BS: Mudcat Nastiness

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 02:58 PM

Seems pretty benign lately, at least...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: PoppaGator
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 01:16 AM

I was surprised that Azizi and Raedwulf just "met" for the first time. Both names have been familiar to me for at least several months.

There are so many different discussions going on here at any given time, and none of us could possibly participate in all of them. Since everyone has a different set of interests, we encounter each other in different threads; each of us has areas of interest that "overlap" with those of some fellow members more than with those of others.

I recently noticed a clever pseudonym for the first time and figured the person must be a new member. I clicked on the name and learned that he had made literally thousands of posts, both music and "BS," and has been a member much longer than I have. I could not even perceive a pattern in the titles of thread to which he had contributed that indicated that his interests were notably different from my own. How could I possibly have missed him? Coincidence, I suppose.

When I consider this case, and then think about the many members who have become very familiar to me, constantly posting to the same threads, I don't know what to think.

So, think about it. If you find a particular individual especially annoying, it may reflect on you ~ the very fact that you continually encounter each other indicates that the two of you have quite a bit in common. Otherwise, you'd never bump into each other. So, try to "accentuate the positive" by concentrating on that common ground!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Azizi
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:41 PM

Raedwulf -

I appreciate your comment & compliment. And I would also mention that this is the first time I saw your name too...

As I mentioned in my post, I'm relatively new here, and usually post above the BS line. I guess being a church girl book worm music lover I never learned how to fight dirty...

Although sometimes somebody has to fight dirty, and maybe the occassion would arise that it might be me..But I'd rather fight smart..or not have to fight at all...

Peace,
Ms. Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:50 AM

Very often the strong elements of something can also be its weakness. The ability to find folk who post things that interest you or are involved in similar things lead us to make closer contact over time. Sometimes this is possible - if you live close enough but mostly this contact is confined to the forum or via Personal Messages (PMs) etc.

Over the years this has lead to the current situation where the forum is groups of posters (known in some degree or form to one another) who tend for some reason - to need to judge the worth of other posters entire personalities - based purely on what is contained in their posts. Often building up a picture of this person - which may have some truth in it - but one that is just as likely to be right as wrong.

For some posters - for some reason - also seem to have a need to create a personality here to post behind - which may in fact be nothing like their real one. Pretending not to spell very well or adopting a 'hicky' way of writing etc.

I am not too sure what can be done now to address this need for all of these judgements to be made and seemingly encouraged - but I am pretty sure that it what contributes to what is referred to as the nastiness some refer to here. It is not always that these judgements of other poster's personalities are nasty - but it is that they do seem to be needed for some reason and have become very much part of the forum and not I suggest - to its benefit.

However, there is no real need for any judgements of people and their motives - for how in all truth can you tell this from a posting or even a series of postings? Surely all that is required is just for a personal judgement to be made by each contributor of that contribution - as to whether to respond or not - to what is said in the post........?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 04:37 AM

Well, at least I don't have to worry about all this 'fool' nonsense...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 03:42 AM

I used to be a regular but recently some of the back bitting has been overwhelming and not what I joined Mudcat for, so I stick with the lyrics and music which are invaluable. I think its very sad what this place has become, to what it used to be. Perhaps one day it will get back to what it once was.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 04:04 PM

Azizi,

First time I've seen your name (I tend to hang around the BS section & fight dirty! *grin*), but I reckon your post of 11:58 would make a pretty good "Rules of the Road" for a Mudcat beginner. Especially the last line. It could almost be a Site by-line!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Guy Wolff
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:27 PM

Guru and Leadfingers, THanks for your question and Lead's clarification . All the best . guy

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 02:16 PM

There aren't those kind of rules, ragdall.

But I think once we start reading between the ones about people's intentions that can be dangerous. The best rule here, I think, is to always assume the best about people's intentions. If we are wrong, it will rapidly become apparent, and nothing is lost. If we do it the other way, and assume that someone is hostile, when they aren't in fact, and react accordingly, we do genuine damage to the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST,ragdall
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 02:33 AM

It is difficult for a newcomer to learn the unwritten rules of conduct in this forum. They seem complicated.

Are there some topics that are off limits in the BS section?

How do you decide whether a post was intended to create a thoughtful discussion, or to inflame?

