Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:23 AM

I see some of you feel more comfortable attacking the messenger than addressing the messenger's points raised. Typical.

Doesn't bother me though. Just let's me know that the points I'm making are being perceived as threatening enough to certain Mudcat status quo warriors, that they "ignore" me by responding to my posts.

You go, el greko. If you want to ignore me, go right ahead. But why make a point of telling me and the rest the world, and make a fool of yourself?

Self-control issues perhaps?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:29 AM

Guest, if you were reachable by PM you might have been included in an attempt to formulate a proposal to deal with this situation. Just because people don't answer you or post in agreement does not mean your viewpoint is not being considered.

I happen to disagree that JM is a troll. He posts so seldom it just doesn't fit a troll profile. He posts a request for information, shares a link to a sound sample (usually), gives personal contact info if people prefer not to give their replies in the thread, and lets the thread go if no one responds.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:39 AM

Actually Susan, his posting history shows that he has requested information and provided links to information consistently--and been largely ignored by the majority here. I don't think he likes that, hence him raising the ante with the thread titles.

Is there some reason why he needs to be handled with kid gloves? Given such special treatment for posting sexist crap? Sure they are "traditional" in the sense that these sorts of songs have been sung for millenia on the fringes of civilized societies and uncivilized societies.

So what's the point? Just what sort of response is this guy looking for? That we all pay attention to him and his dirty ditties, that's what.

Is there a law that says we're all supposed to accomodate his obsession with dirty ditties, just because this is a forum for the discussion of traditional music? I don't think so, but I know some peoples' mileage will vary. Especially those that like to shock by posting and discussing the good ole boys' proclivities to sing dirty little ditties. Or racist little ditties.

Like I said earlier--yawn. I am actually quite thankful that anonymity keeps me out of the shadow forum's PM loop. These censorship debates and attention seeking behaviors are bad enough in the forum itself.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:52 AM

Guest, is it that you want to control JM's behavior?

Also, what does it matter what his motives are? Do his motives control anyone else?

I don't see an upping of the ante. I see song info requests that a lot of people are sensitive about, on the side of free expression as much as on the side of concern.

How does that make it impossible for people who are NOT so sensitive about it, to think flexibly and perhaps discern a possible opportunity for consensus?

Aren't some things in life basically just challenges to our problem-solving abilities?

Sure, outrage is possible, but my experience in working with people in all kinds of settings is that when outrage becomes umbrage, one is not thinking most powerfully.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 12:06 PM

Hey folks-
In a very real sense Mudcat is a SOURCE--for anyone wishing to use it.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 12:19 PM

Susan, why are you assuming that the voicing of an opinion of the guy and his behavior here, which is what everyone else in the thread is doing, is the expression of a desire to control others?

That is one pretty bizarre assumption.

And why are you so bent on portraying this as an either/or control issue? That by posting here, either I'm trying to control him, or by him posting here, I am perceiving him as trying to control me?

That is even more bizarre.

And why do you assume I care about Mudcat posters "reaching consensus"? I could give two hoots.

Also, don't assume that because someone articulates an opinion, that they are outraged. I'm not outraged. I'm not angry. I don't care how this person and his dirty ditty posting is dealt with. I'm just shooting from the hip here like everyone else posting here.

Get over yourself.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 12:29 PM

I don't have the slightest objection to John Mehlberg. If he's a troll, then I only wish all internet trolls were like him. At least his posts appear to largely provoke an intelligent discussion, rather than highly polarized, mindless, vitriolic name-calling thinly disguised under a facade of debate (e.g. the attitude of too many posters in the thread with the three letters B, N, & P in the title).

I do, however, hope that some of the less impassioned Mudcat members have taken the trouble to privately point out to him the valid arguments about the use of profanity in thread titles, & how it may prove counter-productive to his research if he continues in the same way. It doesn't bother me in the slightest (I'm with CH - a word is just a word), but I can understand the points raised. No-one has to concede anything, but "BAWDY: The Motherlovers Dance" would almost certainly have been just as productive, & would not have generated so much associated hot air...

