 sj |
||
|
||
Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
Related threads:
When will Mudcat clean up its act? (225)
Profanty filter another form of censorship (41) (closed)
Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball' (84) (closed)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 05 - 06:08 AM I am not so sure we are - all roads lead to Rome. But OK. Problem with thread titles Objections to Joe Offer
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 05 - 05:41 AM You're probably right, Roger. I think my thread title editing box has a three or four more spaces than the thread creation box has. The number of spaces is somewhat arbitrary. -Joe Offer- A lot of things regarding censorship here - are somewhat arbitrary. Joe - am I right or am I just probably right? For it is indeed a fact that I cannot squeeze your longer (imposed) thread title into the box. If I am right - perhaps if us ordinary posters were given - even the extra three or four spaces that appears to be available to you and your anonymous volunteers - more informative thread titles could be given by ordinary posters? This measure would perhaps help ensure that there was liitle need or excuse for you or your anonymous volunteers to impose longer thread titles upon fellow posters, without the originator's knowledge or permission?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: John M. Date: 04 May 05 - 06:47 PM Joe Offer, Is there any way to covered the filter box in this message to a URL ? Joe we need a filtered forum link that looks like the following: This way people who have workplace filters could access the pg13 filtered form without using a form and you could place a "filtered forum" link on the front page of www.mudcat.org.
By the way, not that lyrics from your Website answered a question from Amos in this thread (click). -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: greg stephens Date: 04 May 05 - 05:48 PM John Mehlberg: thanks for checking in and posting. Rest assured that your research into this interesting topic is noticed and appreciated here. Apart from the postings of "Nutty", and the usual GUEST stirrers, I think everyone here is trying to have a reasonable discussion to balance the opinions of free speech addicts, folk song researchers, people with natural reservations about extreme language, and people using libraries etc which impose some funny censorships schemes. We can solve this, because the vast majority are treating it with good will. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: dick greenhaus Date: 04 May 05 - 05:44 PM Mr. Bowdler! Mr. Bowdler! Where are you when we need you? John Mehlberg--I'm not sure I understand your objection to the pg13 scheme. Do you really think that those who choose to block out these titles will be contributing to the thtreads you start? What I think would help is a means for those who wish to avoid the dirty words (or to keep them away from the kiddies) to preset the filter so that it stays on without having to be reset each time. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: wysiwyg Date: 04 May 05 - 05:19 PM John, people have done it a certain way when they have posted, that seems to have worked for MMario-- and I think his school district's filters are pretty tough. That is, the consonants in the "sensitive" appear intact but the vowels are dashed or asterisked. (F-ck, f-cking) We can but try and see what happens. If you do post a thread title that way, please remember to change the subject ine of the first post (or a later post) so the for-real, intact title WILL appear if someone looks for it on a Supersearch. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: John M. Date: 04 May 05 - 05:03 PM I also think that the new pg13 filter, the way it is currently implemented, is inadequate. I currently have two dirty ditties "Hymn, Hymn, Fuck Him" (trad.) and "I Hate Your Fucking Face" (trad?) which I would like to post to mudcat. But the way the pg13 filter works everyone who needs (or wants) to avoid the dirty song titles will have to know about the posts BEFORE they are posted otherwise they will be blocked from the threads. I am beginning to think that dash expurgating the song titles are is the only "solution" to the filter problem. The question remains will "f-ck" also be picked up by library filters? Will "f---"? Should I just go with "How I hate your ----ing Face"? |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Abby Sale Date: 04 May 05 - 04:20 PM Bill D- All points well taken. I think that's why I didn't post to this thread but to the shorter one which was nearly all "Objection to JohnMehlberger." It's now conjoined here, of course. I think highly of Mehlberg. I am also forced, very reluctantly, to agree that propriety counts. I sang the "real" version of "Serafina" at our club recently (having asked permission of the crowd - I'll accept that I back off if even one objects). A few days later I sang at a public Earth Day event at a State park. The event was billed as "family oriented" so I had to accept I was, as it were, visiting someone else's house where rules were posted. But "Serafina's" a good chantey with a catchy tune. So I announced the song and asked people to sing along. One lady who'd been at the club shouted "I'm not singing along on that one!" I assured her I knew where I was and I'd adjusted the words some. So she believed me and sang and everybody enjoyed it. Except me, really - it was thinned