BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?

Subject: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Termagant
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:27 AM

Leper perhaps?

Or maybe 'nigger'.

And I use that loaded word with caution. But it does seem to fit, since 'guests' here are treated as if they were African Americans in the Old South.

At any rate, 'guests' have been demonized here, and marginalized in a way that has resulted in them being treated like a parasitical, malignant class of foreigners, here for the sole purpose of spoiling the clubhouse atmosphere among some certain members.

Like some other guests who have spoken up recently in the guest bashing threads, who have stated in those threads that they refuse to join Mudcat as members as a matter of principle (because of the way guests are treated here), I too choose to post as a guest for the same reason.

For me, the rewards of membership simply don't outweigh what I see as liabilities of being a member of an elite club. That just ain't my style. But then, I don't belong to a local church or country club either.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:05 AM

'GUEST'- Mudcat euphemism for...guest. If they don't crap on the floor, they are all part of the family.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:20 AM

no problems with guests - major problems with people who come and and trash the place as anonomously as they can.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Morticia
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:31 AM

ahem........don't feed the troll, peeps....

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 09:15 AM

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 09:27 AM

Aw Morty - why not throw them the odd tit-bit (a bit like dropping "chum" when you're shark fishing) - perhaps they'll all consume each other in their feeding frenzy. If not it'll probably keep them off other threads - perhaps we should have a "GUEST" permathread.

I have posted as a GUEST -

(1) Before I actually joined Mudcat - then I gave my e-mail address as a name.
(2) Since I became a member, for "artistic" and I hope humorous reasons.

The only time I have posted as an anonomous GUEST is when I've forgotten to reset my cookie after (2).

I would hate to see GUEST postings prohibited, both because it would preclude (2) and also because it would allow new members a chance to "dip their toe in the water" as I did in (1).

I have NEVER seen a GUEST treated badly just because of their status and I am certain that a GUEST's posting would never be removed on those grounds. I have seen many examples of GUEST postings which have provoked criticism and deletion due to their content - do you object to that Termagant ?   

I have recently had a couple of my postings (and I don't even use a handle) deleted because a Joeclone didn't realise that I knew the catter concerned and that the banter was not likely to be taken seriously. The UK folk scene is after all rather more tight-knit than the transatlantic one, and what would seem a spiteful remark to a stranger is often only fun between friends.

Perhaps GUESTs should consider why they wish to remain anonomous.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:07 AM

In case one has never read any of the infinite number of threads on this topic, what is sure to follow in succeeding posts will be a rehashing, retrolling, and reflaming of everything that has already been said as well as it can be said, as often as it can be said, and as misunderstood and mischaracterized as possible.

But hey, it's another day, so here come the "usual suspects" to repeat history. Vuja de! [Deity or social priciple of choice] forbid we should pass on the opportunity!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:01 PM

Another thread for people exhanging insults and recriminations?

Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some folks need to get a life...

Some of my best friends are Guests..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:08 PM

Some of my best guests are friends, Jerry.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM

Some more thoughts on the subject.

As you shall sow - so shall you reap.

My comment about a remark being taken as a joke by a friend, but sounding like an insult to a stranger is perhaps pertinent also, because an anonomous guest will always be a stranger.

If you use your anonimity as a sort of firewall then surely it should work both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:22 PM

I guess the last couple of 'guest' threads got too friendly and funny and cute, so someone had to start another with the 'right' degree of nastiness.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 01:19 PM

It's actually a euphemism for "fellow enthusiast".

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Bill Buethe
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 01:58 PM

But with insulting and derogatory thread titles (started by one of the well-liked members)like this:

On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings

just what did all of you expect?

The thread (not the only one of it's kind in recent weeks, I might add) is still going strong at nearly 150 posts, mostly from members saying how much guests suck, while admitting that 'some guest posts' are OK.

If some of you could just step back, and try and see how this forum page looks when a guest who has never been here before clicks on it, you might begin to understand what some of guests are talking about.

