 sj |
||
|
||
Dear Joe Offer et al
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 15 Jul 01 - 02:58 AM Me too Alex, it's very late here. I found at least two typos in my previous post. I enjoy saying Happy Birthday to somebody I "know," but it seems silly to keep saying it over and over and over... |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:16 AM Thanks for reading what I wrote. I think this is one of the things we wont all agree on, I hope the baby concerned is ok, and I hope Mudcat recovers soon, it seems sad to see such nice people argue.bye.john |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:20 AM Darn, Alex, I thought I was going to be able to recruit you for my campaign against happy birthday threads... But gee, I think if you'll look, you can see that I have been neither vehement or irrational - that sort of stuff is coming from others. And yes, I've said a lot - but only to respond to people like you who have said something worthy of a response, or to clarify things that people don't seem to understand. Isn't that the nature of debate? Or could it be that intelligent debate is no longer appropriate for Mudcat? I'd be more than happy to stop talking about this subject. I thought this matter was resolved in 1999, and I didn't talk about it until it came up again this week, If the healing/prayer threads stop, I'll stop talking about them. If not, not. This thread is addressed to me, personally. Is there some reason why I should have to allow you to have the last word? I said in another message that I thought threads about the illnesses of Catspaw and Barry Finn were appropriate - they're people that Mudcatters know, and their situations were serious. I think it would be fine for Kat to mention in a BS thread that her sister's dogs were lost and that she was having trouble with her kids - but I think that it was going way overboard to start entire threads about those personal issues. No, I did not see much value in the sympathy thread about Big Mick's friend - but I don't think Mick started it. I think you'll find that most of the healing/prayer threads were started by a very small number of people (and as far as I know, Charcloth is not one of them). To correct another misunderstanding - Lighthouse said I was opposed to prayer, and that's simply not true. I pray every day. I just don't pray by cutting and pasting empty words on my computer. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Terry K Date: 15 Jul 01 - 03:42 AM Suffice it to say that there seem to be many people who get offended by these so called "healing threads". Would it be too much to ask that their feelings be respected? Would it be too much to ask that people consider their manners and go to appropriate websites to do their various things? For example, I like golf, sailing and music. I wouldn't think of asking the Mudcat about golf or sailing, I would visit an appropriate site where I would be likely to find likeminded people with a common interest. So if my pet canary broke a toenail, which site should I visit to ask for "healing"? Why not take it to a "healing site" where it would be more appropriate - is that too much to ask? Then those of us who feel embarrassed by this type of saccharin-coated crap would not be subjected to it. No, I don't have any special claim within the Mudcat. I don't object to BS threads because BS is part of life among normal people - but this healing stuff is a specialized area and should be taken elsewhere. I'm with Joe on this. Terry |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Jul 01 - 05:47 AM It seems to me that the volume issue is an obvious one and is a reason why others who may like to have good thoughts or what ever choose to do so off line or elsewhere. We also have history to go by and we know what the effects of the healing threads were to the forum. Although I can not defend impersonation, the post I have quoted below which was a parody, should give some idea as to how ridiculous things got:
Someone I know has just had her pet mouse die. Perhaps if we hold hands and light candles and think nice things, the little mouse may come back to life again and we can all feel really good about making a little rodent happy. All in all, knowing the past trouble, the obvious implications of everyone started posting healing threads and with the knowledge that other people are managing to conduct these things elsewhere, I am inclinded to wonder whether the real issue is healing or the rights to post, regardless of the cost to the forum. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:00 AM I know only two people who post to Mudcat with any regularity face to face. The rest, I know only through the posts themselves. There are some really nice people here. When two nice people that I have grown to like very much through their posts have a disagreement -- well, that happens. That's just part of life. But when the level of heat begins to rise and things start to degenerate into real unpleasantness -- well, that really bothers me. It bothers me even more when other people join in and take sides. The whole thing can escalate all out of proportion, and the ultimate result can be bitterness and feuding that can have catastrophic results. I don't think anybody wants that. But -- be aware that we've had at least one visitor lately who has tried to stir up trouble. That visitor has already posted a comment indicating downright gleeful over this disagreement between "members of the inner clique." I understand both viewpoints, and I am sure that with some calm discussion, a win/win solution can be achieved here. Why doesn't everybody just pull in their horns, calm down, take a day or two off, and do some soul-searching. Maybe some PMs are in order. And maybe everybody else should try not to pour gasoline on the fire. Okay? Calm discussion, mutual respect, and it's okay to "agree to disagree." There is a practical solution here that should be acceptable to everybody. All right? Peace, Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:13 AM Don, read Sorcha's post. There WAS a pretty much agreed solution which lasted for some time. