BS: The Mudcat Group Mind

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: smallpiper
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:02 PM

Oh Bugger ........ Guest Samantha welcome or welcome back your points make sense but you've buggered up the experiment! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,Ingrid Valin
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 06:30 PM

I enjoy reading the genuinely inspiring "greatest thing you've ever done" thread. Thank you for sharing and IMHO no one sounds self-congratulatory. In some of those instances, you've been truly good to strangers whose name you don't know, let alone anything else about them.   Couldn't this same caritas apply to guests?
BTW, I live in the Ohio River Valley and THAT is REALLY just plain not normal.

Yours, Ingrid V.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:39 AM

"I'd rather flunk my Rasmussen test
Than write a poem like Edgar Guest"
... with apolgies to Dorothy Parker

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:17 AM

Thanks, Edward -- I had suspected for some time it was you, but I am glad you finally came out of the closet!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 11:35 PM

The descent into poor maligned guests... yawn..

I'm all with you, Amos... when someone comes on as a Guest and joins the discussion in a reasonable fashion, I don't pay any attention to whether they are a guest. When a member comes on and seems to be intent upon stirring up emotions, I don't pay much attention to them.
Some guests seem so obviously to be trying to sidetrack conversations in threads that I wonder if we couldn't all chip in and purchase them a life. What kind of jollies do people get coming here just trying to get people riled up? That's entertainment? I kinda thought the whole purpose of this place was respectful communication. I question how much of a group mind there is here. I sure don't agree with a lot of what is posted here, and clearly most other people don't. But, as long as people aren't getting personal or nasty about it, I can respect anyone's opinions. But, I don't enjoy people who try to stir up the waters, and it has nothing to do with whether they are members or guests. After all, do I really know ga because they use their membership name? Do I know ga (just as an example of someone I have just "met") better than an unnamed Guest? We only get to know each other through time, and some level of respectful communication. It's as impossible to get to know a guest as it is to develop a personal relationship with "Occupant."

For those who come here with good intent, Mudcat unfolds. Very few of us care what the real identities of people are. We get to know people here by what they say, how they respect each other, and us.
I wouldn't know John From Hull if I passed him on the street. I have no idea if he is the world's worst spell9er or a Rhodes Scholar. I like john because he has a sense of humor I appreciate, and I think he is basically a good-natured person. I feel I know him because he uses a consistent, personalized name. As far as I know (although I doubt it, he could really be Penelope Roseblossom. People are accepted here by how they behave. If you act like someone intent upon irritating people as a form of entertainment, you will be responded to as a jerk.

That simple.

Jerry Rasmussen (real name, Edward A. Guest)

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:51 PM

I don't want people to troll for me. I certainly don't want to take the bait. I've started this new practice of skipping a post the minute I determine that it is a troll. For example when I got this far in the previous thread.


"No I am not the Janet Ryan who may or may not exist, I simply wanted to get your attention by using that name."

That was enough to tell me that the person was not making an effort to communicate and thus was trying to waste my time and energy.
So far the results are excellent, lower blood pressure, no grinding of teeth and no desire to lash out. Ahhhhhhhh, y'all should try it. Nine out of ten dentists recommed it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,Janetryan
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:41 PM

I posted this on the other thread but I'm putting it here as well, because I think it fits. I hope to never talk about this issue again, but I'm severely ticked off, and since everyone else has had their say, I will too, but just once.

No I am not the Janet Ryan who may or may not exist, I simply wanted to get your attention by using that name. If there is already someone posting to the forum under this name, I won't use it again. I'm a semi regular and have had a run in with one of the people who seems to enjoy making a fool of everybody in this thread and the Proliferation one.

This has gone on long enough. Joe and Mick, and the intelligent members, shame on you. I know most of you've never been mothers with ten year old children, but surely you've had enough personal or indirect experience to recognize BRATS!

That's what you have here on the forum, and there's not a mother alive who doesn't know how little brats operate. They get bored and they disrupt, and as long as they are treated the way they are here at Mudcat, they'll continue.

