|
18 Jul 99 - 04:11 AM (#96395) Subject: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: katlaughing Just as we designated, by general consensus, BS threads, so that those interested only in music threads would know them by their name, I am wondering if we might do the same thing with threads whose originators would like to keep them free of extemporaneous controversy? Create a CF moniker as in Controversy-FREE?? I know we kind of thrive on lively discussions & that we are all opinionated to differing degrees, but it seems we should/could be respectful of those who really would like some benign threads to enjoy. Whaddya think, Mudders? |
|
18 Jul 99 - 04:19 AM (#96396) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: SeanM I support the concept, but I don't know how practical it would be... So much of the 'controversy' seems to either stem from any thread regarding anything Irish, and there it always starts nicely, but hundreds of years of sheer inertia are hard to overcome. Sometimes I think that some degree of conflict is built in to folk music. All we can hope to do is keep things civil and try not to hurt anyone. M |
|
18 Jul 99 - 05:26 AM (#96400) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: The Shambles The B/S idea is not rigidly stuck to (if at all), but despite that we seem to have solved that problem to a degree. Controversy is not the problem, for this place is pretty much what it is because we are all different. How can it fail to be otherwise, for we come from many nations and cultures. The problem here is the same as in life. All the negative things like intolerence, insensitivity and so on. I think we do a pretty good job of keeping things civil, but we just have to keep on trying even harder than we do. There are no short cuts.
|
|
18 Jul 99 - 06:26 AM (#96415) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Banjer I don't know if I find my self agreeing here with Mr. Shambles, or not. I think that we all express ourselves well on many subjects and because of our very varied backgrounds dissention falls in some of the strangest places. I suppose if there are those that would limit a thread then they should have that right, but do not look for me to post on it if my right to express myself to the fullest (within socially accpetable parameters) is limited. This is after all a FORUM, a place of open discussion, is it not? |
|
18 Jul 99 - 06:36 AM (#96417) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: SeanM I think part of the problem is the 'socially acceptable parameters' part. Some of us (myself hopefully included) have a fairly thick skin, calloused by one too many flame wars... others are substantially more sensitive. I'd request a general politeness, but honestly, we already have that. It's part of what makes the times when things get a bit hairy that much more obvious. Probably is no solution... Sorry Kat... M |
|
18 Jul 99 - 09:52 AM (#96433) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Rick Fielding Gosh Kat, I sure didn't know that the "BS" designation was arrived at by consensus. It came about shortly after a mudcatter loudly proclaimed that stuff unrelated to music was "BS", and then left. Much of the so-called "BS" at that time were postings related to an incident where a number of children were killed at a school. I personally hate designating discussions as "BS". Why is it so difficult to just ignore threads you don't want to be involved in? To the best of my knowledge, "bull shit" is usually meant as a negative term, and with rare (and totally consistent within a community dynamic) exceptions is at a minimum here. Rick (no b.s.) keep smilin' |
|
18 Jul 99 - 10:25 AM (#96443) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Chet W. Kat, I, too, dig the idea. I was the one who started, very angrily, the thread about guns after the Colorado shooting. I have tried to direct my most provocative posts towards ideas, rather than at individuals. I would like to have controversy-free conversations, but I don't know if thoughtful and even kind people (as we are) can do that consistently, unless we ban a lot of topics and I don't think we want to go that route. Chet |
|
18 Jul 99 - 10:33 AM (#96444) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: katlaughing You're right, Rick. Your memory is always better than mine:-) I guess what I meant by general consensus, was most of us started using it around that same time. This was just an idea, one I had my doubts about, but felt we should have a discussion of it, anyway. Thanks, kat |
|
18 Jul 99 - 10:34 AM (#96445) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: The Shambles There is a difference to me of threads that become heated though the exchange of views and the example HERE, where an individual seems to be only interested in playing with peoples emotions, for strange reasons of their own.
