More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe

Subject: More good reasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST,Someone who knows better than the rest of yo
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 10:06 AM

Conrad Bladey is an American bigot from Baltimore, not an Irish or British authority on the Orange song tradition.

He copies songs out of songbooks he finds at the library, and posts them on the Internet. In the past, his posting was so malicious, several IPs closed his account for racist and sexist harrassment of other posters. He was, as has been mentioned, kicked off the Irtrad list, where a number of Irish musicians who truly are authorities about the Orange music traditions exposed him for the fraud that he is.

Speaking of authorities on the Orange music traditions, I don't suppose any of you have ever heard the names John Moulden and Fintan Vallely? People with a knowledge of the Orange music traditions of great breadth and depth, who don't use their knowledge as a bigot's bully pulpit to further their petty personal agendas?

You see, this is the real problem with Mudcat. Too many people embrace these sorts of fraudulent pretenders, thinking they are real music authorities. Because the DT is so widely used, the poison and misinformation just keeps spreading. Many of you are belligerent and arrogant about it too. You do no service to the music traditions of Ireland engaging in this behavior

All you are doing by defending Conrad and uncritically accepting him as an "expert" on Orange music, is demonstrating to the potential funders of this place more reasons not to fund it. No one who knows anything about the Orange music traditions has ever acknowledged Conrad as an expert--in fact, the exact opposite has been the case.

The Irtrad music list is the best source for Irish music traditions on the Internet. They are not perfect by any means, but there is good reason why knowledgeable authorities like John Moulden, Tom Munnelly, etc post on the Irtrad forum, and not here. The level of ignorance surrounding the discussion of Irish music on this forum is shameful. Absolutely shameful.

Of course, it is also to be expected I suppose, when the BSers are the stars here, and no one even recognizes names like John Moulden, Jean Ritchie, Frank Hamilton, etc when they pop up in the forum to post. That says a tremendous amount about the damning ignorance being peddled here as musical expertise, just because a badly designed and maintained song database is attached to it.

The level of racism, sexism, and bigotry in this forum never ceases to amaze me. But just when I think I've seen the worst I've ever seen, something even more disturbing happens here--many Mudcatters then jump on the jingo bandwagon and defend the racists, the sexists, the bigots, and the pig ignorant parading around as music experts.

There are many worthy places to send your money if you truly want to support folk music on the Internet. But it isn't this place.

---

This message/thread is a personal attack. By rights, it should be deleted, especially since it was posted by an individual who doesn't have the courage to identify herself. Since so many people have responded, I guess I'm better off to leave the thread alone. Thanks to those who send me personal messages to call my attention to this thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 10:49 AM

I have no idea who Conrad is and I never uncritically accept ANYBODY as an "expert"...

That aside, there's no reason that Mudcat shouldn't be able to support itself, except that Max has chosen not to use many of the options available to him...

"The level of racism, sexism, and bigotry in this forum never ceases to amaze me."

Welcome to the human race eh...

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: InOBU
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 10:56 AM

Fact is, a number of folks have dragged Conrad over the coals over things on which we have dissagreed with him. But, being the place this is, we have also praised his best efforts when he tries to be civil. So, let me get this straight, you are basicly saying we should boycott free speach media? Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: InOBU
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:04 AM

The truely sad part of this post, is that I knew Fintan years back, don't know if he'd remember me, and I know his cuz Cillian. They are wonderful folks, and to attach their name to such sheefojockie is a real crime. (Anyone know how to spell sheefojockie?) I don't know why I am posting in answer to anyone who starts by telling us he knows more than us, when he wont even sign his name. I know as much as I know... and I will say with a degree of pride, that I am, always was and allways will sign my name, Larry Otway. Come out of the shaddows and let's have a look at ye, ye amadain.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Giac
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:09 AM

My goodness, you'd better have a snack, take a valium and a nap and calm down. You're gonna pop a blood vessel, sweetie. Then we won't even know so we can mourn ya, cause you don't sign your posts.

