|
28 Oct 09 - 05:39 PM (#2754361) Subject: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer I said the following in a moderator's comment after a thread was closed:
And the thing about all this that is so distressing, is that this bigotry and nastiness is coming from people who are otherwise quite admirable people, people who would ordinarily be thought of as 'the good guys" - but yet they can be horribly mean and horribly prejudiced. The Conventional Wisdom at Mudcat is that Christians are evil and BNP Nazis are evil, so they're fair game, and anything said against them is righteous. The most distressing example was one day when MBSGeorge posted on a BNP thread, and people just ganged up and battered her. MBSGeorge is a longtime Mudcatter and a longtime member of the UK folk community, and I hear from people who know her that she is a very nice person. BUT she ran for office as a BNP candidate for a minor local position, so now she has been repeatedly and cruelly condemned at Mudcat as a bigot and a horrible person. Mind you, MBSGeorge has never said a nasty or bigoted word at Mudcat - but if she dares to post, you can be sure that an angry mob of self-righteous Mudcatters are going to jump all over her. Yes, we do have occasional visits from BNP trolls (and from other trolls masquerading as BNP members), and I'm sure they get great pleasure out of the hysterically righteous reaction many Mudcatters give them. I'm sure our anti-BNP troupe draws a lot of the pro-BNP posts we get, because it's known that Mudcat has become a place where troublemakers can always find a good brawl. I still think silence or rational, clever replies are a far better tool to use against the BNP trolls. I lead a Bible study at my Catholic parish on Monday mornings. There's one woman in the Bible study who constantly complains because she says our parish is not a "pro-life" parish since we don't have a steady stream of anti-abortion propaganda. I'd say the vast majority of Catholic are against abortion, but they could also be called "pro-choice" because they don't believe that legislation or criminalization (or propaganda) will effectively reduce the number of abortions. I've found that parishes that have strong anti-abortion campaigns, often have a very nasty, negative air about them - because they're all about being against something instead of doing something constructive like feeding the poor or giving housing to the homeless. Same thing applies to Mudcat - negativism will destroy us, even if it's in the name of righteousness. OK, now about the Christian thing. The conventional wisdom at Mudcat is that all Christians are anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-homosexual, sexist bigots. And Catholics are even worse, since they follow every dictate of the Pope and promote child molestation. You know, I suppose there are a few Christians and a few Catholic Christians who fit those descriptions, but most don't. But there's very little said at Mudcat about Christians who demonstrated and were beaten and arrested for peace and civil rights, who run homeless shelters and soup kitchens, who run remarkable schools and healthcare institutions, and who do all sorts of other wonderful things for the good of society. I get along here just fine, but I do have to say that at time, I feel marginalized here. There's always the underlying feeling that I'm an outsider, because I'm a Christian and a Catholic. There was even one anonymous post here that called me a child molester. But it's more than just righteous nastiness against the BNP and anti-Christian bigotry. There's an underlying tone of animosity and mistrust at Mudcat that is hurting us as a community, a cancer that is silently destroying us. There seems to be philosophy arising that says, "I'm right, so it's righteous for me to attack others." When you post, try to remember that there are real people reading your posts - and if you post is an attack, somebody's going to get hurt. So, could we lighten up a bit and do our best to ensure that nobody gets hurt, even if we disagree with them? I'll open this to discussion, but only to civil discussion. I will not allow any posts from guests, even if they are members; and I will not allow any posts from new members whose identity I cannot verify. I'm sure this thread may get nasty, and I'll close it if it does - but I guess it's a good idea for some honest (and I hope charitable) discussion. -Joe- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 05:46 PM (#2754365) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rapparee Thanks, Joe. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 05:54 PM (#2754369) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer I'm not saying Mudcat is horrible, but I think it's clear that we've had some problems and animosity lately. Because of that tone, there are many good musicians who won't come to Mudcat at all; or else they come just to get lyrics and not to join in the discussions. Like it or not, a lot of people think of Mudcat as a place where people like to be nasty. So, my question is, what can we do to change the tone of Mudcat to something more positive? There's a lot here that is absolutely wonderful - but there is enough negative stuff here, that we're scaring people away. Back in the 1960's, there was an ironic bumper sticker that said Kill For Peace!!! Sadly, it seemed that many people actually lived by that slogan. The same is true here. There are Mudcatters who believe that Christians and BNP members and others are so horrible, that the only tactic that can be used against them, is cruel aggression. Sorry folks, but evil does not cure evil. And many of those you think are evil, may not be as bad as you are. And can we conduct this discussion in a civil manner? Nattering nabobs of negativism are not welcome in this thread. -Joe- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:00 PM (#2754373) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Gervase Phew! I admire your candour, Joe. And, as I mentioned on an earlier, thread, I admire your particular stance on religion, despite my usually militant atheism. On the BNP thing, I'm going to have to differ, though. Having lived through the Seventies in the UK, I've seen what the far-right thugs of the BNP and its predecessor, the National Front, can do. I live in a small-ish country that needs cohesion and tolerance if it is to survive, and the BNP is the absolute antithesis of that. This is far, far more than even the most polarised Republican vs Democrat schtick. We are dcealing here with an ideology that is founded on hatred and division; an ideology which modelled itself on national socialism and which, in private, is still proud to call itself national socialist. It is an ideology which sets out deliberate to recruit the disaffected and to turn them into its foot soldiers. I've known MBS George for probably 10 years; certainly since she started coming to the Middle Bar. She has a beautiful voice and is an excellent singer who can bring a room to a hushed standstill. But. If she - or anyone else for that matter - had said "I'm voting BNP", then I could have understood. It's easy to be swayed by the muscular rhetoric and the simplistic arguments of the fascists, after all. But to seek election as someone who embodies the values of the BNP and to ask the world to endorse your embrace of a known fascist and racist party is something else completely. Call me self-righteous if you will, but if someone is prepared to stand for election on a fascist and racist ticket, then I am going to 'jump all over them'. Folk music is an awkward constituency - it likes to pride itself on its inclusiveness, yet in the UK it is almost exclusively white, and the BNP is on record as stating that it wants to make folk music its own. That's what the Nazis did in Germany in the 1930s, and to this day German folk music is tarnished. I don't want my culture to be dragged through the mud by people like MBS George. she is already attracting media attention in the UK for her political views, and I want to be as loud and forthright as I can in saying that she does not represent me or anyone else I know in the traditional music world. Anyway, that's my two-pennorth. And thanks for starting what could be an interesting thread. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:07 PM (#2754375) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Number 6 I believe that pretty well all the people here in the Mudcat are decent folk in real life ... somehow people tend to get nasty and somewhat egotistical when involved in internet forums ... this negative attitude issue and discussions has have been going on here since I've been a member ... I really don't know what can be done ... but thanks anyway Joe for starting this thread ... let's see what becomes of it. biLL
-Joe- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:07 PM (#2754376) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ed T I suspect people can be nasty, in the heat of argument. I also suspect that other folks can be sensitive, about specific issues, where they hold strong personal opinions. Itry and be civil...though at times off beat. I learn from discussion, and tune out when I am not interested, or if folks get out of line. I observe that some folks have made friends, and that's a good thing....but, at times certain circles seems small and exclusive. Most dicsussion ngroups have regular members and those that come an go...for a variety of reaseons (including disagreements in discussions) . I don't see that as serious....or much to worry about. After all, people are from all over...from all walks of life....experiences and beliefs. Is it not normal to have a bit of that? It seems odd to me that a lot of stuff is coming up for discussion....for example, music versus BS content and this thread. Maybe it's all being taken too seriously? After all....its just a web site,and just words. It would be boring if there were not some heated, and interesting moments....kind of like a sull music site with no other place to go to get to know members.
-Joe- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:12 PM (#2754379) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC I would say the answer would be to hold everyone to the same standard and apply the same rules and the same consequences to everyone - something that has not ever been done in the Mudcat, and has been the source of most of its headaches throughout its history. This means that, no matter how deeply entrenched a poster is in the Mudcat core group, or how esteemed they are as a musician, hold them to the same standards as the least regarded and most peripheral posters, and apply exactly the same remedies for their behavior. This is doubly important to apply to people with moderator powers. Things will never improve in the Mudcat until this happens. Personally, I don't think it ever will. I expect that ten years from now, if the Mudcat is still here, this kind of discussion will still be taking place, because the Mudcat social order is and has always been built around the notion of "good guys" and "bad guys", and those designated as the "good guys" are allowed to do whatever the hell they want, and those designated as the "bad guys" are designated as official and legitimate targets of whatever anyone wants to do to them.
-Joe- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:13 PM (#2754381) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ed T BTW....don't focus on the negative....there are a lot of good things going on here....where else is there a secret Santa? I was fortunate to personally meet the most interesting Mr Wendon this summer because of Mudcat. Don't worry....be happy. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:17 PM (#2754383) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: wysiwyg 1. The difference in US/UK culture continues to warp a lot of well-meant conversation-starts into increasingly-messy cascades of misunderstanding and upset. 2. The intrusion of political views and personal mudslinging into music threads continues to attract more of same and more negativity there and all over the forum. In part this is due to #1 above-- the music world in the UK takes place in a fishbowl, while in the US it's not only not a fishbowl, it isn't a large aquarium either or any watery metaphor-- it's more like a journey by train thru various terrains. 3. So back to #1-- we are trying to co-exist in too many mixed metaphors, when the only argument worth really having in this setting is "what is folk music". 4. Face to face, a good faciolitator can enforce that the only safe response to MANY statements is, "Hm, that's interesting, X-- thanks for sharing your point of view..... Who's next.....?" In text, minus faces-- all hell can and does break loose. ~S~ |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:21 PM (#2754386) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks OK - I really can't comment intelligently about the BNP and the pros and cons of the on-going discussion, so I won't. And I've been taken to task, justifiably or not, for using the term "Yank-basher" about some of our friends from the UK, so I won't say that either. However, it does seem to me that a significant number (or perhaps its a small number of loud individuals) of our across-the-pond colleagues don't recognize the very wide range that the term "Christian" can cover in this country. I see many comments that indicate that they lump all believers together - that is, to them the high-church Lutheran and the pray-out-the-devil snake-handling Free Pentecostal are identical...and equally foolish. Europe, generally, is much less religious than the US, but I hope that people there can accept that we are not where they are. I am not a religious person myself, but I hope I recognize the difference between non- and anti-religious. A bit of respect for the beliefs of others, shared or not, would be welcome. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:33 PM (#2754390) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Charmion Thanks for opening this thread, Joe. That took guts. I think of Mudcat as a publication to which we all contribute. (I'm an editor by trade. Does it show?) Max is the owner and publisher, you are the managing editor, and the Joe Clones are the editorial staff. Every successful publication has an editorial policy to say what it publishes and a style guide to say how the content looks when it's ready for publication. Mudcat should, too. To a large extent, the FAQ is the editorial policy and style guide, so now the editors should do their work consistently, politely and without apology. Spike (i.e., delete) the contributions that don't meet the standard -- not because the contributor can't spell, but rather because the contributor has failed to express an opinion in a reasonable way, as determined by the editorial staff. The FAQ says no insults, backbiting or nastiness (or if it doesn't, it should); consequently, in my opinion, you and the other Clones should simply delete posts that contain insults, backbiting and/or nastiness. A button that says "Report this post" would be nice; I've seen them on lots of other forum sites, so the code can't be that hard to write. Unless you and your colleagues actually change the way you manage the site, this problem will continue and, with it, your angst and disappointment. By the way, as practising Anglicans (we're trying to get it right), Edmund and I also find the anti-Christian bias kinda offensive. I have learned to ignore any thread with religious content. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:35 PM (#2754391) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D " The conventional wisdom at Mudcat is that... etc... That seems a wee bit over-general, Joe.... much as I do see the points you are trying to make. What I would say is that very few issues have such clear, obvious, cut-and-dried answers that folks should feel free to make hateful, nasty, derisive and otherwise critical remarks about them... or about others who may differ. It is one thing to feel you are 'right', and quite another to know HOW to express your supposed 'rightness' in a fair & reasonable way. Mudcat allows more freedom of expression than most fora (forums?), but it is STILL the case that people will type stuff here that they would probably not say directly to someone's face, or in a group conversation. Some of the comments are in the gray area...not exactly nasty, but still insensitive and, to be blunt, arrogant. **YOU** may have strong opinions about something, but simply declaring that YOU are right, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or ignorant or lying or....whatever... makes it hard to have a real discussion of issues, AND hard for moderators like Joe to decide what to do. Maybe someone has an idea....