Would a topic be more likely to gather responses if it were posted by one of the long time contributers than if it were posted by someone who is new to this forum? It sometimes appears that the interaction between people who have established connections and relationships here, (both "positive" and "negative"), is more important to participants than the actual substance of the posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 01:57 AM

Passions run high in a true democracy.

Mudcat is a true democracy.

I think perhaps the forum may require a few more elements to qualify as a democracy - let alone a true one.

Passions tend to run equally high - if not even higher in a dictatorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Gypsy
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:25 PM

Initial Guest, you REALLLY need a name! Oftentimes, if a thread is out of control, or veering a direction that is distasteful to me, i will PM a person directly with pertinant information. I can't be the only one who does this. You might get alot of answers, and avoid the fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:17 PM

GUEST 01 Feb 05 - 05:02 AM,

Of course that's also true. What I think happens sometimes tho is that people will wring an upset out of a post that is merely brief.... that a lot of human beans tend not to say "this hurts me" but say instead "YOU failed MY manners standard". I'm not a mind-reader, and I certainly don't mean to give offense in brevity.

BUT I also think the expectations new people bring here often are part of the instant-internet-gratification stuff rampant in the culture today.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM

Thanks, McGrath of Harlow

Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:10 PM

Passions run high in a true democracy.

Mudcat is a true democracy.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:09 PM

Azizi has initiated and contributed to some very useful and interesting threads; and I haven't seen a single post by her that messed things up by the way she responded to potentially provocative posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 11:58 AM

In the short time that I've been posting here, I've probably ruffled the feathers some people by asking questions about traditions that are highly esteemed by them {such as Morris dancing and the custom of blacking up}.

I also know that my mention of race/ethnicity has irritated or angered some folks here who believe that this music site and/or music in general [is or should be] color-blind.

But I'm pleased to say that I've had only a few 'nasty' [mean]comments. Also [though this wasn't the question]I would add that there have only been a few occasions in my 5 months posting here that I've received what I would consider to be purposely racially offensive public posts or argumentative PMs.

On those occassions other members/guests have posted supportive comments on the forum and I have received supportive PMs.

Usually I try to 'play pass' {ignore}these comments and those commentors. Once it seems clear to me that a person is commenting for the fight of it all, and not genuinely seeking information or understanding, I disengage. So yes, I have walked away from threads and will continue to do so. Some people may think that I shouldn't walk away from a pot after I had stirred it up..but my intention has never been to raise an issue to provoke an argument or to declare my position {the only right one} and any other position completely wrong.

With regard to subjects such as the aforementioned Morris dancing and blackening up, I feel that as a result of my engagement I better understand the folks who are involved in those traditions and I believe that many of them better understand my concerns...Therefore I count it worth posting to such threads or introducing such threads to be worth the possibility or reality that some people will be annoyed at me.

Although I don't want to be considered as speaking for any other person or any other African American but myself, sometimes I do find myself giving the [a] Black point of view or seizing an opportunity and turning it into a teaching moment {to raise awareness about African American culture and perspectives}. It's my nature to do so and I've clearly admitted it's part of the reason why I'm here {or if I didn't clearly admit it-I do so now}.

Hopefully more African Americans and other people of color will begin to post regularly on Mudcat Cafe.

This place is so rich in information and generally so welcoming that it would be a shame for newcomers of any race or ethnicity to be turned off by the atypical few.

Ms. Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:02 AM

This isn't Google or an instant-help-desk; it's a preserved yet dynamic collection of contributions.

If only it were just that. It is also a collection of contributors - and a fine lot they generally are.

But there does need to be a balance. Is there a case that far too much attention can often be focused upon judging who it is that may be contributing - rather than concentrating on the contribution itself?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:14 PM

GUEST that started the thread actually made the comment in respect of music threads.   

As I indicated earlier, I don't think the criticism made of the Mudcat was that well-founded, however it has given rise to an intereesting enough thread, which stayed reasonably well-mannered - up until that last post by "GUEST,observer", anyway. Well, I suppose there are always going to be some like that - not that many, but too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:58 PM

GUEST that started this thread:

If you don't like it, stay out of the BS thread!!!!!!