Here's a cookie, and some warm milk with chocolate so you won't taste the nice medicine ... .

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:10 AM

Wouldn't it be great if we could just learn to leave such messages to Max, for his comment?

~Susan

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Alice
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:10 AM

Anonymous, you say, "no one even recognizes names like John Moulden, Jean Ritchie, Frank Hamilton, etc when they pop up in the forum to post"... that statment us just plain wrong! They are treasured and highly appreciated. As far as Conrad goes, I ignore him.

alice

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST,joeclone
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:18 AM

Please do NOT feed the flamer/troll.
Exercise a little self-control.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:20 AM

That's a serious problem with "Liberals" they accept anyone into the group; even assholes. And just what makes you think we dont know who we are dealing with? On this forum, I would never confront a liar or an asshole.(Unless it is a personal attack) That doesn't mean I dont know that said person is a liar or an asshole. He/she knows it, I know it, that's good enough. Why condemn a large group of nice people because you believe one of them is a liar? As we used to say in the service, "Rave on cat shit; someone will clean you up."

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:22 AM

My name is Michael Richard Patrick Lane. I am an Irish Catholic who loves singing songs in the Republican tradition, as well as trad songs, playing Irish trad music, some Scottish trad music, and singing in the native language of the land of my forebears. I have always told purists that don't think I should sing these "rebel" songs that that is pure hogwash as the troubles have shaped the politics of Ireland, and its music, for at least 400 years and to ignore it is to ignore our traditions. The Mudcat, and folks like John Moulden, Big Tim, Alison (who is forever and after THE FAIR ONE to me ;-)) and others, have helped me to see that the same can be said of the "Orange" music and its traditions. While this hasn't altered my views of the politics much, my musical life has been enriched by the discovery of a wonderful body of work. And it has helped me to understand the perspective of these people. As I said, it hasn't changed much of my view as to what I would hope would happen, but it has given me an appreciation for a culture that I never had before. And it has deepened my scholarship. I would never have had the chance to know these things and would have marched along in my one sided ignorance, were it not for this wonderful place.

Conrad Bladey has demonstrated his ignorance here far too many times for me to give him any praise at all. He is, IMHO, sociopathic. Very bright, and able to fool many, but he has shown himself to often for me to take him as anything other than a bigot.

In other words, he is an asshole. Just like the person who started this thread. Many of us knew who Jean Ritchie, Frank Hamilton, Sandy Paton, Dan Milner, and others who post here were before you knew how to make your first G chord. Your arrogance is amazing. Do us a favor and go to some other site with your vitriol. And we will go on, in our ignorance and stupidity, supporting this community that has allowed us to become friends.

In the darkness of ignorance but surviving,

Mick Lane

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:24 AM

The real problem with Mudcat really is that most everyone is tolerant most of the time, independent-minded all of the time, and, worst of all, inclined to keep things in perspective--makes it tough on people who believe that anonymous flamers should rule the internet--

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:26 AM

Sorry, should have ignored.............but that made me feel great!!! Will be quiet and behave now..........LOL.

Mick

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:41 AM

There are always new ways these trolls have of manipulating people. This one's cute - and knows that a half truth is always better than a lie when you are setting out to confuse people. And a pretence at caring about something that actually does matter is another good trick.

The only good reason I can think of not to fund the Mudcat is that it can take over your life. When I think of all the total rubbish I have missed seeing on the telly because I was working through the threads on the Mudcat...

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 01:25 PM

Agreed Mick...exactly right. Sorry to respond here, but as one who has raked Conrad before I want to also say that the person who started this thread is no better. Everyone can make their own decisions on Conrad.....My thoughts were expressed here.