I may not agree with Guest Termagant's approach in the opening post of this thread. But I don't disagree with the sentiments expressed in it either. I started lurking here over the Xmas holidays, at the suggestion of another lurker. I've been waiting all week for things to improve, figuring people were flaming over the holidays because of kiddies being home from school.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 02:33 PM

you're in the wrong threads...lurk in the music threads.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 03:28 PM

That thread Bill Buethe linked to is actually fairly friendly at present; if the title is read in conjunction with the opening post by Thomas it is clearly a bit tongue in cheek. It could have been better phrased, as Thomas has posted to say.

For the umpteenth time, there is NO HOSTILITY TOWARDS NON-MEMBERS. There is impatience at people coming in as UNNAMED GUESTS. And also at anybody (member or non-member) who posts in a way designed to hurt other people, especially when they use the GUEST mechanism as a way of doing this.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 03:44 PM

My experience, FWIW. Some time back when I wanted advice and support in my attempt to stop smoking, I started as GUEST: nicwit. Essentially, I was soliciting advice that would not be affected by anyone's knowing me personally. The response was as I had hoped, enthusiastic, helpful and understanding. Whether it was the subject matter or the fact that I used a guest name, or that it was the true nature of Mudcat coming through, I'll probably never know. But it was what I needed and hoped for and more. I'm now in my eleventh week of freedom from tobacco -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: alanabit
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:21 PM

You have given yourself a name Termagant. That means we can reply to you and compare posts made with others under that name. That you eschew the priveleges of membership is your own business. You have not chosen to make spiteful or contentious comments and then hide behind anonymity. No one has any quarrel with that. Welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,YES A GUEST! Maeve Slattery
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:33 PM

ON THE SUBJECT OF GUESTS. I POSTED THIS REPLY TO (THOMAS THE RHYMER). HE STARTED THE THREAD - 'On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings', and what follows was my posting to him.

I hope it will be of interest and I am a guest and do not mean to be smart but am offended. I don't see the big deal with becoming a member, if I feel I have something of interest to say or info to supply, I like many GUESTS do it.

Dear Thomas the Rhymer,

I can't see what your problem is. From my experience of reading all kinds of posts by GUESTS for a very long time, (and have only posted a couple of offerings myself), I honestly have to say there are many valuable and informative people (GUESTS) contributing to MUDCAT.

Indeed MUDCAT is all the richer for it. If you wish, I will give you but a few examples relating to subjects in which I along with many MEMBERS have had an interest.

Is it possible that somewhere along the way a GUEST put you in your place or knew what they were talking about. Has the ego been harmed?

Regards from a GUEST Maeve Slattery

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:34 PM

I suggest we lobby the US federal government to form a committee to investigate how we can make Termagant happy. If the government will not do so, then we can all get mad at them instead. :-)

Or...we could reward Termagant with an honorary membership and a free Mudcat T-shirt....or a free copy of William Shatner's book "Get A Life" (it's a great book and soooo appropriate in this case!).

Thomas the Rhymer's thread is clearly a joke (if you actually bother to read it, that is...), as is this discussion as well...but this one has so far not been nearly as funny. With a little work though, I think it can be made almost as funny, so let's get to it!

I love GUESTS, and I think we need even more of them. They make Mudcat much more eclectic, and they allow those who long to squabble endlessly about practically nothing at all to really enjoy themselves "to the max" (if you'll excuse the expression).

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:57 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:11 PM

Maev - you still seem to have this idea that there is some kind of antagonism towards non-members. It just isn't true. People who choose to post as GUESTS may be non-members or they may be members playing silly games. When people have suggested that it might be better to change the rules so that people cannot post as GUESTS, that is what they are thinking of. (And that isn't going to happen, we know.)

Most of the time, it seems pretty clear, non-members who post as GUESTS use a name of some sort to go along with GUEST, as you did just now. That's only friendly - GUEST,YES A GUEST is a perfectly fine pseudonym.

A handle, however arbitrary or even temporary, makes it easy to respond to a post and to agree with it or disagree with it, or thank the poster for something they have posted. Not using any kind of name makes all that needlessly difficult, become the only way of distinguishing between one unnamed GUEST and anther is to go back and copy out the date and time of their post, which is very clumsy.