Do you honestly think these empty threats about revealing information do anything but make them chuckle with glee? The operators are obviously too gentlemanly, or simply too darn 'folkie' to carry through on threats and the 'brats' know it. They use all the little 'brat' tricks that mothers are so familiar with, especially 'divide and conquer'. All three brats that I can see, the anonymous ones and LR use that trick constantly when they talk about us or we. Don't fall for it and keep arguing back, it makes you look silly. I at least hope you wouldn't be arguing with three ten year olds.

If you want your little piece of the net to be a friendly spot a bit less nasty than what's usually out there, block access for the brats until they decide they really do like it here. Please stop arguing with them. Do something other than make empty statements that little brats can see right through and you'll have very little need to control anything in the future.

Bev B.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:30 PM

You effing twit -- it is not paranoia about anonymity. Is a resentment of rudeness and blathering fear-mongering, an abuse of the consensual audience. THAT is what gets you in trouble. You are an abusive communicator. This is the totality of the issue. You insist on jumping in on a premise of adversarial posture, ready to swing at people who ar enot even in the ring! You insist that others listen to you megalomaniacal fears and your crusades against evil and if they decline you accuse them of participating in evil ways. You're just boring, sweetheart!

Get off the damned war-pony and talk normal, for a change, and see what a difference it can make. No matter what you may believe in your more spun-up moments the simple ground truth is that you are no more precious than the rest of the community. Find your common ground to use as a starting point. Bury your silly hatchet, won't you ?-- settle down and look around in a new moment. Make progress.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: michaelr
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 08:52 PM

Then why, oh why, do you keep hanging around?

Wait... don't answer that. We already know why.

It just plain isn't normal. Just so.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 07:55 PM

No insult intended McGrath, but as a long time Mudcat member with some guest issues of your own, I don't think you are the best judge of whether or not guests feel welcome when they come here.

Problem is, if a guest doesn't feel welcome here, they aren't too likely to stick around to tell the forum about it, especially if they've seen what you are calling member "vigilantism".

If any of member/guest problems were about really malicious posters, paranoid vigilante members might be able to justify their suspicion, paranoia, and cynicism about forum strangers. But Mudcat hasn't seen anything approaching the level of malicious posters/hackers/spammers in years.

Like you said, what the hell does it matter is someone who is a duck is parading around as a chicken? Cross-dressing is very traditional. But the level of stalking and vigilantism around here by certain members here is downright creepy--I know, I continue to be on the receiving end of it. It just plain isn't normal.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM

Generally speaking I'd say Amos is right. GUESTs normally only get treated as unwelcome when they have indicated clearly enough that that is the reaction they are really looking for.

And I'd also say that it seems a reasonable inference that, on the whole, handleless-GUESTs fall into that category.

Therre is an exception which crops up from time to time. This is when people take it upon themselves to adopt a vigilante role, and to make an issue out of whether a particular stranger with a handle isn't really what they appear to be, and to take issue with that rather than with the content of what they say. Even when it is likely enough the vigilantes are right in their judgement, or for that matter in their suspicions, it strikes me that it is a practice which hurts the Mudcat rather than protects it.

Wolves in sheep's clothing are one thing, but most of the time, we are talking about chickens who like to parade around dressed up as ducks, and that is pretty unthreatening behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 05:05 PM

McGrath, I was talking about the cases where guest posters using a handle have come into the forum, only to be attacked by members who were obsessed with exposing guests supposedly REAL identity, or accusing guests posting with a handle they weren't familiar with of being trolls.

Members in this thread mentioned two specific guest posters by name that this was done to, and it is their claims to which I referred.

The MC "old timer member" behavior of "outing" guests for using pseudonyms and handles, whether consistently or inconsistently, is pretty bizarre in a forum where so many members and guests use them in those very same ways.   

Old timers seem to keep conveniently forgetting, most of the current forum users weren't here "back in the day" when some members felt threatened by a troll usurping their user names a couple of times. The paranoia level over that one circumstance (which was swiftly dealt with at the time) is what continues to drive this obnoxious behavior, and it makes the whole forum look bad to newcomers. Tht paranoid and cynical old timer member behavior is also getting very old, and alienating more and more forum users all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 05:04 PM

I have no power to make anyone behave any way, mine or another's, and I would not want such power. I simply pointed out that WHEN Guests are treated as "unwelcome" -- which is really the wrong word -- it is typically because of their actual conduct, not their anonymity. And while I have no power to prevent someone from being abusive, I can certainly call 'em as I see 'em, and when I see abuse I say so.