-Joe- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:37 PM (#2754392) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: wysiwyg Bill, ideas are generally shot down by site mgmt or ignored, except with occasional, technically-elegant solutions to them. Over time one learns to take it as it is and/or be elsewhere. ~S~ |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:43 PM (#2754394) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: catspaw49 I wrote this for "olddude's" thread but when I went to post it, it had been closed. It kinda' fits here........ This friggin' joint can require a skin tougher than shark leather sometimes and I notice a lot of long time members are a lot more selective about where they post as even the most inane and silly threads can turn into load of crap and that also means a lot fewer fun threads since the bickering bullshit gets old. Who the hell wants to start another fight over something originally intended just for fun. Sadly around here, a lot of people! Try the "Saying Nothing " thread as an example. Happens on the music threads as well and at times even moreso! We got some folks out there who will argue over which flea bit their dog's dick! So when Dan and others take a break for awhile......good for them. And if you're like me and posting less to avoid the crap, good for you too. Let's all just check in now and again in some way. Lately its apparent how precious some of these friendships have become. as if we didn't know already........just been a bit tough to take. Had I never come here, I wouldn't have all these people that I feel so close to nor the pain that their leaving brings. Its a cost we pay and I don't mind as so many of you have so enrichened my life, I will be forever in debt to you all. Now go have fun and let the dipwads just playy diddle my fiddle or whatever it is they seem to enjoy.......perhaps its "Stomp my fiddle" instead............. Just a thought..................and I am sorry to see Dan go...... Spaw |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:45 PM (#2754395) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rowan When I first got involved with Mudcat I stayed as a guest for some time, reading and occasionally posting, trying to get a feel for the place and the people. I noticed there were quite a few people who seemed to respond, on Mudcat, as though they knew each other in real life and had axes to grind from that life outside Mudcat and, no matter how rational a post from any one of them, ascerbic and even vitriolic responses were elicited from the others. The topics Joe has described are only two of several that seem to generate more heat than light. I learned early in life that beliefs that are founded emotionally rather than on rational logic are supremely resistant to change; discussion may allow us to explore some of their ramifications but almost never result in believers changing their beliefs; whether the beliefs are political or religious, the behaviour seems to be the same. So I don't bother opening most threads where it's clear to me that the topic is centred on a belief system with strong emotional foundations. It matters little whether I think I might share or disagree with the beliefs if I can't see how anything I may contribute can improve the situation. Occasionally I might be able to offer an example of something I've experienced but it's rare. I find it's difficult enough to have a positive discussion about things when strongly held views are on display but, when the discussion strays from the dispassionately rational and degenerates into ad hominem attacks I bow out from even reading the thread. I appreciate the supportive and communal nature of most of what goes on at Mudcat but it might be that many of us are living in circumstances where the pressures against seeing ourselves as a community are increasing and limiting our abilities to 'rub along'. I don't envy Joe his "duties" as a moderator and wouldn't wish to increase his load but I see no need for ad hominem attacks on Mudcat; I wonder if such posts could be deleted and posters sent a notification. I'm aware of the traditions of free speech in the US and how such suggestions can be interpreted but it's quite clear that Mudcat does have rules and ought to be able to apply them in ways that serve to support contributors who make positive contributions. Cheers, Rowan |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:55 PM (#2754402) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: akenaton I suppose I must be one of the members who hold the most radical political views, but I have friends here of all political persuasions. I love the diversity of the place and I think the problems you mention Joe, are not symptoms of something wrong here, but something wrong in society at large. People seem less able to think for themselves these days, and prefer to live their lives to a mantra supplied by their political leaders. No matter how obvious the corruption and deviousness of these leaders becomes, people seem to remain entrenched behind a wall of divisive rhetoric created by the politicians. Religious belief has been politicised in this way, as have all the other important moral, sexual and racial issues. The answer as always is use your brains, believe no one, trust nobody.....they fuck you up.....politicians. As for the BNP, they will soon be accepted into the soft warm bosom of "liberalism" where they will no longer be a threat to the fascists who live there. View others not as "political threats", but as fellow humans who may have differing opinions to us The problems of our society can only be dealt with on a personal level....Polititical oraganisation of society is the real threat. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:55 PM (#2754403) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Azizi I feel the need to say this: I'm one of the few American members of Mudcat who has occasionally posted to the BNP threads. I've done so because of my strong concerns about racism & fascism. I believe that the BNP is very similar-if not the same as-the KKK and the Nazis. I believe that most Mudcat threads-including the ones about the BNP-are read by many more people besides Mudcat members. And it seems to me that discussions about the BNP on Mudcat forum may be helpful to some people who are not aware of the true nature of that political party. And with regard to your comment, Joe, that George is a nice person- a person can be a nice person and still be a bigot and/or still support those who have been documented to be bigots. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 06:58 PM (#2754405) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jean(eanjay) My comments on the 2 issues raised: I am a Christian and so I welcome what Joe has said about that. I did have points I considered making about Question Time when Nick Griffin appeared but decided that I just couldn't be bothered. I've decided to ignore all BNP threads. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:02 PM (#2754409) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Amos Of late I have steered well clear of both those contentious topics and a lot of other foofara as well, being content with a few "good" threads that suit my style. I don't mind a good argument, as anyone who has been around here a while knows, but I have no belly for bellyachers and no taste for haranguers whose logic is riddled with holes and high in volume. Joe, if you want to add to your burdens, you could tighten the criteria of hateful posts that get deleted. You could set or tighten the policy of deleting ad hominem remark, abusive communication, and so on. The truth is that people who wail and moan about religion, at least, are mostly aiming at the wrong target, and are bashing their own nightmares, not the things they talk about. Likewise many political issues, although at least politics has a concrete referent you can trot out for display. But neither one is really reason for abusive discourse, at least since Bush left town. ;>) A |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:02 PM (#2754411) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick I am one of the site mod's and I have been posting less due to the ugliness. With regard to the BNP piece, I believe we are looking at a genuine cultural difference. While US and UK posters, seem to share the same disdain, or in my case, outright revulsion towards fascists and racists, our approach seems to be different. The UK'ers (and I understand I am generalizing here) seem to want to ban the discussion outright. The US posters, while generally just as opposed to these types, are rooted in a feeling that one cannot stop the posting of opinion, even or most especially, opinion with which we strongly disagree. It is the "free speech" as a Constitutional right thing. I typically review all deleted posts. If they are deleted just because they express what some might consider an objectionable viewpoint, they are reinstated. If they are from a GUEST in a BS thread,constitute a personal attack, or are simply an attempt to use the Mudcat for some agenda other than a legitimate discussion of an issue, then they are allowed to stand deleted. These are our rules, you simply cannot have posts deleted because you find the content objectionable. That is a trick box you do not want to be in. As to the contention that BNP is trying to take over the folk music scene in GB, that is up to you in GB to take care of. As to the anti Christian bias, I agree with Joe completely. My response is to simply not get into any arguments over it. When I see that start, often from people that I consider good friends, I just have to get out of it. Otherwise I would lose friends. I prefer to express my beliefs/values in how I live, approach daily life, treat others, etc. Mother Theresa, in her years in Calcutta, never tryed to evangelize by proslytizing folks. She simply tried to emulate the values that were taught by the man from Galilee, and to take care of the least among us. That is the best example to follow, IMO. But I do wish my friends would at least have the courtesy not to make blanket statements about "Christians". Those that know me, know that I am first and foremost an imperfect human, but that I act on my beliefs and values. These come from my upbringing and understanding of what the man from Galilee taught. It would be nice if you would remember that in your discussions and not be quite so dismissive of us. As someone once said, disagreement need not be disagreeable. All the best, Mick |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:03 PM (#2754413) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Little Hawk I agree 100% with what Joe Offer has said. I also feel that CarolC nailed it when she said: "I would say the answer would be to hold everyone to the same standard and apply the same rules and the same consequences to everyone - something that has not ever been done in the Mudcat, and has been the source of most of its headaches throughout its history. This means that no matter how deeply entrenched a poster is in the Mudcat core group, or how esteemed they are as a musician, hold them to the same standards as the least regarded and most peripheral posters, and apply exactly the same remedies for their behavior. This is doubly important to apply to people with moderator powers. Things will never improve in the Mudcat until this happens. Personally, I don't think it ever will. I expect that ten years from now, if the Mudcat is still here, this kind of discussion will still be taking place, because the Mudcat social order is and has always been built around the notion of "good guys" and "bad guys", and those designated as the "good guys" are allowed to do whatever the hell they want, and those designated as the "bad guys" are designated as official and legitimate targets of whatever anyone wants to do to them." Bingo! Be that as it may, my own solution has been mostly to... 1. Not let it get me down. 2. Maintain a sense of humour and detachment as best I can when the shit starts flying around here. 3. Simply avoid certain threads which have devolved into a self-righteous hate-fest and an excuse for certain people to vent their emotional dysfunctionality on other people who may hold different views about something. Accordingly, I haven't even looked at any thread about the BNP for a long time. As for the religious/anti-religious threads, I know what to expect there and from whom, but I just refer to 1. and 2. above. I almost always succeed in not letting it get me down. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:10 PM (#2754417) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Azizi **YOU** may have strong opinions about something, but simply declaring that YOU are right, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or ignorant or lying or....whatever... makes it hard to have a real discussion of issues, AND hard for moderators like Joe to decide what to do. -Bill D Although I have strong and heartfelt positions on certain issues-particularly issues of race- I try very hard not to be nasty or arrogant or indulge in name calling. I recognize that what I just wrote about George may not sit well with her, or with other people here. But I felt the need to say that and tried to do so as succiently and as free from emotion as I could. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:11 PM (#2754418) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing One suggestion which I would like to see carried out and that is a required country of origin designation for a thread, esp. a BS thread. I love our UK members and consider some of them dearest friends, but they are an incestuous lot (said with a BIG GRIN) and they do seem to dominate around here more than ever. I would like to see a "UK" before the title of a thread, or any other country for that matter, so that I could easily filter them out. I would also like to see folks think a bit more before they name threads for shock value; it's puerile and off-putting esp. to anyone who may have come here for the first time. Thanks, Joe, and good luck. I am another who has had to take breaks and posts much less due to the constant barrage of crap. kat |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:20 PM (#2754427) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Mudcat will always have these problems becuase it is far too leniant with people who Flame and insult individuals. Every time anybody suggests that tougher moderation is introduced like most decent forums, they get ridiculed or told it doesn't need such moderation. It is time that Mudcat moderated in a proper way and delete posts that flame or insult. Ban people who can't behave. You knopw only too well who they are Joe. When people see that you are moderating properly, you will find a total change in the way people behave. Long live the day when that happens. Mudcat has lost lots of people through poor moderation, but I suppose it will be heads in the sand as usual. I think you will find that many mudcatters would endorse the above, but very often do not want to get involved in such things, for fear of reprisals from the very people that cause most of the issues. How long will it be for the first mudcatter to post on here and say " We don't need such moderation" At least I am prepared to stand up and be counted. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:21 PM (#2754429) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing AND, I meant to say I mean no offence to our UK members!:-) |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:32 PM (#2754437) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jeri I believe the main troll in the BNP thread is a disgruntled member and he doesn't give much of a shit about the BNP. Just wants to piss off those who pissed him off. Hence, you have the Mudcat multiple identities, the Wikipedia vandal and the Facebook identity thief. Same guy (I believe) with only the motivation that Mudcat wasn't the 'nice' place he wanted it to be. Max once said something like "Don't get angry. Anger turns to hatred, and hatred leads to the Dark Side". Pinched it out of Star Wars, but it's true. The worst assholes at Mudcat are the ones whose affection for this place and the people here has been turned. Hell hath no fury like a Mudcatter scorned. As for the 'problem', I think there are two main problems People think just because they have a right to say something about whatever bothers them, they should. Sometimes, yes, but I wish people would ask themselves if what they want to say will make things worse. Too often these days, I think the reply to that would be "I don't care. I feel like I have to say it, and if you don't like it, you can fuck off." People also seem to get their buttons pushed with some regularity, and the disruptors around here know it. There are troll sluts here who just lie back and say "Do me... piss me off, baby--I'm all yours." Again, no consideration for anybody but themselves. People have absolutely no resistance, and it doesn't bother them that they're so easy. I look into Usenet every once in a while. The same attempts at trolling are made there, but people usually ignore them. I wonder why ignoring trolls in a completely unmoderated forum works and Mudcat is so hopeless. One other thing that helps me: I don't have any control over what other people do here. If I sense myself trying to bitch or whine YET AGAIN over the same people doing the same annoying shit, I remind myself I have no control over them, they aren't thinking of me or anyone else when they post and likely don't care if it bothers me or anyone else. Some of us have such a big problem because we remember Mudcat being better, and it was. In some places, it still is really good, but it's never going back to the way it was. Max once said that Mudcat is whatever people make it, and we just have too many people here that like all the negative stuff and too many who can't see anything else. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:34 PM (#2754439) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Dave Roberts I think I've mentioned before that my first ever post on Mudcat (quite a few years ago) led to a baptism of fire. I copied a light-hearted (some would say just plain silly) article from the then Salt Town Poets website in which I erroneously used the word 'whence' instead of 'whither' and was met by a virulent and totally unexpected attack on my credentials as a poet and writer of English. I have to admit this gave me pause for thought, my trivial error seeming to me to call more for a humorous ticking off and gentle correction than a personal attack. Please understand, this was not the kind of ultra-nasty stuff we've seen so often on some Mudcat threads and I didn't lose a second of sleep over it. But the whole affair had the effect of well and truly marking my card as far as the Mudcat forum goes. I persevered and have, I hope, been able to contribute something of value to Mudcat through the years. But I too know quite a few people who have given up visiting the Mudcat because of the nastiness. The point Joe makes about remembering that 'real people' are reading these threads is a telling one. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:35 PM (#2754441) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Well, I don't have time to read everything closely right now, but I do want to raise my question about the BNP threads again, and compare it to the "Kill for Peace" pacifists and the "pro-life people who think it's right to kill abortionists. Those same people think that anyone who opposes their tactics, opposes their cause - and that's not necessarily the truth. If you feel obliged to use aggressive and abusive tactics against BNP members (many of who are NOT "thugs"), are you any better than they are? I think not. Think about that, Gervase and "Peace" and others. -Joe Offer- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:39 PM (#2754443) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D "...ideas are generally shot down by site mgmt or ignored, except ..." Hmmm... that's another pretty general statement, Susan. I wasn't referring to ideas about moderating, but rather ideas about how to make the right points TO chronic offenders that there are better ways to disagree. There 'are' basic rules we are supposed to follow....no ad hominem attacks, etc., and obvious trangressions are dealt with...eventually. But it is those 'gray areas' where someone is being one-sided and mean without actually saying nasty stuff that are hard to cope with. I suspect that, for some people, there are issues that they have such overwhelmingly strong opinions about, that they lose all semblance of rationality and just resort to ranting and name-calling. Religion and Race (as in BNP) are just a couple of the 'hot buttons' .....yeah, we 'could' ban any discussion of politics, religion, race, sex, Nationalism, war, guns ...etc.... but those are human things...the things that NEED discussing....discussing, not declaiming and demanding. I have watched this for...gee.... 12+ years now? and tried to discuss, debate and sometimes defend various issues, and I have mostly not had serious clashes with folks...(even MG *grin* only made one half-hearted snide remark at me). It is not that I don't have opinions, is just that I really try to see both sides and try NOT to make flat declarations that I HAVE all the right answers. ------------------------------------------------------------------- (well, typing that just reminded me of the sig in someone's posts I saw once: " Those who think they know it all are becoming very annoying to those of us who DO!") |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:41 PM (#2754444) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ed T "The most savage controversies are of matters to which there is no good evidence either way. Every man is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day. If a man is offered a fact that goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something that gives a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidenc All movements go too far. Too little liberty brings stagnation, too much brings chaos. It's a waste of energy to be angry with a man who behaves badly, just as it is to be angry with a car that won't go. It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this". Bertrand Russell (compiled) |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:43 PM (#2754445) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow One problem is that a lot of people evidently find it very hard to disentangle strong disagreement from abuse. By that I mean two things - on the one hand there is a belief that, in order to express disagreement, it has to be hyped up with hate talk - and on the other there is a tendency to assume that expressions of strong disagreement must actually imply this kind of hate talk, even if it doesn't actually appear. Put those together and it's inevitable that disagreements spin out of control, especially in an online setting where the normal inhibitions that apply in face to face confrontations don't apply. No one is going to break your nose for insulting them here. What happens instead is that at some point a moderator steps in and the thread is closed, and that people walk away. Sometimes it seems they walk away from the Mudcat, and that's a shame - though I can never understand the logic of that since threads that go bad have never been more than a small minority. Mostly they just walk away from the thread involved, and the cost there is that the opportunity to discuss things that deserve to be discussed gets aborted. And that is a pity because there aren't too many opportunities to explore real differences in the face-to-face world. One minimal rule which we can surely make for ourselves is to decide never to post in hot anger. Write in anger, maybe - but stick it on one side. Read it over the next day and maybe post it then. But perhaps someone else will have made the same point by that time, and perhaps you'll see a way to make it that gets it across better, and won't just provoke a kneejerk response. ................ As for "the Christian thing" , like Bill D I'd disagree with the assertion that "The Conventional Wisdom at Mudcat is that Christians are evil". It's a view that a few people seem to feel obliged to express persistently, often in ways that are undoubtedly sincerely held, but also intended to provoke anger and heat. But so what? The way to respond to that is simple enough in principle, if not always in practice - turn the other cheek. Hold off on posting the response, and do it in a way that doesn't set out to provoke anger. As for the BNP, that is a poisonous and evil organisation, fundamentally at one with other racist movements that have disfigured history over previous generations - but personal attacks on people who have made the very serious mistake of swallowing its message merely serves to strengthen it, and to distract attention from the task of countering that message. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:43 PM (#2754447) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC I think the big question would be, if they are using aggressive and abusive tactics, why have no corrective measures been taken? Why are they being allowed to continue to do those things with no corrective measures applied?