Spaw

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Jock Morris
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 01:37 PM

The person who started this thread obviously hasn't been around here long enough to have witnessed the number of times that Conrad has been brought to book for his bigoted views. To criticise this site for Conrad receiving praise for contributing so many songs to the database is childish and stupid. Whatever his beliefs, his help in collecting songs is to be appreciated. Don't worry, we'll be sure to slap him down when the need arrises, but for now we'll praise the old dog and hope our kindness can train him to be better behaved.

Scott

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST,John Martin
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 01:53 PM

I don't know what you folks are talking about with all this Irish stuff. I just wanted to get the words to some songs because Granny didn't know all of them. We just sit around and play mountain music for fun. All are always welcome. Since I found what I was looking for here it seems honorable to send some coin. If your looking for a feud I'm sure you will find it. If you want politics or hate there are much better sites.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Gareth
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 02:48 PM

Hmmmm! Seem some BIGOT would wish to shut the Mudcat & the DT down to satisfy their own preconceptions.

That's OK by me, butty, you live in your world, and we'll live in the real world.

Or try this BLICKY

Yes I know we shouldn't feed the Trolls - but a poisoned pill will not do the internet any harm.

Gareth

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 04:03 PM

what an idiot or as we say here in Scotland what a numpty.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Peg
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 08:43 PM

"When I think of all the total rubbish I have missed seeing on the telly because I was working through the threads on the Mudcat... "

LOL! Priceless, McGrath.

peg

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: DonMeixner
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 10:45 PM

I gotta admit that this is the first I've heard of Conrad Bladely. Sounds like a right jerk to me.

Don

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:04 PM

Don, you have led a sheltered existance...

That said, I think if I was a potential funder of this site, I would be far more worried about the existance of - and, perhaps more so, the perpetuation of this type of thread than I would over what CJB may or may not be.

Jon

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: 53
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 11:07 PM

if you don't like it then don't post on it.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 31 Mar 02 - 04:10 AM

I agree

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 02 - 05:45 AM

I've got this theory that if you measure the ratio of the lenght of a skull to its breadth, you can work out the percentage of Orange and Fenian blood in a person. And wouldnt it be a lot easier if we made pi equal 3. And what about Brin and Siobhan,eh, bit of a turnup for the book.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 02 - 05:55 AM

Sorry greg but the State of Indiana already passed a law setting the value of Pi at 3. Personally, I don't see what the deal is.....I mean it's just as easy to use it to the 10,000 digit: 3.1415926....., etc. (had to delete it because it caused problems, Spaw. -Joe Offer-)
Spaw

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 02 - 07:50 AM

I think you'll find your 1238th digit should have been a 3

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: MudGuard
Date: 31 Mar 02 - 07:59 AM

Spaw, why didn't you list all the digits in that number? ;-)

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 02 - 10:45 AM

From the Usenet archives, a post from John Moulden on Conrad Bladey:

Subject: Re: Moulden-Gaughan-Censors: John Moulden's final words From: [e-mail] Date: 27 Mar 1997 20:24:37 GMT

I posted a message which appears quite a long way below, intending it to appear in all the newsgroups in the headers but, mysteriously, it got only to soc.culture.irish. I have now retreived it from Deja News and am posting separately to rec.music. celtic, uk.music.folk and rec.music.folk. I apologise if it reappears anywhere it has been seen previously. I also apologise to those who are wearied by this. I had decided to let the matter go on the principle (as Murphy's Law says) not to argue with fools lest people fail to see the difference. Not that Mr Bladey is a fool only that I do not wish to be associated with him - which is what I said and why this started.

I have two more things to say - and this will be my final posting on the subject. When I called my publishing and distribution "company" Ulstersongs, I knew it was a risk. A risk that I would be confused with the immoderate voices of Ulster, but I thought and still think it important to attempt to correct the stereotype. The music making and singing community of Ireland as a whole is "mixed" in all sorts of ways and has mainly resisted any attempts to have it take sides.

