 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat Solipsism
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jul 02 - 11:07 PM Big John - Yeah, well, I was thoroughly puzzled about those same titles at first myself...being a total newcomer to Internet talk when I first logged onto Mudcat a mere 2 or 3 years ago... Amos - Lovely use of words! Let me add that they are guttersnipes, cutpurses, and cadwalladers* of the lowest ilk, not fit wipe one's boots upon. *For the derivation of this word, look to Walt Kelly's "Pogo". Albert Alligator was known to use it now and then to describe individuals of poor character and low morals. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Big John Date: 25 Jul 02 - 09:52 PM Thanks Little Hawk, I was serious, I see those "titles" used quite frequently and I guess it was time to ask for an explanation. I would call those guys Mudfarts, they get their kicks from crapping on other peoples' good work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Amos Date: 25 Jul 02 - 08:35 PM Blatherskites, the lot of 'em -- an n-exponential set of vectors multiplying a gigantic, useless compound hologram of ballooning blather. What a monument to the tragedy of crushed souls these slab-sided bilge-rat codwallopers are! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jul 02 - 07:56 PM Big John - Are you serious? Well, in case you are: troll - computerese for a person who deliberately "trolls" for responses on a forum, chat line, etc., as a fisherman trolls for fish. That is, he puts out some bait...like an irritating thread title or a comment guaranteed to piss off certain people...etc... When those people predictably respond, he is gratified, and tosses them some more bait, keeping the process rolling along. The more distress he causes, the happier he feels. You can also troll for humorous purposes. I regard this as okay, and I often do it myself. Generally speaking, to troll with deliberate malicious intent is what people are referring to when they complain about trolls. A "flamer" is someone who verbally attacks someone else on the Net or by email...in what could be termed a malicious or intemperate fashion. Some flamers are very persistent. My own feeling is that trolls and flamers are best dealt with by: 1. ignoring them 2. or refusing to get mad 3. and being humorous instead 4. and if they say something bad about you, agree enthusiastically, and say several even worse things about yourself. This is particularly disarming to the average flamer...he is not seeking agreement! For instance, my response to ADC might be... "Why, we shouldn't just stop at closing down Mudcat! We should close down any and ALL Internet sites that bother you or which you find less than perfect. If you could make up a complete list of them and forward it, this would help immensely. Get right on it!" - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Big John Date: 24 Jul 02 - 08:56 PM I just cannot understand the mentality of ADC when he suggests closing down Mudcat. Yes, sure there are lots of other sites there and I have used several of them but I always come back to Mudcat when I am looking for real information. When I string a few words together in a verse or two I know that I can post it on Mudcat and that someone will read it. No more to say except thanks to ALL of you who maintain the Mudcat site - please keep up the good work . P.S Can someone explain the words "Trolls" and "Flamers" to me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jul 02 - 08:47 PM It's portmanteau word I assume, made up of whine and cringe, rhyming with the latter If you whine about things you might be willing to actually do something to change. If its just whinging, you won't.
The phrase "whinging Pom" suggests that it might be Australian by origin. Though quite possibly it's another of things that went to Australia and got adopted, and came back to Europe with an Australian accent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jul 02 - 08:12 PM Oh. Okay, I'll do a google search on it right now... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Bill D Date: 24 Jul 02 - 08:05 PM oh, Little Hawk! if you did a Google..(OR Google Groups) search, you'd see that this question has been asked over & over in cyber-land!...I fould learned dissertations on it in Usenet! Evidently, it is common in some places and almost unknown in others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Snuffy Date: 24 Jul 02 - 07:53 PM Yes - at the moment you're just whingeing, not whining.:-)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Solipsism From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jul 02 - 10:15 AM Whence came this word "whinge" that everybody is using these days? As in "whining and whinging"... How do you pronounce it? Is it a real word? If not, who started it? Is it possible anymore to just whine...or must one "whine and whinge" simultaneously? Is this anything like "yelling and screaming"? Does anyone out there just yell anymore? Or just scream? Or just whine? - LH |
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: MMario Date: 22 Jul 02 - 04:21 PM Tweeds site is pretty good |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 21 Jul 02 - 09:07 PM whats a solipsim? |
|
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: GUEST,King of Heeba Date: 21 Jul 02 - 07:44 PM Celtic Soul - A lovely thought well articulated. |
|
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: 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: 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: Amos Date: 21 Jul 02 - 06:21 PM DonD: Man, you got the flair!! Nicely done!! A |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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.? |