-Joe, who spends a hell of a lot of time on "corrective measures"- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:47 PM (#2754450) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Number 6 Good point Carol. very good. waiting for an answer. biLL |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:50 PM (#2754453) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman JOE , I disagree with you. You asked for honesty. you are apologising for mbs george,she is a nice person etc,she only applied for a minor position,I think you are either out of your depth or naive. the BNP are unpleasant people,their members attack foreigners show disrespect to Muslims[burning their churches]harassing them and other Asians and other ethnic groups.[the BNP and Griffin have the support of a KKK Leader] it is irrelevant whether MBS George is a nice person,or how minor the position she stood for,she supports a party whose members attack foreigners,and whose leader denied that the holocaust happened . I have not attacked MBS George,in fact I have communicated with her privately in a polite manner[I thought this the most likely way to get her to reconsider her views]even though I disagree with her strongly. I seem to have been absent[playing gigs] over the last ten days when it appears most of the nastiness occurred,so not guilty. MBS George is not just a member of the BNP,she stood as a councillor,that shows extra enthusiasm for her cause,why was it necessary for her to even mention her political affilations?. MBS George must take some responsibilty for the unpleasant situation on this forum, a situation she started, and she alone created, is she really an innocent victim?. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:53 PM (#2754456) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow This comes from a "Codev of Conduct" I found on the website of Sojourners - they seem to make a lot of sense here too: I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:54 PM (#2754457) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer I don't give a rat's ass how evil the BNP is, Dick. If all we can do is fight evil with evil, then we've sold our souls to them. We've conpromised our own integrity, and then what good are we? -Joe- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 07:57 PM (#2754460) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Don't ask people to moderate themselves, because very often, for one reason or another they sometimes can't. Surely, thats why you have moderators. Many of the better sites have Edit buttons, so that you can go back and alter something, either for possible spelling errors or because when you see your post in the light of day, you wished you hadn't said something in the way you had. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:03 PM (#2754463) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener McGrath, that is exactly how any forum should be run. Until Mudcat gets its head out the sand, it will never sort it. >>I don't give a rat's ass how evil the BNP is, Dick<< Hmmm, that sounds a little bit like how Neville Chamberlain saw the Germans in the second world war Joe. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:03 PM (#2754465) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: mg One thing that would help me is a filter to just not have to even see posts from certain people. I am up to two people now whose posts I will not read, even if they are recipes for chocolate chip cookies. I presume they or others would do the same for my posts. If it is technically possible, I hope we can do it and it is done on some other places. I realize that bowing out of a conversation with people is not always the answer, but sometimes you have to set boundaries and this is one of several ways to do it. mg |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:04 PM (#2754467) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman Joe,you know very well I have not done that. The best way to fight the BNP is to send money to searchlight. please answer my question, does not MBS George bear some responsibilty for the unpleastness she created,if she had not announced her candidacy,this situation on Mudcat would never have happened. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:05 PM (#2754469) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Bill is right in the ballpark, as usual. The only times I find him objectionable is when he isn't agreeing with me...... damn guy doesn't get that I have all THE answers....... tongue planted firmly in cheek, for those that don't realize it*** I look at most problems, whether on Mudcat, or in the world at large, and it occurs to me that the enemy is not Christians, Jews, Atheists, Fascists, Anarchists....... it is fundamentalist thought in whatever form it shows itself. When someone justifies objectionable behaviour because they have declared themselves the arbiter of what is best for the rest of us, they become dangerous. All the best, Mick |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:07 PM (#2754470) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener A block feature as mg mentions is another useful option. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:07 PM (#2754471) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow An Edit button that allowed us to quietly remove the stuff we wish we hadn't posted when we read it in the morning would just make things worse by adding an extra layer of confusion. If we post in haste stuff we recognise later we shouldn't have posted, the only honourable thing to do is to leave it there, but to make another post apologising for what we wrote, and saying what we now recognise we should have said. That happens from time to time, though not as often as it should. A five-minute edit button, to allow us to correct mistakes immediately might make sense, but not a "light of day" one. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:10 PM (#2754472) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC In response to the brown text inserted in my post above (a practice that in my opinion, is as counterproductive as any kind of bad behavior that posters engage in), I note that while I am not permitted to respond directly to posters, even though I do not have a history of going around (on a fairly regular basis) saying "fuck you" or "fuck off" to other posters, and other equally abusive tactics, at least one of the posters singled out by the head moderator above does have such a history and is still being permitted to do so without being forbidden to respond directly to other posters. While I guess I ought to be flattered that I am considered to be Mudcat's biggest badass, I think that the fact that I have been singled out in the way I have been while other, far more egregious violations of Mudcat rules happen on a regular basis and are not subject to corrective actions is a demonstration of the problems that I described in my first post in this thread. And there is at least one moderator who even goes into other peoples posts and changes what is in them for the purpose of ridiculing the posters in question, and they have not lost their moderator status. This has happened as recently as this week. This a culture of officially sanctioned and permitted abuse, and whether or not one will have corrective action taken against them is entirely dependent upon their statues within the Mudcat hierarchy.
-Joe Offer- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:12 PM (#2754476) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Sorry McGrath, I didn't really mean next morning. More as you suggest. :-) |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:14 PM (#2754479) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jack Campin As for the BNP, that is a poisonous and evil organisation, fundamentally at one with other racist movements that have disfigured history over previous generations - but personal attacks on people who have made the very serious mistake of swallowing its message merely serves to strengthen it, and to distract attention from the task of countering that message. That doesn't match what I'm seeing. We had one poster who was fully identifiable - MBSGeorge - but who wasn't just swallowing the message; she was senior enough in the party to stand for election. She was delivering the message; she was as complicit in their actions as it is possible to be. The other people posting pro-BNP messages were all anonymous. It is not logically possible to make a "personal attack" on someone who has no identifiable persona. We have absolutely no idea who any of those anonymous propagandists are, and owe them no consideration whatever as individuals. They have chosen not to be individuals. If they want to be a faceless gang, they can accept the consequences. (I'm not seeing the anti-Christian bias Joe is describing - maybe I'm just not looking at the threads where it comes up. Precise examples?) |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:15 PM (#2754480) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Dick, you and many others seem to forget something. It is a discussion forum, not the barricades. If you want me to come man the barricades with you, I am there. I have been doing that for 30 years. But in a discussion forum, we should discuss. Lord knows I forget that often enough, but that is the nut of it. Joe makes an excellent point, and it is a lesson I have learned the hard way over my many years here. Sometimes, even when I am sure of the rightness of my position, I have turned a discussion into an argument, and it destroyed what was worthwhile in the discussion. If you are talking of George, stick to what is objectionable in her arguments, and the discussion stays worthwhile. But when it turns into a slagging contest, the whole thing gets lost in nastiness. Next thing you know, very good Mudcatters of many years standing start disappearing and the beauty that this place represents gets more and more faded. Joe is right on. We must not adopt the tactics of that which we despise, lest we become that. Next thing you know, you end up with the Patriot Act (sorry, USA reference/joke). All the best, Mick |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:18 PM (#2754482) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener >>I have turned a discussion into an argument, and it destroyed what was worthwhile in the discussion.<< That is not too bad, but if you start insulting somebody personally, then your post should be removed instantly. That doesn't always happen on Mudcat. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:22 PM (#2754484) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Correction: their status within the Mudcat hierarchy.
-Joe Offer, who finds it best to respond directly in a situation like this- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:24 PM (#2754486) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jim Dixon As Harry Truman said: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Maybe the people who "abandon their membership" are merely practicing their own version of getting out of the kitchen. I say, more power to them. (That would be will power, I think.) I say this as a person who decided to stay out of the kitchen a long time ago. A long, long time ago, I ventured to speak my mind about a few controversial topics. I tried to be tactful, but some people replied with unkind comments, and I felt really bad about it. Then, instead of going back for more, I decided I'd had enough. I decided to stay out of BS threads that are about controversial topics. I have never read any of the BNP threads and I expect I never will. Out of my last 200 messages, only 19 of them were to BS threads, and none of those were about politics or any other subject that people tend to get angry about. I have no regrets. I have found plenty of interesting things to do and read about in the music section. I feel good about Mudcat. I have never felt tempted to "abandon my membership." If I want to discuss any controversial topic—and I do, sometimes—I will do it face-to-face with my friends, people who know me and like me, people I can trust not to abuse me. This strategy has worked well for me. I'm sure my mental and physical health have benefited from it. I recommend it to others who are feeling distressed. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:27 PM (#2754489) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Ah well I am going to go to bed and leave you Americans to have a good old chin wag. Keep it clean boys and girls :-) God, I hope I don't have dreams on this :-) |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:31 PM (#2754493) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Shakespeare has a relevant quote when it comes to the futility of this kind of thing: "We have scotched the snake, not killed it. She'll close and be herself whilst our poor malice Remains in danger of her former tooth." Another way of making the same point is Nietzsche's "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" Which works equally well as "That which does not kill them makes them stronger" |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:37 PM (#2754495) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,number 6 "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." This I have heard many times here in the Mudcat ... and from some of the elder members. With that being said .... and a over all acceptance of a Laissez faire, "no barricades approach" to moderating ... the Mudcat is what it is ...... then I ask, what is the meaning of this thread? things won't change .... the Old Dudes and other good people will come and then they will leave .... the same old heated arguments will continue with the usual vengence. biLL |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:38 PM (#2754497) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge In that case, McGrath? Joe, PM sent. Evil will triumph when good men do nothing. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:43 PM (#2754501) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Richard, in response to the implication of your, "Evil will triumph when good men do nothing" comment. The appropriate thing to do, in this case, is to expose the wrongness of the idea, expose it to the light of day, not ban the free expression of ideas. All the best, Mick |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:48 PM (#2754505) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Perhaps the time has come for the 'right on' anything goes doctrine to be knocked on the head. People are allowed to post the most obnoxious crap on here, and it's allowed to stay up. Moderators [and they should be anonymous] should take down nasty contentious posts, WITHOUT COMMENT! I once asked Joe "what happened to taste and decency on Mudcat?", and I was told that it wasn't one of the parameters when Mudcat was set up !!!! Sorry but it's a necessary adjunct of everyday living in my book. If Max wants to finance Mudcat by allowing sponsored adverts, then he better discourage any putative sponsor from reading some of the content of Mudcat, or they won't sign on any dotted line. JM |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:49 PM (#2754506) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge But that is not what Joe proposes. He suggests only responses in accordance with his views of moderate response, and not responses that illuminate the evils of religions (or the BNP). |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:50 PM (#2754508) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jeri If insults are to be deleted, I consider anyone who doesn't agree with me to be insulting me. ;-) Seriously, I think life is better when it's not so easy to piss people off. If we can't even define 'folk', how the hell are we gonna come up with a definition for 'insult'. Know why I think the trolls down own Usenet newsgroups? Because people know nobody's gonna delete anything, they'll have to lie in the bed they make, and if they find themselves immersed in a hellish argument with hellish people, it's their own fault for diving in. Once again, for Joe and myself as much as anyone else: you can't control what other people do. You can only control what YOU do. You can get pissed off and start an infinite number of 'The problem at Mudcat?' threads to complain about things or people you don't like. WE can start them. In the end, I don't think anybody's gonna try to be more considerate and nothing will change, and there isn't much anybody can do about it... except learn how to live with it or go away. --------------------- And Richard, the pertinent verb is 'do', not 'discuss', and the action has to be something effective. Consider that what you do may only give them the attention they want and hurt a bunch of innocent bystanders. Does this help their cause or discourage them? |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:50 PM (#2754509) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: wysiwyg What I just wrote my friend Dan: .... Life is too full to put time or energy into messes that are not yet ready to be cleaned up. I usually have my hands full feeding the positive, and encouraging that. I spend less and less time de-goofing things-- and I try to limit that to ONLY the stuff that comes to me, ripe for de-goofing. Sometimes I'm wrong about the ripeness, or exactly what God's asking me to do, and then I back off. Fast. Each time I back off I take a lesson with me. Hardi and I buried a lot of good people the last two weeks. I say "we" did it because I, too, am a professional member of the team. There will be two more on Saturday, then-- after a quick bite to share what cool things we saw God doing-- that Sat. Nite service I keep inviting you to visit. And ya know what's hard about all these funeral times? Not the deaths and not the funerals. The several people AFTER the funerals who can't look at anything positive God is doing right next to them and IN them. Not when there's been death and not, unfortunately, when there's been new life born, either. The energy to try to hold up all that pain-- the only one I know that is big enough to do it is Jesus. Of course we know that each person has to be WILLING to be lifted up..... by Him or by anything. (That free will thing is a bitch.) Oh, I can do my share, but then I need to sleep! :~) ~S~ |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:53 PM (#2754512) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I don't give a rat's ass how evil the BNP is, Dick. If all we can do is fight evil with evil, then we've sold our souls to them. We've conpromised our own integrity, and then what good are we?"" With regard to that Joe, I have just one question. How would you propose to expose the evil of an organisation? 1) By ignoring it, in the hope that it will go away? 2) By telling the man who is advocating the sinking of boatloads of human beings that he shouldn't be so naughty, and slapping his wrist? or would you agree that there is nothing evil about confronting and attacking the organisation at every turn, exposing the racism and bigotry, and YES, attacking the veracity and the ethical and moral compass of one who takes a position of power in said organisation? I have a dossier of 40 A4 pages printed off from discussion boards and profiles on Facebook, Bebo, and Myspace, all of which pages are solely devoted to personal attacks on, and lies about, Mudcat members. Richard Bridge, Myself, Jeddy Rose, Virginia Tam, Peace, Katlaughing, Owen Woodson, Houston Diamond, Royston, John Barden, Fred mcCormick, Lox, Lizzie Cornish, and passing references to you, Joe, and Max. As I have pointed out before, the Nazi Party was as insignificant in 1930 as the BNP is today. Ten years later it ruled most of Europe, and was starting on a policy of ethnic extermination. The BNP deny that this ever took place, and if we simply ignore them, we are asking for another dose, this time against Muslims in particular, and dark skinned people in general. Would you accord them the right of free speech, and try to curtail OUR right to the same? On the subject of Christianity, I consider myself a Christian, but in the way I live my life, not in the place I spend Sunday mornings. Christianity is not a building with a cross, nor is it a man in a black frock. It is, as I read Jesus' message, how you live, how you treat your neighbour, and how you place the interests of others at the same level as your own. Don T. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:53 PM (#2754513) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,number 6 John MacKenzie ... I fully agree. Even the most civilized of debates are moderated. It's human nature and it's about time that it should be done here in the Mudcat. biLL |
|
28 Oct 09 - 08:55 PM (#2754515) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow To get it in proportion, I just counted, and there are 29 currently visible BS threads. Perhaps three of these might involve some significant disagreement. And at this point, so far as I could see, all of these discussions are being conducted in pretty reasonable terms. It's stormy weather from time to time, but not that much of the time. .................. My point with those quotes, Richard, was the same as one Big Mick made earlier - "It is a discussion forum, not the barricades." |
|
28 Oct 09 - 09:01 PM (#2754519) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Leadfingers Abuse and shouting down ANYONE who says something you disagree with is NOT Discussion ! If someone posts something that You feel needs correcting , either do it politely or in a PM ! And PLEASE dont respond to an Obvious troll ! |
|
28 Oct 09 - 09:01 PM (#2754520) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge Not everyone wholly approves of Mother Teresa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aplank/Criticisms_of_Mother_Teresa If we do not man the barricades, Mick, then those who did not can write our epitaphs. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 09:12 PM (#2754527) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Richard, maybe I can get it across to you another way. Manning the barricades on Mudcat means exposing THE IDEAS for their falsehoods, half truths and outright distortions. It means attacking THE ARGUMENTS forcefully, with your own arguments and logic, and doing so in a cogent way. To twist a cliche' a bit, tis better to let them open their mouths and prove themselves fools. But personal attacks, and namecalling, does nothing but turn you into the thing you detest. Manning the barricades in the streets is another matter. But as one who actually has done it, as opposed to those that throw the term around as a foolish, romanticized view of something, I know that this is a dangerous thing, and a last resort. Tis far better to destroy the idea than to attack the people. They will then look foolish all on their own. All the best, Mick |
|
28 Oct 09 - 09:18 PM (#2754529) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rapparee I have simply dropped out of political and religious discussions, even threads that I, believing the topic to be fairly innocuous, have started. And I'm "taking a breather in place" -- I will no longer post to religious or political threads, at least for some time. I have dropped out of two forums because what I posted was derided. My momma told me not to stay where I wasn't wanted, and I find that to be good advice. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 09:52 PM (#2754550) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Russ My post just disappeared. If it was deleted, no problem. But I'll try again. I have said it before and I will say it again, Mudcat is fine just the way it is. I post rarely but browse Mudcat almost daily. It's always worth the effort, even when I don't read any of the threads. That said, I don't come to Mudcat to read or participate in non-musical threads. Coming to Mudcat to discuss politics is like trying to buy a pair of socks at a McDonald's. Keep up the good work, Joe [Russ-nothing was deleted. It may be one of those occasional technical glitches.] Russ (still Permanent GUEST after all these years) |
|
28 Oct 09 - 10:25 PM (#2754561) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: wysiwyg I'll speak up for Russ. He's no nameless "guest" He's a reg'lar, and a good guy-- joined-up or not. ~S~ |
|
28 Oct 09 - 10:44 PM (#2754563) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Interesting to read the responses posted thus far. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 10:51 PM (#2754566) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D Mick keeps trying to explain what the difference is between discussing and "deriding and denigrating", but it seems a tricky point to make. (He and I have very different positions on a couple of topics, but we don't insult each other as we debate) *IF* you have a good point, and you make it well in a rational manner, it will do just as much to promote your cause as all the standing-on-the-soapbox rants you can muster. If you feel you MUST oppose someone or some group, go DO it on the barricades where you face your target directly. As far as I know, 99.999% of the BNP doesn't read Mudcat. Exactly who are you preaching to? As far as having more (If anyone has real proof that ANY moderator has maliciously edited ANY other person's posts, that should be taken up with Joe/Mick/Jeri...and maybe Max ...and not just tossed into this thread as an insinuation of corruption. That is too serious to just claim without evidence.) |
|
28 Oct 09 - 10:56 PM (#2754572) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing (If anyone has real proof that ANY moderator has maliciously edited ANY other person's posts, that should be taken up with Joe/Mick/Jeri...and maybe Max ...and not just tossed into this thread as an insinuation of corruption. That is too serious to just claim without evidence.) Thank you for that, BillDarlin'...have to say I absolutely agree. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 11:02 PM (#2754574) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Well said, Mick, Jeri, Joe, Bill D. and several others. Different angles, each of you, that taken together provide a pretty whole picture and cover most, perhaps all, of the options available to a responsible adult. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 11:19 PM (#2754582) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC It's not an insinuation that a moderator has maliciously changed the content of posts. It's established fact. The head moderator had to change one of them back to the original content more than once. So my alerting anyone would be completely redundant. In the more recent thread, the poster whose content had been changed complained about it in the thread, which the head moderator also read. So it is not necessary for me to alert anyone about that one, either. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 11:21 PM (#2754585) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Some perspective compliments of Amos, on the MOAB thread. |
|
28 Oct 09 - 11:27 PM (#2754586) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Here's an example of the kind of malicious moderation I'm talking about. One of the posters who has served as a designated target in the Mudcat and has been on the receiving end of enormous amounts of abuse, including quite a lot of extremely vicious (and often obscene) abuse from one of the moderators, posted a poem they had written. In the poem, they used the word Pennine. One of the moderators changed Pennine to penile. There were other changes as well, but that's the one I remember
-Joe Offer- |
|
28 Oct 09 - 11:46 PM (#2754592) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,jts Anti Cristian bigotry? If you want to show people how they can express their issues with religion in a civilized way maybe you can point out some better examples. I am impressed by Christopher Hitchens. I think his point of view is rubbish. But he expresses it in a civilized manner. On the other hand maybe you can keep the rabid christian-bashers at bay by calling them second rate Hitchens' But as you look for ways to curb Christianity bashers, will you equally crack down on other bigotries? Anti Muslim Bigotry has been pretty common here. If you enforce such morality for one, in my opinion, it must be for all. Its hard for many people to discuss politics and religion and stay friends. As long as you have those discussions about either of those issues, people will leave. Lively discussion is one of the hallmarks of this place. I would not like to see it stifled. But also consider that the people leaving are not being forced to read those threads. Maybe they simply want to get back at someone who offended them and they are using you as their catspaw. As far as the BNP goes, anyone who comes here supporting the BNP is asking for trouble. Most of recent folk music is the total antithesis of what the BNP stands for. I would suggest that those who feel the need to express their dislike for the BNP would be better served by doing so in song. Woody Guthrie and others have provided some excellent templates. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:05 AM (#2754598) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Neil D I know they are two separate issues but protesting the horrible meanness toward the British National Party AND anti-Christian bigotry in the same thread seems counter-intuitive. And publicly taking two members to task, by name, in a thread promoting more civility seems counter-productive. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:08 AM (#2754599) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Good try, Joe. Bye, ya'll. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:34 AM (#2754603) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,.gargoyle Thank You Joe!
|
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:42 AM (#2754604) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,.gargoyle Boy - doesn't this list of contributors look like the most "Co-Dependent on Mudcat Anonoymous" posters in the history of the organization.
Sincerely,
|
|
29 Oct 09 - 01:48 AM (#2754618) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Oh, Lord, just what I need....a compliment from Gargoyle... As far as the BNP goes, I think it is very important to be vigilant - but I also think it is important to be rational and civil, not hysterical and abusive. I don't think it would be worthwhile to reason with the BNP, but nonetheless I think our responses should be rational. Constant streams of profanity and name-calling and bullying party followers, just tends to draw "outside agitators" because they know they can find a place to fight here. As for the Facebook problem, look at Jeri's post about it above. As far as we can tell, the person responsible was the same one who was responsible for the alterations of the Mudcat Wikipedia entry, and was the same person who trolled under a variety of names here - long before the BNP ever came to prominence. There's a good chance our primary "BNP" antagonist, isn't a member of the BNP at all - he's just a troll who made suckers out of a lot of hysterical Mudcatters. Now, if the Mudcatters could have just been smart enough not to respond....