I know protestant flute band members who join monthly or more often in Irish music session with friends who at other times play in bands which lead Hiberian parades. None of us submerges our own pride in our own variety of culture but we celebrate what we have in common and respect one another's differences. I have known Orangemen sing rebel songs and Nationalists sing Orange ones.

I fear that Conrad Bladey and others have misunderstood what I said. Ulstersongs does actually stock some items which contain political songs of all colours and persuasions. There are (for example) historically republican songs among the Bogside Ballads: there are loyalist songs in Sam Hanna Bell's "Erin's Orange Lily". I do not _exclude_ these things but I do _not_ promote them. What I am doing is more representative than what Mr Bladey's protegee Ian Bradley's company is doing. It stocks - or it appears from the advertisement to stock - only protestant/loyalist/orange/unionist material. I wish to promote the good-neighbourly, even-handed approach of the majority of people in Northern Ireland; Mr Bladey and his confreres appear to promote only one point of view. That is no way to win a hearing for your arguments as I told Mr Bladey when I first read his postings to irtrad last June or July.

That's my first point - the second is another partial repost from an article I sent to rec.music.celtic last summer. It concerns what I think is a total confusion about the nature of censorship - of which I (and DICK GAUGHAN for Heaven's sake!) stand accused (and, except for George Hawes and Larry Mallette, largely undefended.)

This is what I said (I was attempting to indicate why it was appropriate for there to be discussion of political songs:

Self quote: It has been said that this discussion is out of place in a music list or discussion group but there are legitimate points to be made about sectarian songs and their place in tradition - personally I abhor most of them - but I remember a time when groups of catholics and protestants together sang "Derry's walls" to the tune of "A nation once again" and "A nation once again" to the tune of "Derry' Walls". They also sang "The green grassy slopes of the Boyne" and "Kelly the boy from Killanne", "The ould orange flute" and "Whack fol the diddle". They did not sing "The rifles of the IRA", "The broad black brimmer", "The protestant maid" or "Dolly's brae" because they would have given offence. Such songs are intended to reinforce the antagonistic feelings of one group of people towards another; they can only - unless the intention is to insult - be sung in a group which is one-sided. It thus appears that their purpose is to divide and to maintain division.

I would suggest then that the active promotion of either republican or loyalist songs is a sectarian act. I further suggest that a confusion exists between the responsibility of a folklorist and the rights of a singer/musician. The folklorist has a responsibility to research in an absolutely even handed way; he also has a right to promote any kind of song or music that he likes - but he should not object if others hold that his actions show his personal interest. In other words - research what you like - present it objectively - but once you begin to *promote* any part of the tradition, by singing republican songs or by publishing loyalist ones, you have betrayed your bias - these things, if they are to mean anything rather than being examples pinned like butterflies to a card - have to be sung or promoted with conviction. It is impossible to sing republican or loyalist songs sincerely without being sectarian and showing sectarianism - similarly any promotion of such songs is a sectarian act - it is not a corrective, it is blatantly one-sided. The matter of censorship does not enter, everyone has free choices but we need not object if we are judged on the basis of the choices we make.

Let's be in no doubt - the legitimacy in tradition of any song is not an earnest of its worthiness. In a lecture at the second Keele folk festival Bert Lloyd, the intellectual shaper of the English folk revival of the 1950s and 60s likened some folklorists to a biologist who loved animals until, that is, he saw a warthog "That can't be an animal," he said "it's too bloody ugly". I'm afraid that too many loyalist and republican songs are warthogs.

At the same time there are tendencies in loyalist songs as distinct from republican ones which need to be noticed and which may go some way towards explaining the unbiased observer's greater distaste for the one rather than the other. Firstly, many republican songs describe a struggle for the independence of a small "nation" against a more powerful. They also have a heroic cast: "Brave Father Murphy of the County Wexford", Henry Joy, General Monroe tell stories in noble terms. Even more recent songs, their angry edges unsmoothed by long being passed from person to person take the stance that the struggle is not against the people of England but the "forces of the crown". (Whether these stances are true or not is not at issue - I am speaking of the attitude inherent in the songs.)