Otherwise, shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:42 PM

And if you put Q in there instead, you get quote marks; if you put U you get underlinimg.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:40 PM

bbbbbbb


bbbbbbb

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: PoppaGator
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:32 PM

I've been away for over 24 hours, so many others have answered WLD's question to me (about those asterisks) quite adequately already. But I'll say something anyway:

Quote marks are never a problem, and the *'s are not intended as a subsititute for "'s. I picked up a practice I had seen others use in email and on various forums, to wit, using "open and close" asterisks for emphasis, like boldface and/or italics.

Thanks to McGofH, I now know how to make real italics. I suppose you can get boldface similarly, using "b" instead of "i." (Yes! It works! Let me try bold italics) I suppose I'll have to change my ways now...

I was quite surprised to see that he could get the correct bracket marks to actually print in a message, i.e., not to be "seen" as code and therefore as non-printing characters ~ I suppose it worked because they had spaces before and after: let's see if this works ~ < >.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:57 PM

well anyway if I offended anybody here , I'm sorry. You're quite right, whoever said it, its your own fault if you lose your temper.

Perhaps we all have to imagine the person's here that we are talking to. I'm sure most of us don't start rows with people who are guests in our own house.

Its all part of the trouble I guess - all this impersonal freedom and we're like nudists running through cyberspace throwing off social conventions and flaunting naked emotions. Feeling the wind between bits of thought and feeling that haven't seen the light of day in years.

all the best

Big Al

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Pauline L
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:36 PM

When a newbie posts a question and someone says, "We've discussed that before," it can sound like a put down. It may sound like, "We've done such a good job that there's nothing left to say." I favor referring to the previous discussion, giving a link, and adding new thoughts. The population of Mudcat is constantly changing, and fresh viewpoints can be very worthwhile. Also, previous contributors may have something new to add. I hope we're all capable of new thoughts. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:19 PM

Way to go Oakley - no one can argue with that!
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:07 PM

That sums it up nicely, Oak.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Oaklet
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:00 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:36 AM

Italics - you do it like (i)this(/i), Strolling Johnny - except that instead of those brackets - ) and ( - you use < and >, and it comes up like this
..............................

Requests for information aren't always just requests for minfirmation, they can be an opening to a conversation, and all kinds of unexpected infirmation and observations can arise that way. Often enough you could get the actual answer through a search engine, but that'd miss the point.

And the same goes for discussions - it may have been discussed many times before, but there are different people around this time, with different contributions to make. As WYSIWYG points out, going back and looking up previous threads is interesting in itself, and pointinh people to them is a friendly gesture most times - but it shouldn't ever be just a way of shutting up a newcomer, and occasionally it feels that way, and occasionally it is meant that way. Not at all nice.

Do people ever behave that way in the big world? "We talked about that three months ago, no point in doing it all over again."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: wysiwyg
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:59 AM

We link to the older threads not to be rude but because we see the threads as a respository for later research. "It's been discussed before" is usually meant as an encouragement to dig for gold, not as a dismissal. In my case I don;t usually have the time these days to go dig it up for someone-- but Mudcat searching has never been easier or more rewarding, as site features have imporved, so I expect people to do for themselves what many of us did in our day when we first came here. This isn't Google or an instant-help-desk; it's a preserved yet dynamic collection of contributions.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:39 AM

The nastiness quotient here (IMHP) is a tenth of what is found elsewhere among similar people on the internet with wimilar interests.

I suppose there are fewer strident back door fascists here than other places. That is not to say there are a few missionaries here but they are in such numbers as to not be a critical mass.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:14 AM

No need for a punch-up McG, just my cyberskills that are a bit lacking! Like you, my inverted commas come up as ", so I was puzzled as to what the asterisks meant. Incidentally, how does one italicise on the 'Cat??
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:56 AM

The music section can present problem to new posters - because it has been going for a long time and many long-term contributors feel they have said all they can on the subjects covered and re-covered in this time. The 'folk-singing horse' is one example that comes to mind. When someone posts this or a similar observation - for what they may think is the first time - perhaps this can just be accepted? Some folk can use this as a opportunity to adopt a tone that could be thought 'nasty'.

If a new thread appears on any well-worn subject - perhaps the best approach for long-term posters is simply to approach it as if it were the first and only time the subject has surfaced? Or ignore it - and leave it to those for whom this IS the case - to develop their own ideas? We may all even learn something new - if we do this....