and weakened and I'd copped out. But it was still a good song and a catchy tune so what the fuck. I just mention this to show I'm not totally inflexable and insensative. I also see I made a small error when I wrote that such songs "were not suitable for children." That should really continue: "in some countries." Not in the UK or US, perhaps. Especially the US. But there is nothing biological about this - it's a cultural norm. There's nothing Harmful about bawdry unless adults create guilt and perversion and all that stuff. Even the Bible enjoys occasional erotic material. The problem with libraries is awkward. I know that libraries must comply with the demands and morality of the citizens that pay for the library - they are its bosses. I also know that really few librarians are staid "Marians." Most seem to detest all forms of censorship. Whatever they personally read, they'd have all knowledge available to all. Good luck to them. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: RobbieWilson Date: 04 May 05 - 03:57 PM I have just been able to read this thread now, as I can't do it at school. The pge13 filter may work for me personally, I don't know as I cant test it till back in school. I have used mudcat as an example of a discussion forum and would think it a shame if it was not open for students to discover the wonders of mudcat. The problem with the opt in filter is that obviously you need to know about it to use it and so these thread titles can still prevent people from discovering the cat. A more reasonable version might ne that you have to opt in to the profane option; a top shelf as it were so that the default settings do not lock out new or inexperienced users. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 May 05 - 03:06 PM If that was a serious question, Roger, I think there is little left to say. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 02:47 PM Were you serious about that? I simply asked a question. I have just tried to squeeze this (imposed) thread title into the 'create a new thread box' - and it won't fit................
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST Date: 04 May 05 - 02:33 PM As a librarian in a school library, my ONLY objection has been to the use of the swear/curse words in thread titles. The reason I object to it is because most public libraries and schools now have profanity filters. If the library/school you are posting from does have those filters, those filters will pick up the words like "motherfucker" in thread titles, because the thread titles page is the front page to the forum. I realize that the forum home page is not the website home page, but the filters don't. So when a person goes to click on the second link at google that is indented under the www.mudcat.org home page when doing a google search for "folk song lyrics" here is what I mean: Google search for "folk song lyrics" the first hit is to the Mudcat home page, but the indented second hit says "Digital Tradition Folk Song Database" but the actual URL is to the forum home page. So, if a person working from a computer with a filter clicks on the DT page link, and there are words like "motherfucker" in the thread titles, the filter will block the users access to the site. So, you will, if you keep the profane word in the thread title, block some users from gaining access to the site until that word falls off the front page. All that needs to happen to insure you don't block out users with profanity filters (like many library and school users), is have the Joe Clones watching the thread titles, and doing whatever it is you agree to do to remove the offending word and either substitute another word using a code (you could show the code at the top of the forum home page), or whatever. The way it works with our profanity filters is that if you can get past the home page into the site, even with profane words on sub-pages, the filters won't block your access. So it's a question of just being sure people can get into the forum home page. While I agree you can't possibly adjust to all the possibilities of how filters are set (and who would want THAT thankless job), you can certainly avoid the "most commonly used" profanity words, and insure that most people can get to the site even when there are threads with bawdy lyrics. As to the people who are offended by bawdy lyrics in their presence, I say fuck 'em. We're adults. Don't like profanity and bawdy lyrics and chat, then don't come here. As to the actual value of bawdy songs to "the tradition" I'm not convinced. While some are clever and funny, most aren't. People need to remember that these are songs usually performed when people are drunk/drinking their way to drunkeness. Quality does tend to suffer under those circumstances and you don't usually get the best of the tradition--though you do often get the worst of humanity. It isn't just songs about sex that are usually bad. Racist songs are usually bad too. As are songs that celebrate violence, humiliation, etc. etc. You can hear tons of those sorts of songs today--turn on the radio, tv, etc etc. They sucked a hundred years ago, and they still suck today. IMNSHO.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 May 05 - 02:29 PM Roger, I hope you were joking, though I did not see *smiles" in your post. Are you really complaining that the editorial team's tools enable them to create longer thread titles (by 3-4 characters) than the rest of us mortals? Is that a sign of favouritism towards them or censorship towards us? Were you serious about that? |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST Date: 04 May 05 - 01:57 PM There are currenlty several user created thread titles as long as this title showing on the main page. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 01:50 PM How come this new (imposed) thread title can be so much longer than the ones that ordinary posters can put in the box? Perhaps part of the problem could be solved by enabling ordinary posters to make longer and more informative thread titles? |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: wysiwyg Date: 04 May 05 - 01:14 PM Must say I am surprised no one has commented on my proposal a "few" posts back, especially the dash-requestors. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Emma B Date: 04 May 05 - 01:04 PM From the title page of the first edition of "The Merry Muses of Caledonia" published in 1800 - "Say Puritan, can it be wrong To dress plain truth in witty song?" The frontispiece of my 1966 edition has the following quote - "Poetry has somehow acquired a boring, prissy brand-image. "Poetry lovers" have given it a bad name. It might get a glorious reversal if all the bawdy verse that all the poets invariably write - even that stately old Tennyson, so scholars tell me - were published in pocket-size bar-room editions. In the meantime we have at least got a great rollicking collection by Robert Burns" Elizabeth Smart in "The Queen" Subsitute "folk song" for "poetry" ! |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: greg stephens Date: 04 May 05 - 12:27 PM Some favoutite fiddle tune titles Piss on the grass The auld wife piss'd and paidelt in it Slip it in easy Kiss my arse Rump Wriggle at Vauxhall Black Dick's Hornpipe Reddish Knob(OK, I admit it, that's not a fiddle tune, it's a mountain in Virginia). |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Rapparee Date: 04 May 05 - 11:58 AM Well, the first title has caused wars in the past..... |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D Date: 04 May 05 - 11:36 AM why, not at all Rapaire, *grin*...folks would stream into a thread with one of those as a title, if nothing else, just to correct you or see what the joke was! |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Rapparee Date: 04 May 05 - 08:05 AM It would also make it difficult to discuss: The Illegitimate King of England Three Filles de Joie Came Down From Winnepeg The Winnipeg Lady Of The Evening Anorchidism At All Self-pleasuring Blues John Brown's Masculine Appendage The Finest Reproducing Family Honky Tonk Rectal Opening Four Old Soiled Doves Blinded by excreta Charlotte the Grande Horizontale The Ancient and Old Irish Prophylactic The Flatulent Chap From Sparta. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Rapparee Date: 04 May 05 - 07:49 AM I'll take a moment and weigh in here and point out a some book titles: Mictruating In the Snow The House Of Ill Repute's Bell Were Ringing and, of course, Ten Thousand Gol-darned Cattle. You can probably think of others. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: greg stephens Date: 04 May 05 - 07:16 AM Re Question 2 in the previous thread, as to whether John Mehlberg's topics of interest can be defined as "traditional folksongs": it strikes me as rather difficult to define a traditional folksong in some way that excludes orally passed on anonymous songs subject to variation in the tradition. Unless, of course, you include in the definition "traditional songs have to be approved by Nutty". But I cant really see that definition getting wide scholastic acceptance. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: nutty Date: 04 May 05 - 03:57 AM There are a number of issues being dealt with in this thread ...... 1. Should John Mehlberg be more sensitive to people's feelings when posting threads regarding "bawdy" songs on the Mudcat forum? 2. Given that it is accepted that the research he is carrying out is of an unusual, can the 1950/60,s songs he is requesting information on really fit the category of "traditional" folksongs? 3. Should John and others be more sensitive to cultural differences and opinions? 4. If they want to claim the freedom to say and write whatever they will , they need to be prepared to take the responsibliity for the offence caused? I have made my feelings known on all of these issues. For me the matter is now closed. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D Date: 03 May 05 - 11:55 PM Abby...as one of those who had made mild protests, I think I should re-state carefully what several of us have said, even though you 'seem' to be addressing only nutty. You have given an eloquent defense of non-censorship of bawdy/explicit lyrics, and I heartily agree with you. This thread, however has at least three aspects.... expressions of disgust or offense with bawdy material in general, expressions of discomfort at the MOST extreme words appearing AS titles, and those who see no reason to bother with any restraint or censorship when the topic is legitimate research and sharing of lyrics. It is so easy to get distracted into defending the right to collect & publish that we forget the pragmatic issues of what is appropriate in various circumstances. I simply want to make a plea for keeping the various arguments separate, and not becoming interwoven until we find ourselves losing the point and arguing at cross purposes. Almost no one seems to believe that John Mehlberg should be prevented from pursuing his research, our only serious debate is about whether he should exercise more discretion in his titles. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Peace Date: 03 May 05 - 11:29 PM Hey, Seamus, how bes ya? |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 03 May 05 - 11:27 PM Hey, guys, I've been on the road performing for a few weeks. What's happenin'? Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer Date: 03 May 05 - 09:12 PM I think it's time to change the title of this thread to something everybody will understand. I also thought I'd include the messages on this subject from the Help Forum. The last message is especially good. -Joe Offer- Subject: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: nutty Date: 29-Apr-05 - 12:18 PM It has been pointed out that we risk offending Mr Melberg by misspelling his name in the thread title. As Mr Melberg is a 'valued' member of Mudcat and a 'respected' researcher of 'Folk Songs', it would seem that this matter needs attending to. Could someone please oblige? Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: nutty Date: 29-Apr-05 - 12:21 PM Ooops ... sorry. I just keep on causing offence, it should be Mehlberg Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberg Thread From: Joe Offer Date: 29-Apr-05 - 03:14 PM I haven't heard any complaints from Mr. Mehlberg -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: nutty Date: 29-Apr-05 - 03:19 PM He must be a happy man then Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: Malcolm Date: 29-Apr-05 - 10:27 PM I had thought better of you, "Nutty". We've met at least once, I think; and you had worthwhile and intelligent things to say, which I valued. Your current attack on John isn't fair or worthy. His very worse sin is a lack of tact. How many of us have failed in that respect? Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: nutty Date: 30-Apr-05 - 01:25 AM We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one Malcolm. During my years as a barmaid at my local rugby club I heard enough of this sexist twaddle to last me a lifetime and nothing will convince me that this is serious folk music. You also disappointed me by your defence of it. Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: Date: 30-Apr-05 - 10:17 AM It's disappointing, you thinking YOUR sensibilities should matter to anyone else, nutty Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: Date: 03-May-05 - 12:26 PM I've been following both of this thread and very disturbed by it. I have also valued many of your posts in the past, nutty, but this is censorship of the worst sort. Over the centuries, many genres of traditionally transmitted song have been dismissed by the Establishment as trivial or beneath scholarship or crude or unworthy is some other way. Thus we have comaparatively little and too late records of cowboy song, sea and Lake songs (for all the hundreds of records, they are heavily censored), bar songs, rugby songs, children's songs. Even Child falsly applied these standards, eg to animal songs (it is believed). Bawdry, in particular has been censored, to the extant of driving superb scholars out of academe. Yet the material is vast (say, 10% of all tradition), ancient (some of the oldest surviving art & folk material), and meeting any definition you like of "folk." So much of the common "parlor" material began as bawdy and was progressively Bowdlerized until much essence and meaning became lost. Without systematic collection, such as John's, any possible scholarship of the material - difficult now - will become all but impossible. Of the genre, we have thousands of under-the-counter books and records but I am stunned that, to my knowledge, there are only three scholarly books on bawdry, and all published in the 1990's. Considering the prevellant obscene material on television, theater, pop song and even comic books, it is amazing that scholars are prohibited from publishing. I have great admiration for John's honesty and efforts and the significant cost and labor he has given to the Work. He has been collecting in a single location huge resources simply not available elsewhere. Where sizable collections do exist, they are usually restricted or private and all but inaccessable or else commercial and costly. John makes all freely available to those interested. A quick look at immortalia.com, especially at the songbooks, will quickly show you that when there is a need for students, sportsmen, military, etc. to hand publish for posterity the songs they actually sang and transmitted, it is the bawdy material they print. Many of these books go back to WW I and the songs, much further. I don't know why you so vociferously object. The vast majority of the material is nothing but funny. You may not appreciate the humor but the intent is humorous 95% of the time. As Cray says, the material is, therefore, rarely actually obscene - you just can't be tittilated while you're laughing. But vociferous objection may have a non-related cause. (I don't pretend to know this in your case, just something I've seen from time to time.) Once I sang a particularly raunchy song and a female friend became wildly upset. (I always ask "permission" of the crowd to sing bawdy songs in the folk club but sometimes people think I mean "off color.") She left the room and wouldn't speak to me for two years. I was bemused but didn't change my behavior. Finally