Loyalist songs however seem to be directed at a group - not the IRA nor the INLA - but a cultural or religious group: "Taigs" or "Fenians". Their tone is a lot more abusive so people without bias are not swayed by them. There is a group of republican songs which reflect recent events and which are similarly unpleasant but the impression remains that a larger proportion of loyalist songs have a racist slant.

End of quote.

Below is the repost of which I spoke earlier ******************repost********************************

Subject: Re: Moulden-Gaughan-Censors of the Folk Tradition? From: [e-mail] Date: 1997/03/26 Message-Id: <[e-mail]> Newsgroups: soc.culture.irish

In article <[e-mail]>, Conrad Bladey writes:

>The point is that Mr.Moulden went further than to >say he was not including the tradition. He clearly >stated that he was not including the tradition because >it did not need his help or consideration and because it >was a tradition which had no right to exist.

This is a lie - I have never said anything about any tradition having no right to exist. Nor about its not needing my consideration. I have explained my position in other posts.

>Sorry Mr.Moulden has stated that he believed that due to >his hatred for things Orange this tradition was not >worthy of a place in his collections of what he calls >the music of Ulster. He has termed it hateful and >divisive and objectionable-this is not allowing the >ancient tradition to have its proper and equal place as >a valid ulster tradition. John Moulden's collections >become the songs of John Moulden and not the "Songs of >the People" or of the "Folk" or of "ulster" writ large.

I have no hatred for things Orange only of bigotry and violence. My reference to songs and music which promote division did not mention Loyalist or any other kind of music - I intended it to apply equally to bigoted and inflamatory Republican songs. Following on the Rebel songs and YOU!!!! thread I'm sure Mr Bladey will welcome that.

>All sides occupying the island have their traditions and >all cultures are just as valid and all are just as >human. Are you proclaiming a master race free from sin?- >at the expensive of the Brave men of Ulster who defended >themselves against ruthless Catholic attack at places >like Dolly's Brae and Portadown- I suppose throwing >people alive into a frozen river is ok just so they are >not "your" people!

Jonathan Bardon's "A History of Ulster" page 304 gives the following facts about what Mr Bladey calls the "ruthless Catholic attack at ... Dolly's Brae". It was matter of a march by Orangemen which the Catholic "Ribbonmen" opposed. As the Orangemen marched back from Lord Roden's park at Tolleymore the Catholics occupied a hill above the route. There is some confusion as to which side fired the first shot though both sides fired thereafter. The police, some magistrates, a troop of dragoons and a company of foot soldiers were there to keep the peace and when they ran up the hill firing, the Ribbonmen ran off. Despite earlier appeals and their renewal by a mounted magistrate not to fire the Orangemen continued.

When the skirmish was over, Bardon says "At the top of the hill the police found eighteen pitchforks, seven pikes and ten muskets and half a dozen bodies. Not a single Orangeman was wounded."

There were also attacks on nearby Catholic houses - they were burned. A police Inspector appealed for the Orangemen to help a wounded man and was refused "He's not one of our party".

(I suppose it's ok to deny compassion to someone as long as they're not one of your people.)

I'm puzzled by Mr Bladey's description.

The Portadown incident occurred in 1641 when 80 protestant men women and children were driven off a bridge into the River Bann and those who did not drown immediately did so after being bludgeoned. This was an attack by Catholics upon protestants. (Bardon Page 138)

The same year in Fermanagh Sir William Cole killed about two hundred captured Irish. There were many such incidents on both sides. On balance more protestants died.

The next year Major General Robert Monroe landed [and marched south, where] ... at Newry ... after shooting and hanging sixty men, he did stop his men throwing women in the river and using them as targets though only after several had been killed. He then went north again and (says Bardon) "slaughtered any Irish men, women and children that he found."

