 sj |
||
|
||
greg might just get angry very soon
|
|
|
Subject: greg might just get angry very soon From: greg stephens Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:31 PM I was having a happy chat a few minutes ago on a thread entitled "What is a folk song", about a dozen messages long. It is now 72 messages long and too long for those of us who have cable tv internet.I dont believe there have been 60 posts in 5 minutes. I think someone has arbitrarily stuck it onto another different thread with computer-glue. Could you please UNSTICK IT AGAIN |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:36 PM Hell, not even William Shatner in a lycra bikini can draw 60 posts in five minutes! Something is definitely amiss here. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:42 PM Yep. Joe Offer combined the current thread (about a dozen posts) with one from way back that had about 60. The best laid plans... Guest |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: greg stephens Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:48 PM How do you know these things, GUEST? If youre sitting beside him, tell to get his chainsaw outand cut'em apart. LH: Im a bit worried about your compulsion to drag Shatner into eevry conversation. Have you thought about seeing someone about this? It's not going to get better on its own, it's going to get worse. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:48 PM Ah, darn. Well, I guess I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. There were two previous threads with the title "what is a folk song," and lord-knows-how-many that discuss the same subject under a different thread title. I thought it made sense to combine, rather than repeating the whole discussion all over again. OK, greg, just for you. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: greg stephens Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:50 PM It's a folk-music forum, Joe. On baseball forums they talk about baseball. |
|
Subject: What is a folk song, version 3.0 From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:50 PM This thread grudgingly reinstituted, per request from greg stephens. Grumble, grumble. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:54 PM I understand your dilemma, Joe, but please! You don't stick all the birthday threads or the shatner threads somewhere else, so why a folk music one? I was enjoying the disccusion, but now it's suddenly really long and will take ages to load, and will probably die as a result |
|
Subject: RE: What is a folk song, version 3.0 From: GUEST Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:56 PM Joe, could you reinstate the rest of the messages too? Ever hear of a thing called patience? The process took |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: greg stephens Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:58 PM You havent reinstated it at all,Joe. You've juststarted a new one all of your own. Iwas having a nice chat on a thread of the same name about 12 messages long.That's still stuck on theend of some other long thread, so I cant get into it. I dont want to chat with you on your thread, I want to talk to the people I was talking to a few minutes ago.We were behaving ourselves impeccably, talking about folk music, Mudcat style(thats what its for isnt it). What;s to grumble about? - |
|
Subject: RE: What is a folk song, version 3.0 From: greg stephens Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:04 PM Whats Joe grumbling about? This was a perfectly cosy little chat about folk-music and then they started sticking it onto other threads and sticking GUESTS into it, who were on a separate thread. I give up. And they are farting about over on "astrology" as well. Bad thoughts are abroad. Goodnight. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Bobert Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:04 PM Joe: Ya don't want to see Greg mad do ya', buddy. (wink, wink) Cause when he gets mad, hmmmmmm? theres all... Yo, Gregster, what exactly do you do when you get mad 'cause I can't even imagine you mad. Well, PM me and then I'll threaten Joe, okay. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:04 PM Joe Offer might just get angry if people don't give him a few minutes to get a job done! You know, it really gets old, people. Everybody expects everything to be done immediately, and nobody gives others any allowance for making a mistake once in a while. And does anybody ever give a word of gratitude? Not bloody likely. Grrrr. I'm done. Now, shut up! -Joe Offer- The thread is back - here (click) |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:12 PM Thanks Joe, and apologies if we get impatient. A search for your name both here and in the help forum, will find numerous threads where we've tried to say thank you. And we mean it! |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: CarolC Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:17 PM Thanks Joe! |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Bobert Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:19 PM Thanks, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:22 PM Thank you Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:26 PM Joe, You do an excellent, and to my mind, very wise job here. Thank you
|
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: wysiwyg Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:30 PM Joe.... it's just that greg has a webtv thing, he can't load long threads at all. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:32 PM OK, OK, but let it be known that I ought to be allowed to make a mistake every once in a while, and then be given time to correct it. I got on the job as soon as I saw a request for the thread combination to be reversed, but the messages have to be transferred one at a time, and things go slowly at Internet Prime Time.
