Jeri
Date: 05 May 01 - 11:43 AM

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

And the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, when its sole purpose is to provoke people to do something, is to do something.

This is how I see things:
Anyone who posts to a thread validates and supports it.
Anyone who posts to a thread wants it be read by others, who might have missed it if they hadn't refreshed it.
Anyone who thinks they have to add their opinion to every thread they disagree with, had better search the forum thoroughly, because I'm sure you've missed some.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 01 - 04:27 AM

Controversy is just a word for people exchanging views about things on which they disagree.

Controversy isn't the problem, discourtesy is. And that obviously includes racism, which is inescapably discourteous.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: marty D
Date: 04 May 01 - 01:21 PM

Guest Katy, try not to get down about that kind of stuff. The VAST majority here are helpful caring folks. Ten agressive jerks with attitude and aliases can make it SEEM like they run the show, but they don't. Stick to the non-controversial and music threads and you'll get a much different picture. I have a friend who's been driving cab at night for 20 years. He encounters so many desperate and dangerous people, that he can't even conceive of another happier world outside the one he inhabits.

marty

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 May 01 - 12:27 PM

Thanks to those of you who've expressed support. I appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: mousethief
Date: 04 May 01 - 12:22 PM

I think one reason Max doesn't expunge offending threads/messages is the inordinate amount of WORK it would require. He would spend all his time reading messages on Mudcat. Perhaps he has figured that, since he can't censor EVERYTHING, it is best that he censor NOTHING -- lest he end up leaving the imprint of his own taste (or that of the people who complain loudest).

So we must be self-monitoring.

How I wish we could zonk offenders -- especially guests! -- who post offensive messages. Having been the brunt of a vicious attack in the past week or so, believe me, I understand the desire for censorship.

Please also see this message.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Jande
Date: 04 May 01 - 12:12 PM

Skeptic: "I think we should all keep Edmund Burke's advice in mind. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "

Thankyou! That was in my thoughts as well as I read through the posts here.

Mick: On one of the popular game forums in which I have been a long-time respected regular, we always hi-jacked the threads produced by trolls --and simply had a troll barbeque and a virtual party. LOL! Trolls didn't seem to stick around for long there. Then inevitable thread-drift would kick in and the thread name might even get changed. But that was on a usenet forum.

Here, it might help if when the topic of a group changed, someone monitoring things might change the thread title accordingly, or put a warning on the offensive ones. I don't know how realistic that would be though...

I tend to ignore joke threads anyway, but I'm glad I didn't miss that Jesus joke that Cranky Yankee posted here. I suppose it will offend people who believe that Jesus IS God, but I believe he was a man who was aware of human-ness AND the sacred spirit in all of us, including himself.

That joke underlined for me the human-ness of Jesus. I believe his whole point was "I can do it and I am human just like you, therefore so can you (IF you have ears to hear and eyes to see)!" That Roman Citizen, (St.) Saul/Paul, has a lot to answer for, if you ask me. (which you didn't) ;`)

Thanks for this thread, Kat. Stupid to suffer in silence, when speaking out will gather you support, and further discussion.

~ Jande

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST,Katy P.
Date: 04 May 01 - 11:16 AM

My dad is a folksinger, so I've been around folk music and folk music people all of my life.

I grew up listening to my dad's songs and those of Pete Seeger, Phil Ochs and other family friends and I lived most of my life under the illusion that folk music people leaned left, believed in peace and brotherhood, and would never hurt or insult anyone based on such things as race, religion or ethnicity.

That's why I'm often taken aback when I visit the Mudcat Cafe. Here I see advocates of militarism and capital punishment, proponents of multinational big business, ethnic-based nationalism, etc. Obviously, there are a lot of different values at play in this forum.

But reading through the joke threads, I was utterly shocked, both at many of the jokes, and at the underlying racism and anti-Semitism that is at the heart of them. As an example, I cannot fathom how the teller of the toilet paper joke would not see how hurtful is.

I agree that these threads are shameful. They are most unbecoming of a forum that describes itself as "a magazine dedicated to blues and folk music."