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 01 - 07:46 AM Jon, I hate to appear to take sides and I am not taking sides, but that was exactly what I was referring to. The church I belong to has a telephone prayer chain. We already have an established procedure like that here at Mudcat. It just remains for people to make use of it. That way, those who want to be involved can be and those who are not into prayer for whatever reason won't be bothered by it. What really torques my shorts is the fact that music threads have tailed off quite a bit during the last few months to be replaced by threads on just about everything else. I don't start them, but in a way I am as guilty as anyone else, because I often post to humorous threads, I do sometimes respond with a sympathetic comment for someone who starts a thread asking for that, and I have wasted an incredible amount of time and energy this week trying to reason with trolls until it sinks into my occasionally functioning brain cell that they are nothing but trolls. There have been some monumentally great music threads on Mudcat, and I would really like to get back to that kind of thing. That, after all, is why I am here. Let's hope. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: katlaughing Date: 15 Jul 01 - 10:21 AM JON! Please make it clear that I did NOT right that parody! The way you have posted it seems to infer that I did. Nothing could be farther from the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: SINSULL Date: 15 Jul 01 - 10:25 AM Joe - you are an August baby. So..."A very happy unbirthday to you". I promise NOT to add a birthday thread for you or even post to one. My prayers and good thoughts will be confined to PMs from now on with the exception of situations like Spaw's surgery during which I required as much support as I gave. Mary |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Jul 01 - 10:33 AM Kat, I thought that my comment about not being able to defend impersonation made that clear but in case there is any doubt: That parody was not written by kat/katlaughing. It was written by someone who had the nerve to impersontate her. (this was before the days of the GUEST tag when such things were possible - a loophole that was swiftly dealt with). Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: wysiwyg Date: 15 Jul 01 - 11:00 AM I skimmed about a third of this and then realized how glad I am that I have been offline for the last few days playing with my new computer. I won't be back here till I get the cable modem hooked up Thursday. This thread and lots of others right now are way too full of people telling other people what they oughtta be doing about too many things. What we oughtta be doing is doing what we ourselves think we ourselves oughtta be doing. Beyond that it's all noise! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: RichM Date: 15 Jul 01 - 08:55 PM Relax. If you don't like the title of a thread, don't respond to it. If you don't think a thread should be here, let it die. ie, don't respond to it. If you don't like healing threads, don't participate in them. If you don't like a particular kind of thread, pass it by. Rich McCarthy
|
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: GUEST Date: 15 Jul 01 - 08:59 PM Thanks for putting this one RIGHT back on top! |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Jul 01 - 09:10 PM WEll, I guess Rich liked it, so he responded and that's simply following his own guidelines....and we all have our own. Leej and Art have said what I would like to believe I would have had I been here. Great job guys. Very well put. Thanks. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 Jul 01 - 09:44 PM This thread AND the thread prayer request? Not appropriate here. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Big Mick Date: 15 Jul 01 - 10:22 PM Based on a PM that I got I want to clarify something. I am NOT opposed to Get Well's, Happy Birthdays, or whatever else that anyone wants to start a thread on. I AM opposed to the pettiness and the tone of certain comments. I respect Joe Offer greatly. We are cyber and 3 D friends. I disagree with him on the issue of what is allowed here, and that is OK. I think if I went back in the threads to some of "girls only" parties in the past, I would find Joe had posted. The same applies for him that I have always said to Clinton. It is what it is, and it would be wrong to tinker with that. I am a part of WYSI's prayer chain, and Kat's Positive thoughts list. If there are threads that are not to my taste I just don't go in. But at the same time I would like to point out that for Joe expressing his opinion he was excoriated. That is bullshit, pure and simple. He never mentioned a name and was just being straightforward in his opinion. That behaviour gets a lot of company in these here parts. But because it is "Joe Offer" many of you act like he doesn't have the right to an opinion because of his supposed stature. The man simply expressed his opinion. Clearly Kat and Joe have issues. I understand that, as was apparent earlier in this thread. I resolved it by simply ignoring the person. We simply don't mix and it is better for all that we just don't respond to one another. My humble opinion. The supposed "threat" made to me doesn't bother me, as I have all the messages archived as well. But the idea of wasting everyone's time with a squabble that can't be resolved is ridiculous. And I don't know that this one can be resolved either. But the bickering can. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Art Thieme Date: 15 Jul 01 - 10:29 PM Max obviously enjoys the chaos. Otherwise he'd take control of his site and delete everything with Birthday or BS or healing etc. etc. Personally, I do wish he would do just that---and only leave folklore and music threads. This place was worth looking in on every so often---but that's rarely the case now. That's just my personal feeling. Max is what the Beatles used to call a mixer---a gentle sadest of sorts who likes to see the stresses and waves that unbridled freedom can unleash for us few fish in our small pond. And I feel a loss as a result. But that will need to be o.k. because that is the way it is. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Amos Date: 15 Jul 01 - 10:42 PM (Loong sigh and quick flip to another channel).... A |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Amos Date: 15 Jul 01 - 11:04 PM Friends, folksingers and veterans of the Snipping, Sniping and Snapping Vapors: You can't manage something that you can't quantify somehow. On my screen, when I come to threads.cfm this evening I count the following items among the thread showing in the default view: 1. Threads relating to music, song, instruments and musical lyrics, etc.: 87 This seems a tolerable ratio to me. We should keep in mind that while there are probably a dozen non-musical reasons for which we enjoy communicating, such as writing fiction,sharing family news, surveying fellow folksingers, discussing economic factors, etc... these ALL get the heading "BS". It is a very broad brush indeed. If there were room we might do better to add some non-musical categories. But whatever. I don't think we're doing so badly. And we will always do well to extend kindness to those who are our friends. Meaning those who support song, and the inimitable knowledge, tolerance and humor of the 'Cat we all love. A |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: CarolC Date: 15 Jul 01 - 11:50 PM Mick, you have accused me of something very grave in the open forum. And I maintain that it is not true. If you persist in making this accusation, I will have to post the messages I sent you so that people can judge for themselves. Do you really want that, or are you willing to consider the possibility that you are projecting motives on me that are not mine? |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Jul 01 - 11:55 PM Just for the record: An abnormal number of old threads were refreshed today, mainly by Susan/WYSIWYG who I think was pulling up interesting threads did so in an effort to calm things down. I do not believe the balance reffered to above presents a picture that could be used to quantify a current Mudcat trend. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Sourdough Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:00 AM Big Mick: I wish I had said that. Amos: I will take your word for your counts and be greatful you went to the trouble. I now feel a mild wave of nausea when I see one of the squabble threads back at the top. However, when the messages are as worthwhile as yours and Big Mick's, I feel better. I guess what I am concerned about is that new people finding Mudcat will look at these needless stir-ups by one or two people who have far more interest in honing an ability to cause upsettedness than in helping to shape an online community and not realize what potential it has. THat would leave Mudcat and us the poorer for it. I resent that. Thanks for helping make the issues clearer with reasoned articulateness. Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: CarolC Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:51 AM Since this thread is already near the top, and so as not to keep it alive any longer than is necessary, I will post my intentions now. Mick, I will send this as a PM as well as posting it here. I consider this to be a very serious matter. If I haven't seen a demonstration that you are willing to retract your accusation within the next two days, I will seek out the advice of Max and Joe Offer on the best way to handle this so that I can publicly defend myself against your accusations in the least disruptive way possible. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Terry K Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:37 AM RichM I love your advocacy of relaxed tolerance. Now go back and read your post while pretending that the 'Cat had been hit by a rash of paedophile threads......... Just a thought |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Big Mick Date: 16 Jul 01 - 07:23 AM Absolutely my last word on this, Carol. Don't bother with personal messages. I am not interested in engaging in a public or private debate with you. I am not accusing you of anything, I only responded to your messages. You and I don't mix. That is OK. It is not required that we all get along. Why don't we just agree to ignore one another. I don't care for you, you don't care for me. Fair enough. Folks here seem to like you, that is fine with me. There is no need for a public debate. Seems to be pretty silly to me. I don't think that Mudcatters really give a damn if you and I are tangling. Better just to agree to part. And save your threats. I never have responded well to that sort of thing. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: CarolC Date: 16 Jul 01 - 07:28 AM Very well, Mick. I will prepare the thread later today and post it sometime in the next day or two. I have already outlined to you in a PM what I will put in the thread. I will not allow a despicably false accusation against me go unchallenged. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Wolfgang Date: 16 Jul 01 - 07:38 AM I think the healers got the message by now. THIS IS A MUSIC SITE. I think it is worth repeating what Max had said in a similar quarrel 1 1/2 years ago. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Jeri Date: 16 Jul 01 - 08:35 AM I'm pretty sick of people needing an audience to have a fight with one individual. Carol, you can post anything you want, but keep in mind there was probably a good reason why it went on in personal messages in the first place. I won't thank you for trying to drag me into it. It's my opinion that you're calling in re-inforcements because Mick has said he won't respond. I don't want to see you try to escalate this shit and divide people up, which is what you're doing. Most of us here are not stupid, or at least not stupid on any sort of consistant basis. Mick said "Carol...............You are defensive and trying to bait..." I think that's the accusation you objected to. No matter what your intentions were when he said that, isn't that exactly what you'll be doing if you try to prolong this? |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Amos Date: 16 Jul 01 - 09:35 AM Sigh... where's I put thjat channel-changer thingy? A |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: SharonA Date: 16 Jul 01 - 09:59 AM To Wolfgang, Joe Offer and others who remind us that Mudcat is a music site: I feel compelled to remind you that music is written by people to express what they are thinking and feeling, and to seek a connection with other people whose thoughts and feelings are similar but who may not be able to express them in the same way. Songwriters and listeners alike are human beings who (among other things) experience pain, suffering and loss... and helplessness in the face of fate... and comfort from family, friends and strangers who do connect with them in some way. Are you saying that the only way we can make that connection here on the Mudcat Forum is through music — quoting lines from songs, or posting our own lyrics — and not through any other personal expression of sympathy or support? There are songs about lost dogs; there are songs about friends' children who are in danger of dying; there are songs about strangers giving comfort and saying kind words. There are songs about prayer and healing, too. Why would these songs be okay to bring up in a Mudcat Forum thread while the subjects of the songs would be unwelcome??? To say "Take your prayers elsewhere" while conducting a spirited discussion of a Spiritual devalues that song and reduces it to meaningless notes on a scale and jumbled letters in the alphabet. You would sever the connection between the song and the people who can sing that song NOW and feel what the songwriter felt. Please let us be human beings here, in all our richness and diversity of belief, and recognize that this humanity is what music is about... and who it's for. There are also songs about feeling isolated and unable to find connection with or comfort from other people. If Mudcat banishes all expressions of good thoughts and support for those who ask for it, those are the songs I will sing to myself when I log on. SharonA |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: GUEST,Douglas Adams Date: 16 Jul 01 - 10:05 AM I revert to the anonymous to be constructive. As parody has already been visited, a little more. It was the doers and the thinkers that took the bold step of searching out a new world in which they could all live, but subsequently forgot to tell the middle men where they'd moved to. Could the musically interested move to a new Mudcat Music Only Forum, and leave this place for the other stuff? Elves would have shoot on sight carte blanche to scub any thread or posting that was not directly relevant to music. A lean time for flamers and trolls. That leaves this place free for all such activities to carry on. Out of sight, out of mind. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Gervase Date: 16 Jul 01 - 10:18 AM *oh bollocks!