 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat Solipsism
|
|
|
Subject: Mudcat Solipsism From: GUEST,Another Disappointed Catter Date: 21 Jul 02 - 11:15 AM Maybe it is both the heat and me, but it seems that the recent Mudcat fundraising drives have had an inordinate amount of negativity, especially coming from Max. I don't know or understand the situation with Mudcat or with Max on a personal level. But I've been watching the downhill slide here in terms of reliability and functionality of the site, and now Max has confirmed (in the Matilda is dead thread) his heart just isn't in it like it used to be. Is that why he seems so bitter and antagonistic towards the forum? I don't know the answer to that question, but it is as plain as the faces on Rushmore that the time may well be nearing for Mudcat to go the way of many other once noble folk endeavors--out of business. So Max, here is one Catter who is willing to stand up and say the unthinkable for most people here: maybe it is time you bowed out. It is clear the way the forum is being used has gotten to you. Maybe the time has come to let it go, so you can get your head back to a more positive place. When people have as badly skewed a view of their place within the larger folk community (hence my thread name)that they relish the opportunity to vent like Max did the other day to the forum of folk music site users here (yeah, I know, the monolithic Anonymous Guest ALWAYS is deserving of such virulence), maybe it is time to close down the saloon, and head on out onto the hot and dusty cybertrail in search of greener pastures. That sort of ill will just isn't what folk music is about to me. Sure, Mudcat has been a part of my overall folk life over the years, and the DT is a great resource. But this particular folk community, for most of us who use the place but never get to a Mudcat gathering, it sure doesn't reflect the real time folk communities I've been a part of all my life. (still) Yours (but increasingly regretfully), Another Disappointed Catter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Bill D Date: 21 Jul 02 - 11:47 AM pooh!...(you may quote me) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: alanabit Date: 21 Jul 02 - 12:00 PM No complaints about Mudcat at all. My only regret is that there is not yet a means of getting funds over to Max without losing most of the value in bankers' charges. Most successful folk clubs which I have known were run as essentially benign dictatorships.(Bear in mind that none of these "benign dictators" either forced me to enter their club, nor prevented me from starting my own). I have experienced a great deal of kindness and generosity over the Mudcat. If Max lived in this town, I would buy him a pint when I dropped into his club. Effectively that's what I'm doing on a cyber level. The 'Catters in the UK and Ireland have now got their act together to do this recently and I am sure we Europeans will in due course. I still feel welcome when I come here and I have met interesting and kind people.No complaints at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jul 02 - 12:12 PM Yo ho ho and a bubble of gum... The easiest way to make a contribution is by using Paypal, I figure. Try it. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: John Routledge Date: 21 Jul 02 - 12:36 PM Dear "Another Disappointed Catter" If I had wished to start this thread I would have had no problem in saying what you did using my Mudcat name. Any reason why you didn't feel able to do likewise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Peter T. Date: 21 Jul 02 - 12:40 PM Another self fulfilling prophet heard from. Take your disappointment to the beach, it's July. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: GUEST,Another Disappointed Catter Date: 21 Jul 02 - 12:59 PM You know, I really do understand people's reluctance to accept that we may just be throwing good money after bad here at Mudcat, because some of you only use this forum. But for others of us who frequent other forums, there is 1) a discernible difference in the overall tone of conversation between Mudcat and some high quality Usenet forums (alt.music.bluegrass and rec.music.guitar.acoustic are two that spring immediately to mind for me, as I frequent them), and 2) there are other very worthy folk music endeavors, some new and some old, that need our support too, if we are serious about our commitment to the music and traditions, and not just loyalists to Mudcat and Max. Two come to mind off the top of my head. I'm not sure how actively maintained this site is--the International Traditional Music Society's webpage: http://www.worldtrad.org/ A new(er) endeavor. Excellent site layout. Well defined "donations" area, 501(C)3 status information, and an outfit that needs financial support to continue to grow (including getting the discussion forums up and running). All and all, a valiant effort on the part of the folks who set up the International Traditional Music Society and it's website. I'd appreciate an update about it from anyone with current information about it. The other is the Folk Song and Tune Index website maintained by Jane Keefer (the following link is, at last attempt, not working due to problems with her provider): http://folkindex.mse.jhu.edu/ Jane is seeking a new home for this wonderful database, which has been at it's current site for a number of years. It doesn't seem that she needs funds as much as she needs access to a good provider. The one she has been using has been kind to her she says, but it can no longer keep up and offer the level of accessibility and stability it has in the past. We should never become totally dependent upon one single folk music resource/forum in cyberspace, just as we