 sj |
||
|
||
BS: mudcat law
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Steve in Idaho Date: 30 Oct 01 - 10:20 AM Jon Thanks for following up on this - and this thread has drifted a bit - if it weren't for the Mudcat and the folks who first invited me into the Paltalk I'd certainly not be playing a tenth as much as I now am. As far as performing, I do in the rooms and am even considering playing our local coffee house this winter. A FAR stretch for me! I haven't been in front of an audience since 1975. And I was a backup singer and lead guitar player. Didn't require any up front work so it was fairly safe. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Jon Freeman Date: 29 Oct 01 - 11:04 PM Still drifting... JAB, that is great. I'd like to think that the Hearme/ Paltalk thing has helped others in that way, whether it be 3d or even just feeling comfortable in on-line sessions. It is a very importnt part of the whole thing. From my side, and drifiting further - even off folk, I remember a couple - not Mudcatters - that had no idea of live rooms, coming in and suddelnly finding they COULD sing accapella as well as using the karaoke they were used to... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: GutBucketeer Date: 29 Oct 01 - 10:20 PM Thanks Jon for remembering. I've been trying to sing and do more in 3D of late, so I haven't been on Paltalk. But, without Hearme, Paltalk, and the encouragement of Mudcatters,I never would have gotten the courage to actually perform for anyone. I only planted the seed. You and others tended the garden and made it work. JAB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Jon Freeman Date: 29 Oct 01 - 09:23 PM Norton, just looking and drifting again toward the Paltalk list. I'm not going to keep updating it but I realise I missed someone who deserves a mention - that is Jim/JAB/Gut Buketteer. He was the one who put us all onto Hearme and started the interest here - seems ages ago but from a Mudcat perspective, that was where it started for many of us. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: MMario Date: 29 Oct 01 - 09:07 PM eating crow
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 29 Oct 01 - 08:56 PM I agree with WYSWYG, just because you dont use any big words it doesent mean you are thick.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Steve in Idaho Date: 29 Oct 01 - 08:36 PM Great thread!! When I've asked a question it has always been answered in good form I think. I know some of the old timers get upset with the fact that, I'll stick to me and not generalize, I don't always look up old threads that pertain to what my interest is. The other side of this coin is the numerous threads I haven't posted because I did look up the old threads. And now that I know some of the Paltalk names - I have been in the rooms with them - didn't know it at the time. A couple have introduced themselves, which is always nice, so that fleshes out my perspective greatly - Thanks Sir!! I've come to respect several of you and your abilities. If reposting a request has offended in any way I certainly apologize for that. Sometimes it is simply a matter of time, as someone pointed out earlier, as with a full-time job, a full time horse operation, a full time volunteer position, and on-call activity it just doesn't seem to leave a lot of time after work. The last several weeks have been easier but who knows. Most of my clients are off fighting the war right now. When they come home things will change. Sorry to be so long winded here - but I wanted to reiterate - I appreciate this place and those who frequent it for the most part. I'd pay dues to be a part of it - and I'm a cheapskate. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: CarolC Date: 29 Oct 01 - 06:10 PM Well then, Jack the Sailor, thank you very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 01 - 12:36 PM I left over some of the seemingly judgmental things WYSIWYG points out above, and I can take a hint. Never meant to offend anyone in any of my posts, but it seems I did. VERY sorry. Nice knowing most of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Oct 01 - 10:37 AM There have also been some good past discussions about posting styles-- for example, all lowercase, short and apparently-obscure posts, posts with a lot of trouble in spelling and grammar-- What was pointed out a number of times in those threads was that some of us realize that these posting styles may indicate a lack of facility with computers or the written word, not a desire to be rude, sloppy, or stupid... we do have a number of people who find Mudcat and don't know a whole lot about the Net, or computers... or who know a lot about music but not much about writing-- and yet these are the same people you would love to have in a song ciclre or at a Mudcat gathering, because they are smart, articulate in speech, great players, or generally good eggs. But some people do make value judgments based on how people post, and there's no controlling that, either. I've corresponded with Bob and Glenda (who share a membership as "53" out of personal choice), and they are quite good eggs. I hope people will take Bob as he is and not