|
|
18 Jul 99 - 10:40 AM (#96449) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: katlaughing Shambs: well said. |
|
18 Jul 99 - 11:04 AM (#96450) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Night Owl Geeze, Kat...I sure would NOT want to see controversy free threads or even see us try to achieve such a thing. As cumbersome as it may be to read through the personal opinions on song threads, some of the best writing I've seen ANYWHERE came up on the Vietnam songs thread a while ago. I think all of us have a subject (or two or three) which makes us see red, and become somewhat emotionally irrational. Even then, we can read between the lines, and know, that the person is speaking from a painful place, and often we will never know the depth of the personal pain or experiences. Maybe, as uncomfortable as it may be to read, we can be more aware of when someone is "shooting the messenger" and be a bit more vigilant in reminding them. Sometimes, the emotions expressed, allow us to see more depth or a different slant on a particular lyric in a song.... or history...or our own personal history. All of it, to me, is the stuff from which songs come. |
|
18 Jul 99 - 11:21 AM (#96452) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Indy Lass I guess I agree with SeanM, Kat. While it's nice to think we can avoid controversy and hurting people's feelings, I just don't think it can really be done. We all have very different views on things--what someone thinks is funny, others may not, etc., etc. Vegetarians and animal lovers may not like the things said about possums and pigmeat...and we could go on from there as far as examples of all the different sentiments among us. But freedom of speech on all topics is necessary to freedom in general. We have to tolerate this fact, just like we tolerate other drivers on the roads. We're all human. I think we are smart enough to exercise empathy also--both ways. |
|
18 Jul 99 - 02:09 PM (#96489) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: katlaughing Thanks, again. I really wanted to see what everyone thought. I was specifically motivated to start this thread in response to the intense vitriol which seems to have been in abundance, yesterday, in some of the threads. The personal attacks don't bother me, I was more concerned about how the vileness might have effected some of the others who'd posted expressing their pain and grief. Someone else suggested to Max that maybe there should be some kind of censorship, in direct response to some of what went on yesterday. I would hope it didn't have to come down to Max having to be on patrol, but I also would hope that those who spew their venom would realise this is NOT the place for them and their personal attacks. Maybe, CF is not the right term, maybe I was just thinking of a sub-category of BS, i.e. Sweetness & Light:-) katlaughing&hereforthelonghaul |
|
18 Jul 99 - 02:24 PM (#96493) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Banjer Censor is such an ugly word. I feel that if we allow anyone to start censoring what we say, then would it be worth our while to continue posting? I for one am glad to live in a country where cesorship is frowned upon and don't feel that I would like to have my thoughts controlled. That sentiment is what makes "Folkies" the unique people we are. |
|
18 Jul 99 - 02:32 PM (#96497) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: The Shambles Banjer. I do agree, but how do we deal the few sad individuals, I referred to earlier, who seem to delight in taking advantage of the 'unique' people here and as an effect, drive them away? I would suggest the only answer is not to respond to them and if they do not get the sport they require, they will go away? |
|
18 Jul 99 - 02:39 PM (#96502) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: The Shambles This is an example of the people we are losing and why. Farewall;etc |
|
18 Jul 99 - 02:45 PM (#96503) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: catspaw49 Controversy has a rightful place here even in heated debate. But like most of you, I want to attack the position/opinion and not the person. This extends to my dealings in the real world, including the unmitigated hatemongers and bigots who can only attain self esteem at the expense of others. Even the Klan boys have learned this......which amazes me no end. How many KKK members have been arrested in recent years at their public demonstrations? Who does get arrested? Uh huh.......those well intentioned souls who come to protest against the Klan and are drawn into violence through the words, even when they are not personally directed. Are we not all struck by the irony of the Klan, who would have blown-up/strung-up King, are now the practitioners of his non-violent demonstrations? Simply amazing. Thankfully more good folks are seeing this and non-violent veneer of the KKK members is wafer thin anyway. But it is amazing. Sorry to stray away here, but somehow I thought it fit, if only a little. catspaw |