she did some thinking about it and explained she couldn't tolerate such songs because they flashed her back to childhood and being mortified when her uncouth uncle would sing such songs. I asked what songs and she reeled off several titles that I felt were likely Oscar Brand, from the LP "Backroom" series. The timing was right. I said, you know, you should go listen to those songs again - you'll find they were considerably cleaned up and pretty mild as these things go. But they were not suitable for children. She did and, surprisingly, agreed. So now we're friends again and she can tolerate the good & funny material. But she doesn't sing the choruses. Nutty, you also wrote something about their being anti-female, though I'm not clear in what way. Often most of the transmissions (like other ballads) are mainly through females - both in the US and Scotland. Every sex seems to enjoy them. But yes, a few songs certainly are sexist and some downright psycho-sadistic. No need to sing those or judge the whole field or Mehlberg. You don't have to sing any bawdy songs. Or listen. Abby |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Cool Beans Date: 02 May 05 - 09:09 AM And after we learn to spell John Mehlberg's name correctly, cant we work on learning to spell Greenhaus. Come on, folks. It's only laziness but it makes you look ignorant. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 05 - 02:06 AM To try to make ourselves so clean that there is no profanity at all on the site would be taking censorship to ridiculous extremes, not to mention impossible. To try and do something is usually better than finding excuses to do nothing. Posters (for practical reasons) choosing not to place the obviously problematic words in thread titles - for the benefit of everyone - can't really be described as censorship. Self restraint perhaps? Imposing yet more filters and using this issue as an excuse for even more 'tinkering' by our volunteers - this end - is. As with most Mudcat Forum 'problems' - the solution is with us. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 01 May 05 - 11:30 PM MR. GREENHOUSE It takes a lot....to make me laugh out loud....
But you of ALL people - can elisite an elastic exclamation from my larnyx....quicker than a lynx in a turnip patch.
Well written and thank you!@!!
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: JennyO Date: 01 May 05 - 09:57 PM Fair enough, my friend. I certainly agree with your last comment. I also meant to say before that I definitely do not think that the song titles themselves should be interfered with and ****** in any way. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,sick of moaners Date: 01 May 05 - 09:34 PM sorry JennyO.. i'm in a drunk and happy silly mode.. respect to you.. but it sure is an ongoing struggle for adults to constantly fight the battle to keep a sensible public life that dosent treat every body like simple minded easily depraved children in need of constant care and protection.. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: JennyO Date: 01 May 05 - 09:21 PM cant be arsed .. sorry.. a***d.. reading all this .. GUEST, sick of moaners - that was all too obvious by your next comment, as WYSIWYG only 5 posts back from yours had pointed out that some people, far from being cheapskates, were not able to have internet connections at home - there being at least one that she knew of who lives in a rural area and has a "spotty connection". Apart from that, there are some people who can't afford a computer. Calling them cheapskates just shows your ignorance. I know what I speak of, because if it were not for my wonderful brother buying me a computer, I would be one of those people. The monthly connection I can just afford, but the initial outlay would have been too much for me. So I'm just lucky. Having said all that, I think Joe and Dick have come up with a good solution. The idea of going to the main page first and having the option of filtering out the threads with troublesome titles should work on any systems with profanity filters that are blocking the forum page. If some systems go beyond that and look for profanity all through the site, then I think that, like Dick says, that it should not be a Mudcat problem. To try to make ourselves so clean that there is no profanity at all on the site would be taking censorship to ridiculous extremes, not to mention impossible. My post would be gone for a start because I said "Dick". Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,sick of moaners Date: 01 May 05 - 08:47 PM cant be arsed .. sorry.. a***d.. reading all this .. if your workplace firewall filters wont permit you to access important adult sites that include swear words and other such enjoyable filth. then fuck off back home and use your own paid for internet accounts you cheap skate bastards..!