read things into his posts that aren't there-- if something he posts confuses or upsets someone, that's what PMs are for! And we do have people who post kinda in your face-- one day it might be Bob, another day it might be Sorcha. I have a turn myself once in awhile. But there is a difference between this and people who aim to hurt-- no one has died yet as far as I know, though some harmful, deliberate hurting has been done by others, in the past. I think the difference is, will the person clear up a hurt feeling with you, or will they not only fail to do that but give every indication of doing it again in future? But gee, I've even grown to appreciate Clinton Hammond-- if we have room for CH, I'm sure we can handle having Bob around the Mudcat! But Bob-- the best way to make friends here at Mudcat is to talk about the music you love, and what you are doing with that, or to ask help with music stuff. Do that and you will see some fast friendships form. And you will find that the other stuff fades as people get to know you musician-to-musician. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Oct 01 - 09:40 AM Of course its a matter of Judgement. Basically, when you reference other threads, try to make sure you're leading someone to the right source, that it is relevant and if the thread rambles, as many of them tend to do, point them to the right part of the thread. As with everything on Mudcat there are varying degrees. Some threads are concise, well illustrated answers, some are rambling garbage. Most are in between. If you point to a thread, please tell the person what to look for and how it relates. CarolC it was totaly a compliment. You were clear concise and to the point. Jack the sailor, you have made John's excellent point for him. Go back and read the second post of this thread. Big Mick Mick, I have no idea what you meant by this, which John? (there are two, maybe three) Which point? (there are many) and what does your point about "read the FAQ's have to do with it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: GUEST,53/Glenda at work Date: 29 Oct 01 - 09:38 AM Ebbie, Carol, Jack, Greyeyes, You are so right. It is easy to misunderstand what a person means. I (upon reading what Jack said about Carol's last post) went back and looked at it and picked up on what Ebbie pointed out. One little word misunderstood could send anyone 'down on' herself or himself at the time into a deeper low. But let's be careful to always assume the best of what other's say, give everyone the benefit of a doubt rather than thinking they meant any disrespect. Good point, Greyeyes. This has actually turned into a pretty good thread. Thanks to all for your participation. Glenda - at work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Crazy Eddie Date: 29 Oct 01 - 05:08 AM Brilliant stuff Gareth! I propose that "The Law of THe Mudcat" be installed in the FAQ Permathread. Eddie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Greyeyes Date: 29 Oct 01 - 03:37 AM I know other people have said this in a variety of different ways already, but I think it bears repeating. Posting links to previous threads, cetainly when I do it, is in no way meant as a criticism of the person starting the new thread. It is simply cross-referencing, not only for the benefit of that person, but for future researchers. As Jon Freeman has pointed out, some of us perceive Mudcat as a valuable resource for researchers in the future on a variety of subjects and levels, and this sort of simple cross-referencing of information will be invaluable to them and save them huge amounts of time. Generally speaking, unless someone makes it flagrantly obvious that they are trying to be rude, it is a good idea to assume no offence was intended. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Oct 01 - 01:33 AM Part of the problem is ........ how YOU would like it done to YOU instead of ....... how the OTHER(S) would like it done to THEM. Say Gary, that's pretty good sexual advice too ain't it? All in the communication. Gary, are you sure you're not Dr. Ruth? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Gary T Date: 29 Oct 01 - 01:25 AM While this--"Post on to others as you would have them post on to you."--is a nice thing to say, it has limited practicality. Part of the problem is posting how YOU would like it done to YOU instead of posting how the OTHER(S) would like it done to THEM. This--...I can't expect other people to read my mind, and I can't control what other people post to the threads I start.--and this--you starts your threads and you takes your chances.--strike me as pretty wise. While few are intentionally rude or dismissive here, there are many different personal styles and expectations. I don't believe it's realistic to look for much change in that area. I think it's best to routinely give the benefit of the doubt as to people's intentions, and look for the best reasonable interpretation of other's words and actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Oct 01 - 01:12 AM Anybody want a link to a two year old thread that's real similar? LMAO!!!!! All good points gang......A lot of it gets down to the fact that "tone" and "attitude" and "nuance" are very hard to express in this medium. Maybe we try a little harder from all angles huh? Jack has a valid point, Burke and John H. have valid points.......Sometimes it's not what is said as much as the way it's said and everyone here is under the same handicap.....If I heard you say it, or you heard me, neither of us would be aggravated. Good thread...and a good reminder for all of us to be a bit more careful and courteous in the posts. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Ebbie Date: 29 Oct 01 - 12:51 AM LOL, Carol. I too went back and reread your last post to see what he meant. All is well- remember he said, 'description', not 'example'! Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: CarolC Date: 28 Oct 01 - 11:14 PM CarolC's last post is an eloquent description of what I meant by wading through garbage. This is one of those times when it's a good idea to give the person posting the benefit of the doubt. Jack, I enjoy your posts, and I think you are a very intelligent and articulate person. But I have to tell you that I'm not at all sure how to take that statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Oct 01 - 11:01 PM BS should always be taken as conversation unless otherwise specified. Please no more topics, No more "here's what to do when you see this." the learning curve is too steep already. Obviously I'm not asking that for myself but I remember how complicated this discussion group can feel. CarolC's last post is an eloquent description of what I meant by wading through garbage. I meant nothing personal to any one person in my comentary so please no one take it personally. I don't mind long winded posts as long as the concept of the paragraph is adhered to. (otherwise my 43 year old eyes start to blur around line 7). Bob and others have shared my frustrations. I feel for those with thinner skins than ours. I would submit that unless the subject is song lyrics or somthing equally easy to answer completely, that it is more polite simply to answer the question or allow someone else to. Of course some of the old threads back there are exceptional and deserve to be refreshed. In that case it is nice to do so and say why. GUEST Burke, For questions other than song lyrics, and related, there are much more streamlined and thorough sources tham Mudcat discussion threads. When reading and encyclopaedia article I rarely see contributers competing for the best answer, correcting one another, or arcing off into conversations about farting, or cats. If someone is looking for straight answers this probably ain't the best place. I think timing is part of it. A new thread on Songcatcher or Oh Brother a week after an old one is hardly needed, but maybe a couple of months later is different. It's like the relative sexiness of certain instruments. The thread was 1.5 years old. I'd rather see a new one with a link to the old, than a revival of the old one. Guest Burke I see your point, but I wonder if some folks realize how arrogant and obnoxious it feels to have someone, in effect say. " I've already expressed MY opinion on this... click here." I guess I'm just a little peeved about this and it is showing. But please folks, don't put "Mudcat Laws" ahead of manners. Just "Post on to others as you would have them post on to you." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: GUEST,Burke Date: 28 Oct 01 - 09:33 PM BS is for conversation not music related. If there's no BS & not one of the other prefixes, I think we assume it's conversation. I know I was agreeing, but I have to make one point that has affected reactions here. If you want to talk, please, say something. If you have a topic you want to talk about don't say, "What do you think about this?" Say, "Here's a bit of what I think, how about you?" If you don't say something to start with you don't seem to be looking for conversation as much as asking others to perform for you. If that's what you want, the old threads will do perfectly well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: 53 Date: 28 Oct 01 - 07:46 PM Hey! How about a "CHAT?" thread classification - like BS, Lyric Request, etc. Any chance of that Max, Joe Offer? Other opinions on this would be welcome. Glenda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Lin in Kansas Date: 28 Oct 01 - 07:32 PM Actually, Glenda-- That's not a bad idea. In fact, if the sole purpose of starting a thread is to chat, why not make "BS: Does Anyone Want to Chat" the title? My opinion, of course. Lin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Gareth Date: 28 Oct 01 - 06:41 PM Preciscly Carol - As they say in the Royal Navy - "If you can't take a joke you shoudn't have joined". Traditionally said by Matloe's clinging to a life raft. Gareth ***BG*** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: 53 Date: 28 Oct 01 - 06:20 PM Well said, CarolC, and we are learning that. Thanks. Glenda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: CarolC Date: 28 Oct 01 - 06:15 PM Two things I have learned in the little bit of time I've been here is that I can't expect other people to read my mind, and I can't control what other people post to the threads I start.