If anyone has a lot of time to waste, click on GUEST at the head of a post from an unnamed GUEST, and see all the previous posts by all the other unnamed GUESTS. I don't particularly recommend doing that, but reading through a collection of the posts we've had might explain some of this.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:44 PM

Obviously the members must like to bicker with guests because these numerous guest threads get a lot of posts and attention, grow larger, and morph into other related Guest Threads.

As I am sure it has been previously stated in many ways before, quit taking the "bait" from the Guest chums if you want these ridiculous threads to cease. Obviously you don't want them to end because you add to the flames and must really enjoy them. If you did not reply it would all end.

I am ashamed that I even read this thread and parts of other Guest threads. Drivel Dirt is hard to resist, isn't it?

Bicker on, let the feeding frenzy grow, because that is apparently what the members want by continuing to post the same junk time after time in this and similar threads.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:49 PM

You're absolutely right, guest. For God's sake, DON'T post here again!!! I certainly don't intend to...nor would anyone with a modicum of good taste and anything useful to do with their time.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:58 PM

Just because I had a bit a spare time, I went and counted and categorized the posts in the "On the Cowardly Nature of Guest Postings" thread. This is, of course, entirely subjective and is subject to discussion and disagreement.

I counted 147 posts, and likely missed a few. Of these, 20 were solidly pro-guest. This includes the ones, and I think it was well over half, who differentiate between "named" guests (enthusiastically welcomed) and anonymous guests whose only intent is to create dissention. This is not my distinction, but is specifically stated as such in these posts. There are 10 who oppose guests under any circumstances; interestingly, 2 of these are guests.

21 comments are neither pro nor con on the issue of guests, but are simply snide...call them flames if you'd like. Most of these, 16 of the 21, are from guests (either named or unnamed). The most typical of these comments is on how the vast majority of postings in the thread indicate how much members hate guests.

Most of the posts, 96 of the total, are essentially in the nature of conversation...one person, member or guest, making an essentially polite response to something someone else said.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:59 PM

My favorite Guest is Edward A.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Tremclad
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 06:18 PM

Guests who are opposed to Guests under any circumstances are an interesting lot. They are either agents provocateurs or members of a club so exclusive that the notorious "inner clique" that is rumoured to fester at the heart of Mudcat would wilt before its awesome grandeur and crawl away in humiliation.

The only way one can possibly even think of attaining to the moral and spiritual heights achieved by Guests who are opposed on principle even to other Guests is to resign from Mudcat (or arrange to get kicked out somehow) and then keep coming back here for years and years and years as a bitter disgruntled Guest who doesn't even like other Guests. This takes nerve, talent, and determination. I have only met perhaps 2 people with that kind of nerve, but I'm sure there are others out there waiting in the wings.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Joe_F
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 06:32 PM

It *may* just be a euphemism for "My f****** cookie crumbled again".

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:40 PM

G... ratuitous       G...iving       G...rand
U... rges            U...lterior      U...nknowables
E... specially       E...vasions      E...stablishing
S... urreptitious    S...ome          S...erendipitous
T... ypes            T...alkability   T...rials

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:56 PM

I wonder if Termagant is really Lepus Rex????? I'm really very curious and I wish he would enlighten us.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:07 PM

Or maybe you are, GUEST Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:56 PM

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:18 PM

Just in case people haven't read enough of this endless crap (and these are not the only threads dealing with this burning issue. Key-riced, it's more of a question on a FOLK MUSIC site, then WHAT IS FOLK!), take a look:

An Open Letter from Max to GUESTS

Posting as merely Guest

File anonymous guest complaints here

Apology from the Guest

How should we treat guests?