should never put all our eggs in one basket in real time. All I'm saying is, hey--I'm awake and smelling coffee, and someone has scribbled this nasty graffitti all over the Mudcat walls, while Rome's fiddlers were...you get the idea. There are many great sites o the folk community cyber-highway that can use our financial support, our technical expertise, and reliable connections to the folk web community's resources on-line. Maybe it is time we looked beyond our own navels, and spread the riches around. Nothing lasts forever, and it shouldn't. Places come and go, and in cyberspace do outlive their usefulness. Yet the folk phoenix always rises from the ashes. Count on all that being true, even for the beloved (or once beloved, for many of us who have either left or are begrudgingly sticking around) Mudcat. Max, Susan, Dick, clones, et al aren't the only folks who made this place what it is--there have been many, many more--members and guests, named and anonymous, who have made the forum what it is, and what it isn't. Rant off for now--time to get out of the fry pan and into the air condo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: GUEST,Another disappointed Catter Date: 21 Jul 02 - 01:09 PM alanabit, I don't know you, but I find your statement about benevolent dictators at folk clubs to be something that is perhaps unique to the UK? I don't know, as I've never been there. But let me assure you, that isn't the way we interact in the US bluegrass and old time communities. We don't need dictators of any sort in fact. Democratic rule among the folk works pretty damn well in my community. Not perfect, but not enough to either declare war on those we disagree with, or bail out and let someone impose authority on the group, because it seems to be less hassle. God knows our bluegrass/old time community has it's share of conflict. But we do seem to be worlds apart from the UK folk scene in the ways we choose to address it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jul 02 - 01:40 PM accept that we may just be throwing good money after bad here at Mudcat, To quote a friend: What's this WE shit? I'd lay a bet on the proposition that you never donated a dime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jul 02 - 02:02 PM GUEST, Another Disappointed Catter, if I didn't like what I find here, I wouldn't be here. I agree that one should not be dependent on any one folk resource, but Mudcat is not the only site I visit, and I think the same holds true for most of the other Catters. So being "dependent" on Mudcat is not a concern. Are you saying that because you are disappointed with Mudcat, Max should just shut it down? I do not agree. No offense intended, but it makes me wonder if you have a hidden agenda here. What are you selling? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Genie Date: 21 Jul 02 - 02:19 PM "Throwing good money after bad?" Personally, I feel I've already gotten at least $50 worth of information from Mudcat since I discovered the site last summer. The chat and connections and occasional jamming with other Mudcatters is icing on the cake. If Mudcat's not working for you, don't support it, and don't stay around if you don't want to be here. No hard feelings necessary from anyone. But please don't try to sink the ship while so many of us are trying so hard to bail her out. I don't put all my eggs in one basket. I do 'see other websites,' in fact -- Cowpie, OLGA, Rabid Squirrel, The Record Lady, to name a few. Other folk websites are of interest, too. But why try to reinvent the wheel by starting up a new website that's supposed to be just like Mudcat would be if it weren't for the trollers and flamers--complete with the DT, forum, etc.? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: alanabit Date: 21 Jul 02 - 03:08 PM I think the main difference between you and me, Guest ADM, is that I am happy enough to want to support the Mudcat without getting involved in its administration. I already get something which is well worth supporting from it. I don't think Max is getting rich of the proceeds (in the unlikely event that there are any) of Mudcat. However, I wouldn't give a damn if he was. I have already received a great deal. I do not want to shout down any defence of democracy of any kind. On the other hand, there is plenty in this world which seems to be rolling along quite cheerfully without any need of my advice or input. Sometimes passive democracy (choosing to let good things roll along as they are) works just fine. I barely get time to read a quarter of the threads. I hope you are happy wherever else you go. If you do not like it there, you may well return to find Mudcat flaming, trolling and rolling along. Cheers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Celtic Soul Date: 21 Jul 02 - 03:40 PM The point that all good things end is a valid one. Even the best of times come to a close. A gig cannot last a lifetime. Venues change hands or close down. Parties end and the partygoers go home. Even in life, people die, and so the dynamic of any given circle of friends or family changes. Nothing wrong with any of that. That is what I got from part of "ADC's" post. And it's valid. If Max *is* burning out, it's his choice when to say "I quit". Until then, there's a lot to be had here, and a lot to ignore. It's up to each and every one of us to decide what sort of experience we will have of this place...and life in general, for that matter. :::holding up a lotus flower::: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: DonD Date: 21 Jul 02 - 05:43 PM As I was out surfing the Mudcat for pleasure That same GUEST flamer came trolling along Said "I've checked out you guys, I've taken your measure And take it from me: you're doing it wrong!"