|
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:37 PM but let it be known that I ought to be allowed to make a mistake every once in a while You are, and we know that, and you make very few and we still love you |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: wysiwyg Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:37 PM Well, yeah, of course-- Joe, it's OK, really. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: harpgirl Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:43 PM ...yeah greg....quicherbitchin'... I was writing on a thread the other night and some damn fool censor deleted the entire thing! Big brother/sister has arrived at McMudcat!
|
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: The Pooka Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:47 PM Thank you for all your ongoing *nearly*-perfect work, Joe O. And, if you'll allow [or, for that matter, even if you won't :], I herewith further hone a professional/philosophical axe which I've been grinding on 2 other threads lately -- by citing & endorsing verbatim your veryown Words of Wisdom, as they apply to (a) all I.T. workers, (b) all Elections Workers, and (c) all **Working** Workers, *everywhere*; TO WIT: "You know, it really gets old, people. Everybody expects everything to be done immediately, and *nobody gives others any allowance for making a mistake once in a while*." SPOT ON, JOE OFFER! |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:55 PM Pene is experimenting with something, but it's part of the experimental Mudcat and not ready for general use yet. I think his magic number is 60. When a thread gets longer than 60 messages, the number of messages for that thread becomes a clickable link which will display just the first 60 messages from the thread - and give you links to subsequent blocks of 60. If you have a computer that loads fast, you just click on the link for the thread, like you do now. Does that sound like it will work OK for everybody, and does 60 sound like a workable number? Greg, I have a particular interest in WEBTV, since that's what my dad uses (and what I have to use when I go visit next month). If there are things at Mudcat that don't work on television-based Internet, please let us know. If it's relatively minor, send me a personal message and I'll send it on to Pene (or you could send it to Pene, but I'm particularly interested in this). If it's major, then we could start a TV-Internet tech thread. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 02 - 11:29 PM On the other hand, greg could just step up to reality and get an IMac! He'd never have to get mad again! A |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Mark Cohen Date: 20 Sep 02 - 02:22 AM Oh, by the way, Joe....HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Liz the Squeak Date: 20 Sep 02 - 03:12 AM I've noticed a tendency for some threads to be refreshed and making them over 100 posts long - I thought we were asked not to do that, not just for Gregs' benefit, but for the good of all the Mudcat....? LTS |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Sep 02 - 03:29 AM Well, Liz, the threads in question would have been fewer than 80 posts combined (not 100), and there were three threads with the very same title. When a subject has been beaten to death, we try to gently discourage people from repeating themselves. The What Is a Folksinger is yet another lengthy on the same topic (although it does have one good parody song in it). So, I thought I was working for the good of Mudcat by combining threads, but some people disagreed and I changed things back to make them happy. And gee, Mark, thanks for the birthday wishes. And happy birthday to you, Liz. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 20 Sep 02 - 03:52 AM Does Joe have 2 birthdays? I am sure he had one last month , thats not fair, i only got one! |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Nigel Parsons Date: 20 Sep 02 - 04:24 AM Happy birthday Joe: You ask whether Pene's proposed fix seems a good idea. In principal it looks fine, the same system we're used to with things like Goooogle givings us lists of hits in batches of 10. CHEERS Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Dave Bryant Date: 20 Sep 02 - 04:50 AM Greg - you ought to try accessing Mudcat through a PDA (running WIN CE) and an IR link to a mobile phone - that'd teach you patience. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Sep 02 - 04:53 AM I'm sorry, Dave, but we're not going to bend over backwards to accommodate PDA's [grin] -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: greg stephens Date: 20 Sep 02 - 05:31 AM Well I've been to bed.And now read all this. I'dlove to add my bit to cabletv discussions. I think it's important that experiments in shared facilities are seen through; they may not work out but it's worth a try. I've always felt it was silly evrybody owning a lawnmower and a car and a bike, when some sort of collective use might be more appropriate for some groups. Same with computers. It's very simple to say like Amos "Buy a computer, Greg". But I'm not going to right now, I'd sooner see this experiment thrugh a bit longer. I think cabletv internetr probably will be the answer for a significant part of society, it's worth seeing if it can work. The changes needed to make something like Mudcat cable friendly are tiny and simple. But Idont badger for them because I know Max and co are busy and have lives to lead. The point I really want to make, however,is that Joe Offer is trying to make out that I am some sort of irritable curmudgeon grumbling because Joe made a mistake. That's really not so. If he presses the wrong button sothat all messages appear in Russian for a week, you won't hear me going on about it. I'm arownup(correction, getting on a bit): I know about mistakes. What irritated me is that Joe effectively killed a discussion because(and I quote him directly, so as not be accused of attributing things to an opponent that arent fair): " when a subject has been beaten to deathwe try to gently discourage people from repeating themselves". Well, sorry, Joe, but because you and some other oldtimers feel youve said all there is that needs to be said about folk music: that doesnt mean the new generation of Mudcatters can be told to shut up and read the old threads. Some things need ongoing discussion to reach a workable consensus, especially complicated matters of opinion like this. It's not like a "Who wrote Blowing int he Wind" query, is it. Though no doubt Mudcatters could argue for hours on that! |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Watson Date: 20 Sep 02 - 05:58 AM What's wrong with being an irritable curmudgeon? If you've got a talent, use it! |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: greg stephens Date: 20 Sep 02 - 06:16 AM Elementary! |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 06:27 AM Is it possible to be a curmudgeon without being irritable? I suppose if you never lose your rag, but you drive other people crazy in the process...(I've been accused of that.) Irritating rather than irritable.
Myself I think "What is folk?" is like "What is the meaning of life?" - a discussion that shows no sign of drawing to a close after thousands of years (actually thousands of years for the latter question, it just feels like that sometimes for the former. A case of "It's better to travel hopefully than to arrive." It might read like a question, but it's not really looking for a definitive answer. When you have a song with a question in the answer people don't expect it just to be sung the one time, and then say "Well, that's settled that one - on to the next question."
I suspect 60 posts might even be a bit long for web TV. Even with cable (slowish cable) I find that anything too much over that times out every now and then when things are busy. The information cart-track clogs up at times.
|
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Guessed Date: 20 Sep 02 - 07:32 AM Irritable is a perfectly good folk pursuit. Now what annoys me is................. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: SharonA Date: 20 Sep 02 - 10:18 AM Greg sez: "...sorry, Joe, but because you and some other oldtimers feel youve said all there is that needs to be said about folk music: that doesnt mean the new generation of Mudcatters can be told to shut up and read the old threads." I agree entirely. Those "oldtimers" who have "beaten [a subject] to death" in an older thread are free not to enter the discussion on a newer thread on the same subject; in fact, they are free not to open the newer thread. They've had their fun bantering the subject about. That shouldn't mean that the newer Mudcat members should be deprived of the fun of bantering the subject about. Let's face it: reading an old thread conversation, without being able to interject one's own comments (except by refreshing the thread and saying "I have a response to something said in 1999") is not as much fun as being a PART of a vibrant discussion on the same topic! |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: greg stephens Date: 20 Sep 02 - 10:22 AM Thank you SharonA. The"what is folk 3.0" (or whatever it's called) is open and awaits your two-penn'orth. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Clinton Hammond Date: 20 Sep 02 - 11:12 AM "When a thread gets longer than 60 messages, the number of messages for that thread becomes a clickable link which will display just the first 60 messages from the thread - and give you links to subsequent blocks of 60. If you have a computer that loads fast, you just click on the link for the thread, like you do now. Does that sound like it will work OK for everybody, and does 60 sound like a workable number?" Check out ANY decent MB available on the net... even the free ones make this a user setting, so each registered poster can pick his or her own # of posts limit... What's the big deal here? Well, Clinton, the way Pene has it set up, you can pick all messages, or you can pick 60 at a time. It's easy for him to change that number 60 if a consensus wants a fixed higher or lower number, but takes a lot of programming and a lot of bandwidth to make that number a variable. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Sep 02 - 11:13 AM Greg - I find it's not actually necessary to drag Shatner in, as he has a way of bounding in enthusiastically all by himself, invited or not, with a big, dumb smile on his face. Accordingly, I have actually been posting less stuff about him of late, which may mean that I am on the way to at least a partial recovery of my original state of coherency...or not...we'll see. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Sep 02 - 11:21 AM In discussions on songs, it generally doesn't help a discussion for it to be split into a dozen parts. It's better to build on an existing discussion, and compare versions and add bits of information. The "What Is a Folk Song" discussion was more of a philosophical nature, so it doesn't contain information that is better when it is linked together. Yeah, it was a bad call on my part. That's why I was quick to change it back - what I was complaining about were the impatient messages I got while I was in the 14-minute process of putting things back together. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: greg stephens Date: 20 Sep 02 - 11:25 AM That message of ClintonHammond was wild. Wish he'd put a glossary at the end though.I've read it three times and I honestly havent the remotest idea what it means. Not an inkling.One day I'll get there, but it's going to be a long slow haul. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: SharonA Date: 20 Sep 02 - 12:03 PM Greg: Thanks; I'd love to join the "version 3.0" folk-song discussion. I'm a bit busy right now in the three-dimensional world, though, so I'll pop in later when I have time (maybe over the weekend). |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Clinton Hammond Date: 20 Sep 02 - 12:15 PM "but takes a lot of programming and a lot of bandwidth to make that number a variable" Can't be all that bad when services like EZBoard and UBB do it as a standard feature... And well, for those out there who don't understand, maybe you should consider that perhaps the post isn't directed to you eh? ,-)
|
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 12:20 PM He just means that when we get the facility that automatically splits long threads into easily loadable chunks he'd like for us to be able to choose the size of our chunks ourselves instead of having a one size fits all arrangement, and he thinks it's be easy to do it that way.
So Joe comes back and says it wouldn't be that easy.
For me 60 post chunks would be fine, and I suspect for most people - but I wonder whether something a bit smaller might be better for people on WebTV like Greg, and maybe people in the more remote parts of the world where the phone connections etc aren't that good.
Any news on when this facility is coming anyway? I suspect that one effect will be that rather than starting a totally new thread when it gets a bit long and there've been more than a few "part 2s" and so forth, people will be more likely to carry on with a thread that has got going, and revive it when it gets topical again. And I think that might be quite a good thing. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: katlaughing Date: 20 Sep 02 - 01:10 PM FWIW - MB=Message Board in the case above |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST,mg Date: 20 Sep 02 - 01:29 PM My preference would be for new discussions to be allowed to run without dragging in the old ones, except by clickies or references to them. If yet one more discussion about Willie McBride/Green Fields etc. bores you, you can not open it. mg |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Watson Date: 20 Sep 02 - 01:50 PM So, by now Greg won't be able to read this thread - we can all talk about him and he won't know! |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Sep 02 - 02:09 PM Joe, I completely agree with Greg and SharonA. But I'd take it one step further and suggest that there is no need to combine threads at all. Catters are quick to post links to older threads and that is enough. And anyone who wants to reenter the new discussion, can. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: wysiwyg Date: 20 Sep 02 - 02:24 PM "MB" Should really be $$M$$$$$$$$$B$$. Those sites CH mentioned carry commercial interests handled in a variety of ways, and they are funded for the increased BW (band width or bratty whiners, take your pick). This place, OTOH (oh the old ho!), runs by a higher order of management, which is voluntary leadership that seeks input and implements what can be done creatively. I wish we still had the $5 fine for whining. It made for a better quality of whining, because as we all know, you tend to get what you pay for. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Clinton Hammond Date: 20 Sep 02 - 02:58 PM "Those sites CH mentioned carry commercial interests" Ummm... Ever site on the net has commercial interests... If for no other reason than that it costs money to have a site... This place is no different than any other Message Board on the net... |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 03:07 PM Well, I've never come across one like it. And I have looked.