Proposed solution to Guest/Troll problem

Posting anonymously

BS: Anonymous GUEST thread

Getting fed up with guests

Anonymouse Posting

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:22 PM

Deja vu all over again one more time repeatedly. I fuc#in' love GUESTs. Come to Uncle Brucie and let me cuddle you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: jaze
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:25 PM

It seems hostility only happens when certain guests(and it seems there's a cohesive contingent lately)want to deliberately cause trouble. Most guests are polite and I think treated politely and even welcomed(I was). Surely the guests who are posting lately can see this. If you don't want to join-ok, if you don't want to sign with any kind of handle-ok, but don't start trouble. Seems fair enough.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Amergin
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:42 PM

I have seen many guests with legitimate questions treated as nothing more than trolls. It is as if some members of the so-called inner clique see the name guest and so automatically assume that poster has nothing to add, as if since it is a "guest" they are assumed to be trolling...well we all know what happens when you assume something don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:44 AM

Thank you Amergin, succinctly put. Treat each poster (Guest or otherwise) as the nature of the post deserves.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:07 AM

Aw c'mon folks. The GUEST tag was introduced to help people posting under the name of a member. Thass all. I personally object to those posting as GUEST with no other ID--responding to such posts is like standing on the top of a hill and hollering. GUEST plus any ID (and it certainly can be a nom de plume) is jes' fine.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:27 AM

I personally don't get the furore over whether people put a name to their comments or not. If someone anonymously makes comments with which you strongly disagree, by all means say so. If it looks to you like someone is merely trying to provoke reaction for mischievous reasons, how difficult is it for a rational adult to ignore?

wr.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 07:34 AM

Dick Greenhaus just now summed the key distinction very simply and very clearly: "GUEST plus any ID (and it certainly can be a nom de plume) is jes' fine. And it's been pointed out many many times before.

What puzzles me is why we still get these posts which confuse the matter by completely ignoring that crucial distinction. For example: "It is as if some members of the so-called inner clique see the name guest and so automatically assume that poster has nothing to add, as if since it is a "guest" they are assumed to be trolling..."

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:20 AM

I will contribute the 'same old crap' also.

Completely ignoring the obvious (from most quarters) has come to be the only acceptable course - for as long as everyone else appears to be ignoring the obvious - it is OK to jump on the bandwagon too.

Among other things, it is obvious and has been for some time that the original motive for introducing the Guest - no matter how well intentioned - has not solved the original problem and has created further problems (or rather we have created these).

Max hs made it clear that Guests (with a name or otherwise) will always be welcome to contribute the same as everyone else - so it is just a matter of us all (especially those with cookies) finally accepting this obvious fact and making everyone welcome as best we can - no matter what our personal preference may be. To concentrate on what is said rather than judge and speculate who may be saying it and why.

The forum is a mirror of our contributions and if we don't like what we see in the mirror - the blame is ours and there is little point in trying to blame the person standing next to you because your bum may look too big.

When you see a thread with a name such as this one (in the BS section) it is not compulsory to open it - is it? Is there really any point in opening it and making a contribution such as 'this is going to be the same old crap'?

The only way to ensure that it will be the 'same old crap' is for you to open it and post 'the same old crap' along with all the others also posting 'the same old crap'. The would appear to be some comfort to be gained from this process but little chance of any progress toward simply accepting the 'bleeding' obvious.

If you and I do not create such theads - do not open the thread or do not react to any obvious provocation if we do - the thread dies and along with it - the problem. Too simple?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Strollin' Johnny
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:20 AM

I'm confused. Can I post as GUEST, Strollin' Johnny, or have I got to bugger off? I don't join because I only have the opportunity to come to this site sporadically, not because I'm scared to be identified (some members know who I am anyway).

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:42 AM

OF COURSE YOU CAN You can post as GUEST, whatever-you-like, and you'll be welcome. If someone doesn't like what you post, they'll say so, butb they'll say that whether you are a GUEST or not.

As for people who insist on posting as GUEST without any kind of pseudonym (however temporary), nobody can stop them, but it's an unfriendly thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:50 AM

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical over 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist today." -- Thomas Sowell

McGrath, why is it unfriendly? the fact that you have a nickname and post here, does not identify you to me at all. I submit that any contradiction, or opposite opinion expressed here as a "Guest" invites outright indignation and invective from certain members, and that is downright rude and offensive too.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 10:25 AM

Unfriendly for reasons which have been spelt out so many times before that it seems pointless to repeat them. Basically because it causes inconvenience to other people, GUEST Date: 09 Jan 04 - 08:50 AM.