Katy P.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: CRANKY YANKEE
Date: 03 May 01 - 05:16 AM

Let me close this battle with one last joke. This one should offend , OOOH!!, about 2/3 of the world's popultion, but it, nevertheless, is very funny.

aboput 1, 995 years ago, an unfortunate woman was being stoned by villagers, for some crime or other. Jesus stopped the process and said, "Let he, who is without sin, cast the first stone".
An old woman came out of the crowd, picked up a large stone and hurled it at the poor, unfortunate woman. Jesus took the old woman by the arm, gently led her away from the crowd, and, when out of earshot quietly said, "Mother, sometimes you really piss me off."

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: CRANKY YANKEE
Date: 03 May 01 - 04:57 AM

WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE, CHOOSING UP SIDES??? WELL, COUNT ME OUT. MY BRAWLING DAYS ARE OVER.


Let's just suppose,. for one moment, that Abner Doubleday DID invent the game of Baseball. (Which he did not, English kids have been playing "Rounders" for centuries). Let's just pretend that he did.
That being the case, then, he also invented "Baseball Bats". Right????
A very small number of people have used baseball bats to inflict pain, injury and/or destruction of property. DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE GAME OF BASEBALL IS "SHAMEFULL"? SHOULD BASEBALL BE BANNED ?

Basketall WAS invented outright by some guy from Springfield, Mass. Is it a shamefull thing because players sometimes foul their opponents without intending to, and also DELIBERATELY foul the other team????.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Bernard
Date: 03 May 01 - 04:19 AM

I think the problem with your suggestion, Geoff, is the way threads spread out like ripples in a pond. Closing down a thread will only make it reappear elsewhere, possibly with more vigour - possibly giving it some artificial 'cult status'.

We saw this a few months ago when Max deleted a thread...

No, I believe they have to be allowed a 'natural death' by being ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: bbc
Date: 02 May 01 - 09:37 PM

Formerly Ironic,

You've got me there. April 1st was the start of me realizing, for a time, that Mudcat was very important to me. I was certainly one of the ones who fell hard for the "joke." The sense of community that many perceive on Mudcat largely began w/ that incident & those of us who fell hard, for what it's worth. For me, "Why are Americans so fat?" was the straw that broke the camel's back.

bbc (no longer of the Resources site)

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 02 May 01 - 09:33 PM

Recently there have been several threads which I have found unpleasant. I understand the arguments against a mudcat "administrator" using a censorship veto, but I would appreciate a way of giving a "thumbs down" to offensive threads.
Many people talk about Democracy, but usually mean "I want to behave like a spoiled brat, and stuff you if you don't like it". People who do "give a damn" and attempt to counter with a reasoned argument, just get sidelined.
Is it within the programmers capabilities to add a "veto" box to threads, so when a specified number of mudcatters (different ones, and not Guests) object to a thread it be consigned to Room 101, where our worst nightmares live.
This would be a form of internal democratic moderation, not an imposed arbitrary censorship.
Just a thought for the day!
Geoff the Duck!

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Ma Fazoo
Date: 02 May 01 - 09:28 PM

It breaks my heart that Joseph Paul Katzberg's naivete at sharing some of his father's and granfathers favorite stories has turned into a vicious thing and caused such bitterness and controversy. From now on you may be assured that I will censor my own thoughts heavily before sharing them on this site. It has been such a boon to me, as I am disabled and don't get out to see my friends very much. I thought perhaps I would find some friends here. I do want to thank those who realized that there was no bad intent on Cranky Yankee's part. Please, I know he will become defensive and express himself in blunt terms. I have been married to Jody for 31 years this month and have never seen him deliberately hurt anyone. I gusess what I would say in the end is, let us all evolve at our own pace, and we'll all try to grow as well as we can.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Bernard
Date: 02 May 01 - 08:55 PM

Yup. The reality is that there will always be someone who cannot see things the way another does, with predictable consequences.

Some 'flamers' probably do not set out to flame intentionally, but find that they cannot back down without losing face - as if that's so important...

In reality, they may not even believe they are flaming the thread - they may well be quite serious in their views.