There is much to be said about ruthlessness on all sides and it _was_ 1641/2, when all sorts of horrors were occuring in the Europe of the thirty years war.

>When we deal with folklore we can not take sides. We >must take the time and energy we have to preserve that >which has come down to us as treasures of creativity and >records of the history of all of the oppressed.

I'm glad you said that - we must not take sides - which is what I said and which you are attacking - another odd thing. I also agree that we should preserve _but_ you haven't mentioned that you take this a step further - you promote it - and in doing so you take sides.

Reductio ad absurdum?! Absurdity is not enough, is it? Rather we have the exposure of Mr Bladey as an unprincipled ruffian.

I am honoured to be linked with Dick Gaughan in this matter.

John Moulden Singer, Percussionist, Writer, Lecturer, Researcher, Publisher, Song Hunter Ulstersongs Mail Order (Books and Cassettes) http://members.aol.com/jmoul81075/ulstsong.htm

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: SINSULL
Date: 01 Apr 02 - 10:49 AM

Thank you for reminding me. My Mudcat donation is now safely in Max's hands.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 02 - 10:57 AM

Which keeps this forum safe for the "have you ever played with your genitals" threads.

We wouldn't want people with music, historical, and political expertise being quoted here, now would we? That would set a bad precedent.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Apr 02 - 11:56 AM

GUEST, thanks for that post from John Moulden. This is why I have said that Bladey is ill informed, and a bigot. Moulden's scholarship is beyond question, and besides that he is (by all reports) a damned decent human being. His views on songs from both traditions is very similar to mine. We may not agree on all songs and whether or not they are appropriate, but that is the nature of things. Nonetheless, he quotes facts and researches before he answers. Bladey, on the other hand, just throws out propaganda and bullshit based on his own narrow view. Moulden is another in the vein of Wolgang from Germany. These are people that one may not always agree with, but who are worthy of great respect as they exhibit a desire to be informed and share that with others. The analysis is always open to debate, but the intent is honorable and I am proud to have come to know them.

Conrad, on the other hand, has caused me to quit eating Greek food. Just another reason to dislike his brand of bigotry.............LOL.

Mick

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Apr 02 - 12:49 PM

What guest sees as a failing in Mudcat, I see as a benefit. All the songs, vitriolic and bigoted or not, contribute to our understanding and assessment of the times. As most respondents have already said, it is up to us to decide what we accept, reject or ignore. In time, everything will be put in historical perspective.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 02 - 01:17 PM

You are welcome Big Mick.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 01 Apr 02 - 10:35 PM

Jeez I haven't a clue about the subject but it is fun to see all the hopping up and down. The nice thing about the internet is the decibel level never rises much, 'bout the same as the intellect, I suspect.

I believe that no one should EVER be taken seriously unless they are standing in front of you with a loaded and cocked .44 magnum. Even then I suspect my frivolous nature would cause a giggle to rise in my throat.

CB

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Apr 02 - 08:19 AM

I dislike the first post in the same way that I am less disturbed by Conrad's posts than the brainless lynchmob reaction they often provoke.

On the other hand I greatly appreciate the opportunity given to me by the first, or another, guest to read that contribution from John Moulden a few years ago. This was as eloquent and fairminded an analysis of what is a deeply complex subject as you could ever hope to see. And I take the point that it was not originally posted on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 08:49 PM

Anytime I feel like making a donation to Mudcat I just remember how I feel when I read the garbage posted by Lepus Rex. Instead of Mudcat, I just increase my donation to the United Israel Appeal.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 11:29 PM

Glad to see that the various GUESTS are practising what they preach. Not one seems to have even made a positoive contribution to this thread.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 11:58 AM

Actually dick greenhaus, your opinion seems a bit off. I have been thanked by a Mudcat member for posting John Moulden's post, and another has said they appreciated the chance to read it here.