The only thing I can realistically expect to do is to accept with good grace the efforts of others who try to help me when I have asked for help, whatever form it takes, and to give people the benefit of the doubt about their intentions if at all possible. I think we've all had experiences with others here that haven't felt the way we would like them to. The only way to avoid that sort of thing would be to not post anything at all. Otherwise, you starts your threads and you takes your chances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: 53 Date: 28 Oct 01 - 05:57 PM From Glenda here. Okay. Bob and I have read the answers here. Some of you seem to feel the way Bob does, wanting to have conversation anew rather than just do research. He and I see severa; longtime Mudcatters think 'to do research first' is of extreme importance before starting a new thread. Bob says if he wanted to do research he wouldn't be trying to 'chat,' he'd "go back to college". But when he starts new threads he is looking for conversation. OK. We do appreciate links to other pertinent threads SOME of the time, like when we ask for information. We can ignore them if we don't have time to read them. But, when he 'walks up to you' so to speak, and starts a conversation and the only thing said back to him is 'click here', it is taken as a rebuff. Let's try to keep some open conversation here. If you only have time to say, "here's a blue clickie," say it nicely,please. Add the comment that you are in a rush and acknowledge that the individual, whether it is Bob, me, or another, wants to talk to someone. IF you think a thread is boring, or simple-minded, as some of you have actually SAID to Bob about some of his threads, think of how you would feel having that said to you on a day that you really were in need of a friend. Ever been a little depressed and had someone take five minutes of their day with you and feel better? Think about it. Perhaps Bob should start the threads with, "Does anyone have time to chat?" *G* hanks for the education thru your comments in this thread. Sorry to have gotten long-winded but ... Glenda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: GUEST,Burke (not a fake) Date: 28 Oct 01 - 05:03 PM "If I started a conversation with you would you hand me a recording of an old one before you are willing to talk?" --JtS >>>This is a good and valid point and I have seen this, in attitude occur here. I can only reiterate that this is one of those things that arises out of the 'cat's dual nature--information and fellowship. I try to ignore it when it happens, but you are right, I feel squelched because my new take on an old event is not even being acknowledged before the putdown comes. It might soften the blow if it came more often in the form of "Hey, that's a good point.....I remember when we talked about that here *link*. I wonder what we said back then...hmmm.".--John This goes to the heart of my pet peeve here. Those old threads can be interesting and informative. I did just put a link in a thread to one where I posted most of the facts I knew about a song. I don't want to go look it all up & write it all up again. But, when it comes to opinions or feelings, I'd rather have a conversation. At lot of those old threads have participants who are no longer around & no matter how interesing what they said is, response if futile. I know working thoughts out on a subject can be time consuming, so if a person wants to link to what they said & maybe point out how this fits with their current thinking I guess I would not mind that either. I think timing is part of it. A new thread on Songcatcher or Oh Brother a week after an old one is hardly needed, but maybe a couple of months later is different. It's like the relative sexiness of certain instruments. The thread was 1.5 years old. I'd rather see a new one with a link to the old, than a revival of the old one. What I really don't understand is why some people are so reluctant to reiterate their opinions about some musical topics, but are endlessly willing to restate their opinions about what Max should do about the anonymous Guest or other problems. The how to fix Mudcat threads must be among the most frequent & one never sees a link to yesterday's. (ducking for cover) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: 53 Date: 28 Oct 01 - 03:07 PM ok i get the message, look before you speak.BOB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Genie Date: 28 Oct 01 - 03:02 PM One case where I think it is useful to start a new thread, even though the answer you seek may be buried in other threads, is when you want song lyrics or some other piece of information (as opposed to lenghty discussions), and your forum search turns up 17 threads, none of which have a title relating to your question, and each one having 100 posts. It may take you a long time to wade through all those threads to find the lyrics or answer you seek, when if you post a new thread, someone will probably answer you within minutes (often giving clickies for all those other links, as well!). Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Lin in Kansas Date: 28 Oct 01 - 02:48 PM Gareth--magnificent! I have printed your post out and stuck it to the wall beside my keyboard so I can read it whenever I feel like getting grumpy in a thread... John in Hull--I like your idea about reading the old threads if you don't like any of the new ones. (And have you checked out the "Unanswered Requests PermaThread" to see if you might know any of the songs wanted?? Or if you find any requests in the old threads that didn't get answered, add 'em to the PermaThread? Blatant plug for help in finding songs!) Norton1: History is nice but current events and this forum's ideology of speaking their mind leans me to a new thread request. IMO: Nothing wrong with new threads, but it helps to learn from history too, don't you think? A lot of the older threads (see, for instance, the "Origin of Found on Mudcat" thread, or the one on "Train Songs") have a lot of solid music information from folks who know whereof they speak, and make fascinating reading for people who, like me, get into "where the heck did that (word) (song) (idea) come from, and where can I find out more?" Sorry folks--today I guess I'm one of those "long-winded bastards"...I'll shut up now! Lin
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Jon Freeman Date: 28 Oct 01 - 02:46 PM First look at the list and I realise I forgot Bugsy... plaeas no-one think my list is complete or reflects anything other that a quick search of my limited brain cells. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Jon Freeman Date: 28 Oct 01 - 02:43 PM Norton, there are other factors like time, commitments, computer setups, enjoyment of the rooms, etc that affect who goes on Paltalk and who was on Hearme before but quite a few have at least tried these systems at one time or other. Here is a short "top of my head" list of some that I have heard in these rooms (some no longer seem to show up in Mudcat): Abby Sale, Alison/jiggie, Amergin/NathanT, Barry Finn, Bigchuck, Big Mick, Bill D, Biskit, Bonnie/Little NeophyteCami Su, Dick Greenhaus, Dave (TAM), Dave O, Den, dwditty, Fererra, Frank of Toledo/Francy, Geordie Broon, Greyeyes, Harpgirl, IvanB, Jacko/Scalliwag, Jeri, Jock Morris, Joe Offer, John In Brisbane, kat, Kendall/ken345, Llanfair, MargaretV, MattR/MBo, Mary in KY (as a visitor), Max, Micca, Morticia, MMario, Midchuck, Lanfranc, LTS, Music Man, NightOwl, Noreen, Nutty, Nynia, Spider Tom, Spot The Dog/IARF, Susan of DT, Susan/Praise/WYSIWYG... And there will be loads I have missed (esp with my memory)... even Rick Fielding once had a look in... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Paul from Hull Date: 28 Oct 01 - 02:41 PM *RALMAO* Nice one Gareth!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: CarolC Date: 28 Oct 01 - 01:48 PM I have posted links to other, related threads in one or two of bob's threads. I did it simply because I thought he might be interested in what they had to say. He asked a question, and the related threads might have had some information that he would like to see. I've never suggested that he shouldn't have started a new thread on the subject. bob, if someone posts a link to a previous thread, it might be just an attempt to help answer the question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Gareth Date: 28 Oct 01 - 01:13 PM For those that are interested the original is here - and Click again on the Law of the Jungle. Thanks to the JOECLONE who cleaned up my HTML Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Amos Date: 28 Oct 01 - 12:54 PM Applause, applause, bravissimo, Gareth. Damn near perfect; Rudy woulda been proud. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 01 - 12:47 PM Jack the sailor, you have made John's excellent point for him. Go back and read the second post of this thread. Well done, friend John. And BTW, please let me know when you are coming to central or west Michigan. I owe you a song or two. Gareth..........brilliant! All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Steve in Idaho Date: 28 Oct 01 - 12:20 PM Well as a relative newcomer I'd like to add that I sometimes look for the old threads. But as this is an open forum, and I've grown to know and like the interfacing of those present, I take the liberty of asking in a new post quite often. I always appreciate the old threads, and those magnificent blue clickys ( I've given up on figuring out how to do them), but I also really like the current thinking. History is nice but current events and this forum's ideology of speaking their mind leans me to a new thread request. I'm happy that there is a place to go like this. My only question is - How come, with so many musicians here, do I not run into you in one of the Paltalk rooms, or the Mudcat room when it is open? I've bumped into a few quite regularly but maybe the others I don't know your names in the other format. Just curious - Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 28 Oct 01 - 11:26 AM I like reading old threads, if I dont like any of the new ones I read the old ones.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: John Hardly Date: 28 Oct 01 - 11:18 AM "Read the whole post before responding? Do you mean read each and every post in a thread completely?" --Jack the Sailor Yes. to use your own "conversation" analogy, even those long wided ones that are eventually ignored are not ignored on the spot. If I, as a long winded sumbitch, had just bored you with my information would you then turn to a third party in the conversation circle and repeat what I had just said?