The beauty of Mudcat is the way that we are able to 'publicly' discuss things, or contact an individual on a 'one-to-one' basis.

When that discussion degenerates into a public 'brawl', slanging match, etc., everyone else can see clearly what is going on, and will form their own opinion - if they think it is worth the effort!

Targetting an individual within a thread is an obvious effort to 'score points' - a Personal Message probably serves the purpose more tactfully, and causes less ill feeling. However, once a member has openly and deliberately targetted another, it is very difficult for them to back down. Then to repeat such a faux pas...

I'm not sure about barring 'guests' from posting - it's only going to cause 'cookieless' members unnecessary inconvenience...

Earlier on in this thread I apologised for any possible offence I may have unintentionally caused - that still stands. In polite society it is usual to graciously accept such an apology - not to repeat the attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 May 01 - 08:26 PM

Part of my objection to racist/sexist/flaming/ageist/whatever threads and posts is that, even if you don't buy into the premise, it still poisons your well. Imbibing from that well poisons you, and when you're in that condition it is easy to attack others in order to make them feel the same way. Personally- and I'm no Pollyanna- I'm better off if I don't even read the stuff.

It's kind of like what my son-in-law experienced when he was a Child Abuse/Domestic Violence prosecutor. He said he could hardly bear to look at his children when he came home- and transferred to civil advisory.

We are fragile creatures.

Love Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 01 - 08:20 PM

What about duck jokes - like Nell Flaherty's stereotypical Drake -

His neck it was green, he was rare to be seen,
He was fit for a Queen of the highest degree,
His body so white, it would give you delight,
He was fat, plump and heavy, and brisk as a bee;
My dear little fellow, his legs, they were yellow,
He would fly like a swallow, and swim like a hake.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 02 May 01 - 08:11 PM

Part of the problem is that if an offensive thread appears and we make our feelings felt within it then it automatically returns to the top of the forum. It would be useful if we could register our disapproval in another way much as on paltalk you can ignore people and if enough do it they go away. Personally I do not agree with any stereotypical jokes and find it offensive to be associated with them. Up to now I had not opened the Jewish/black joke threads but on reading this I did and was extremely irritated!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 02 May 01 - 07:50 PM

This same thing happens every few months: There's a cluster of offensive threads, Mudcat regulars (some of whom have been here for years and have seen all this before) are SHOCKED, and they demand censorship/moderation. 3 months after this dies down, it'll happen again, and then 3 months later... Bleh. What are you all bitching about? You have something, Mudcat, which is FREE. Consider dealing with the bastards part of your payment (though I bet Max would prefer cash, eh?) for this place you all obviously love.

And so what if some newcomer is offended, and never returns? People who are that sensitive should probably stick to their collection of Highlights (for Children) back issues. Let them go, and consider the herd thinned.

One idea I DO like, however, is what Justa Picker wrote about Max 'outing' flamer's IPs, after a warning. Since most flamers are obviously cretins, I doubt they'd know how to get around this, and maybe the shame would drive those of them who are well-known members (I'm guessing that's almost all of them) to piss off, permanently. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 May 01 - 07:01 PM

Stan Freburg solved the whole problem by using "Swiss" as the generic minority, and "This way, we don't offend anyone" as the tag line. He had the Lone Ranger's faithful Swiss sidekick, Tonto, and reported cases of the Swiss Flu.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST,Formerly Ironic
Date: 02 May 01 - 06:56 PM

No Bbc. The classic example of why irony or satire should never be tried on Mudcat was Max's obvious April Fool's day thread a while ago. Truly amazing how many fell so quickly for it. Funny though. Orson Welles could have caused a riot with his "War of the Worlds" radio play here.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Bernard
Date: 02 May 01 - 06:31 PM

'Tedham Porterhouse', why do you persist in hammering your point home when the wood has been well and truly split asunder?

'If a thread or a post offends you there are Four choices in order:

Ignore it Respond in a PM offline. Directly confront the offense IN THE THREAD WHERE IT OCCURED. Create a new thread complaining about it.