People angrily demand that we remove offensive posts, and accuse us of negligence if we don't - but what good does it do to remove a post when a dozen people have already responded to it in the first ten minutes? Sorry, but I still subscribe to Max's belief that this community has to police itself. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 02:52 AM (#2754628) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC I applaud the removal of the moderator who was maliciously altering posts. In the thread, the head moderator's behavior had the appearance of covering for the moderator in question because they suggested that the poster whose words had been altered might have actually posted the altered words by mistake. We know that this is not what happened because that poster had copy pasted the poem from their own website where it did not contain the altered words. Because of the way it was handled, it left the impression that moderators would not be removed for that kind of behavior. Personally, I think it would have been very beneficial to have made a statement in the thread that such behavior by moderators is not tolerated and that the situation had been corrected. The appearance of condoning behavior that is against the rules has the effect of encouraging behavior that is in violation of the rules. In one of the websites for which I am the admin, one of the moderators did something similar. Our head moderator informed that person publicly that she would not tolerate such behavior and would remove that moderator if he ever did anything like that again. He apologized publicly for what he had done, and he never did anything like that again. And because the head moderator addressed it publicly, the other members, who were quite alarmed by this behavior, felt better for knowing what to expect and knowing that such behavior would not be tolerated. I will find the recent one and send it privately. I tried to call but there was no answer. I will try again tomorrow. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 03:17 AM (#2754632) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC And I would just say, in response to one of the brown comments inserted in my post, which I almost didn't see because I usually don't go back and keep re-reading my posts (which is why this approach is so counterproductive) - I am told that if I would just inform the head moderator of abusive posts, corrective action would be taken. But my experience is that because of times when I have alerted the head moderator about abusive posts, I have earned in their esteem the reputation for being someone who "squeals like a stuck pig". My experience has been that if I complain about the behavior of one of the exalted ones in the Mudcat, I am branded as someone who squeals like a stuck pig and I get into trouble. If one of the exalted ones in the Mudcat complains about me, however, I get rules applied to me that are not applied to people who are far more abusive than me and who break the rules, by orders of magnitude, far more often than I ever have, and the one who made the complaint against me does not get branded as someone who squeals like a stuck pig, or experience any negative repercussions for having done so. This is a profoundly irresponsible and counterproductive way to moderate an internet forum. If people are going to be encouraged to alert someone in a position of authority when there is an abusive post, and then they are abused by the person in authority for having done so, I can't imagine any reason why they would ever want to contact that person of authority ever again for any reason. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 03:34 AM (#2754635) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC I'm going to put it another way, and I'm going to speak directly - If you want people to be willing to come to you with issues, you need to treat them respectfully when they do, both in public, and in private. And you need to be fair and consistent in the way you deal with those issues. If you don't, people won't feel safe in coming to you with issues, and you will encourage people to deal with issues on their own, having no faith that their issues will be dealt with respectfully and fairly. I was willing to call you this evening because in this thread, you were addressing me respectfully, for the first time since I have been a member here in the Mudcat. Had that not been the case, I wouldn't have been willing to call. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 03:42 AM (#2754637) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Amergin Well, I'm sorry to hear Dan is gone....he seemed like a good guy.... Now I have been coming here since 1999, though didn't actually enroll until sometime in 2000, I think. I know with me, when I feel some one is trying to preach their agenda, whether religious or political...I can be a bit reactionary...and think before I post...I do that in real life too...speak before I think...and many times have been forced to eat my own foot... I try not to, and more and more am getting better at it...but sometimes it is hard, and through the years you have always been really fair. I respect that and you. Now as some one with very left wing views, I detest fascism...but I detest tyranny in all forms, all sides of the political and religious spectrum...from the left, right, centre, and whatnot...but there seems to be too much focus here on the BNP. Yes it is scary, and one can see it happening here in the States with our own emigration scare, mainly generated by the rich and their political lackeys to hide the true issues, but you go in any BNP thread and you will read the same thing over and over again, it seems. It's like a flashback to the incessant threads about the Irish question. Also this facebook thing, why is that even brought up here? I am sorry that people, some of which I like dearly and respect, are affected by it, but that is something that needs to be dealt with through facebook, or through legal channels (if there is even anything that could be brought to court over it, which slander, defamation, I presume could be, but those would be civil). I guess that is all I have to say...and I prefer the usual mudcat method over the constant moderation, but people need to act like the adults we are and not act like we're in a barroom brawl. All that from me and really little to add to the discussion...but there it goes, another aspect of mudcat, and one I wouldn't want changed. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 03:58 AM (#2754639) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Doug Chadwick If Max wants to finance Mudcat by allowing sponsored adverts, then he better discourage any putative sponsor from reading some of the content of Mudcat, or they won't sign on any dotted line. How worthwhile will any discussion be if it is carried out with one eye on what the sponsors may or may not like to here? DC |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:36 AM (#2754650) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Keith A of Hertford I do not claim to be a good Christian, but I am one and am a regular churchgoer. I remember a lonely struggle to justify my belief that it is a force for good in the world and that the work of Christians would be missed. I have only ever derided BNP and am not at all racist, but I have been called a racist, a xenophobe and a liar on recent threads just for expressing concerns about mass immigration. This was allowed. I thought personal attacks were not allowed. At least they did put up posts of mine in an attempt to justify, although they found no racism or lies. Moderator Big Mick did not even do that when he called me a bigot. When I pointed out that to make judgements on a man's character, without any knowledge of him or evidence, is prejudice, my post was deleted because it was about another member not the subject! keith (I am offline for a couple of days.) |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:41 AM (#2754652) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge Posters here would do well to google for salient phrases, or to look on the "Folk against fascism" facebook pages. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:45 AM (#2754673) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman some of the moderators on this forum,remind me of the fireman[ who dont put out fires, but burn the books]in fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. I agree with Carol C. she says[If you want people to be willing to come to you with issues, you need to treat them respectfully when they do, both in public, and in private]. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:02 AM (#2754680) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Gervase Keith makes a telling point in his usual quiet way. He is not a bigot or a racist; he is a decent human being with a deep love of traditional music, and yet he has been accused of the most extraordinary things by people on this forum. We are asked not to be nasty to people who are avowedly members of the BNP, yet disgraceful personal attacks on someone like Keith are tolerated and even condoned by moderators. And, on a slightly different tack, it would seem that the BNP are even impersonating Joe these days. This is an email that a BNP sock-puppet has posted on the Folk Against Fascism Facebook page, purporting to come from Joe: "I have to say that I share disillusion with the prejudice and nastiness that is so pervasive in threads about Gervase Webb these days. Even though Bruce Murdoch has done horrible things in the name of his faith, that's no justification for the overall prejudice against victims of alcohol that exists today. And even though I'm sure that it is righteous to oppose Richard Bridge's Russ Meyer comments, the nastiness in the name of righteousness - is still nastiness. Think about those things - no, I'm not going to open that for discussion, because it will just get nasty and bigoted all over again. Royston is not the only one who has abandoned his membership because of the bigotry and nastiness here. I don't know how these things can be resolved, but I wish they could be. I suppose it's not quite fair to say something like that and not allow discussion, so I will allow it for a limited time, and I will monitor it very closely. I'm not at liberty (by law) to name names, but there are a number of good people who have left their Mudcat memberships recently, and it's for two main reasons The horrible meanness expressed in the threads on the BNP (British National Party). Please accept this party has every right to exist. The constant anti-BNP bigotry that is expressed at Mudcat And the thing about all this that is so distressing, is that this bigotry and nastiness is coming from people who were once quite admirable people, people who would ordinarily be thought of as 'the good guys" - but yet they can be horribly mean and horribly prejudiced against a party the British public clearly want and who gave them two seats in Europe last May. The most distressing example was one day when Gervase Webb posted on a BNP thread and started talking about how his life had changed since he left his wife for a guy he went to school with, and people just ganged up and battered him. Gervase is a longtime Mudcatter and a longtime member of the UK folk community, and I hear from people who know him that he is a very nice person. BUT he left his wife for a man and some could not accept that, so now he has been repeatedly and cruelly condemned at Mudcat as a bigot and a horrible person. Yes, we do have occasional visits from Richard Bridge posting under another name to talk about the Russ Meyer films he collects. There's always the underlying feeling that I'm an outsider, because I'm share the views of Keith who has proven to be a solid guy always defending his right to be British. I like Keith, and I agree with him totally. I'll open this to discussion, but only to civil discussion. I will not allow any posts from Anti BNP types, even if they are members; and I will not allow any posts from those members whose ask female members if they wear stockings and suspenders or their cup size. I guess it's a good idea for some honest (and I hope charitable) discussion." FaF has a membership of several thousand, many of who have no contact with Mudcat. It would odd if their perception of this place was based on that sort of thing. But, in the great scheme of things, I suppose it doesn't matter... |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:23 AM (#2754684) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman another reason why I understand people have left mudcat,is the disgraceful behaviour that went on in the chat room. I never visit the chat room[so again I am not guilty]. Joe, you have never answered my question?. is not MBS George responsible for some of the unpleasantness here, by declaring herself as the BNP candidate for Chippenham, if she had not done so, a lot of unpleasantness could have been avoided.PLEASE ANSWER THIS.
My 94-year-old mother-in-law listens to US talk radio constantly, and she spouts some of the same misguided and racist ideas that I hear from BNP supporters from the UK. Do I express my disagreement with her? Certainly. Would I be justified in beating her to a pulp or in verbally abusing her? Absolutely not. You Brits seem to think you are the only ones with a Fascist problem. We have Foxnews and talk radio. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:10 AM (#2754706) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Is that not a rhetorical question anyway, Dick? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:20 AM (#2754711) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: manitas_at_work Isn't that like blaming Tom Berners-Lee? If he hadn't invented the Internet there would be no flame-fests. No, there would still be arguments about the BNP even if MBSGeorge hadn't stood for office so you can't hang this one on her. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:29 AM (#2754716) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow I get the feeling this thread is getting to the stage where it might be appropriate to start posting recipes. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:12 AM (#2754727) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: number 6 Might as well start posting recipes .... it would be more significant. Things here in the Mudcat are not going to change ... a new version of this thread will appear in about a years time. biLL |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:32 AM (#2754732) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow "...a new version of this thread will appear in about a years time" As is only natural. After all, "The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance". In relation to the Mudcat that means members using commonsense and good manners towards each other. Which most of the time most of us do, but the occasional reminder makes good sense. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:23 AM (#2754756) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman manitas , the point is that mbs georges thread in which she announced,her candidacy for the BNP ,had 282 posts.,and caused unpleasantess on this forum,thats what she is responsible for. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:40 AM (#2754768) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie I also think that pious and patronising comments in brown type, added to someone's thread, smack of megalomania. It reminds me of a maxim I was taught in training. 'A man who has his name on his desk, and on his door, is usually hiding behind his position.' We were also taught, that the way to deal with someone like that, was to try and draw him out from behind his desk. Thus bringing him down to the same level as you. JM