"I've asked questions and been refered to previous discussions. Only to find myself sifting through a hundred posts for a two post answer And when asking for opinion......" --JtS
"If I started a conversation with you would you hand me a recording of an old one before you are willing to talk?" --JtS
This is a good and valid point and I have seen this, in attitude occur here. I can only reiterate that this is one of those things that arises out of the 'cat's dual nature--information and fellowship. I try to ignore it when it happens, but you are right, I feel squelched because my new take on an old event is not even being acknowledged before the putdown comes. It might soften the blow if it came more often in the form of "Hey, that's a good point.....I remember when we talked about that here *link*. I wonder what we said back then...hmmm.".
"The one rule of Mudcat is that you have to wade through a lot of garbage to participate in Mudcat." --JtS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Oct 01 - 11:13 AM Gareth, I don't think you need to apologize to Kipling at all!!!!! Outfrigginstanding!!!!!!!!! Jon, well answered....... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 01 - 11:11 AM
Very well done, Bravo, BRAVO, BRAVISIMO!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Jon Freeman Date: 28 Oct 01 - 11:04 AM I meant to say lack of commone agreement, snse of direction.. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Jon Freeman Date: 28 Oct 01 - 11:02 AM Read the whole post before responding? Do you mean read each and every post in a thread completely? I would suggest not - just view every post and try to get the jist of the points or content. I find it works overall but I have been guilty of skipping important points as well as misreading posts because of my failure to pick something up while essentially attempting to "speed read", I have to tell you that reading someone else's 6 month old conversation is not my idea of fun. I don't feel the information is as current as it might be. And the thread drift becomes many more times as tedious and irrelevant. I think that depends on the topic. Many musical ones (and perhaps some BS ones) remain current and appropriate in terms of replies. Thread drift: you may have a point, once a question is answered, I will happily drift (and do so at other times) but it would not work well if someone wants to add a point relevant to the original topic at a later date. Could a willingness to start another thread where to cater for the drift (when appropriate) help? The one rule of Mudcat is that you have to wade through a lot of garbage to participate in Mudcat. This is not true as you don't have to do anything to participate. Having said that, there is a problem and one that can only get worse in time - that is if Mudcat is seen as being a resource for the future as well as a discussion room for the present. Perhaps the biggest failing is a common agreement or sense of direction within Mudcat. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Gareth Date: 28 Oct 01 - 10:56 AM The Law of the Mudcat. (With apologies to Rudyard Kipling)
Now this is the Law of the Mudcat -- as old and as true as the sky; And remember the night is for posting, and forget not the day is for sleep. The DougR may follow the flamer, but, Guest, when thy whiskers are grown, Remember the Mudcat's about music -- go forth and write songs of thine own. Keep peace with the Lords of the Mudcat -- the Amos, the Spaw, and Bear. And trouble not Ainee the Silent, and mock not Little Hawk in his lair. When Thread meets with Thread in the Mudcat, and neither will go from the trail, Lie down till Joe Offer has spoken -- it may be fair words shall prevail. When ye fight with a fellow Mudcatter, ye must fight him alone and afar, Lest others take part in the quarrel, and the Site be diminished by war. The Post of the Catter is his refuge, but where he has digged in too plain, The others shall send him a message, and so he shall change it again. If post before midnight, be silent, and wake not the net with your bray, Lest ye frighten the others from logon, and other threads go empty away. Ye may post for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need, and call,; But post not for pleasure of flaming, and seven times never a Troll! If ye flame a post from a weaker, destroy not all in thy pride; Post-Right is the right of the meanest; so leave him the head and the hide The threads on the site are the meat of the site. Ye must eat where it lies; And no one may carry away that meat to abuse, or he dies. The start of the thread is the meat of the catter. He may do what he will; But, but thread creep needs no permission, the catter shall live with that still.. Guest-Right is the right of information. From all Mudcatters he may claim Full-news when the search is empty; and none may refuse him the same. Information is the right of each catter. To give or receive as ye claim But check that it's not duplication, and read all the thread just the same. Because of his age and his cunning, because of his grip on the Spaw, In all that the Law leaveth open, the word of our Max is the Law.