If you feel so strongly, a PM would have been more appropriate than your childish bletherings. However, a vehement personal attack such as yours is worrying... especially when repeated.

If your argument is so weak that you cannot find a more eloquent way of putting it across, then perhaps you should simply let it drop. Anti-semitic? I think not! Read this thread! Carefully!!

I have no wish to make a quarrel - I'm sorry if you find the joke offensive, but

you have made your point!

Over

and over

and over

and over

and over....

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Tyke
Date: 02 May 01 - 02:59 PM

I say refesh all the other threads and send the offending thread to the bottom of the pile.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 May 01 - 02:56 PM

Whatever turns your crank, Jon, be my guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 May 01 - 02:37 PM

kat, your own authorship will suffice. I will be content to remind you of this thread on the next occasion you try a similar stunt.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GutBucketeer
Date: 02 May 01 - 02:12 PM

In any public forum people of like mind are drawn to one another, and eventually congregate, communicate, etc. This is true no matter how noble, or ingnoble the forum may be. People will find their own level of discourse no matter how high or how low.

There are liberals, conservatives, anarchists, christians, pagans, other religous people, irish, english, americans, austrailians, welsh, germans, environmentalists, young, old... the list goes on and on that inhabit this village we call the Mudcat. Many have beliefs, views, and a sense of humor that may be abhorent to others. While there are limits to what should be posted anywhere (advocating violence, direct personal slander, cyber stalking, hate mongering) for the most part we have a choice of either opening and reading any thread or not.

If a thread are a post offends you there are Four choices in order:

Ignore it
Respond in a PM offline.
Directly confront the offense IN THE THREAD WHERE IT OCCURED.
Create a new thread complaining about it.

I spend at least 30 minutes to an hour on Mudcat each day. I must have developed a blind spot, however, because before I opened this thread I had not noticed, or opened, any of the threads that it refers to. Nor, will I open or respond to them.

So unless they are breaking the law, or have seriously crossed the line (see above) let's ignore those that choose to be crass, rude, or bigotted. It's how we keep telling our kids that grownups are supposed to act.

JAB

P.S. It is my personal belief as I have stated before that guests should not be allowed to post. If they want to read the forum that's fine. If people knew that they could be traced then I think a lot of the egregious postings would simply never show up.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 02 May 01 - 02:11 PM

"I joined in with the 'Jewish' thread in the spirit it was originally intended; I limited myself to jokes I had been told by Jewish friends, and was simply passing them on."

Bernard,

It was one of your so-called "jokes" that first led me to object to the thread.

I don't care who you say told you the joke, your line about the Jews hanging toilet paper out to dry is a viscious and insulting piece of anti-Semitic garbage.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 May 01 - 01:47 PM

Hmmm, Jon, maybe you could co-author the "Definitive Version of Kat", along with gargoyle, since you both know me so well.

katthedeviousone

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Bernard
Date: 02 May 01 - 01:02 PM

Mmmm...

I joined in with the 'Jewish' thread in the spirit it was originally intended; I limited myself to jokes I had been told by Jewish friends, and was simply passing them on.

I haven't opened the other threads - they seemed (by their titles) to be childish reactions to what started out in innocence, and became something of a battleground.

There is no room for quarreling in this 'community', and I have no wish to offend anyone - if I have done, please accept my unreserved apology.

...erm - unless you were maliciously 'having a go' at me, and it was self-defence, of course!!

;o)

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 May 01 - 12:31 PM

Dave the gnome, I doubt that kat was ever worried about reccommending Mudcat to others. She is a well seasoned vetran of Mudcat who has seen worse before.

Take notice of when the protest arose and what happened before. All that has happened here is that kat made a post to the first thread and as she didn't like the lack of support and a similarly titled thread arising and decided to stir up some shit.

Kat, in her usual devious manner, has used the guise of caring about Mudcat to try to excercise control because things were not going HER way, has shown she is even prepared to suggest that she will no longer reccommend Madcat in the process and has yet again sucked a number of people in.

