BS: From Bruce O.

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: mousethief
Date: 08 May 01 - 06:46 PM

And so you don't watch TV any more. They continue to provide programming for the great unwashed, and you find better things to do. Who loses?

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: Jeri
Date: 08 May 01 - 07:09 PM

The TV station loses a viewer, but at least the ones left won't complain anymore about what's on. The viewers who remain (and in Mudcat's case, the viewers ARE the programmers) lose someone with a different opinion than theirs, and the one who left loses the feeling that anyone cared what he/she had to say.

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: marty D
Date: 08 May 01 - 08:05 PM

I can hardly believe the anger that an issue like this stirs up in some, after all I HOPE this is supposed to be our HOBBY and not some kind of basic training before we're sent off to war. It seems though that some people value scholarship, far more than politeness or common courtesy. My own profession has a lot of that, BUT we don't have an internet site that calls itself a CAFE, and unless I'm mistaken, Mudcat has "chat" prominently displayed up top, along with an auction etc. Most of the anger seems to be coming from people who think that the site has become frivolous. Well there wasn't a sign saying "only folklorists welcome." And there certainly wasn't a warning stating "Humor and wit not welcome here". If you want this forum to be more "serious" then you're going to have to put up some signs to keep the rest of us out.

marty

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 01 - 09:52 PM

radriano,

Would you feel less angry if things were set up like this...

Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suggestion
From: CarolC
Date: 08-May-01 - 09:37 PM

In my first post to this thread, I suggested that people who want to start threads that are specifically of a serious musical nature could have a heading that they could use at their descretion.

So far, no one has given any reason why this practice should not be adopted.

It seems to me that it would be just about the only thing that would placate the serious music scholars (short of eliminating all non-music discussion) because it gives them control of the situation. They would then be the ones upon whom it would be incumbant to use the designation or not.

And if they didn't use it, they'd have no one to blame but themselves.

Can anyone give me any good reasons why it shouldn't be done this way?

...And I forgot to mention the idea that the filter could be changed so that rather than filtering out the BS, it would filter in only the threads with the designation for serious musical discussion.

And the scholars could look at only what was allowed into the filter with this designation.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 08 May 01 - 11:01 PM

To be fair, the "BS" prefix was established so that people could indicate that a thread was not about music.  To require people to use a special prefix to show that a thread is about music would tend rather to prove the contention that the Mudcat is becoming an ordinary chatroom rather than a place to discuss music.  I can't believe that only "serious scholars", whatever that might mean, want to talk about music, and see no reason to change an established set of labelling conventions which would probably work quite well if people bothered to use them.

After a couple of years here (if I include the initial "lurking" period which used to be considered an appropriate preliminary so that one might get a reasonable idea of the way things were done in a place before intervening in it) I have certainly noticed that a lot of threads nowadays are started by bored people who have nothing much to say or contribute, but who nevertheless insist upon doing it, often at great length.  They also often insist on adding to threads such as this one, in spite of the fact that they have very little idea of what is involved, or of who they are talking about.  Please note that this is a general observation, and should not be taken as a personal comment on anyone in particular.  Most of the posts in this case seem to be intelligent and well-considered.  As in most things, it's a question of balance.  There is room for everybody, but only if certain accommodations are at least tacitly agreed, and acted upon.

I count myself as one of those who will miss Bruce's presence here, and regrets his departure; I hope that he will eventually feel able to come back.  It is worth mentioning that a number of people have felt it necessary, over the last couple of years, to announce their departure in this fashion; very few of them have contributed even a fraction of what Bruce has.  Many of them have come back, sometimes on the same day.  It is in no way unusual.

As to the "Guest #1" business, I can only say that I paid little attention to it, and so do not have much idea what was going on.  I can't imagine that it could possibly have begun to measure up to the kind of nastiness that has occurred here in the past.  Maybe it was a deciding factor for some people, maybe not.  Bruce is about the same age as my father; if you can't be a bit impatient with younger people who think they know it all once in a while when you get into your 70s, when the hell can you?

Perhaps the rest of us, me included, would do well to be a little less self-important and judgemental than we sometimes are.  We are all dispensible.  Very few of us, though, will ever contribute as much to the sum of knowledge available here -and elsewhere- as Bruce has done.  I hope that everybody will remember that.

Malcolm

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 01 - 11:19 PM

All of what you say may be true, Malcolm. But what if the idea I submitted is the only one that works?

I'm not saying it would or wouldn't. But what if it did? What if it could make the forum less contentious? Would you say no to it because the esthetics of it don't please you?

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: mousethief
Date: 08 May 01 - 11:38 PM

When I'm 70 years old, if I do a lot of research into folk music and share my knowledge freely, will all rules of charity and courtesy suddenly stop applying to me, too? Cool. I shall look forward to it.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 01 - 12:08 AM

"all rules of charity and courtesy suddenly stop applying "

whoever suggested that? ..tsk..

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: RWilhelm
Date: 09 May 01 - 12:09 AM

First do the research, then we'll talk.

Subject: RE: BS: From Bruce O.
From: Metchosin
Date: 09 May 01 - 02:27 AM

"And they returned to their tea and scandal as was their ancient custom." Congreve 1670-1729