CHORUS
"I noticed this party, folks laughing and singing
CHORUS
"I don't like you, and I don't like your thinking,
CHORUS
"I'll read in your library and eat at your table,
CHORUS
And Mudcatters all with typical politeness
Come a yippee tiyi, get along you big doggie, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: greg stephens Date: 21 Jul 02 - 06:09 PM Another disapponted Catter: your point is well argued, and "solipsism" is always one of those words that define the user as a person of intelligence and breeding, probably clever enough to rearrange the following words into a well-known saying: flying take go a at fuck donut rolling a. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 02 - 06:21 PM DonD: Man, you got the flair!! Nicely done!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Gareth Date: 21 Jul 02 - 06:25 PM Greg, careful, UK Donuts have Jam (jelly) in them, not holes like US of A D'nuts. If anon guest tries to spear a UK D'nut, well he/she/it might get some satisfaction. Personally I think those Anon Guest who whinge and whine should be invited to hold a convention, in the fast lane of the M25 at 07.30 hrs. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Jul 02 - 07:39 PM "maybe it is time to close down the saloon, and head on out onto the hot and dusty cybertrail in search of greener pastures" - myself, if I didn't like a pub I'd leave it and go and find one I do like. I wouldn't start bending the ears of the regulars telling them it was time the place was closed down because I don't like it any more.
Thanks Oh Disappointed One, for giving those links to sites you think are better. I'll probably investigate them. More good sites the better. In the meantime, there's really not much point in you sticking around here, is there, if you don't like it? Goodbye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Jul 02 - 07:40 PM Gareth, jelly doughnuts are popular in USA and Canada as well, but not all of us need the lubrication over here (he! he! he!). I am sending out a donation when the banks open tomorrow. I have gotten a lot of information from Mudcat and its members, which has saved me from getting some duds in books and recordings, and also saved me from the inconvenience of library trips (where they probably don't have what I am looking for, anyway). I don't mind paying a little for use of the facilities. All of us wax solipsistically at times, usually after someone has poked a stick into our cage one too many times. (All right, I admit it; that's the first time I have used the word) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: GUEST,King of Heeba Date: 21 Jul 02 - 07:44 PM Celtic Soul - A lovely thought well articulated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: RichM Date: 21 Jul 02 - 08:45 PM My personal take on hidden id's: I would rather see everyone's email address shown plainly. I post as myself. I have no problem with anyone knowing who I am. I see no point in trying to build a community, albeit online, based on pseudonyms. It's inherently untrusting, and perhaps untrustworthy? Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 21 Jul 02 - 09:07 PM whats a solipsim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: GUEST,glen2Glen Date: 21 Jul 02 - 10:23 PM a solipsism is a didacticism. What's a didacticism? The comment openning this thread |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Bill D Date: 21 Jul 02 - 11:04 PM actually, the complaint had nothing to do with solipsism, which is the belief that all experience is generated and verified internally and does not require a 'universe' out there...(well, that is much over-simplified, but...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: katlaughing Date: 21 Jul 02 - 11:32 PM Max has just as much right as the rest of us, if not more, to rant on the Forum anytime he likes, in fact I wish he'd do so more often as I think there's a lot of support and help which could be offered and I don't just mean monetary. The only thing that bothers me, sometimes, is not hearing back from him once he's stated his case. I'd like to see more feedback from him in the SOS Mudcat threads. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: GUEST Date: 22 Jul 02 - 12:30 AM Dear Disappointed
Max has gone through a separation, which may culminate in a divorce (two lovely children) ;(
PLEASE be soft and kind to him....heaven forbid he should |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 22 Jul 02 - 12:35 AM Ahhh, LaughCat
...............................Would YOU...................................... just like to get a nickle back.........................
Sincerely |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: katlaughing Date: 22 Jul 02 - 12:40 AM No more than you, Greg...you're not going all soft on me are ya? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Genie Date: 22 Jul 02 - 02:39 AM Don D, that ditty's worthy of one of Áine's Golden Cow Chips! Great stuff! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jul 02 - 08:14 AM Here's an article explaining what solipsism means. Basically it means that there's no-one and nothing else out there, and that the whole universe is happening inside my head (except that I haven't got a head really, that's part of the universe that isn't out there...) ("It's all in the mind you know", as the Goons eloquently put it.)