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: dick greenhaus Date: 01 May 05 - 06:48 PM Seems to me that if libraries have a midless filter (censorship)in place, that's not really a Mudcat problem. When I was young, "objectionable" material was locked up in the stacks, and access was by individual application. That type of thing shouldn't be a problem with today's technology. If your library won't permit such a permission system, I suggest you take it up with your library. Remember, A****** B* A******** in your R***********! |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,Jon Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:57 PM If Jon or somebody wants to post a "filter-out" link for us before Jeff gets to it, I can't do that with the current filter Joe. At least not for multiple "bad words". As with other things, there are a lot of possible solutions. I would opt for a prefix in the title (eg, bawdy:) rather than filter on words but heaven forbid what would happen at the moment is you dared make a change to a thread title to include this "filtering term". From then on, it's easy. Just have a checkbox next to filterout "include bawdy" which is unchecked by default (although that could be overridden by a member preference). I think with this system, the programming for the main listing would just need something along the lines of this adding (I'll use VB - not familiar with Cold Fusion): if not bawdy then SQL=SQL " AND NOT Like 'bawdy:%'" end if Anyway, will wait and see what Jeff comes up... |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Raedwulf Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:58 PM Guest - The point that you seem to be missing is that, despite your mindless bitching & name calling, Joe is at least trying to find a compromise between differeing points of view. All you are doing is whining. Be constructive or give it a rest. So far you have not managed the former... |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:49 PM What a load of bullshit posted here- and the proposed action as well. The initial post by Robbie can only be answered by pointing out that he must use a home computer, not one tied to a firewalled system. There is no other logical solution to his problem. Blocks that are triggered by breast, X-, etc., as many school and government systems are, can never be satisfied by a website's actions. There are too many possibilities. Comprehensive firewall systems set up for school systems read CONTENT as well as titles. With regard to Mudcat's internals, one of its great advantages is that it is open to both guest and registered member. Much of value has been posted by 'guests,' some of whom do not wish to have a possibly traceable connection with a post, for legal or personal reasons. A 'cookie' (read registration) system would limit contributions. Would threads containing both 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' lyrics to be 'filtered,' destroying relationships among the songs? How would searching the DT for a song with several versions, both 'acceptable' and 'bawdy, be affected? It is amusing (and sad) that words heard and known by children exposed to playgrounds and camps everywhere are a cause of censorship among supposed adults. I find much of Mehlberg's collection childish, but so are Mother Goose rhymes and games. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: wysiwyg Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:43 PM I think the prefix plan meets some of the concerns people have stated, but not all. One unmet concern is the preference many longstanding members of this community have stated in civil terms-- that there be some restraint about the raunch level. Also, it has been a tradition at Mudcat-- and sometimes policies have reflected this-- that universal access is desirable when operationally possible. Thus we have thread title length limits partly so that WebTV users can read them.... we have a Help Forum that rightly helps people no matter WHAT browser, people prefer to use. We have Guest access for people who can't cookie from work. We help newbies find their way around, including people new to computers. And so forth. One of the people who has had concerns about lack of access to the forum on a regular basis, due to workplace content filters, happens to be someone who finds and posts a HUGE number of missing tunes as MIDIs. He doesn't Mudcat from work because he doesn't care to pay for a computer. I believe he has indicated in the past that the online access he has from the rural area where he lives is spotty on home connections-- it's just much better to access Mudcat from his workplace. Would he be able to get to the main forum page even to set the filter??? Would this apply to others? Neither of these concerns have to be met by censoring anything. They can be met with strictly practical approaches that should not cause concerns about PC or censorship. If a few dashes are used in a thread title, people will have no trouble reading the actual intended song title if they pause long enough to let the mind reveal it-- this has been shown in a number of BS threads in the last year, where the concepts underlying our minds' ability to do this was laid out and a lot of posts were made based on it. So the concern that people would miss the title is, fortunately, baseless. For facilitating clarity in case the reader CAN'T make out the intended title-- the SUBJECT LINE of every post can be changed by the person posting. Chaqnging the subject line at the time the thread is created would result in a fully searchable, as-intended title popping up in Supersearch. There would not be a need for anyone to do anything complicated. It could just be a policy that makes it possible and minimally offensive to post ANY material people might not handle well. It would obviate the need to create the next "logical" filter/thread prefix, such as "NonPC." Or "Religion." Or all the hot buttons people list when we get a hair across our ass. :~) People have widely misunderstood and mischaracterized my effort to resolve a past situation