Jon (mystified why people can not see through Kat and her tactics)

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Lyrical Lady
Date: 02 May 01 - 12:10 PM

Alex ... that was a very 'poofacious' comment!......LL

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 01 - 12:01 PM

May I direct a question to the following Mudcatters: Owlkat, Les from Hull, Kendall, Bagpuss, annamill.

Why are you people continuing to post to the Black jokes thread today?

You're just ensuring that the thread remains at the top of the pile to greet new Mudcatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 01 - 11:55 AM

usual leftovers of hard feelings and warm huggies

If the Huggies are warm, with leftovers (whether or not they feel hard), it's time to change them.

No wonder the baby is screaming.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST,bbc at work
Date: 02 May 01 - 11:53 AM

Dear GUEST_Honky,

Thanks for clarifying your intentions. You have run up against one of our most common phenomena. For each person who will realize you are spoofing, there are several dozen more who will take you seriously & add to the pile. The most impressive time it happened was when Art Thieme started the now infamous condom thread, to protest BS threads in general. His intention fell flat, but people sure loved the thread! Go figure.

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 02 May 01 - 09:12 AM

A Klingon walked into a bar - so that's how they get those sscars on their foreheads.
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 May 01 - 09:09 AM

I got into trouble telling Klingon jokes on another thread... Hang On! I thought it was you that was the Klingon anyway Kevin!!!

Dave the Gnome (or Ferengi?)

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 01 - 08:47 AM

Saying disparaging/potentially insulting things things about yourself, including jokes, is different from other people doing the same thing. Sammy Davis, asked about his handicap in the context of golf replied to the effect "I'm a one-eyed black Jew", and I think that was a gutsy and funny thing to say. If someone else had said the same thing about him, that would have been totally different.

And I think that is the underlying principle in these things.

Itherwise we should maybe stick to jokes about imaginary ethnicities. NON-IRRITATING JOKES ABOUT KLINGONS...

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 May 01 - 07:41 AM

We really need to name this dance we do here on a regular basis. Let's see.............How about the "Let's Beat Up On Ourselves Tango?"

I forget....What was the one before this one? You know...the last time we had one of these badthread/goodthread "discussions?" This one's about to run it's course with the usual leftovers of hard feelings and warm huggies.......just like last time and the time before and the time before and the time before and the time before....................

I think we need to name it so that the next time we can start a thread under that name and we'll all know where to look so we can beat the crap out of each other.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST,Honky
Date: 02 May 01 - 06:27 AM

I was the person who started the Black jokes thread. The four jokes that I posted there were all taken from the Jewish jokes thread, I merely made a few changes from so that they's reflect another group. My intent was to show up racist humor as the vicious garbage that it is, that racist humor is racist humor.

I had thought that the denizens of Mudcat would have understood my intent.

It is odd that very few Mudcatters seemed to care when the racist humor was solely directed at Jews.

I appologize to all who misunderstood that my intent was to show that such humor is offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 02 May 01 - 06:24 AM

I'll just say this...
Express opinions about the issue on THIS thread not the offending threads or they'll be forever at the top of the list.
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: bbc
Date: 02 May 01 - 05:49 AM

folks,

We can talk about censorship--pro & con--all we want. Max has made it clear that he doesn't want to do it. It is up to each of us what we post & what we read; Max is merely providing the site. And, yes, w/ its various faults (if they are perceived as such), it remains a darn good site.

best to all,

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 May 01 - 04:57 AM

Thanks for the words of praise, Dave, but on second thought: Does not the English language also have an unequivocal expression in 'jewish humour'? But firstly, I'm not sure, and secondly, it doesn't work with 'black humour'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Lady McMoo
Date: 02 May 01 - 04:32 AM

I'm not in favour of censorship and don't see why Max should be expected to spend all his precious time moderating the site.

I never post to thyese racist or otherwise "crap" threads and the easiest way to improve things would be to just ignore them and swamp them with more and more good threads about folk, blues, jazz, performers, recording, instruments and accessories, lutherie, advice, recommendations, nerdish questions, Spawisms and all the other things that make Mudcat a thoroughly great site.