There is no harm in linking to previous threads - but perhaps it would be better if this can be done after the intial contributions are made?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:58 PM

When I type in quote marks, they come up as quote marks - like "here".
And sticking in italics isn't exactly hard.

I suppose we could always start up a fight about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:32 PM

Aaaa-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-aahhh!
Thanks guys. Thought I was missing something!
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Raedwulf
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:29 PM

Asterisks are for emphasis. Not everybody has a handle on HTML, & there are many different BB's running different software. Some recognise < >, some { }, some [ ], for formatting delimiters. If you'd rather stick to plain text, * * is a fairly generic atttempt at emphasizing a given word.

Hope this helps, Johnny!

R

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:19 PM

It's been a tech problem sometimes to use quotes in an HTML environment as they are also used in HTML to make things do tricks.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:07 PM

Hey Poppagator, why do you put *certain* words in asterisks? Seen others do it too. What do *they* mean?

Sorry about the thread drift but this has me puzzled!
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: PoppaGator
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 02:46 PM

If I didn't find *most* of the participants likeable and/or amusing, I wouldn't spend as much time at Mudcat as I do. All in all, we're a pretty nice group, don'tcha think?

As I see it, most of the nastiness and ill-will manifests itself down here, "below the line," under the heading of BS. I periodically resolve to back off and remain uninvolved here, but I'm not always successful. Why?

My usual approach is to start at the top of the forum page and work down, scanning the titles of threads for subjects that might be of interest to me. Then I'll read each thread I select, and perhaps respond. Sometimes I take a while to complete a post (especially when interrupted to do work, when at work), and start over again from the top once my post has brought a thread back to the top of the list.

When the music section contains enough sufficiently lengthy threads that interest me, I stay occupied up there and never venture down to the BS basement. When too many of the music-section discussions concern subjects about which I neither know nor care, I exhaust my options too quickly, and so find myself turning to BS for my reading-and-posting fix.

Also: The recent election and the current war are subjects about which I have fairly strong opinions. I rarely if ever participated in BS until the current mess began to develop. When I do jump into such debates, I am willing to give as good as I get; I'm not surprised that some folks disagree with my point of view, and I'm not offended when they state as much ~ no matter how smart or dumb, how thoughful or nasty, I consider their approach. To those who are too thin-skinned to tolerate such criticism (and even ridicule), I say "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Finally, I must admit:

I am enamored of the sound of my own voice ~ perhaps even more with the virtual "sound" of my writing voice than with my literal/actual speaking-and-singing voice.

I don't believe I am alone in this regard. ;^)

I'm sure that this personality flaw has occasionally caused me to unintentionally offend someone, and will probably do so again; if so, please accept my apologies for all past and future transgressions.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Cllr
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 02:30 PM

Did some one mention political! oh its another guest nasty or not thread still one often descends into the other. cllr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 02:19 PM

I have posted to political threads, expressing my own opinions. Now I limit myself in this area, and also in the religion threads.

That said, I have no problems posting to MOAB and other such threads, or even starting my own. (By the way, do you know how very many thread titles can be set to the tune of "Rosin the Beau"?)

My first request was for lyrics. It was answered, and later the lyrics for the version I was seeking were also posted.

Mostly, folks here are like everyone else, except for the banjoists and accordionists. But come to think of it, every society has its sociopaths. 8-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Raedwulf
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 01:51 PM

As a notorious "Guest" basher, might I agree with McGrath to a very large degree.

Guest, you are very welcome here, and your point is very valid. But, as with the other regulars here, I also think it's largely incorrect. For the most part, you will find a very friendly & welcoming society on Mudcat, if occasionally thicker than normal skin is required.

If you 'innocently' venture into the BS section, you might get your sensibilities burned from time to time. But, as has been noted, there are very few genuinely nasty members here. Even Gargoyle is somewhat of a pussycat (albeit, one that is usually showing a few claws at least!).

But please retain your (previous) name. It makes it much easier for the rest of us to identify you & relate to you. Lack of a name is often the biggest obstacle to reasoned debate, especially when several anonymous guests contribute to the same thread. As with others, I'd also like to know when you were burnt. Most especially, I'd like to know whether, at such times, there were Mudcat members taking your side & defending you against the intolerant & rude? That's the real sign of community, I feel. Who defends you when they don't even know you? And there's plenty of community spirit on Mudcat, believe me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 12:59 PM

A relative newly reformed and contrite contributor.