* Is it the weather? Is it something in the water? Is it hormones? Whatever. Something seems to have bitten a lot of regular posters lately, and now we have Big Mick and CarolC (both of whom are liked and respected by most of us here, I'd say) threatening to part brass rags over something that - to an outsider - seems absurdly trivial. And all that in the context of Joe's perfectly valid and personal statement that he doesn't go a bundle on touchy-feely threads for people he doesn't know. Something with which I happen to agree. Call me a naive, sentimental idealist, but surely the point of a place like this is for us to be able to air our opinions and state honestly-held views. Bloody hell, if we all agreed with each other the Mudcat would become very tedious indeed, degenerating into a mutual wankfest where we all sat around congratulating each other on how luvverly we all were. Carol - I've been hopping in and out of the Mudcat on an almost daily basis for the past four years, and I haven't the faintest idea what slight Mick happens to have dealt you. Most of the other regular 'Catters are probably just as ignorant. Why not let it stay that way? Whatever the accusation, you are not diminished in my eyes; today I've called up a history of your posts and I like the person I see. You're clearly someone who loves music and who has a warm and open heart, a fine family and a view on life that I largely share. And, in running through those threads to which you've made a valuable contribution, I can't for the life of me find any horrible accusation levelled at you - certainly nothing that lowers my opinion of you. So walk tall and beautiful, and walk away. Mick's a fine man, too, and also blessed with a big heart. Why prepare to demean the both of you by posting something that will achieve nothing save a momentary catharsis when you hit the 'submit' button. Bloody hell, there are people who post regularly here who I consider to be sanctimonious, pompous prats, but - bless 'em - even they add to the place. There have been occasions when, if I'd had a couple more pints or a couple more drams, I might have let rip and told XXXXXX what an arsehole I thought he was, but thank goodness I haven't. This is not in any way addressed solely to Carol. It's more of a plea for tolerance from everyone. We should celebrate our diversity and sometime curmudgeonliness, not crap on it. Every one of us, at some stage, will say or write something that irritates someone, somewhere. (too fecking right, laddie – look at some of the shite you've written over the years!) That's life. And if anyone wants to tear my arse off over it, feel free to PM me or email me. But don't bust up the furniture round here. That fancy coloured stuff up there - it's just me arsing around with HTML. Any resemblance to anyone, living or dead, is a pure cock-up on my part. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: CarolC Date: 16 Jul 01 - 10:26 AM Jeri, I'm sorry you feel that way. The accusation I feel the need to defend myself against is that I have stated an intention to damage Mick's reputation. I would never ever do that to anyone, and I did not state any such thing. To do so is contrary to all of my spiritual and ethical beliefs, and it cuts very deeply to be accused of it, especially because I never said anything remotely of the sort.
I think it's wrong to be talking in the open forum about what people have sent each other in PMs. That's why they are PMs. They are personal. Mick brought this out in the open, and he did it in a way that has no basis in truth. I believe he believe what he says, but it is an accusation that I cannot allow to stand unchallenged. I will not be looking for support. I will ask people to please refrain from posting to the thread, although I will invite Mick to post if he chooses. And I will ask people to please refrain from taking sides. But I must set the record straight. It's my personal integrity that is being called into question here, and I want to have a chance to tell the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: CarolC Date: 16 Jul 01 - 10:39 AM This is a direct quote of the accusation as it appears above... Told you this before and I remind you now. I am not a flamer, my reputation is anything but. You have it in your mind that you are going to change that reputation, you made that clear in your PM to me. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: GUEST,Shenandoah Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:07 AM I don't know how many Mudcatters are regular visitors to the Usenet folk music groups, but I've lurked in the on-line folk forums for many years, here and Usenet. There are a few former Usenet regulars who are now posting here, presumably because the flaming, baiting, and trolling is much better in Mudcat these days than in the Usenet folk forums. CarolC--Jeri is one of the worst troublemakers of those former Usenet regulars, who have taken up residence in Mudcat. Jeri can nearly always be found at the center of a cat fight, stating vociferously that she will not get sucked into the middle of this or that flame war. Or others should not respond to this or that troll (which she nearly always will), and then seeks to undermine the credibility/reputation of the person she has chosen as her target in the thread where the war takes place. Some of us who lurk in both places, and have been around awhile, see that pretty clearly. This is pretty typical behavior for her. Just click her name in blue, and have a look see at her posting history of late here in Mudcat. My advice--ignore her. She is mean-spirited, particularly if she has decided she doesn't like you. Looks to me like she has now made you her target for this thread. Don't let her get to you. You are one of the finer contributors to this forum. Long as I've delurked, I'd like to comment on how disempowering it is, on this 3rd? 4th? Monday in a row, to see more of this stinking @#@#, and the only music threads, the ones refreshed by someone over the weekend in large numbers. God only knows what that is