And I'm saying so. Snideness is abusive to a communication line. Snideness from a hidden source is doubly so, as the targets of the snideness cannot understand even artificially with whom they are treating. Generalized negativity is destructive to a forum because it erodes the willingness to exchange viewpoitns and communications.

It is clear that courtesy, the effort to add understanding, are not on everyone's criteria as having any importance, just as the physical natural environment is not on Bush's high-priority list, and the two stupidities have similar consequences in their respective domains.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:39 PM

I'm a bit puzzled at the notion that it is possible to focus on one nameless GUEST rather than another. I mean it is possible to focus on one particular post, but no more than that.

I suppose it is possible to hazard a guess that one post might by from the same person as some other post, but it's pure speculation, and there is no way of ever knowing whether it's true or not. And it seems a pretty pointless thing to speculate about anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:58 PM

boy...you take a few hours off, and entire civilizations rise & fall!

as to 'group mind', that sound a bit overblown...Mudcat certainly DOES function very much like a community on several levels, and consequently many 'members' will have similar viewpoints on some matters, just from being there.

Loook at your own neighborhood....don't you see similar patterns of behavior, if not 'exactly' the same? Issues of traffic, schools, government, shopping 'tend' to be related to the type of community...with some, ahem, notable dissenting, cantankerous exceptions! (sound familar?)

Yeah, there ARE communities where gates are put up and covenants written so as to strictly limit everything from house color to signs to type of vehicles allowed....and I suppose they 'might' come closer to a 'group mind', if there really is such a thing. (I would limit the idea to things like certain religious sects...but...*shrug*).

Anyway, I think Mudcat, is simply a group of personalities where there is a 'tendency' to have some similar views....with the notable exceptions noted..*grin* We 'tend' to be more liberal, anti-war, anti-establishment than a D.A.R. site, for example...but 'group mind'??....even with the disclaimers and explanations Samantha offer, it seems a a bit strong.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:57 PM

I'm a big easy target. Aiming at me is a whole lot easier than addressing concerns about the ways some members have treated guests being expressed even in this thread, by people like Mary Garvey, Guest Geordie, and Mudlark.

To focus attention upon one guest who makes an easy target, doesn't change the fact that the paranoia that accompanies the "smoke out the guest identity" game has been destructive. I suppose some will say I, one single poster, am much more destructive to the forum than the "smoke out the guest identity" dynamic. And I suppose others will see it the other way around. But most will likely ignore the whole thing, just like they always do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:54 PM

A few quotes that bear repeating from Max's first posting from Nov. 2001 in this thread:

Please everyone, show tolerance and patience, love and empathy. I strive to have no negative emotions in my life, especially hate. I don't even allow my daughter use the word, and can't remember the last time I have, even casually about a food I don't like. I must admit that something that I am so closely associated with (Mudcat) contains so much of it...

I've been through a lot...taking extraordinary efforts to keep Mudcat alive. I have shown tolerance and respect for it and all of you. Do me the same and help me clean up our imaginary town here at Mudcat, and fill it with love...

Remember, this site is about Traditional Music. It is for musicians, educators and appreciaters to share stories, techniques, songs, etc. It also facilitates our real friendships and get-togethers. I've witnessed incredible acts of kindness, I've seen people cross an ocean and nary spend a dime besides the plane ticket, and I've met some of the finest people in the world, from 4 continents. These are our core principles and should be protected. If the spite in this forum inhibits the quest for knowledge or a real meeting of folks, we are defeating the very purpose...

I need to look upon the Mudcat pages and see beautiful people being happy, because that is why I do this. It's not my work that makes this such a great place (though it don't hurt), it's all of you...

We are a group, a whole. We are together because we share at least some common interest. We may not all see eye to eye on everything, but the Mudcat IS the sum of all its parts. I challenge you to make it work.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:49 PM

not all guests have been attacked. In fact, you have not been attacked either, just identified.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:30 PM

You know what Jack the Sailor, as the Mudcat forum stands now, no one can make a guest use a consistent handle. It isn't mandatory to use ANY handle to post here. That is the Mudcat status quo. You can't marginalize one guest, without marginalizing a lot of guests, and by so doing, driving a lot of newcomers and old timers away by insisting that others "do it your way".