Now these are the Laws of the Mudcat, and many and mighty are they; Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Oct 01 - 10:43 AM Read the whole post before responding? Do you mean read each and every post in a thread completely? When someone answers with a 50 line paragraph which does not come to the point or catch my interest quickly. I'll skip or skim. Is that wrong? Mudcat discussion is like a bar, the sloppy, the boring the long winded get ignored. Mudcat may not be the greatest discussion site on the web. The learning curve seems to be way too high due to the high number of Mudcat lawyers who seem to be way too willing to tell you what you are doing wrong. BOB,.......read the Permathreads and FAQ. The permathreads and FAQ, and previous discussions seem to be the constitution and body of law and the interpretations seem to be virtually endless. I've asked questions and been refered to previous discussions. Only to find myself sifting through a hundred posts for a two post answer. Or even worse something with a similar topic with nothin germain to the question. I say if you ask a polite, thoughtful question, catters should either try to answer it well or shut up. If they don't tell how the other thread is helpful, what to look for and where within the thread. then you should send them a polite PM asking them to take the pineapple out of their Butt. And when asking for opinion...... I have to tell you that reading someone else's 6 month old conversation is not my idea of fun. I don't feel the information is as current as it might be. And the thread drift becomes many more times as tedious and irrelevant. I wanted to discuss "O Brother where Art Thow" once so I posted a topic on it which was immediately squelched with. WE talked about that ages ago, look here and here. If I started a conversation with you would you hand me a recording of an old one before you are willing to talk? The one rule of Mudcat is that you have to wade through a lot of garbage to participate in Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: Rick Fielding Date: 28 Oct 01 - 09:42 AM John. Bravo! T'is been said many times before ("read the whole post before responding....") and probably will be said again. Hopefully it'll sink in one day. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Oct 01 - 08:36 AM Not to turn this into a "mutual admiration society" but thank you John for saying it better and believe me I have tried. I'm never sure whether or not at times we are dealing with simple helpfulness or some kind of ego thing, but I think you have defined the one law I too would love to see. It happens in all types of threads. Occasionally, there are cross postings done within minutes of each other, but in most cases it isn't. Again, thanks John.......Well stroked. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: mudcat law From: John Hardly Date: 28 Oct 01 - 07:17 AM "We've had a lot of people comment on subjects and not acknowledging what they have said in the past suggests that maybe I shouldn't bother with what you say now. I'm interested in your comments......and I'm also interested in the older comments as well. See, I feel it's the same thing as someone posting to a thread without reading the other posts......Kinda' like saying "mine is the only opinion that matters" isn't it?" --catspaw49 Thanks for taking the time to post this longer reply. Maybe if more of us viewed it this way things would remain more civil around here, there'd be more useful info with less repetition. I aknowledge that there is a difference between mere repetition and putting a finer point to a question, but this is one of the few things that results in the inflammatory comments about clichishness. I wish there was a way to do a search to illustrate (for the sake of making this point) the huge number of times that someone posts a response that gets no reply (which is fine).....but then that post is followed by another post making virually the identical point.....and because the second poster is more of a regular around here, someone, in good friendly fashion will acknowledge his brilliance, thereby effectively shitting upon the head of the first poster-------a flamer is born. Bob, if there were only one "mudcat law" and I were allowed to write that law, it would be, hard and fast, No one may post to a thread that they have not read in its entirety. ---that's it. Simple law.
Is it too damn hard to acknowledge, within your post, a previous post that is related to your point? |