But clearly some considerable way to go, judging by the post that accompanied that one.

I don't really agree with Sorcha about "the political threads. People who feel like being unpleasant can be that way anywhere. Just because a thread centres round some political issue - and politics can mean just about anything - is no reason for anyone to conduct the discussion in a discourteous or uncontrolled manner. Conversely, just because a discussion is about music or song hasn't ruled out a downward spiral on occasion.

People often talk about how someone else has made them lose their temper, as if the responsibility lies out there somewhere, but that's nonsense. The only person who can make us lose our temper is ourself. And the way that this means of communication is structured makes it simple enough to keep on the level, compared to face to face conversation thanks to the inbuilt delay.

On the other hand, of course, it makes it easier to insult other people in a way we might be inhibited from doing in a face to face disagreement, and we're that sort of person. But most people aren't that sort, fortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: My guru always said
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:12 AM

Glad I understood you LF, isn't it easy to misunderstand things though?

Also easy to get drawn into discussions that can go from bad to worse in the space of seconds, just by a word wrong here or there. From this keyboard it's hard to identify how thick or thin a person's skin is, or whether they mean what they have written quite literally. Could also be a difference in translation as we are a world-wide community.

I echo greg's request to our original GUEST poster of this thread, though it will be difficult to be certain that any GUEST's reply will be from our original GUEST poster in view of the lack of identification. What a tricky method of communication this is...

To borrow another's 'tag-line',
Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Leadfingers
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:01 AM

Thanks Guru - I was going to reply to Guy's post in like vein . Comment NOT aimed at this thread , but at the way people respond to obvious Troll and Flamers!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 07:43 AM

GUEST who started this thread: could you be a little more specific, and let us have a look at the relevant thread with the reply that annoyed you, so that we can know what you are talking about. And can I also second McGrath's request that you identify yourself...there is so much unpleasantness associated with anonymous GUESTS that the very appearance of the word GUEST can annoy some people! So as this is a thread about being nice to each other, do please use your name.
   And finally, there is some very unpleasant stuff sometimes on Mudcat, but it is also chockful of friendliness, erudition, wit and general camerarderie, and that is why loads of us keep coming back for more.
Cheers
Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: My guru always said
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:59 AM

Isn't it strange though how stuff written in black & white can be interpreted in different ways by different people through no-one's fault really?

For instance Leadfingers posted above:

I have said it before and will no doubt have cause to say it again - If the regular sensible (Sometimes) people in here did NOT respond to the obvious wind up trolling , there would be a lot less nastiness !

This was quickly responded to by Guy Wolffe as follows:

Leadfingers . I did not recognise this as trolling . Interesting . Thanks for the perspective . All the best , guy

Now, call me naive, but I thought that LF's comment wasn't being specific about this thread, but on threads in general. But it seems from the response that Guy think's LF is talking about this discussion particularly. Or have I misunderstood?

Either way, isn't it easy to read the words wrong????

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Teresa
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 02:18 AM

Not to gloss over the nastiness, but I gained a little perspective after perusing Usenet newsgroups. Talk about the "Big, bad Internet". When I came back here, everyone seemed like pussycats by comparison.

Of course, we shouldn't aspire to be like the Usenet nasties.

In order to stay on Internet boards, I've learned that I must develop calluses. The bad words from people I don't know, I take with a grain of salt. The good words can only be encouraging.

The times I've been truly hurt, it's been from people I do know, since they know which buttons to push. And, of course, I've been on the opposite end of that equation, too. fortunately, in those cases, I can work it out with friends.

With trolls, it's best not to feed them. If someone says something and no one responds, it falls right off the board, especially in this format.

Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 11:44 PM

Sorcha - I am glad to read that you "have mended your ways." However, in the past you have been one of the all-time worst "flamers" In particular to threads with a political bend.

Sincerely,

Gargoyle

A relative newly reformed and contrite contributor.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Nastiness
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 11:01 PM

And, please please notice that you will not see quite a few of us in the nasty threads. I could name names, but I won't. I'll just say that I'm one of the Absent Ones. I am usually absent on the political threads too.