So why, when Max has left the log-in the way he has, does this tiny minority of members keep dragging the forum through this distasteful, disgraceful "attack all guests" thing? It seems to me they are the ones who need to change their behavior, not guests using the log-in any old way they please.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:23 PM

You are wrong guest, they do have the power. They can make it manditory to put a name on a post and they can marginalize people like you by ignoring you. It is apparant that the MudCat Majority enjoys the status quo.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: MMario
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:14 PM

It's all dependent on the state of the sub-space hyper-ganglionic links

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:12 PM

Spoken like a wise internet citizen, CarolC. No one can control others. We can only control our reaction to them. Which makes it our choice, doesn't it? If people want to feel victimized by people disguising their identities, or trolling, or flaming, then they certainly do have the right to feel victimized. But they don't have the right to insist EVERYONE feel victimized.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:09 PM

But Amos, you don't have the power to make others behave the way you think they should behave. The sooner you and the Mudcat minority realizes this, and lets go of the whole "make the guest do what we want" thing, the happier everyone will be. But no one more than people like you, who obviously have a lot of anger about it.

Let it go, Amos. Just let it go and go with the flow.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:09 PM

I thought we all learned our lesson in this thread: How do I tell My SO I want a divorce?.

I know I did. Although I didn't post to that thread, I was convinced that GUEST,Milly was a troll, and the thread was a wind-up. So did many others, who did post to the thread.

It turned out that Milly was a friend of another Mudcatter, and was genuinely in need of help.

These days, if I think someone might be a troll, I simply don't respond. If I think they're sincere, and I respond sincerely, even if they are a troll, it only hurts me if I want it to.

If we want to keep the forum civil, we must ourselve behave in a manner that is civil.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 02:51 PM

Geordie:

I do not know why you think Guests are not welcome here. As for political correctitude, the only boundary I have noticed is one of courtesy and mutual tolerance. The only people I have seen being treated as though they were unwelcome are those who abuse the trust of communication -- namely, that you seek to speak in ways that add to understanding and cause no harm. There is a preference that Guests use a token of identity so that others can know when they are speaking to the person who says which thing. That is a courtesy which increases understanding. There's nothing more to it than that, i am certain.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 02:42 PM

I think Samantha has a point...Guests are not welcome, there is an overdose of political correctness here, and people seem inclined to want to censor what they do.t agree with. On the other hand, there is a wealth of knowledge here, amazing conversation and much empathy for others. Just like life in a small town, isn't it really.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 01:53 PM

Samantha dear, from far or near, my hopes you did renew
In retrospect I did neglect to mention this to you
Some guesty geeks do forum tweeks, and members jest in passing
But overalls after the squalls, We'll raise a glass... relaxing

You are so right, with your penlight, shed upon the angst
And muckle care you showed us there, and you, we little thankest
So here and now, please take a bow, please don't feel a rejection
These shadows spark, when 'catters bark, to call on our reflection

All the Best! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 12:56 PM

Kat:

That means a lot. Thank you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: TIA
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 12:53 PM

I would just like to say that I think what they ^ all think...don't I?

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 07:20 AM

Well, I'm not too interested whether karolina was a Pole living in Poland or not. That kind of nosing around seems pretty pointless and intrusive, and unfriendly. If people want to wear a different persona here, that's their business anyway, so long as they don't set out to danage other people.

Having said this, from a glance and a memory, I'm not aware of any particular reason to to be sceptical in that particular instance.

Incidentally, in line with what mary garvey pointed out, here's a page indicating that interest in Sea Shanties in Poland, and reverence for Stan Hugill especially, is as strong there as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:33 AM

Mary G: in relation to your problems with some 'English' spellings, the language is strange. I can merely sympathise:-

          "There, their, they're!"

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 01:56 AM

Acrimony will atony, and politicians change
Lackluster is the filibuster, guest who's also strange
This cyber place is sacred space, for folks like you and me
With stories told in songs of old, where wisdom's plain to see
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 12:41 AM

Amos, that's one of the clearest and best things I've read of yours in ages.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: hesperis
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 12:21 AM

Of course there is a group mind here at mudcat. The interaction here may be weaker than face-to-face communication, but I think it is equal, merely of a different type. Some of my best friends are ones I met through the internet, I know them on another level as well, and we can keep in mental contact over vast distances, even if we can't keep in physical contact.