As for Guest 11:23 & 11:39, the attitudes & general contempt for Mudcat displayed in your posts generate at least as much ire in many named members as Mr Mehlberg does. So perhaps you might also wonder if you're getting your point across as well as you might wish?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 12:45 PM

If you are able to articulate a response to me Raedwulf, then I must assume I'm getting my points across just fine. I'm a curmudgeonly sort, who does hold many of the posters and forum moderators in contempt. That much of what you say is true. But so what?

If people want to read what I post, they do, if they don't, they don't. If they respond to what I post, fine. If they don't, fine.

This is an internet chat forum. Some of us don't get our knickers bunched up over what complete strangers to us say in response to what we post.

I am all too well aware of the fact that annoys the living shit out of some of you.

C'est la guerre.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 12:45 PM

Guest, I did not assume-- I ASKED. You responded defensively, based on your own assumptions, and then closed by attacking me. WHo is the troll?

~S~

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:00 PM

Give it a rest Susan.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: breezy
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:05 PM

I am offended by seeing profanity blatantly diplayed on thread titles on the mudcat.

It is not censorship that would be applicable here as the content, sentiment and opinions would be unaffected.

A little more taste and respect for decency and other peoples values is all that is expected.

Barbara , you have lead a sheltered life, I heard most of these songs when at college, and I have never drunk cider since.In fact didnt I once hear you singing...

Thanks for your support everyone,its not acceptable to allow things to go unchecked, but it does take character to confront that which you deem to be inappropriate no matter where you see or hear it, as my students will testify to.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:20 PM

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that not putting profanities in the thread titles isn't going trip us all up. This John guy just needs a little tutoring in how to write a short, pithy, and accurate description that fits in the title line. So how in hell did this get overblown into yet another bloody battle over the Mudcat censor?

Is it too much to ask that we not put the nasty words in titles, if we ask each other nicely? Who here wants the lyrics John is posting to be censored? Why this high drama and hysteria over such trifling matters?

Why, when so many members who frequent this place have simply complained that having one of the seven+ (depending upon your level of dainty sensibilities) naughty words on the front page gets caught in the censorship filters, and defacto locking them out of the forum, can't everyone just agree that makes perfect sense and then have your beloved Mudcat censors edit out any offending words for the good of all concerned?

Why the calls for censorship? Why can't there just be a bloody decision by the damn forum moderator to keep the nasties out of the thread titles, so more people don't get filtered out of the forum? Instead of leaving this whole thing open to discussion and hysteria mongering?

Joe, why not just make a damn decision--it's what you always do anyway, usually with your head up your ass, like it is today.

Jaysus, some days I think people here couldn't find their way out of a paper bag.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberg
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:39 PM

Well, my decision is to leave John's titles just the way John posted them. That's what I said from the very beginning. The general procedure is that the title of the song should be in the title of the thread - it makes things so much easier to find. However, if John wants to change things a bit in the way he titles threads, I'm not going to stop him.

As usual, I'm open to disagreement - because I'm going to get it, whether I want it or not.

I highly doubt that a three-year-old is going to be seriously harmed by reading the word "motherfucker" in a thread title. The argument that some filters won't allow access because of the bad words is a concern, but I'm not ready to consent to Victorian euphemisms because of it - I'm open to change on that one, though. What are you people doing Mudcat at work for, anyhow? Still, libraries and educational institutions often do use Mudcat as a reference, and I'd hate to have them blocked by a naughty word in the Forum Menu. But honestly, how often does that happen?

By the way, I have to say that personally, I think John Mehlberg is a fine fellow. I have no objection to John Mehlberg whatsoever. I don't know who the f*** John Mehlberger is.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:16 PM

"What are you people doing Mudcat at work for, anyhow?"

Joe, everyone doesn't have a computer at home.

And there are some jobs where people can legitimately go online and-yes- even surf the Internet and visit non-employment related sites such as Mudcat during work time and not just during their lunch breaks.