I consider that to be a positive contribution, despite your need to demonize any of us who view Mudcat/DT critically and dare to say so here.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 12:01 PM

Gee, GUEST, was that you? I thought it was GUEST.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Margo
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 12:52 PM

Guest, the only thing you seem to know better than anyone else is your identity.

I find it curious that you are so adamantly against the Mudcat, yet having posted your opinion, you stuck around and replied to other's comments about you. You are contributing.

Just out of curiousity: I wonder if you, now having had conversation with several here, feel perhaps a bit bad or regretful about your snooty better than thou attitude you had in your first post?

Many here have been able to take the content of your objection and respond to it without lashing back. Bravo to them! What say you to that? Margo

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 01:20 PM

Vive la difference!

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: gnu
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 05:33 PM

Gosh, I wish I had seen this thread before I mailed another cheque to Mudcat yesterday for an auction item. I would have sent more. Free speech is hard to find these days, whether you disagree with it or not.

Thanks Max, I wish I could afford to give more.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Ian Darby
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 08:35 PM

Leave the 'GUEST' alone!

The possibility that he eats too much red meat and is happily married to his wrist doesn't make him a bad person.

Having said that, he has certainly shown me the error of my ways.

I've never been whale fishing or foxhunting in my life, but I'm going to go in the back garden now and burn all my 'Watersons' records.

I understand how he feels, because as an English chap I had forgiven the Vikings for what they did at Lindisfarne until my race memory was stirred by Monty Python's 'Spam Song'.

This, like the Irish stuff is in the past, we need to move on instead of saying, "I hate you, you killed my pet frog."

Regarding; "The level of racism, sexism, and bigotry in this forum never ceases to amaze me."

That's what attracted me to folk music, (and this site) in the first place. Its full of the good things in life.

For God's sake, its only music, a song is a song.

Let's all move on and get along with each other.

We've got Bush, Blair,and all these other nutcases threatening the future of our planet,and we're falling out over a few songs.

This pillock has received more than enough attention.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 06:56 PM

GUEST should never be confused with GUEST. Or vice versa. On the other hand GUEST is very similar to GUEST, while bearing no resemblance at all to GUEST.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Amergin
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 06:57 PM

we all know the #1 Pissant is a wanker...but that is no reason not to fund the mudcat....

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST,Don Rickles
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 07:57 PM

Let us all rise and salute McGrath of Harlow. It can't be easy knowing that you're so much smarter than everyone else who has ever looged on to the Mudcat Cafe. McGrath, or Kevin-the-smartest-Mudcatter-of-them-all as we old timers like to call him, bears the burden well.

There have been pretenders to Kevin's crown. Spaw, of course, and kat/katlaughing come to mind. Big Mick and Dick Greenhaus each thinks he's the smartest of them all but they're nothing compared to McGrath. Nothing, babkes, gournisht.

The only real know-it-all is the great McGrath. There isn't a topic under the sun that he does not have the definitive opinion on. The Irish question, the Middle East, home recording, you name it.

We salute McGrath of Harlow, Mudcat Know-It-All #1.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 11:46 PM

McGrath is great enough to have his own personal long term troll. That's something. One thing I've also noticed is he has a superior ability not to rise to troll bait. I know I'm doing it but, oh well.

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 01:14 PM

I remember when I was about five a teacher said to me "I think we'll have to call you little Mr Know-All." I remember thinking what a sensible lady she must be...

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 05:28 PM

Up yer arse, McGrath. I am a much better know it all than you are. I demand that you yield the title, as well as the title, and license plates to the personal troll. It ain't right, dammit. I was the knowitall in these parts when your people were still living in caves!! Damn pretenders!!!!

Mick

Subject: RE: More goodreasons not to fund Mudcat Cafe
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 05:51 PM

Well McGrath may be Mr. know-it-all but by Natty Bumpkin I am definately the Great Know-Nothing!

so there!

Breath of the Coyote (either end)