|
18 Jul 99 - 02:53 PM (#96506) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: WyoWoman The thing I've come to understand and appreciate about the Forum (and that means discussion, for heaven's sake, which implies some disagreement) is that it seems to be a self-correcting mechanism. People may go off a bit here and there, but when they get out of line, they also very quickly get spanked (ooh) and get brought back to some sort of Golden Mean. I hate rudeness in any form, but sometimes what's rude to one person isn't rude to another, and we need to be reminded when we've overstepped the bounds. For instance, the thread on "Republican" sentiments. I had been reading the most-recent Irish thread and was aware of what that meant, but others immediately assumed it meant the American version, as in "opposite of Democrat." So that generated some controversy, but as the discussion went on, correction was put in and some understanding achieved. And in the "Bluegrass songs" thread, I said something characteristically tactful like, "Ugh. What's the point of singing in exactly the same way to exactly the same people...." and I got corrected with a very nice discussion of tradition and the importance to some people of a very rigid interpretation of the music. So I learned something from each of those, and I'm glad to have been a part of the process. It serves me, not only on the 'Cat, but in my personal life, because I am more aware of those sensitivities and why they exist. So, let's not shy away from controversy, but let's treat each other, always, in a respectful, decent way (not ruling out the occasional stray into bawdiness, of course). WW |
|
18 Jul 99 - 04:45 PM (#96530) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Bill D Ok...I have been trying to avoid this, but I can't keep it in inside me any longer. ....I have been in this forum 'almost' from the beginning, and was actually around when the Database was being started...so I feel a sort of personal interest in it. .......There are several issues going on here. First: the forum has 'morphed' from just a place to trade, find, and talk about music into a place where a lot of the regulars genuinely 'know' each other--some only online, some in person....and plans are in the works to facilitate more meetings; at festivals, camps, personal pilgramages, etc. I suppose this was inevitable, given the personalities involved...and I am heartily in favor of it! However..**THIS** is where most of us will continue to meet, talk, share, compare, joke, grump and otherwise interact like a group of complex, ardent, vital human beings....and this place has some problems!....The second 'issue' is that the musical aspects of the forum really ARE taking a back seat to the personal stuff. Yes, I know, questions about music...and some song postings are still there, but if YOU wandered in today for the first time, what would be YOUR impression? This, too, seems to be a common problem...for example, in the large and vital folk community I am associated with...FSGW, which is sponsoring the upcoming Getaway, it OFTEN happens that at some ostensibly musical event, some folk are more interested in talk, gossip, personal interaction, etc. I have seen 2nd halves of concerts or song circles really hard to re-convene because people simply would NOT shut up & sit down!....Well, we deal with that...you have all seen it, and there are ways to get their attention. Several times, my wife and I have had large parties/singing events at our house...and we finally resorted to designating one area (in our case, the basement rec room) as a **MUSIC** (read talk free zone. We did not try to stop the 'chat'...we just firmly set limits. "come down & make music with us...and when you feel the urge for extended or controversial byplay...go over there. .......I trully feel that the Mudcat needs something like that. We have a couple of attempts.."NOI".."BS threads"...even private messages...but, as we can see, it is not dealing with the situation totally, or this thread would not need to exist!...Perhaps we need to ask Max about parallel forums, like the proposed auction may have. If one set of threads were ONLY for music, and those who needed to cry, love, complain, yell, politic, preach, pun, joke..(and by gum, I'd be among 'em sometimes!)...or otherwise digress were politely asked to 'go over there', might it not allow the meeker souls to slip back in and peruse musical questions without feeling they were tiptoeing thru something between a political convention and a minefield? and....the third issue that concerns me...we are seeing right now some VERY heavy personal and unpleasant posting, mostly centered about one or two people. This is not new, but it is still not happy.. Names? Ok...remember Dan Mulligan?...I have not seen him lately, but there were serious personal issues when he decided to attack people in a sarcastic, judgemental way...and now Gargoyle has been raising the ire of some (and NOT for the first time!) I find it interesting that I know who most of us are...