In this context, what I think The Disappointed One (who started this thread, and has since, I trust, gone off somewhere else to play) will have meant was "talking to one self". Which on the assumption that there actually is more than one person posting on the Mudcat isn't really solipsism at all, since in that case we actually are talking to each other, and that ain't what solipsism means, but never mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Bob Bolton Date: 22 Jul 02 - 08:59 AM G'day Guest ADC, I had a look at the first site you (almost) linked ... I wouldn't spent 5 seconds there ... it smells like a nicely organised, certified, officially sanctioned, commercial money sucker. It's sites like that that make me love Mudcat ... and put up with all the human foibles of someone crazy enough to endure Mudcatters! But ... I see where you are coming from ... Good ... Bye! Regards, Bob Bolton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Mr Happy Date: 22 Jul 02 - 09:33 AM GUEST,Another Disappointed Catter most regulars on here seem ok with mc. if you want to go elsewhere feel free. maybe you're a flamer/troller- if so here's an appropriate anagram for you: SOLIPSISM= PS, I SPOILS M! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: annamill Date: 22 Jul 02 - 11:15 AM GUEST,Another Disappointed Catter, I can understand, and would agree, if Mudcat were like any other music site. It isn't. To many of us, Mudcat is like a family and this is our family's home. You're suggesting we break up our home and scatter to other places. For many of us, this would be very hard to do. I hope Max can keep this place going, but if he can't, it will be painful for us all. Especially Max. We can only do what we can to help, just like a family. Your right. We might be able to get the music anywhere, but for a lot of us, what we have here will be very hard to duplicate. Love, Annamill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Pied Piper Date: 22 Jul 02 - 11:41 AM Nawt rong ere, if tha dont like it bugger off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: SharonA Date: 22 Jul 02 - 12:22 PM Interesting... ADC refers to "the way we interact in the US bluegrass and old time communities", but where in the US does one use phrases that ADC has used, like "fry pan" (as opposed to the usual US "frying pan") and "air condo"? What the heck is an "air condo"? ADC also says, "...this particular folk community, for most of us who use the place but never get to a Mudcat gathering, sure doesn't reflect the real time folk communities I've been a part of all my life." Indeed? How would those real-time folk communities treat a person who refuses to introduce himself, wears a bag over his head so as not to be identified, rudely criticizes and insults the host and members of the gathering, and then insists that the host bow out of that folk community because the host is as annoyed as everyone else is at the rude visitor? How long do you suppose that visitor would be "a part of" that real-time community? My guess is about 0 seconds. Yet Max continues to leave his virtual door open in order to welcome those newcomers and regular visitors who do not insist on abusing the "GUEST" feature of the website. Max has made his "place within the larger folk community". In case you haven't noticed, we are AT his place within that community. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jul 02 - 01:00 PM "How would those real-time folk communities treat a person who refuses to introduce himself, wears a bag over his head so as not to be identified, rudely criticizes and insults the host and members of the gathering."
Interestingly enough it's quite common in Morris Dance sides and suchlike to have someone whose role is to do exactly that.
If we ever had a Mudcat Mumming Play I imagine we'd be sure to have such a character, wrapped up in a shapeless garment with a large brown paper bag over the head. The Nameless Guest.