Guests-with-pseudonyms receive exactly the same response as anyone one else when they say something anybody else disagrees with - except that it is only possible to respond in an open thread, since the PM option is closed out.

Since posting as a GUEST without a handle of any kind is perceived as an unfriendly act, it sometimes gets an unfriendly and suspicious response. This is not always justified, but click on GUET at the head of such a post and the reasons for this soon become clear.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 11:54 AM

I use a fake, goofy name so you know who's posting.

It really shouldn't matter if I do or not, as Martin Gibson only exists here, and when I leave this site, he no longer exists.

When I come back, so does Martin. Now you have to determine is it the real me posting or me posing as Martin Gibson. Are we one and the same?

Maybe sometimes, and sometimes not.

Such is the opportunity.
Such is the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: GUEST,Strollin' Johnny
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:15 PM

Thanks McGrath, that's what I'd hoped you'd say. Maybe it's time I joined..............
Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:29 PM

It matters if you use a consistent handle in a thread because it's simply human nature that people talk to people, not individual posts. If you're going to leave a one-off message in a thread, it doesn't matter as much. If you're going to have a conversation, it's a problem.

The membership thing prevents people swiping someone else's name and pretending to be them. If you join, no one else can use the same, exact handle. If you remain a GUEST, they can, but it's up to you to decide if that matters. Strollin' Johnny, please refrain from buggering off, whether you join or not. I like your chorus songs! (Read on, read on; another thread...)

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:37 PM

Are we having a semantic disagreement about the word "identify"? I don't think we all mean the same thing.

To me, "identify" at Mudcat simply means to have some hope of a clue that a remark addressed to someone by the name they used in their post, may actually be received by that person. Knowing who they are IRL, or where they live-- that's a much more serious use of the term "identify."

I think a lot of us mean just that we can identify someone (as if across a crowded room) who we may have passed a casual remark with in the kitchen, for the purpose of making more conversation on the same or another topic.

Beyond that, who can identify anyone, really? :~) How do I know my husband, for example, is really who he says he is and not an imposter posing as a person of that name? :~) I've seen enough victim-movies to know we can't ever be REALLY sure-- best we can do is what makes sense in the moment, with as much trust as appears to be sensible given the situation and the history (or lack of same) with an individual. It's not about legality-- it's about relationality*.

~S~

* The manner of dealing with connections of persons, groups, or nations, for example in social, business, or diplomatic matters.

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:12 PM

Our forum is not a crowded room or any other form of conventional communication and the attempt to impose the normal conventions will fail and has failed.

Sure it would be nice if folk here were all polite - and helpful to know who you are talking to but it is not at all helpful to state that it is unfriendly not to use a name. That may be your honest opinion but there are many opinions all equally valid.

You could argue that it is just as unfriendly to insist that someone does use a name - if they clearly do not wish to do this. This is what is known as free choice.

Max has allowed posters to contribute using any name they wish (or none) the only thing that (in theory anyway) that now can't be done is to use the name of a member and pretend to be them. So whatever would would prefer that other posters did or did not do - we rather have to just accept that it is matter for them to choose and for you to chosse whether to reply to their posts.

No problem in pointing out the advantages but is it really helpful to accuse folk of being unfriendly - just because they do not agree with the way you may wish them to post?

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: John Routledge
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:24 PM

It may not be unfriendly but it can often be unhelpful to post simply as guest

Subject: RE: BS: 'GUEST'-Mudcat euphemism for...?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:40 PM

John it may be unhelpful to struggle against a strong wind - but that the wind is unhelpful to your progress - is a fact that it is wise to accept.

Is is not a rather a waste of time and effort to hold strong opinions and pass judgements about things that you really cannot do anything about?

Even though there is no shortage of attempts being made to do this on our forum - no one can control what others post but we all have absolute control over our own postings. Perhaps setting an example in our posts - that others can choose to follow is what we should concentrate on?