(I edited that album for several months!)...I have seen pictures and/or descriptions...along with places of residence and high-schools for many of you...but I do not believe I have any idea who Gargoyle is, where he is from..(other than a cryptic remark that 'might' place him in Europe), what he looks like, or what his real name is. Now, no rule says it is required, and certainly, some people might have some personal reasons for relative anonimity, but in this case, it bemuses me......Now, whatever drives a person to post remarks that rile so many close friends, it IS a matter of concern to many of us.. gargoyle, if you are reading this, I ask for either an explanation..or, preferably, a cessation of those kind of posts...if you want to say something directly to ME...have at it....'extree@erols.com'...I have a couple of things to say back.. my head is swimming with many other bits of opinion, but I think Id better wait...I care too much about this place to go much further today...I want it to continue! All the good stuff...I look forward to supporting it with time, energy, and offering neat things in the proposed auction. I am TIRED BEYOND BELIEF of bickering and crap that has no place here!... realizing that if I push the 'submit' button, I have just added one more piece of tinder to a fire that is already too hot....*sigh*.... |
|
18 Jul 99 - 05:08 PM (#96537) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: katlaughing BillD, Thank you. Very well put. I don't think it would work very well, though to have separate forum as we have so much thread creep when someone asks for a song and others respond with their experiences with it, history of it, etc. That just naturally leads to more discussion, one of the great things about this forum. I understand about the song circles; if we were actually able to be singing together on here, well, first off...it would be HEAVEN! Second, we'd probably be more likely not to digress and respectful of any parameters set. I am glad you made note of the lack of info re' Gargoyle. I thought about starting a thread about those personal attacks, but decided lack of attention was probably a better response. So, here, I guess I've answered some of my own BS about why I started this thread. We will always have controversy, hopefully we can keep on a civil and non-personal level. katlaughing |
|
18 Jul 99 - 05:23 PM (#96541) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: The Shambles Bill D. Good stuff. I agree with most of what you state as the problems, but I'm not too sure about what you suggest as a solution. Maybe just the honest expression of these issues will do the trick. For I think we all care. As to the Gargoye thing, I agree with Kat, that "lack of attention" is probably the most effective response. |
|
18 Jul 99 - 05:32 PM (#96544) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Penny S. Curious choice of by-name, isn't it? Penny |
|
18 Jul 99 - 06:09 PM (#96559) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Legal Eagle I think I remember one of Gargoyle's posts indicating the distaff gender. Perhaps not a "him". Also yes, perhaps a bit closer to the edge than some, but over it? |
|
18 Jul 99 - 06:18 PM (#96562) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: jon a being new here I hesitate to say too much,however most people with an interest in folk music seem to be the type who care about something or other, therefore they have views they would like to share with like-minded persons, these will not always be views that others share and therefore may be considered that they are often going to cause some controversy. if I'm right, because we are the people we are we're stuck with it. But I do agree it would be nice to air opposoing views in a well thought out and non personal manner. jon a |
|
18 Jul 99 - 07:08 PM (#96583) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Jack (who is called Jack) Like anyone, I have and have had various hero's. One group of hero's was and is the group of scientists that founded modern physics. A particular figure from the turn of the century is Ludwig Boltzman. Whom a 20th century mathemetitian later described as ...extrordinary, difficult, irrascible, passionate--everything a human being should be. The Mudcat community is much the same. Passionate, irrascible, difficult, but also supportive, welcoming, and eclectic. In short, everything a forum should be. Sure the forum can seem a little difficult to navigate when these winds blow and the seas get rough, but that's the price of the passion that spawned Mudcat in the first place.