about. Whoever suggested the idea that Mudcat should be/have a music only forum, I second the idea! This place is being abused by member and guest flamers and trollers, and those who wish to use the forum as their personal soapbox/therapy group. A "music only" forum is an eminently sensible idea. Who knows--we may even find that knowledgeable, thoughtful people, who actually prefer discussing music to commenting upon their own and other people's petty psychodramas, might start posting here again. To a Music Only Mudcat, I say Hear! Hear! |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: KingBrilliant Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:07 AM I agree with Joe etc - that if we all posted our problems then the site would be overwhelmed. I also agree with a lot of what Jim Dixon said. At a low ratio its not a problem because its easy to keep away from what you don't like - however if the ratio rises then it will have an impact on the site I am happy to include the sick in my prayers, if they are 'catters or are close to 'catters. That's pretty much where my personal line goes though. Any other problem that is not music-related I am unlikely to be bothered about unless I know the individual - same as in 3D. Having said that I bet I forget all that if ever I feel in need of a conceptual hug!! Problem is, you can't separate the people from the music - and its unlikely Mudcat will go back to pure music threads. And it might be a bit dry if it did. One point I would make though is that having started a thread on a personal problem, one shouldn't then take exception if any particular response isn't exactly what you were looking for - ie someones opinion doesn't agree with your own assessment of the situation. That would be self-indulgent. Kris |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: CarolC Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:16 AM GUEST,Shenandoah, I will not get involved in what you are doing. I have never had any problems with Jeri, and I prefer to go by my own experiences when I form my opinions of her. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Amos Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:20 AM I doubt we want the Mudcat to be an academic site. Musicians and lovers of music are complex and temperamental and so far, our commitment has been to encourage the great scholarship, the musical commentary, the discovery of lost lyrics, etc., and also, compassionately, share feelings and thoughts and personal stuff as well. And the per centages have not been unacceptable. They ebb and flow -- which is about what you'd expect in the nature of things -- sometimes leaning toward musical predominance, and other times toward personal, literary, or other things which are unfortunately all gathered under "BS". Learning to deal with trolls and provocateurs of whatever motivation is part of a maturing of the community. "Barance!! Learn BARANCE!" (Karate Kid). Tell you what guys -- let's breathe deep and remember our fundamental affinities here, and go back to that. A |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: SharonA Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:21 AM GUEST, Shenandoah sez: "...on this 3rd? 4th? Monday in a row...the only music threads [are] the ones refreshed by someone over the weekend in large numbers..." Two paragraphs later, (s)he sez: "A 'music only' forum is an eminently sensible idea." Sensible it might be, but apparently it wouldn't be very active. This reinforces the point of my post above: music is so much more than the songs themselves. To segregate music from the humanity that creates it does not serve either. SharonA |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: GUEST,Shenandoah Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:36 AM As is your choice CarolC. But your highmindedness about Jeri seems a bit suspect when it appears in a thread where you are publicly attacking another poster. Perhaps my initial opinion of you was wrong. Like does, after all, attract like. Just trying to walk the center line here. You seem to be a good person. I have no idea what this is all about, but whatever it is about, and whoever it is about, it isn't an appropriate topic for a public forum of any sort. Why? Because there will be always be those (like Jeri) who will jump right in the middle (as she just did), just to see the cat fight get going, and then provide their personal commentary on individuals in the thread (like you). Or is this really about the fact I said I'd like to see Mudcat be a music only forum, since you don't seem to contribute much on that subject here? |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: sophocleese Date: 16 Jul 01 - 11:48 AM A music only forum might not be as rapid fire as this one is, but is that really a problem? We fall into the danger of counting as successful only those threads with lots of responses, but can we really say that a thread on the size of sombody's penis or arse is a successful thread? BS Threads are the formula fiction,addiction fiction, mental popcorn, Harlequin Romances, Serial Detective Novels, 18th volume of Dragonquest whatever, that appear on Mudcat bookshelves. They're easy to read and easy to respond to. They are a way out of thinking about folk and blues music not an aid towards thinking about folk and blues music. Music may be based on the experiences of real life, in dramatic moments or humourous ones, but in the transmission of a song music transcends the specific moment that spawned the song. Prayer threads, BS threads wallow in the experience but rarely climb out. Its July and people are away and hot and things seem boring so they get picky, picky, picky. What a surprise! Ray Bradbury wrote a good story about people being murdered at a particular temperature he could probably do the same about Mudcatters getting snippy at certain times of the year. The balance has been lost of late so it makes sense to work towards getting it back again. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: mousethief Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:10 PM They are a way out of thinking about folk and blues music not an aid towards thinking about folk and blues music. They are a way of being community. They keep people around and checking back frequently who otherwise would check back very infrequently, and then far fewer of the actual music questions would get answered in a timely manner. Also I believe far fewer of us would hook up in real life if all this were were a "Q and A" site about music. People are not just vehicles for the creation and delivery of music. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: SharonA Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:10 PM Admittedly, it's difficult to find the music-related threads in the morass of other subjects on the Forum. Also, sometimes the attention-getting thread titles are misleading (for example, the one on contact pick-ups for instruments). Is it possible to separate the Forum into two Forums (Fora?), a Music Forum and [as on Gilligan's Island] "The Rest", but keep both within Mudcat the website? If so, it would be ideal if people could still link a BS post to a related music thread on the Music Forum (or a DT listing), as they do now within the single Forum. SharonA |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Jon Freeman Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:17 PM Sharon, splitting the forum has been suggested a few times. Max has made it quite clear that will never happen. For better or for worse, we have to make most of it as it stands. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: GUEST,moonchild unlurking Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:26 PM Rarely do I tune in to mudcat these days and then only to see if there are any interesting guitar threads. I did, however, make the mistake of opening this particular thread and morbid curiousity has me watching it's digression. Joe, kat, Mick, and Susan, have issues and have fought them publicly. They may not agree, but they stand by their convictions, can hold their own, and then agree to disagree. That's okay and it's honorable. This latest attack, on Jeri, has me puzzled. I feel I'm qualified to comment on her behaviour because I've known her, both virtually and inperson, four years. She continues to be intelligent and kind. She admits when she's made a mistake and doesn't gloat when she's right. Jeri has written more "reason" on this forum than anyone else, in five years. She is the type of friend, who doesn't check in with you everday, but she's there when you need her. I would trust Jeri with my life. I continue to be amazed at how people treat each other on this forum. It's as if, just because they aren't sitting right across from you, it's okay to be nasty to them. Oh, and before you comment, I'm not immune from that accusation, but I've had a long time to reflect on my own foibles. To those of you who continue to comment on sacred cows and cliques ... there are a few people on this forum who have been here from the beginning or close to it. Those individuals have been instrumental in the growth of this forum and in making it a place where you can vent your opinion and talk about non-music subjects. Have some respect, for g-d's sake. The civility on this forum has diminished at an alarming rate and it is not because of the individuals mentioned above or the old-timers, or even some of the newcomers. It is people who now come onto this forum and see only the chat and never see or saw any of the really good stuff. Back to occasional lurkdom, for which, I'm sure, most of you will be thankful. moonchild |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: IvanB Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:53 PM moonchild, good to see you post. You've been missed. Hope to see you again at Getaway. I agree with you re: the attack on Jeri. I have no idea or interest in what she may be posting on groups where I'm not a member. I can only judge her by her posts on Mudcat, and I've never found any reason to believe she's anything but a caring and helpful individual. I agree with your assessment of most threads on Mudcat lately, but keep hoping the tide will turn to the point where you and many others will see fit to return on a more regular basis. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: Art Thieme Date: 16 Jul 01 - 12:56 PM Seriously, I suggest we now go over to the Fred Rogers thread... Art |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: dwditty Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:11 PM Hi Moon, nice to see you. |
|
Subject: RE: Dear Joe Offer et al From: SharonA Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:18 PM Jon Freeman: Oh. Sorry. Silly me, the newbie! Well, then, I'll stick with the Gilligan's Island analogy: "[We'll] have to make the best of things; it's an uphill climb..." SharonA |
| Share Thread: |