There is a group mind here because this technology fosters a group mind. Not only do we all connect on personal levels here by the shared love of music, but everything we write adds to a database, which is rather like a mind in itself.

That said, certain members enjoy manipulating other people to the extent that they hide their identity and post just to see how people will react. That is a fact, it has happened here in the past, and will probably happen again. But so? This is the internet, you want to be absolutely sure who you're talking to, go call your mother. ;)

There's always a lot of acrimony in political threads. *Shrug*

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:04 PM

One ting that has stirred up the muddy bottom of the group consciousness around here is the recent spate of high-volume, unsupportable and wildly paranopid generalizations about the wickedness of the world and the US and the government and the UFOs andthe aliensand everybody everywhere. This kind of discussion actually reduced the level of consciousness in the group for the simple reason that it dissipates attention in a targetless generalization, which makes everyone spin around trying to understand something that is inherently incomprehensible. This is a typical pattern of communication from an individual who is so overwhelmed by fear that they believe they are going down and must take as many others as possible with them. It is not within the normal meaning of sane communication. As such it depresses the creativity and intelligence of the community. It is something like having a quiet and interesting conversation while standing next to a car whose alrm is sounding stridentl siren sounds at top volume.

Bad communication of this sort tends to drive out rational discussion; and part of the responsibility of those who are capable of rational discourse is NOT to let themselves be stampeded into silence by loud and irrational communication.

This also has some bearing on the recent political threads.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 10:08 PM

Kevin,

I think the war and terrorist speculation have made a great deal of difference. The result is not always a direct line, of complaints about war or homeland security in particular, but the general anxiety level has increased considerably and is bound to show it self in any number of ways through general irritability.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: mg
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 09:04 PM

I assume she was for real, and anyone who has the slightest connection with sea shanties knows that there is/was a thriving interest there at least as of a few years back (in Poland). mg

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,Tommyknocker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 08:46 PM

McGrath, I gotta love ya for your ability to accept people at face value. But read all of Karolina's posts and then come back and convince me s/he was a Pole living in Poland!!! For me the obvious frauds are just fun to diddle.



(I remember the way some smart-arses pounced on the newcomer karolina, apparently on the weird, and plain ignorant, ground that there was something improbable about a Pole being interested in Sea-shanties in Engish.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,John Of The Hill
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 08:39 PM

Art, I am trying to make something out of your dream. Please clarify: were you chasing a bagel or a beagle, although I doubt that the difference is significant. John

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 08:25 PM

I like the idea of us as a school of fish. I don't know if real Mudcats go in for that, but that's irrelevant.("No it's not an elephant, it's a fish.")

It's never worth worrying whether things and people here are what they seem, and the best thing to do is to avoid getting suspicious and acting paranoid; even when the suspicions are justified, what's the profit? - and if they aren't, there is always the danger of driving away someone who might be a friend, or a valued antagonist maybe. (I remember the way some smart-arses pounced on the newcomer karolina, apparently on the weird, and plain ignorant, ground that there was something improbable about a Pole being interested in Sea-shanties in Engish.)

If a stranger sits down and joins in a session, you don't waste time worrying and speculating about their motives, you just go by what contribution they make to the evening. If they keep playing bum notes or whatever, or make remarks that break up the evening, that's when the welcome might start to wear off.

As for the thesis Samantha proposed, I don't think war and terror and all that have really made that much difference, not here anyway. Maybe the arguments tend to be about different things, but there's always been a fairly strong current of dissension, which when it goes right, is enjoyable and stimulating, and when it doesn't, it can get boring and bad mannered.