|
|
18 Jul 99 - 08:41 PM (#96626) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: bseed(charleskratz) Bill D: Very well said. I have enjoyed participating in much of the most contentious threads, e.g. the gun thread, and found that most of the people--many of whom I share little in common with opinion-wise--are able to carry on a reasonable discussion (of course my opponents always resort to pat answers and stereotypes ;-) but still recognize the rights of others to dissent and argue in good humor). I even tip a pale ale with one of them from time to time--he can't spell worth a damn, but he's good company. I used to have bitter arguments with my older brother (he died in November; I've mentioned him before on this forum. he's the one who went on a cruise with Rush Limburger). My wife and his would watch in embarrassment--but we always put the argument aside and otherwise had a great relationship. It's when the arguments become ad hominem that they become intolerable, when one person feels he must attack the other rather than his argument. And the above named character rarely argues to the subject, often to the opponent's supposed flaws. And Catspaw: your post got me thinking of an old sixties saying: "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" This, of course, I saw as the most reasonable approach to the situation you described: "What if the Klan gave a rally and nobody came?" And, of course, what if somebody flamed and no one responded. I've resolved to continue stating my opinions but to ignore personal attacks and refrain from striking back. My experience is that it is not easy to do, sometimes, but when I have flamed back, I've had momentary satisfaction but lasting shame. --seed
|
|
18 Jul 99 - 08:47 PM (#96628) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: bseed(charleskratz) And Kat, the threads should not be controversy free, just flame-free. (I don't know if I could keep quiet if I ran across postings as nasty as the one in the Aussie/US Bands thread or a few of the others--when my friends are being assaulted I tend to get my back up.) --seed |
|
18 Jul 99 - 09:12 PM (#96638) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Margo I think it's impossible to keep controversy out of the Mudcat. After all, we are all human. Gawd, I'd hate to be turned upon 'cause I flamed up once and a while (and I have). Heck, take the controversy out of Mudcat and you have bland pablum. No thanks! Every time I flare up I have the opportunity to see myself acting like a fool and that is how I learn to be better. You know what they say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Margarita |
|
18 Jul 99 - 10:45 PM (#96680) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Jeri I mentioned I read newsgroups, and I often wonder what would happen if someone who posted a troll (inflammatory message, the purpose of which is to simply start an argument) was soundly ignored. It's extremely unlikely this will happen because there are always new people and some folks feel compelled to respond - even though the troll is ludicrous. (Typical post: 'I know I shouldn't reply to this, but...') I think agreeing to ignore, or 'shun' inflammatry messages could happen here, because of the relatively small number of regulars. Or one person could answer and we could allow them to speak for the group. In face-to-face conversation, this happens all the time. |
|
18 Jul 99 - 11:08 PM (#96688) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: catspaw49 Are you suggesting we bring back the times of the "Single Combat Warrior?" Funny thing Jeri......I often think a lot about that idea and especially during these past few days with the discussion of Northern Ireland becoming quite heated. Today everyone has an opinion that they MUST express, but I too, like seed remember the saying, "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" Well I do wonder if perhaps at times, all factions could at least agree within themselves and then send out their SCW for the war/tournament. Winner takes all, war ends. Ah I'm sorry, I'm just rambling............but your post struck me as that type of thing.....Sorry group. Spaw |
|
18 Jul 99 - 11:35 PM (#96700) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: katlaughing Good question and idea, 'Spaw...sure would save a lot of lives, ideally. But then, it would put a lot of corporations and military out of business and none of them would get to play with their "toys". MY gawd....why, it would change the whole face of politics, governments, what in the world would we do with all that "Whirled Peas"?**BG** kat |
|
18 Jul 99 - 11:46 PM (#96708) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Bill D a friend of mine used to consider himself the 'warrior' type...I tried to tease him once, saying.. " Mac, we need a neat way to settle stuff...like issuing each soldier a bag of marshmallows, and battle would consist of throwing them...then a rule about when you had so many white spots on you, you were 'out'" he thought a minute, and looked at me with this wicked grin..."yeah", he said, "that would be fine for awhile, but then some bastard like ME would come along and put a rock inside each one...and off we'd go again!" I think maybe Mac was close to some sort of universal truth... |