Every now and then various people on the Cat have said stuff like that - but when they've come up with their suggestions for sites which are comparable to the Cat or even better and I've had a look, they just aren't in the same league. Clearly tastes differ. That is fortunate - otherwise this place would be horribly overcrowded. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Clinton Hammond Date: 20 Sep 02 - 03:19 PM "Clearly tastes differ" Zactly! And that's part of my point... just about every Message Board on the net claims to be a 'community'... They're all just Message Boards... Not that that's a bad thing... |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: wysiwyg Date: 20 Sep 02 - 03:30 PM No ads, CH? No spam for joining? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Clinton Hammond Date: 20 Sep 02 - 03:47 PM Gallons of 'em... millions that do of course, ya... but millions that don't either... |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST Date: 20 Sep 02 - 04:05 PM Examples? |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 08:26 PM Claiming to be a community and being a community are not quite the same thing. But if you can come up with some places that really are comparable, by all means let us have them. I hate to think of the Cat ever folding, but even worse is the idea of the Cat folding without there being any real alternative to move to and link up with old friends.
|
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST,rangeroger Date: 20 Sep 02 - 09:10 PM My 2 cents worth on the webtv aspect. I've been accessing the Mudcat via webtv for over 2 1/2 years now. When this discussion came up I decided to test some of it's capabilities. I brought up the "Killing the Thread" thread and found I was able access about 390 posts. I can't remember what the total was on it but I think somewhere around 500. msn has recently added a utilities program for webtv users so I checked on my connection speed and it shows as 26,400 bps(compressed). I have a dial-up connection at 128k. I don't know what greg is using in the UK, but it does seem to be rather limited based on my terminals performance. I have found that today I haven't been able to access the Mudcat through my regular bookmarks. I am posting this by using the IP provided by Max. part of the utility program was the capability to reset or clear my cookie cache. I tried it on one of my other user accounts and may have inadvertantly cleared everything. Will check it out and be back. rr |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST Date: 21 Sep 02 - 12:02 AM If it makes you feel better, Joe, you could make a mistake and I wouldn't recogmise it with my level of technological knowledge. What does worry me is your attempt to use intelligence, logic, and reason. That could have terrible effects. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Sep 02 - 02:36 AM McGrath, I can show you a "commercial" site that is more of a community, at least for me. Carol prefers the Mudcat. In that community, people are generally friendlier and closer, without any cliques, No one can post as GUEST and threads have pages 40 posts long. I've met about a hundred members at five different gatherings including people from as far away as Wales and Australia. Problem is, it helps if you play guitar. Go to www.acousticguitar.com. Look for the discussion forums. The community feeling is particularly strong in "Talk Talk Talk". Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20-Sep-02 - 08:26 PM Claiming to be a community and being a community are not quite the same thing. But if you can come up with some places that really are comparable, by all means let us have them. I hate to think of the Cat ever folding, but even worse is the idea of the Cat folding without there being any real alternative to move to and link up with old friends. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Sep 02 - 02:05 PM I had a look, and I'll have another. But in my experience all communities have their cliques and their squabbles, and that's fair enough, providing that kind of thing doesn't go over the top. And, even in music terms, guitar playing is only a small part of it for me (even thouugh that's what I play most if the time), and I can't imagine enjoying a session which was all guitars.
But thanks - that's closer to the spot than most of the ones I've seen. |
|
Subject: RE: greg might just get angry very soon From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 21 Sep 02 - 11:34 PM It was a mistake to make KatLaughing a clone.
Sincerely,
Now JOE OFFER has bought into the pussy's philosophy and is changing things willy-nilly all over the place.
Let it be Hey, Gargoyle, I admit I screwed up on this one - but I fixed it back as soon as I found the error of my ways. |
| Share Thread: |