For instance at one point in my last 9 to 5 position, I had to call a small number of folks and respond to calls from other folks. When I wasn't doing that I just sat there...I would have been bored as all getout if I hadn't had Mudcat to keep me company in between those in-coming calls.

And for the record, since I'm posting on this thread, I am concerned that folks using library computers might be blocked access to this site because of the titles John uses.

I agree with others who have recommended that John use more discretion out of consideration for that population if not others.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:35 PM

I too wish that John would use more discression out of consideration of those being blocked by their system's "profanity filters". Or simply out of consideration for those among us (me included) who for cultural or whatever reasons are offended seeing such words in the title.

But what if he wants to be inconsiderate and continue? In such case, I do not advocate that we block him altogether. I would prefer Joe and the clones to edit such titles by adding some prefix that we could use easily for ignoring such messages (Susan, I know I can use individual words for that in the filter, but how many? I would have to think ahead of the next distasteful use of a word; it's a losing game).

However, Joe made it clear that he does not wish to edit the titles; OK, his decision. I'll have to live with that.

It does strike me that John's choice of forum for researching such songs is not a good one though. We already said that such songs do not get aired in folk clubs or the usual folk music circles; surely he should be researching among Army Veterans and Rugby clubs?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:36 PM

Hey, I used to work for a living. I'm glad it isn't something I have to do any more.

I used to do Mudcat while I was waiting for people to return my business phone calls - but I was working out of my home and on my own computer, because my government agency employer was too cheap to give me an office. I do think though, that if your employer has a profanity filter, perhaps that's a message from your employer that you're not supposed to be doing Mudcat on company time or on company computers...

And I still think that John Mehlberg is a fine fellow.

Will "motherfu**cker" bypass the filters?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: nutty
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM

if your employer has a profanity filter, perhaps that's a message from your employer that you're not supposed to be doing
Mudcat on company time or on company computers...

That's a very convenient way of thinking, Joe, it really justifies your decision to do nothing.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:19 PM

Also, it does not hold for libraries.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:30 PM

Filters are customized by the powers that be that institute them. Joe, as usual you have come down on the idiotic side. Your decision is hostile and a flipping off of the people who access from libraries and schools.

But then, your decision doesn't surprise me either. I've grown quite accustomed to your passive aggressive hostility towards people. Especially those who dare to call you out for being a jerk.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberg
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:37 PM

Hey, that stuff about the Mudcat at work is just an observation. But Nutty, do you have a problem Mudcatting because a profanity filter interferes? My real reason for not changing the thread title is that I think threads about songs should reflect the song title, and I don't like the idea of messing with song titles.

The "surfing at work" argument has some merit - but note that those worksurfers are also blocked form viewing some of the index pages of the Digital Tradition because some of the DT songs have nasty words in their titles. And of course, many other Mudcat pages are blocked because of a stray naughty word here and there. So, how far do we go? Do we have to live our lives by the rules of a few profanity filters?

And are there THAT many workplaces that have profanity filters that are so fussy? Did somebody hire my prudish ex-wife to program them all? How about it? Can people who actually do have this problem speak up? If it is a problem that blocks you from Mudcat access, say so.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:46 PM

The filters usually just pick up the front page (in this case the forum front page) when looking for profanity.

Like I said--if your decision is to risk blocking access to the site from schools and libraries (and leaving peoples' workplace out of it entirely) you are GOD around here, and no one can argue with GOD. As you have made so plain to many of us over the years.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:05 PM

EUREKA! A SOLUTION THAT SHOULD PLEASE EVERONE (except for a couple of GUESTS)

This is a two-part solution.

a) Posters of threads with naughty words in the title shall preface the title with BAWDY:

b) Folks who object to naughty words in titles can click on the filter to avoid any threads so prefaced.

Anyone have a problem with this? I'm sure that Mr Mehlberg will be happy to comply, and I guess Joe or a clone could add the prefix to titles that need it but don't have it.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:29 PM

Ayup. Sounds disgustingly reasonable, Dick. I don't know how to do "filter OUT" filter links, but Jeff can whip one up in a second-and-a-half that will eliminate every thread title with a bawdy tag in it.