|
18 Jul 99 - 11:49 PM (#96710) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Art Thieme I just put up a proposal at the "Repub. Songs" thread. Wha'd'ya think? I'd be interested to know your feelings---either here or there... Art |
|
19 Jul 99 - 12:09 AM (#96718) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Mudjack I say no BS warning tags. Wade through the bull shit like you know what your doing. Take abuse when it's offered when you can, then go outside and beat yourself up. BS has it's purpose and I like to see whats (?) pissing everyone off. We're grown up kids and know how to cope with everyday BS. Mudjack |
|
19 Jul 99 - 07:07 AM (#96791) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: The Shambles Is not the key to this, how we would behave in the real world? .....There would be a number of factors (not least of them self-preservation) that would prevent us walking up to someone in public and insulting them. .....You would be very unlikely to walk in to a room full of people who's views you did not know and loudly proclaim political slogans and propaganda. That is what is happening here from time to time and when it does, it shows a lack of respect for others, that we would not generally dare to demonstrate in the real world. Expressing one's views here are fine, for those views can be challenged and debated. To directly insult, provoke and knowing use politically charged phrases, salutes and slogans here, as in the real world is certainly not fine. For it causes real pain to some. We do have a special problem here with songs containing some of the material listed above, but if we can all make an effort to treat these songs and their issues sensitively, as we have generally done in the past, we should be OK. |
|
19 Jul 99 - 11:15 AM (#96850) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Jeri Shambles, I commend you on your sensitivity, and I completely agree. One thing I love about Mudcat is folks generally treat others as fellow humans and friends instead of a bunch of anonymous things on the other side of a monitor. I'd hate for the exception to this to become what defines us. I've said it before - if you think it's more important to you to say something than the possible reaction (hurt feelings, anger, insult) of others, then say it. I try to figure out what I'll be apologizing for or explaining later and avoid it, but I still make mistakes in the prediction department. I've asked "what is all the fuss about [controversial topic]" and been flamed for asking. If someone hadn't put aside their personal offence and calmly explained, I'd still be clueless. Sometimes innocent-sounding questions are really innocent questions and not attempts to start something. I think having separate headers for thread 'genres' might not be a bad idea - music only, contoversy, B/S. But what happens when a music thread becomes a B/S thread, or someone starts posting songs in a controversy thread? Labeling threads as controversial may be better than labeling them controversy-free. Art, (re: your suggestion in 'Rep. Songs thread) I respect you immensely, but I don't think editing our Mudcat past is good. They're examples of 'what can happen if...' All of the stupid things I ever said on Usenet are available, and show me just how far I've come. They're like the songs you wrote when you were 12 - embarassing, but part of personal history. Art, I've read some emotional messages from you, but never anything mean. It takes skill to write when you're angry and not 'go for the throat.' |
|
19 Jul 99 - 01:33 PM (#96919) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: The Shambles Thank you for that Jeri. I have always liked this joke. It makes me laugh and it has a very sound moral to it, too. It was in the days when football violence and clashes between rival groups were common and there was a lot of media attention on this phenomenon. Poor Joe had gone to the match proudly dressed all in his teams colours, with a number of his friends. Unfortunately inside the ground Joe had become separated from them and all alone was swept along by the rush of the crowd. He found himself trapped at the wrong end of the ground, packed in and surrounded on all sides by rival supporters. During the first half they made no secret of their animosity towards him and Joe, feel totally miserable, could only look forward to the half-time whistle and hope that he could slip away, back to his own end. .......This was not to be. As Joe tried to slip away quietly, he was encircled by a number of these rival supporters, who insisted that he went and paid for their half-time cup of hot Bovril. Joe quickly agreed to this, seeing a way to get well away and not return. However they had foreseen this ploy and insisted that Joe remove his shoes as insurance of his return and told that he could reclaim his shoes then. Joe trundled off to get them their Bovril, feeling that he did not have much choice. He comforted himself with the thought that there were only another 45 minutes to go and that he would just have to 'grin and bear' the