Just my 0.1Euro worth!

mcmoo

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 May 01 - 04:29 AM

I love those last two posts by Wolfgang and Owlkat. Wolfgangs for pointing out so clearly that there is such a vast difference between the two types of joke. I wish the English language could make such a distinction. Special thanks to Owlkat for reminding me what is so good about the Mudcat. OK - the threads in question may be considered shamefull by some but how the majority of our members behave when faced with some of the more base comments should make us more proud than ever of this little community.

So kat and patrish - don't worry. If your friends see this site, warts and all, and see how it still manages to pull itself up to higher levels then they will know that your choice of web friends ain't such a bad 'un after all!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Owlkat
Date: 02 May 01 - 04:04 AM

Hi, Well, this is an interesting thread. My two cents are as follows.
Enlightened as this little corner of the internet is, there is a wide range of opinion expressed here, some of it nice, and some which is not so nice. With Noam Chomsky in mind, I may not like what you say, but censoring your point of view means applying the same measuring stick to mine as well. So, censorship is not the answer.
Standards of good taste? Whose, and applied by whom? My brother sends me stuff which he thinks is hilarious, but is, as I see it, gargantuanly sexist and racist. Still, he is welcome for dinner any day of the week.
There is the democracy of moderation, if that is agreed upon, but I can't see that working in such a polymorphism as the Mudcat.The peasants would be revolting
So? Whadda ya wanna do? The internet is indeed the last untamed frontier, where there are often no rules and no holds barred. Most of us are grownups. If you see something you don't like, you can look and leap or not. If you don't like what you see, then stand on your hind legs and say something about it. If enough people say enough similar things, your point was obviously wanting. If not, well, that's democracy, babies.
Although Mudcat is an interesting,provocative, extremely informative site in which to paddle about, it's also a microcosm of the world, with all it's wonders and warts. There.
Your serve.
Owl

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 May 01 - 03:39 AM

Sometimes, a translation into another language makes us to see things clearer. If I had to translate the thread title 'non-irritating jewish jokes' into German I had to make a choice between two translations which have two completely different meanings. One would be verbatim 'jewish jokes' and the other 'jew jokes'. The first in German means 'jokes as told among jews' and the second means 'jokes as told about jews'. If there would be a book published now in Germany with the first title, we'd know it is a book with jokes that jews tell among themselves about themselves or even about non-jews. That would be considered a harmless book. A book with the second title would at the very least get the publisher boykotted.

BTW, in German there would be also two different expressions for jokes told among/about the Irish, Scottish and so on.

This line between jokes as told among and as told about has been crossed several times in the thread. Cranky Yankee clearly started the thread with examples of the first type. Several of the later jokes were of the second type.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST,Hi Kat
Date: 02 May 01 - 01:06 AM

It appears you have made the MudCat in your image.

The Jews can take credit for the following list; Woody allen, Morey Amsterdam, Jack Benny, Milton Berle, Shelly Berman, Joey Bishop, Victor Borge, David Brenner, Fanny Brice, Albert Brooks, Mel Brooks, Lenny Bruce, Art Buchwald, George Burns, Red Buttons, Sid Ceasar, Eddie Cantor, Titie Fields, Phil Foster, Buddy Hacket, Goldie Hawn, George Jessel, Danny Kaye, Alan King, Robert Klien, Paul Krassner, Louise Lasser, Norman Lear, Sam Levinston, Jackie Mason, Lou Mason, Bette Midler, Henry Morgan, Zero Mostel, Jan Murray, Gilda Radner, Carl Reiner, Don Rickles, Joan Rivers, Mort Sahl, Soupy Sales, Dr, Seuss, Dick Shawn, Allen Sherman, Phil Silvers, Neil Simon, The Three Stooges, Larry Storch, Sophie Tucker, Billy Wilder, Gene Wilder, Paul Winchell, Ed Wynn and Henny Youngman just to name a few...

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST,_gargoyle
Date: 02 May 01 - 01:02 AM

OK....I've traveled through the whole jolly-lot of threads, three times!!!

Please include "blue-clicky-things" so I can find out "where the good stuff is hidden!"

What the fuckin-hell has gotten yer arse to puckering?