If there's a need for it, there could be a bawdy filter link on our www.mudcat.org page.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:05 PM

Thank you dick greenhaus, for a very practical solution, which will take of all reasonable arguments that have been raised here. And nobody who doesnt wish to see a rude word will have to. I hope this can be implemented easily. I fear Joe Offer is right, though, it is not a solution that will appeal to all the sh*t-stirrers (there, I didnt use a rude word).

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: John M.
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:29 PM

Joe Offer,

As I understood Dick Greenhaus' over the phone, in our mudcat registration we will have a checkbox option for filtering out all forum threads with BAWDY: in them just as we have a checkbox option of eliminating all BS threads from the forum.

This way all REGISTERED users who want to filter bawdy items will be able to automatically filter out these threads.

This sounds good to me. And the title of the songs will not have to be changed...which what I didn't and don't want to do...but sensitive ears will be protected from all Bawdy: threads.

Always yours,

John Mehlberg

Subject: RE: Objection to John Mehlberg
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:04 PM

Gee, Dick was busy on the phone today. He called me, too. He doesn't know if he should be pleased about his reputation for singing naughty songs, but he thinks he is. I told him I've heard more dirty songs from him in the last ten years, than I've heard from everybody else combined - but that Dick sings only clever dirty songs, which is the godshonesttruth.

But anyhow, there are a couple of technical problems with using "bawdy" as a tag, so we're trying to think of another. I'm inclined toward "pg13."

I'm not sure that it will be a cookie-enabled filter like our "BS" filter. That takes some tech work, and it won't work for those who aren't logged in whith a cookie. But we can come up with a filter link in a couple of days that will do the trick. I'll leave the matter open for discussion until Saturday, and then ask that you give us a few days after that to come up with the goods.

And Dick agreed with me that John Mehlberg is a fine fellow.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:48 PM

I have had correspondence with John Mehlberg and I agree his seems a nice enough bloke.

I do not find words offensive at all. No way, no how. That sort of thing went out with Marie Lloyd. The objector was the quaintly and appropriately named Mrs. Ormiston Chant of the Purity Party.

See: http://www.amaranthdesign.ca/musichall/past/lloyd.htm
for the details of this.

Serious researcher.

Best regards,

Dave

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 10:25 PM

And of course, the "PG13" filter will do nothing for those who will still be blocked from the site if posting from libraries and schools with filters.

You guys are fucking rocket scientists all right. Those of you who all agreed with one another apparently spent the afternoon coming up with this fine "solution".

Boys will be boys, and around here that testosterone is SACROSANCT.

---

And of course, if you go to www.mudcat.org and click the filter link, the Forum Menu will come up with the pg13 threads filtered out. With the pg13 threads filtered out, it should get past the profanity filters. No, it's not a perfect solution, but it should work.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:14 PM

Dear J. M.

It has been several years since the MC has seriously discussed the DT.

You appear, to have blessings of DT Pope...and the MC Cardinal...the final one to "check-in" (since it IS his play-pen) will be:

MAX!!!!

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

80 years from now ... your recordings could become part of the "Library of Congress"

P.S. - Mr. Greenhouse - in the "early days" once gave me his personal "blessing" also....

Carry-on Kindred Soul!!!

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:26 AM

As an interesting side issue on this thread, it appears that some American(and possibly British too?) do not allow access to material containing the word "fuck" (among others). The Lady Chatterley's Lover trial happened in 1963(or thereabouts)...does this censorship still persist? I find this incredible.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Peace
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 03:00 AM

"But then, your decision doesn't surprise me either. I've grown quite accustomed to your passive aggressive hostility towards people. Especially those who dare to call you out for being a jerk."

Talk about passive aggressive hostility.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 04:02 AM

Brucie,
Must have been the same one that accused me of having self-control issues for asking it to state in full its grudge for having been censored in the past :-)

Good solution Dick; not 100% perfect perhaps, but hey, it's not a perfect world.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:26 AM

So, any other ideas? What words won't get past the profanity filters?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:35 AM

One thing I can think of Joe is to have a separate thread index for "BAWDY:...", so that the titles do not appear on the main page, with a link from the main page for those who want to visit it.