second half, the same as he did the first.....But, things got worse. On his return he passed around the drinks and true to their word, gave him back his shoes. So far so good. However, on closer examination he discovered that a large and steaming turd had been deposited into each of his shoes and that his 'new friends' insisted that he put them on. He spent an even worse second-half, even if for some strange reason, he had an unobstructed view of the pitch and a lot more room around him. As Joe, followed closely by flies, wearily trudged and squelched his way home he saw a TV crew, outside the stadium who were getting reactions from fans, on the subject of 'football violence'. Joe was asked for his comments and he agreed. The interviewer then had some difficulty in getting the microphone close enough to Joe and she was beginning to wish that she had chosen a different fan, but somehow Joe, by shouting very loudly, was able to get his views across. "In my opinion, football violence will never end. As long as they keep shitting in our shoes and we keep pissing in their Bovril"!!! |
|
19 Jul 99 - 05:18 PM (#97018) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: dick greenhaus Anger, hurt feelings and off-topic drifting are part of the price you pay for anarchy. If nobody rises to the bait, unsuitable postings simply fall off the bottom of the thread list. If someone wants top join in a fight, there'll be a fight (a virtual fight, anyway). Nobody's going to censor the Mudcat. Nobody's going to impose his/her idea of helpful organization upon it. If Mudcatters can't figure out how to avoid rewading threads that are annoying to them, we'd better fold the whole thing up. End of didactic diatribe. |
|
20 Jul 99 - 12:17 AM (#97199) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Big Mick And I am sure that you will use sensitivity when you are referring to Republican Songs in the future, right Shambles? That was exactly my point with Sapper. If you come in without sensitivity for other points of view, then you will be treated the same. If you come here calling the people who support a reunited Ireland "terrorists" and "thugs", you will receive a like response. If you continue to talk about the horrors inflicted by the IRA, and completely ignore the Unionist paramilitaries, RUC, and British military, you will be challenged. If, however, you come in as jO-77 and Penny did, with a thoughtful perspective from the English citizens perspective, you will be treated in the way that someone who seeks to promote understanding would be treated. One can never be controversy-free, but one can have reasonable discourse. I am glad to see that you agree. Mick |
|
20 Jul 99 - 08:31 AM (#97289) Subject: what's in a name From: Felipa Penny, Gargoyle is quite a clever pseudonym with various connotations. Am I correct in thinking that one use of the word is as a computer term for logos or symbols? |
|
20 Jul 99 - 09:58 AM (#97309) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: WyoWoman What's Bovril???? (I don't think we have that here in Wyoming...) WW |
|
20 Jul 99 - 10:02 AM (#97312) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Have you got Oxo cubes? Bovril is a sort of instant broth |
|
20 Jul 99 - 10:23 AM (#97321) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: The_one_and_only_Dai Official site here! (http://www.caterplan.co.uk/bovril.htm). It's hot, it's salty and it's brown... need I say more. If anybody's interested, I've done some digging on our friend gargoyle/Gargoyle, and found that there is more than one... and he/she uses more than one ID on Mudcat. |
|
20 Jul 99 - 12:20 PM (#97360) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Penny S I thought that was icons. Penny |
|
20 Jul 99 - 12:30 PM (#97364) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Fadac You want real controversy-Free Threads? Ok, don't read, write, think, etc. Be a nowhere man. (Beatles.) Just talk about Barny the Dinasour. (What ever) I hope the green lizzerd hasn't made to the UK, or all hope is lost. -Fadac |
|
20 Jul 99 - 12:30 PM (#97365) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: katlaughing And they are, Dai? |
|
20 Jul 99 - 04:20 PM (#97421) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: The Shambles I thought I should have a footnote* for the Bovril. If any one is still at all interested, this is the (Sapper) thread we are referring to Song Appropriateness. Please don't be put off, it does contain some very good stuff. Even if you just look at the first post. It is very relevant to this thread, to see that the original poster went to great pains NOT to be controversial. 'The best laid plans etc': Perhaps we can learn from it? |
|
20 Jul 99 - 06:07 PM (#97467) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Tim Jaques tjaques@netcom.ca I think we should have more haiku threads. |
|
20 Jul 99 - 06:15 PM (#97469) Subject: RE: Suggestion for controversy-Free Threads From: Penny S. Felipa, I've time for a longer answer now. I did say curious, because I was aware that the name was multilayered in meaning. I hadn't heard of it as a computer term, but apparently its a compiler language. Penny |