It's all very traditional. Like most things are, when once you get past the superficialities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: GUEST Date: 22 Jul 02 - 01:33 PM There are many Mudcat solipsists, the metaphor isn't that difficult to grasp. For people with internet dependency problems who use Mudcat as a fix, the demise of this website would no doubt create a short-term hardship, but they'll find a new fix somewhere as they always do. For those few here who have created a true folk community here through Mudcat that now extends to off-line friendships, I expect they will find ways to stay in touch with one another if Max pulls the plug. As to the claims that this place is unique in cyberspace, I would say it is only as unique as you believe it is. There are people who inhabit other folk discussion forums who feel that their forum is unique, and superior to all others as well. People will always believe that what is most familiar to them, and therefore the most comforting, is superior to what everyone else enjoys in the same way, for largely the same reasons. As to the usefulness of this forum to the on-line folk music community outside of the Mudcat regulars, well that is a highly debatable matter. As would be expected--the people who come here regularly love the place, think it is unique and far superior to all other discussion forums, and that Max can do no wrong. People who don't come as regular users see those opinions spouted as fact, and learn to take it all with a large grain of salt when they are here. Those who use DT but never use the forum don't even have this "community" on their on-line folk community radar. Mudcatters behave and think just like those who regularly inhabit other folk music discussion forums on-line think & behave--as if their forum is the best, the only that matters, etc. I've come to view this particular on-line forum as a rabid folk equivalent of a cult like the Deadheads. It is an analogy that works for me, and that I often use when describing this place to others.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: SharonA Date: 22 Jul 02 - 03:29 PM I do believe that our Guest has just called us "folkheads". Should we feel insulted, or complimented? *G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jul 02 - 03:39 PM First of all, I just want to express how much I appreciate Max and those who assist him for the existence of Mudcat. I would hardly say that I am addicted to Mudcat, but I have found it a resource far easier to use than most web sites I've encountered. Apart from the trolls and complainers, I've found this forum a highly positive one. There is enough expertise out there to be able to either answer one's questions on any number of subjects (particularly music) or point one in the right direction, and were that not enough in itself, I've become reacquainted with old friends I haven't seen for years, and I've met on-line several people in my own area that, although I have not yet met in person, I am looking forward to doing so in the near future. Cult? Hardly. In one of his/her/its posts, ADC seems to be complaining that Max is being dictatorial and that Mudcat is not a democracy. Very astute there, ADC. But this particular snivel fails to pass muster. First, the legendary Iron Fist of Max I read so much about is hardly ever in evidence. He lets people pretty much go their own way—not at all like some web sites I've visited. Second, whoever said that Mudcat is supposed to be a democracy? And try to give this some kind of historical perspective:— The first coffeehouse in Seattle opened in 1958. A second one opened in 1959. Then others followed. But until then, places where one could hear folk music, or sing folk music (except by oneself) were few and far between. And when the coffeehouses did open, there were far more singers than their were singing jobs. If you wanted to sing, then—where? Beginning in the early Fifties and going on into the Sixties, we had a lot of "hoots." Some of these were concert-like public performances. But the vast majority of them were not. Folk singers and folk music enthusiasts would gather in somebody's private home. People sang for each other, swapped songs, swapped information ("how do you do that guitar lick you just did?" or "what chords do you use on…..?"), and generally sang up a storm. Many neophytes tried out their first songs at these affairs, many singers had a chance to hone their skills before other people, and now and then a well-know performer (Pete Seeger, Guy Carawan, Barbara Dane, Jesse Fuller, Bob Gibson, Dick Rosmini, and others) would be there, swapping songs with the rest of us. Out in the kitchen there might be a joke-telling session, a political discussion, or just general BS. For several years running, not a weekend would pass without a hoot at Elmar's, Shirley's, Dick and Bev's, Ruthie's, or at "Fort Clark" or "Fort Bush." Some of the people who hosted them were musicians; many were not. They liked folk music, liked the people, and liked a party. If anybody got rowdy or disruptive (extremely rare occurrence), the host might step in and put things back in order, but for the most part, the host just let the hoot do its natural thing. And no one complained that the host was being "dictatorial." After all, you were a guest (whether you had a name or not) in the host's home. And certainly no one was rude, crude and ungrateful enough to complain that they didn't like the décor, or to bitch that the host hadn't yet completed a remodeling project he or she was working on—or question the host's motives when he or she said, "Hey, I'm a little strapped this week, so could we make this one B.Y.O.B?" Were it not for these folks making their homes available to us, musically, things would have been pretty damned bleak. There would have been have been far less music than there was—far less. And there would have been far fewer singers than there eventually were. The seeds for the folk music revival had been planted by collectors such as Carl Sandburg, John and Alan Lomax, and a few others, and by early singers like Burl Ives, Susan Reed, and Richard Dyer-Bennet, but it was the "hoots" and the gatherings and songfests like them that provided the great underground river that watered these seeds and really allowed the folk revival to grow. Had it not been for hoots and the people who threw their homes open for them, I'm not sure what we would have done on a weekend evening. Put the guitar back in its case and gone bowling, I guess. To my mind, these folks are the Salt of the Earth. Can anybody see any parallels here? By the way, ADC . . . what have you done lately? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jul 02 - 03:47 PM "There are many Mudcat solipsists"
There can't be more than one genuine solipsist.