That would require virtual duplication of most of the functions of the main index/page; it might be too hard work. But it would be the most foolproof method. It would take away the problem of access from libraries/schools etc, and also the problem of people being offended by seeing the bawdy titles staring them in the face. Anyone who wants to visit the Bawdy Index would be able to do so separately and explicitly.

However, that may mean then that this index would get very few hits.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:20 AM

The practical problem is just preventing libraries and schools etc from blocking access. The over-sensitive way some are set-up it may not always be possible to get around them - but that does not mean the effort should not be made.

Please, please let us have this issue used as an excuse for more imposed control and censorship - this end.

If it is just these words in thread titles that are presenting the problem to profanity filters - then perhaps we can first ourselves just not use these words in titles and try (by setting this example) to encouurage others not to?

{This for practical reasons - not of morality or taste.}

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:37 AM

On the subject of imposed censorship.

I am not too sure why any threads on this matter needed to be closed.

I am pretty amazed that as two were closed and given a choice of three thread tiles - this was the one that was chosen to remain.

I have no objection to John Mehlberger nor any other poster. I probably do have an objection to threads being started that have a poster's name and invitations for fellow posters to pass their personal judgement.

Perhaps a better example can be set?

---

Actually, I preferred the thread titled "Objections to The M---F--- Ball, but the primary discussion ended up in the Mehlberger thread that the three-thread split ended up in a confusingly trifurcated discussion. The choice was made according to the content of the thread, not the title. Since we needed to get opinions to solve a problem, it seemed to make sense to channel all three into a single thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: kendall
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:56 AM

What is so difficult about posting ones opinion without resorting to name calling? When you sink to that level you are saying much more about you than about your target.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:15 AM

I don't know Kendall.

Maybe you should ask Big Mick or Spaw?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:26 AM

Big John sez (revealingly):

"This way all REGISTERED users who want to filter bawdy items will be able to automatically filter out these threads.

This sounds good to me. And the title of the songs will not have to be changed...which what I didn't and don't want to do...but sensitive ears will be protected from all Bawdy: threads."

Yes, that is right. REGISTERED members only. I'm sure you are delighted with the outcome.

However, anyone who might just be doing research on traditional music from schools and libraries may well never reach the site to be enlightened by your tittie dittie thread titles.

Thank you for furthering the cause of "serious research" here at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: John M.
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:25 AM

What we have is a conflict of traditions. 

One of the traditions is, when one wants to post a new song to digital tradition, one uses the form to post the song title and a example text of the song.  See here:  Google search of MudCat "Lyr Add" threads  

The other tradition is that -- for filter reasons and for not offending other people sensibilities -- is the tradition of dash expurgating words:  "fuck" becomes "f---", "nigger" becomes "n-----"

As others have said, "Motherfucker" and "Motherf----er" are not the same to either the computer filters or to most humans.  I could not follow the first tradition and follow the second tradition.   I chose the song title as it would give me an opportunity to *talk* with people who still actively know and sing this song.

Yes, I knew I would be offending people if I posted the unexpurgated title of the song and I knew from a previous song thread 'Eat, Bite, Fuck, Suck' that people would be posting their objections to the unexpurgated song title to the thread itself and causing the "offending" words to be at the top of the forum. Since I did not want any posts to 'The Motherfucker's Ball' that are NOT relevant to the song and I didn't want to unnecessarily have the "offending" word at the top of the forum, I came up with the solution of starting two threads "The Motherfucker's Ball" and "Objections to The Motherf---er's Ball". 

If I was a "shit disturber" as some have said, I would have had only one unexpurgated thread which I kept "refreshing" by responding to the objections.    If I was a "troll", I could have kept this going for days.  Sorry I don't enjoy the controversy around the song or the song's title.  I even called Dick to apologize for causing him and Joe problems.