I think the paranoia is much more to do with issues of power. It arises from people resenting sustained efforts by individuals muscling in and attempting to impose their own pattern on the Mudcat regardless of the customs that have developed. And that can lead into an over-acute suspicion that someone might be seeking to rattle our cages.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,T-tone
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 08:24 PM

Language is a man-made contrivance. Yes it's a mechanism for communication but that is all. Frank Lloyd Wright didn't use the vocabulary/materials of other architects, but it is this very fact that makes me know of his work/name in 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 08:23 PM

Correction

I think that if you are looking for a ghost that you, or somebody who shares your goals, and are uniquely qualified to expose/iterpret, then you are wasting your valuable time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 07:47 PM

Samantha, that was a very good post. It's difficult to pin down a group as amorphous as those who participate at Mudcat, but you've identified a collective crankiness that lately is probably brought on by a lot of external catalysts. War, terrorism, bad weather, to name a few. Nastiness is bleeding out from particularly argumentative threads and making many of them rather unpleasant. This said, it doesn't make Mudcat the most attractive place to call home right now, but I hope you'll go ahead and rejoin. I don't know if the general analysis you offered is going to help individual members beyond causing all of us to look at how we're behaving. But what you said was constructed in a thoughtful way and delivered as an observation, not a criticism. Another term that might apply here is "transference" (in regard to the role Joe is playing in trying to sort out the threads and define Mudcat policies).

Definitions for terms that might get used in this thread.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 07:28 PM

Well, my subconscious tells me that there are two broad classes n the Cat -- the phsyically male and female. Or is that three? Any way, on another set of criteria it is divided into those seeking to add to understanding by communicating, and those seeking to destroy understanding by pretending to communicate.   

Aside from those, I don't know of any pigenholes that make a lot of sense in a community as varied as this one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Mudlark
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 06:50 PM

Like Mary, I take things pretty much at face value here. And like Samantha, I agree that trolls are not to be feared. This is virtual reality and virtual irritants (unlike the real in-your-face under the bridge kind) are so, so easy to ignore. I love the music discussions here, like the thread on Arlo G.'s City of N.O. story, and I have gotten valuable chord/lyric help at times, have even (on the rare occasion) been able to offer it. The rest I tend to skip over. If others wish to endlessly discuss politics, or anything else unmusical, that is OK with me, because I don't have to participate unless I want to.

As to the whole group unconscious/group shadow thing, I have no input, maybe because I'm not very group oriented. But I am glad, Samantha, that you posted. Your comments, tho not "musical," are about this site and therefore very appropriate subject matter, it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 06:45 PM

I have no problem with your quest, but I do wonder what kind of problem would lead a person to ask such a question in the first place, even if it was/is about other things besides the Internet Mudcat Forum.

For example a Convent has shared concepts unique to it; thus to separate it from all other institutions and Convents. ( Don't want to
be *writing* a ology book here ) Anycase if you are saying the Muddie is such an example, I think you are off your rocker.

The only thing common to people here would be their interest in Folkmusic, so you would be better off finding a Folkclub where people are meeting and interacting face to face. This is a very weak social interaction. Second the idea that we somehow have 'hidden' adgenda is ridiculous. What on earth could that be?

I think you are looking for a ghost that you, or somebody who shares your goals, are uniquely qualified to expose and iterpret ... ie if we were a Corporation, you could charge us a fee for translations. In fact I think the entire enterprise of Psychology is a sham, a con, a clever lie.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: Art Thieme
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 06:33 PM

I had a dream that I was a lit candle chasing a bagle through the Holland Tunnel. Now, try to make something out of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,Samantha
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 05:59 PM

OK! I went around the internet to find a place to describe my meanings of group mind and sometimes the fears that poison our groups. If you try to go to this you will see just the things I mean only in more academic ways. So I hope thishelps you know about this dynamic.

http://www.ultibase.eu.rmit.edu.au/Articles/aug99/hase1.htm

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: mg
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 05:39 PM

I am a native-born American and one of the words I find most hard to spell is conscious..and conscience..I get them all mixed up. Viscous and viscious??? is that right. Write and right. The word I find almost impossible to say is buckwheat. I was trying to find some buckwheat flour at the store yesterday and had a heck of a time.

I tend to believe anything anyone says, and would not suspect for a minute that this was anything but a sincere posting...nothing in the grammar etc. perplexed me either.

So you see, we do not all think with one mind....

mg

Subject: RE: BS: The Mudcat Group Mind
From: GUEST,juke
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 04:42 PM

Samantha,what I dislike are the monopolizers. We have a new set of them here now and they have all manner of rationalizations for holding us hostage to their psychotic rants.