But if the definition is extended to mean someone who just talks to himself, I suppose nameless GUESTs are the definitive example. Together with those poor blokes you sometimes run into who wander round shopping centres rabbiting away into the empty air. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jul 02 - 04:15 PM I tried those two sited the Dissappointed One gave - they look as if they've got some useful and interfesting stuff there. But not much in the way of discussions, about folk music or anything else.
Every now and the people who are bemoaning the shorcomings they see in the Mudcat talk about how there are other online "communities" which are at least as good and so forth. But I've never found one yet. I'd really like to, seriouysly, and I've tried.
They all seem unwieldy to me, even when the content is interesting enough. Maybe what I like about this place includes what these critics see as shortcomings, and the Mudcat's shortcomings fit in with my shortcomings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: MMario Date: 22 Jul 02 - 04:21 PM Tweeds site is pretty good |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: katlaughing Date: 22 Jul 02 - 04:49 PM Don Firth, thank you for that...well-written and a great "peek" at a time some of us missed, still being young kids and all.:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: SINSULL Date: 22 Jul 02 - 04:56 PM Damn it, Don! Why hide that gem in the middle of a thread few will wade through to see it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jul 02 - 05:11 PM "Tweeds site is pretty good"
Tell me more, please!
That was good Don. Mind I'm sure even then there'd be the odd bludger who'd swan in and take all the beer and stuff his face (have to be a him), and then proceed to complain about the furniture and the music. But at least when he announced "I'm fed up here - I'm going" you could escort him to the door and make sure he kept on going.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Doug Chadwick Date: 22 Jul 02 - 05:55 PM McGrath, The polite and sensible thing to do would be to escort "the odd bludger" to the door, but if it developed into a fight with the unwanted guest, the host and maybe some of the other participants letting fists fly out on the street, then you wouldn't be surprised if the police arrested everyone. What seems to happen on the Mudcat is that, at the very appearance of an anonymous GUEST, some of the regular contributors turn purple with rage, steam coming out of their ears, and resort to intemperate language. Arguments lose all credibility when it comes to this stage and are reduced to whinging and whining about other people whinging and whining. There has been more than one occasion when the anonymous GUEST has made a reasonable point, and the first punch has been thrown by a member. I suspect that, despite their protests, some members enjoy fighting with those they criticise. I have no idea why people want to post anonymously or even under a pseudonym – I post under my own name – but as long as the system allows it, we have to accept the fact. As have been said many times before, trolls and flamers are best ignored, but if a response is called for, this should be in a calm and reasoned manner. Your postings seem to follow this rule but others don't follow your example Doug C |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jul 02 - 06:16 PM I think if you check back you'll find, Doug, that most of the time the response to the nameless ones is fairly low key, except sometimes where they set out to work people up into something more than bored irritation, which some of them are pretty good at.
"Punches" are never thrown here - the medium doesn't permit them.
"There has been more than one occasion when the anonymous GUEST has made a reasonable point, and the first punch has been thrown by a member." What I think happens sometimes is that a person assumes that a nameless GUEST post comes from the same person with whom they have recently been tangling with on another thread. It's a bit like the way people bellow down a phone line after they have been wound up by a phone pest, and maybe some harmless stranger gets it in the ear undeservedly.
And at the same time, because of the history of this thing, people tend to assume that anyone posting as nameless GUEST is intentionally trying to stir things up, since they must be aware that it is an unfriendly thing to do. (This isn't necessarily truer in all cases,though I think it must be the case generally.)
The fact that it's possible to do something, and there is no penalty for it, doesn't mean it's not offensive. There's no law against farting in the cinema, so far as I know. That doesn't mean it's not offensive.
However, there's no point in kicking up a row about it; after all, that is most unlikely to help. Grin and bear it, try to ignore it, or change seats if you can. The same applies here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Doug Chadwick Date: 23 Jul 02 - 03:11 AM Cyber-punches maybe, but punches are thrown on both sides. Along with virtual kicks, bites and scratches. Doug C |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: GUEST Date: 23 Jul 02 - 09:04 AM Oh God no--a voice of reason in the Mudcat "we love to hate guests" wilderness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 02 - 06:38 PM "We love to hate guests" is a mistatement. If intentional it's a lie.
People being unpleasant to GUESTs who use a monicker - that is pretty well unknown; except when they say something that is seen by someone as inviting unpleasantness, and that can happen to any of us, fairly or unfairly. |