Joe & Dick have come up with the "pg13" filtered forum list proposal which should allow for the posting of song titles and not offend anyone who wants to filter or is being filtered at work.   This sounds like a great idea and I will be just to place the pg13 preface to objectionable thread titles.

Joe, do you have a list of words which should be pg13?   Is this designation for just the titles or to be used for the content of the song also (see Uncle Bud)?   Joe is the pg13 filtered list to be the DEFAULT for the forum or will those who want to have (or need) filtering have to click a special link?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:25 AM

Thanks to Dick Greenhaus and Joe Offer for proposing a reasonable solution to this so-called "problem".

As to the general use of profanity, I think any child over the age of 5 or 6 is exposed to this at school! Otherwise how does any of us recognize them as "bad" words?


In this world,War, murder, rape, disenfranchisement, persecution of minorities:

I think that these are all more serious transgressions than *words* .

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:32 AM

Is the word "fuck" more sacred in one form than another?

fuck is fuck.

parts is parts.

And this thread is about double standards.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:50 AM

Smoke and screens! The 'proposed solution' will not solve the problem of the profanity in thread titles causing non-member posters from being denied access to the forum, if they are using computers in most libraries and schools.

I am a school librarian. I know whereof I speak. In a head up their asses ignorance of just how much profanity filtering is now done by libraries and schools (all kinds of schools, including colleges, universities, technical schools, etc), and how those filters will block user access to this website, the Mudcat pope hath decided that potential blocking of new users from the site is the price to be paid to protect the sacred rights of the Tittie Dittie man.

Let's hear it for the infallibility of the Mudcat pope.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 12:39 PM

Just to give one example of one of my recent attempts to do an innocuous web search that was blocked by my district's filters:

"X-country".

Yup. We (two astounded honors students and I) tried and tried and tried getting around the district's filter in our google search using "X-..." words and couldn't do it. Any educated guesses why?

Here is yet another mind fuck from the school censors:

While attempting a google search for an AP economics class project, my students discovered our district censors had blocked access to Bloomberg's website for financial news. Bloomberg bills itself as being in the top five trafficked financial sites on the web (along with WSJ, etc).

When I called the district censor's office to gently suggest we make a quick adjustment that would allow the economics students to gain access to one of the web's major financial news and information sites for their research paper, I was of course slapped down by the district Vogon, and told she absolutely would not allow access to Bloomberg without the proper paperwork being submitted with proper documentation--and even then it isn't likely the site would be made accessible because--wait for it--"we don't block web sites without good reason for doing so."

That is the battle we on the frontlines of anti-censorship are fighting, every damn day of the week.

I am adamantly opposed to the censorship of actual content here. But it is idiotic not to take into account the profanity filters and the use of most common filter-trigger words in thread titles.

The heads up their asses Mudcat powers that be are coming down on the side of a much greater form of censorship in their rush to protect the Tittie Dittie man and his sacred sexist lyrics. They will, by imposing this "compromise" upon the forum, be censoring an untold number of potential new visitors to the DT and Mudcat, who won't be able to get here because the profanity in thread titles here will automatically trigger the profanity filters on the library and school computers millions of people use for their access to the web.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:24 PM

Jeysus, you asshole, you still around? Don't you get a break for a shitlick or something?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:36 PM

Let's hear it for the inability of school librarians to read.

I answered our anonymous school librarian long before the librarian even posted the question, and then I answered it again in a brown comment, when the question was raised. I have already added a "pg13" tag to all the "fuck" threads - we have about ten of them. I have asked Jeff to put a filter link on the Mudcat Home Page, www.mudcat.org. With that link, you will be able to filter out all of the "pg13" threads, whether you are registered or not. Jeff has other things to do with his life sometimes, so it may take him a few days to give us a filter link. If Jon or somebody wants to post a "filter-out" link for us before Jeff gets to it, that would be nice. I forget how to do it.