when I titled a thread, "Run, ======, Run." There are MANY songs titled "Run [insert word of choice], Run," and the thread was meant to serve as a place where those variants could come together. My having done that has been touted whenever someone has wanted a pungent example of the wrongness of censoring-- I don't understand this, myself, but I guess soapboxing is easier when one has an effigy to beat. I'd like to request now, in respect for those whose primary reaction remains that I had "censored" the word "Nigger" which is one of the variants posted in complete, non-PC clarity in that thread and its predecessor, that the SUBJECT LINE of that thread's opening post be changed to "Run, Nigger, Run and variants." This is an approach we could all follow voluntarily. Or perhaps a consensus might develop that it should become official policy aided in operation by the clones when people forget to follow it as they start a new thread. On the downside, this would tend to let most of the hot air out of all the censorship ranting people seem to enjoy so much these days. :~) I'm for simplicity, though, and it is quite a simple solution. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM I can't say I really understand that. The Home Page of Mudcat is http://www.mudcat.org/ (the Forum Menu is http://www.mudcat.org/threads.cfm). That Mudcat Home Page is a stable page that does not contain any so-called "profanity." It seems to me that if we put a Filter on that page and you filter out the "pg13" threads, you should be able to access the Forum Menu. If your profanity filter blocks access to THAT page, then I guess we'd have to censor out profanity from the entire site to get past your filter - and we don't want to engage in that sort of censorship. Shouldn't you should be able to go to the http://www.mudcat.org/ page or the help.mudcat.org, and access the filter through the FAQ link? If you have problems with a profanity filter, then it seems that the FAQ would be the likely place to resolve your problem. Those of you with profanity filters, I'd like you to give this a test. Yes, I'm sure there will be filters that will still block Mudcat access - but if that's the case, I don't think a Forum Menu Code of Decency is going to solve the problem. You need to complain to your network administrator and get the profanity filter to lighten up. -Joe Offer- Another solution might be to go to this page (click). Either save the URL, or save the entire page on your computer. I still think our librarian needs some work on reading comprehension. If you will look back on my reference in a previous message to "vagina," you will see that I said I tried to deal with the thread title to try to satisfy the objections of people who were offended by use of the term "vagina voters" in a thread title. My first attempt brought out angry cries of "censorship" from other Mudcatters. My final solution was to put "vagina voters" in quotes, and that seemed to settle things down. My POINT was that I didn't want to get stuck in the middle of some petty censorship argument again - not that "vagina" was going to provoke the profanity filter software (even if many filters gag on "breast.") I'm still looking for a workable list of words that the profanity filters look for. We're never going to be able to outsmart every filter, but maybe we can tag the major objectionable words. I'm also looking for a term that's better than "pg13," something that isn't tied to the movie industry. Maybe "bawdy" would be better, but it doesn't seem quite right, either. Jeff is working on ideas for a more elegant solution to this issue, and I may come up with changes before he gets his thing done. In the meantime, you have the pg13 filter on this page (click). |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:28 PM Joe, most internet anti-pornography filters being used by public schools and libraries will block people from ever reaching www.mudcat.org to begin with, as long as there is any profanity on the forum's front page. So the lovely 'compromise solution' you are doing show and tell with here will not matter one iota. Yes, there have only a handful of days I've had my access blocked to the forum from school, as you duly noted. However, most of my days of blocked access to this site have occurred in the last week, not the last several years. My access was blocked whenever I used 207.1093.108.99 either to the Mudcat Home Page or the forum front page since last Monday (the first time in awhile since I had tried logging on from work). BTW Joe, 'vagina' is not a common trigger word for most anti-porn filters, though the installer and maintainer of the filter software can customize their copy to filter out anything they want. My district's filter doesn't filter out 'vagina', but it does filter the word 'fuck' in any of it's guises. |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:27 PM |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:19 PM I really must get a life... But well done folks |
|
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:17 PM 100 |
|
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: |
|
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: 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: 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 Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:24 PM Jeysus, you asshole, you still around? Don't you get a break for a shitlick or something? |
| Share Thread: |