Note, however, that in the 8-plus years of Mudcat existence, we may have had profanity-filter-sensitive words active on the Forum Menu for a total of maybe 45 days. 45 days of profanity filtering over 8 years is not what I think of as a huge problem. I suppose this isn't going to be a perfect solution - no doubt, somebody's profanity filter is going to stick on "cock" when we're referring to roosters - but it's something we can do to help. I suppose we could set and enforce rules for wording of thread titles, but I don't want to get tied up in more of this petty censorship squabbling. Last time I went down that purple path was when we had a thread on "vagina voters" that some people objected to, and then I got all jumped over when I tried to satisfy the objectors. I believe our librarian will recall that brouhaha.

Anyhow, I'm looking for a list of words that are commonly stopped by profanity filters, so I can add a "pg13" tag to threads that have those dirty little words in them. Can anybody give me a list?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST,Lighter at work
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:46 PM

John Mehlberg is picking up exactly where the late Gershon Legman left off in documenting and clarifying anonymous songs that have circulated almost entirely by word of mouth. (That makes them more-or-less traditional, as others have observed, and therefore fit for discussion on Mudcat.)

Based on his own work as well as Vance Randolph's song collecting in the Ozarks, Legman estimated that roughly 15% of all folk songs were overtly concerned with "taboo" subjects.

How do you study a subject honestly while ignoring and suppressing roughly one out of every six or seven instances of it ?

What is more disturbing than Mehlberg's rowdy material is that we now have a Mudcat thread devoted specifically to the abuse of a serious researcher and song collector. That's quite a precedent. Along with what appears to be the majority of Mudcat posters, Joe has decided that Mehlberg's posts have not been inappropriate for this forum - except perhaps in the number of essentially useless asterisks that might or might not be used. So why the need for personal abuse ?

Regardless of the asterisk question, Mehlberg's only sin has been in trying to extend our knowledge of rebellious "folk tastes" in directions that make some 'Catters feel uncomfortable. Those who think his energies are misplaced may register their honest opinion and then look for more comforting Web sites if they wish.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:58 PM

Oh please, get off your sanctimonious high horse. Do you really think this clown has been trying to bring something to our attention we weren't all aware of--for years, for chrissake? I can't believe any one who posts here regularly or uses the DT regularly, is unaware of the existence of the traditional dirty ditty. Give me fucking break.

As to abusing serious researchers and song collectors--there is a long Mudcat tradition of that one as well. Folk song researchers and collectors aren't the bleedin' messiah, and shouldn't be given any more respect than they have extended to the forum.

This guy has struck me all along as being an arrogant bore and a jerk, who gets a secret kick out of trying to shock people with juvenile, testosterone 'fuck the bitch' songs. Whooppee. We're so fucking enlightened. Or would you prefer we be shocked?

Here's my beef--I find the work he does to be a bloody bore. I don't want to be preached at, and all I want now is for Joe Offer to learn something about the fucking filters.

It's the URL, stupid.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM

OK, so I think I learned what I needed to learn about the "fucking filters," and I added this to the first message of the FAQ.

---

The Filter

(searching by thread title)
Toward the top of the Mudcat Forum main menu (click here), you'll see a "filter" box - put an appropriate word in the box and set the age to whatever is appropriate to cover the period you want to search. Click the grey "reset" button, and all threads with that word in the title should appear (a "thread" is a series of forum messages, posted on a specific topic). Here's a filter box you can try:

Filter	Age
	1 Days -------------- 1 Day 3 Days 7 Days 14 Days 30 Days 90 Days 180 Days 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years All	Filter Out	Help

---

Note: The forum menu is set to display all threads for which messages have been posted in the last 24 hours. If your thread has disappeared, please don't start a new one. Just use the "filter" or "search the forum" links on the main forum menu, and pull your thread up and post a new message in that thread - that will bring your thread up for another 24 hours. Your new message can be just the word "refresh" if you have nothing else to add.
If you're viewing Mudcat from work or a library or another location that has a "profanity filter" on its computers, you may not be able to view our Forum Menu if we happen to have a so-called "naughty word" in a thread title. We've tried to tag these titles "pg13." If your profanity filter blocks your access, try putting pg13 in the Filter box and check the "filter out" box.

---

---

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:17 PM

100