The pious and patronizing tone may have been a sign of my inner struggle to avoid using the term "asshole" in response to some comments. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:41 AM (#2754769) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Smedley Part of the problem is that 'civil' and 'courteous' and 'non-personal' and 'taste' are relative things, not absolutes. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:54 AM (#2754773) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Well everybody is being pretty nice to each other. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:33 AM (#2754795) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Ralphie Actually Dick. It was MBSGeorges (Georgina Dale) outing of herself that was one of the prime catalysts for the founding of FaF. So, maybe we should be thanking her. It was only after that little spat that people became aware of Right wing infiltration of the music and traditions of these islands. and the missapropriation of artists compositions for their own ends. It's worth repeating that FaF is a single issue campaign. It's to prevent Right wing political parties from allying themselves (without permission) to artists and traditions. Interestingly, I've never knowingly seen, met, or heard Georgina (not being a devotee of the Sidmouth Middle Bar). But, whilst at the festival this summer, I was told that she turned up in the Anchor (Middle Bar venue), and was snubbed by all her old friends. I think that her ex mates led the tirade against her. Regards Ralphie (Is that nice enough for you Villan!!) |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:34 AM (#2754796) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Well everybody is being pretty nice to each other. A comment which was as good a way as you could have of marking a "100" thread. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:36 AM (#2754797) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Borchester Echo Well, well. Once again my attention is drawn to a below-stairs thread by someone who thinks I ought to know about it. Almost certainly, I don't need to know about it (I've seen more than enough of this sort of crap already) I will doubtless regret it, but here goes. As for an alleged "anti-christian bias" on Mudcat, I have noticed one or two threads started in defence of busy-body health care workers who tried to "pray" for their patients and were rightly disciplined by their trusts for contravening the terms of their contracts. From what I read, those who backed the trusts' actions were simply upholding the principle of a secular health service. A second strand of this bumbling brand of hypocrisy is that well-known singer-songwriter renowned for his anti-abortion lyrics. It is surely a matter of legitimate debate on this forum whether this artist should be booked at major festivals and "religion" does not, necessarily, enter into it. And the third strand is that of the "upstanding (they think), patronising, sexist blokes who preface their posts with how prominent they are in their christian communities (I'm NOT talking about Joe Offer in this instance) and thus have some sort of right to pontificate on women's dress and behaviour and to be as sexually predatory towards them as they want. Oddly (or not), all these perhaps at first sight unconnected groupings fall miraculously under the dubious GEFF (Good Enough For Folk) umbrella. Trad music (American & British) is what this forum is supposed to be about. And what I (and quite a lot of others) are concerned about is upholding its quality and excellence and not tolerating its dumbing down. Joe Offer has made the extraordinary statement the MBS George, the now-exposed Chippenham would-be BNP councillor, "never said a nasty or bigoted word at Mudcat". Not so. Long before I knew that she was a fucking fascist (but not before my history of opposition was well-known) she was laying into me and others whose stance was, roughly, "don't play or sing out till you can". Must be a reflection of the warped brand of what constitutes democracy in BNP circles. And an excellent reason for making sure they don't get near to hijacking our music. Oh, and if anyone's interested, that's 100. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:40 AM (#2754798) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow No, it was 103. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:41 AM (#2754799) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: theleveller "one day when MBSGeorge posted on a BNP thread, and people just ganged up and battered her. MBSGeorge is a longtime Mudcatter and a longtime member of the UK folk community, and I hear from people who know her that she is a very nice person." Can I just state some fact about the BNP? They are openly and unashamedly racist - as anyone who has listened to them or read their literature will know. They oppress and persecute minorities because of their race and religion. Their constitution has been declared illegal in the British courts. Many of their most prominent members have convictions for violence and racial crimes. Sorry, Joe, but anyone who supports them is definitely NOT a nice person, no matter what face they put on it. Oppossing them is not self-righteous - it is standing up against bullies and bigots who have no compunction about using violence to further their ends. As a Christian, is that not something you believe in? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:01 AM (#2754815) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing Gervase, thanks for the long quotes. I hope most folks DON'T take them as authentic! |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:06 AM (#2754824) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick I have never met Keith, hence I cannot tell you anything about him other than what I read in his posts. Sometimes I think folks miss an important distinction. I am responding to words without the benefit of knowing the person, other than through the opinions they express. When you post an opinion online, in a discussion forum, you are inviting a response. Because I have never met Keith in person, I think it appropriate to apologize publicly for calling him a bigot. I do so unreservedly. Opinions are another matter. I find many of Keith's opinions to reflect a viewpoint I find objectionable. He is far from the only one I would say this about. But the debate should focus on attacking ideas, not people. One last thing. If I use myself as an example, I have been posting on this forum almost since the beginning. I can remember when most of you came here. I have been through many "ups" and many "downs" in that time. My posts are often a reflection of that. Just as in 3D life, things are often said that we wish we hadn't said. For the most part I have let those remarks stand and took the heat for them (even though I have the ability to delete them) because I think it important to do so. The point is, it isn't hard to find examples like this, we are all human, after all. There are any number of things here I regret posting. But I generally have tried to act with integrity. Personally, despite occasional lapses in the heat of the argument, I feel it is important to stick with debating, attacking, ferociously defending, our opinions, but not attack the people. Using BNP as an example, it is perfectly legitimate to attack the ideas as xenophobic if that is your view. If MBS George wants to place her name on those ideas then she must stand the heat. If I want to post my views on ownership of weapons, I must be able to stand the scrutiny that that entails. But we need not adopt the tactics of those we detest. To do so will doom this place as it becomes increasingly more strident and less relevant. I don't want that. All the best, Mick |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:07 AM (#2754826) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Ralphie Although I realise that the supposed missive from Joe Offer is spam, I just loved the line "A long time member of the UK folk community" Errrrm....Not any more!!! |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:19 AM (#2754835) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: kendall In my opinion, calling someone a "Fucking facist" is a personal attack and that is against mudcat rules. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:20 AM (#2754837) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Agreed, Kendall. I did a search and only found one use of that. What example are you using? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:27 AM (#2754844) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Borchester Echo Delete it, then. Won't make Georgina Dale NOT a fucking fascist though. My point was to illustrate that she is not as pure as the driven snow in other ways than merely her political affiliations and that Joe Offer was wrong to state otherwise. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:31 AM (#2754850) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: manitas_at_work Haven't you falling into the trap of stereotyping her as completely evil in ALL ways because of one aspect of her life? Why, I've heard that even Hitler was kind to animals. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:35 AM (#2754857) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Borchester Echo Two, actually. The BNP and GEFFism. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:39 AM (#2754861) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman Big Mick,I have been personally insulted by three moderators on this forum,you were the only one who was big enough to apologise. Joe Offer,anyone who is a chief moderator and sends a private message,calling someone[me] a certified asshole, and lectures other members on politeness,is a comedian. Joe,Jesus Christ was crucified for being a trouble maker,for being anti establishment and for believing in Justice,true Christians believe in equality regardless of race, or colour . I am a Christian[quaker]and Ioppose the BNP. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:42 AM (#2754868) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John P Aside from a couple of people who always make snarky comments about religion, I haven't seen much anti-Christian bigotry here. I've seen lots of strong disagreements about religion, but not anyone saying that all Christians are this or all Christians are that. I was going to ask for some examples, but in order to show bias there would have to be an overwhelming number of them. A couple of anti-religion people and some general disagreements about the rationality of religion don't make a bias. Besides, why pay any attention to anyone who thinks all Christians are alike? As for the bigot question, there is a fine line between confronting evil and insulting the evil-doers. If I say that someone's ideas are half-baked or that they are a bigot, is that an insult or a statement of obvious truth? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:42 AM (#2754870) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: s&r Joe Offer I speak for myself and I suspect many Mudcatters: I admire your sober approach to running the show, and appreciate your efforts to maintain the value of Mudcat. The moderators and elves are largely invisible and mostly possessed of good judgement. Most of the problems of Mudcat show a good example of the 80/20 rule, ie 80% of the problem is caused by 20% of the members. We all know who are the 20%. This is IMO the most valuable musical forum on the web. The pool of sane members represent the finest knowledge base I have ever encountered Stu |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:43 AM (#2754871) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Ralphie MBS George is not evil, just misguided. Thats all. And didn't Hitler give his dog Blondi a cyanide sandwich? (Fair enough, he wasn't having a good day!) |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:48 AM (#2754875) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Goose Gander Two separate topics here: Anti-Christian bigotry among Mudcatters, which is abundant and deplorable. Anyone who consistently displayed attitudes towards Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. equivalent to those expressed by many Mudcattters toward Christians and their faith would be booted from this site. Hostility toward the BNP, which - while it should not lapse into personal insults - I'm afraid is understandable. Please, please, please do not conflate the two. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:59 AM (#2754884) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jeri Fundamentally, it comes down to people fixated on what they hate and sharing that hatred with everyone else here. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:05 PM (#2754889) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D So--- a thread to discuss the unpleasantness and try to plead for restraint has become a magnet for even MORE name-calling and LESS restraint? Some of you feel you are entitled to say anything you please about topics & people you don't like. It's that sort of behavior that makes trying to moderate a forum a full time job for a busload of moderators. *sigh*... give some folks an inch, and they take a mile. I am beginning to think that **ANY** discussion of the BNP ought to be off limits. Management used to have to restrict discussion of the Nothern Ireland issue because adherents on BOTH sides could not restrain their remarks in any decent way. It has come close to that in the Israeli/Paletinian threads, we all remember other attempts to use Mudcat for personal vendettas on several other issues. The issues are important, but NO ONE has access to 'absolute truth' on ANY topic. SURELY there are better places to rant.....I would hope. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:06 PM (#2754890) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing Bunch o' blankety-blanks fundamentalists is what they are!*bg* |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:07 PM (#2754892) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks Just a small aside: fascism (big F or small f) is a political/economic system and philosophy, like it or not. Nazism was fascist in some respects but not in others; for example, the call for "racial purity was alien to fascist philosophy. Bigotry and racism, which seem to be the raison d'etre of the BNP and similar groups, really have nothing to do with fascism. The only thing the BNP and fascism really have in common is a focus on extreme nationalism. Calling them, or their supporters, fascists gives them entirely too much respect. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:08 PM (#2754893) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D "Anti-Christian bigotry among Mudcatters, which is abundant and deplorable" didn't I just read several comments above which said they did NOT find much of this? The point is, perceptions differ!!. That is why I plead for more careful discussion and less blanket statements like the above! |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:08 PM (#2754894) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: irishenglish This leaves me baffled frankly. I haven't been on here the last 6 months or so too often, but I get the gist of what is going on here. I even posted in some of the BNP threads, and will plead full guilt to engaging, sometimes nastily, with a certain poetic member of Mudcat, whose inane ideas on music left me scratching my head many a time. I've had dustups with people too on occasion, though I won't mention names. I like to think that on occasion I have also eased back with same said person...found a light hearted moment, or try to at least say, well I don't agree with you overall, but on that one fact we are in complete agreement. Yet, based purely on gut reaction, I cannot in BNP or similar threads, contain my utter disdain for everything, EVERYTHING that they stand for. This notion that I should feel bad for "ganging" up on a member of the BNP, as well as Mudcat, for playing the woe is me line makes my blood boil. As I've said many times on here there is a time for niceness, and theres a time for not being nice, and quite frankly, hiding behind the-I only ran because no other party was addressing this issue, so I chose the party with a Holocaust denier is weak. I think it IS acceptable to question that with someone, I think it IS reasonable to say if your BNP..take it somewhere else. If no one takes up a contrary position-where does that leave Mudcat? I'm supposed to engage the BNP elements on here with humour, taste, or by flat out ignoring them? Not how I operate. Another thing I have suggested, more than once now applies here, since this seems to be a state of the Mudcat moment. Learn from some other forums. I remember when I joined Talkawhile...it was the most convoluted setup for joining. They do not accept gmail, hotmail, yahoo, or any of the other main ones for initially starting up your username, if you do, you get rejected. Moderators abound, and there is a picture of said moderator, with the words Moderator for every one of their posts, something I have never, never understood why Mudcat does not employ. What would it take for you to change Mudcat to that type of system-to have mods omnipresent, and not just have the occasional deleted post after someone has alerted you, or have threads go on for 200 posts before we see the first RED ALERT from Joe warning us all to behave. Like I said, I will plead guilty to losing my cool. I will also admit that I think I am one of the nicest people you will ever disagree with....until you cross that line into something that we should all find abhorrent. Why must I play nice in that case? Joe, Mick everyone, your great guys, and Joe your opening salvo was obviously building up over time here. I fundamentally disagree though that this place, this forum has to follow some cookie cutter line regarding certain subject matters. If there were threads about child porn, the thread and its participants would be gone right? This is the reason why I haven't been around much. I got tired of seeing people, good people on mudcat, be called out for raising their voice. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:09 PM (#2754896) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie What some people need to do, is take a few deep breaths, before they launch into a diatribe. The first thing to do is remember that most people are only expressing a personal opinion. OK in most cases they express it badly, but that's no reason to go for the jugular. As for Christian baiting, if it occurs. What happened to turning the other cheek? JM [With his tongue firmly in his unturned cheek] |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:10 PM (#2754901) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D Thank you, ArtBrooks.... THAT is an example of clarifying and discussing......not that it will impress those whose minds are already made up. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:17 PM (#2754905) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Yup, I agree Bill, Folk against Fascism is a misnomer. It should be racism not fascism. I'm afraid that the urge to use the Woody guitar logo was too much of a temptation ;) JM |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:23 PM (#2754911) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) "I haven't seen much anti-Christian bigotry here." Nor me, I've only seen people (including myself I admit) reacting to barely veiled preachery about the "End Times". I think the major problem is, that the majority of perfectly reasonable and moderate Xstians get a bad rap because of a *minority* of *highly voluble* extremists, who go around shouting about how Obama is an evil anti-Christ, how gays should be impaled on roasting spits in hell, and how brilliant it will be when the world blows up and everybody (except them) burns in boiling seas of blood. These very LOUD, terrifying and politically aggressive "Xtians" give real Christians (and even real christians without the big C) a bad name. People react poorly to this hate filled stuff, and thus "Christianity" as a whole, gets it in the teeth as a consequence. My Gran was a devoted life-long Catholic (as are others in my Irish family), and bar her taking me to Mass once when I was a kid, I simply never heard her talk religion. Which is how it should be IMO. I've followed my own path spiritually, and while my personal beliefs probably wouldn't look much different to JC's teaching in the New Testament if I were to detail them, that's my business. I initiated a thread about Christianity recently and there was precisely ZERO antagonism or unpleasantness - which for me proves that there is plenty tolerance enough here, even among the 'fiercely atheist' *smile*. In fact I thought it was a rather interesting discussion, and could have continued as such - though I failed to keep refreshing it: Varieties of Christianity |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:34 PM (#2754918) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC We are told by one poster that most of the problems in the Mudcat are caused by 20% of the people here. I guess that 20% would be the "bad guys". But we are told by the thread originator that the people who are causing the problems are the "good guys". I would say this conundrum demonstrates the need to examine how people are designated as "good guys" or "bad guys" in the first place. In the case of the "good guys", we see that it can't be their behavior, because we are being told that they are behaving badly. It must be something else that earns them this designation. Conversely, in the case of the "bad guys", how did they get that designation if they aren't the only ones who engage in bad behavior? Again, it must be something else that earns them this designation. This need to put people into these kinds of categories is a part of the architecture here in the Mudcat. And once someone is placed in one or the other of these categories, it really doesn't matter what they ever do or don't do from that moment on. It's the label that most people will see rather than the actual person and their behavior. And the way they are treated by others (those who fall for those kinds of social dynamics) will be determined not by how they themselves behave or don't behave, but rather by which label has been applied to them by those to make those designations. This kind of social dynamic is very unhealthy, and is the cause of most of the headaches that fora with these kinds of social structures experience. Get rid of this kind of social structure, and the problems disappear. Make it about the behavior and not about the person. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:39 PM (#2754924) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks Crow Sister, I don't see a great deal either, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like you describe from what we'd call the religious right - perhaps I follow the wrong threads. What I do see, from what appears to be a very small number of very outspoken, very left, right-ponders, is this thought process: Conservative Christians are all right-wingers...all right-wingers are against social welfare programs and are bigots...therefor all Christians are bigoted anti-progressives. Then you add in the second great leap of logic - that since the majority of Americans say that they are Christians of one variety or another, most Americans are bigoted anti-progressives. Of course, the logic trail is flawed at every step, but that doesn't help matters much. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:49 PM (#2754929) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Amos You can tell more about a person by what he says about others than you can by what others say about him. Leo Aikman -- Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 12:59 PM (#2754934) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Artbrooks, I wasn't saying that Mudcat is filled with hate-fueled Xstian bigots by any means, and of course it isn't! I certainly wouldn't hang around if it were. I was saying that hate-fueled Xstian bigots unfortunately tend to be the most voluble and politically forceful (thus they get the most publicity) - and this high volume and high profile religious extremism, colours broader perceptions of Xstianity as a whole. I guess rather in the same fashion that Muslim extremists do a bad turn for Islam. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 01:11 PM (#2754941) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: bobad I will add my somewhat insignificant voice to those who see little anti Christian bias around here, in fact, if I see any sort of bias I would have to say that it is pro Christian, but that perception is, of course, tainted by my own bias. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 01:20 PM (#2754951) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: kendall I have avoided the BNP thread, but I will remind those who are too young to remember, "The past is prolog". |
|
29 Oct 09 - 01:21 PM (#2754953) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Borchester Echo Folk against Fascism is a misnomer It isn't and there is no case for changing it to "Folk Against Racism". There is a pre-existing movement called "Love Music Hate Racism" which is more of an heir to "Rock Against Racism" of the 1970s. What the BNP are attempting to do specifically is to subvert British (mainly English) folk music and using it on their sites without permission from the artists and marketing it under their label Excalibur. This has exact parallels with Germany in the 1930s when traditional music became so tainted with nazi associations that it is still, in the main, locked away in university music departments. What FaF wants to ensure is that English trad does not suffer the same fate. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 01:44 PM (#2754974) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: TheSnail Jeri Fundamentally, it comes down to people fixated on what they hate and sharing that hatred with everyone else here. Actually Jeri, for many of us it is about what we love; our music. It is dissappointing that many US Mudcatters don't seem to have grasped the point about the BNP. From the Folk Against Fascism facebook page - The British National Party's manifesto encourages its members to insinuate themselves into the folk and traditional customs of Britain. This involves the appropriation of British folk music and culture as a means of spreading its peculiar brand of racism and intolerance. I don't think that the BNP are any great threat to British democracy. They can generally be relied on to fall out amongst themselves on a regular basis and they seem to regard getting elected as an end in itself and have little idea what to do when they get into office. They do, however, represent a serious threat to British traditional music by polluting it with their vile policies. I steer clear of using the word fascism but "racist" and "thug" are not just mindless insults but statements of fact. They have recently been taken to court because their membership conditions were explicitly racist. Many of their core activists have convictions for racial violence. MBSGeorge has chosen to align herself with these people, much to the distress of her friends. See this thread - thread.cfm?threadid=120986. Believe me, Cllr Mike is not some left wing hothead. Rather than trying to silence her, people have repeatedly asked her to explain her position and she has consistently failed to do so. So Joe, rather than dismissing those who attack the BNP as "hysterical Mudcatters" and labeling us as just as bad as them, try and understand how important this is to us. We are fighting to protect what we love. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 01:49 PM (#2754979) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Diane, read tghis post, which explains correctly, why Folk against Fascicm is a misnomer "Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks - PM Date: 29 Oct 09 - 12:07 PM Just a small aside: fascism (big F or small f) is a political/economic system and philosophy, like it or not. Nazism was fascist in some respects but not in others; for example, the call for "racial purity was alien to fascist philosophy. Bigotry and racism, which seem to be the raison d'etre of the BNP and similar groups, really have nothing to do with fascism. The only thing the BNP and fascism really have in common is a focus on extreme nationalism. Calling them, or their supporters, fascists gives them entirely too much respect." Fascist as a label, has been notable more for it's misuse, than for it's use. With the epithet 'FASCIST' being hurled at people who are no more fascisti than fly in the air. JM |
|
29 Oct 09 - 01:52 PM (#2754982) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman exactly, Bryan ,it is like the KKK hijacking American traditional music. the BNP has the support of at least one KKK leader. Kendall , Joe Offer, Jeri,you dont seem to have understood at all. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 01:52 PM (#2754983) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam Creative people tend to be passionate people. Sometimes the passion carries us away before the brain engages and tells how the other fellow might feel about what and how we communicate. It is all too easy to err, when we cannot see the face of the one we offend. I know I have flown off the handle in some threads (BNP and God). I have been callous when I thought I was being clever and I am sorry for it. I hope I am doing better now. I hereby apologise to anyone I have needlessly offended in any thread. I may not agree with this one's political views or that one's ideas of how a song should be performed. But I value this one's sense of humour and that one's in depth knowledge. There is something good to focus on in every one. The trick is finding it, celebrating it, letting it temper our clashes. The idea that Catters slip away because of individual and/or collective inconsideration worries me too. I have enough fear of Catter evaporation due to age, infirmity and death. Let's not drive each other away. And thank you Joe for starting this thread. I echo others in saying that i do not envy the work you and the other moderators do here. But I do appreciate it. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 02:32 PM (#2755018) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu I never was very "people smart". My own mother told me I was too trusting. But, here's my two cents... Nobody is perfect, but I have found that the only way to strive toward this unattainable goal is to apologize for and attempt to correct frailties. When people do not do this, they truly are nasty. And there are some nasties aboutst. However, when people do this, there may be an underlying frailty, perhaps more than one. It could be the fear of being cast aside by friends or by the assembled, such as the mudcat community in general. Conjecture leads me to end this line of thought, as it does not need further examples. I'll just add this example of sommat I have experienced and see if it may apply here... I worked for large companies in their engineering departments. Every day, I dealt with engineers, accoutants, lawyers, contractors, politicians, scientists, and so on. On Saturday morning, I went to the grocery store and dealt with people such as those who would park their shopping cart kitty-corner in the aisle and stick their arse in the rest of the aisle, oblivious to the fact that there was anyone else in the store. Mudcat is a grocery store. You don't have to be a scientist to post. That is Max's greatest rule. Anybody can shop here. And anybody can leave. Anybody can let that idiot block the aisle for everybody to see. I hope you understand why I proferred this ezample. If not, sue me... I ain't perfect. BTW... me too... if I ever offended anybody unintentionally, I do apologize. The ones I intentionally offended can go fuck yerselves. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 02:46 PM (#2755031) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow I hope you understand why I proferred this ezample. If not, sue me. I won't sue you, but I can't quite see where that example comes in. I mean, you don't give any indication how you deal with it - fly into a rage, or shrug and squeeze through the gap and walk on by. (And are these people different people from the ones you deal with in work?) |
|
29 Oct 09 - 03:06 PM (#2755048) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Smedley "Delete it, then. Won't make Georgina Dale NOT a fucking fascist though. " Now this, to me, is both spot-on witty *and* politically astute. whereas I guess to others it is outrageously abusive. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 03:12 PM (#2755054) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Not abusive, just superfluous mate. The addition of such an adjective to a sentence, doesn't make the argument more cogent. In fact it can have the effect of alienating those, who might otherwise agree with you. JM |
|
29 Oct 09 - 03:14 PM (#2755057) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow What's the difference between a fascist and a fucking fascist? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 03:22 PM (#2755067) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: number 6 "What's the difference between a fascist and a fucking fascist? " a fucking fascist is breeding more fascists :) biLL |
|
29 Oct 09 - 03:36 PM (#2755081) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: open mike I have not experienced these problems... on mudcat or facebook, but sympathise with those who have been hurt or angered by this. I am sorry to hear that some find these so over-powering that they have gone away. I have heard of a Celtic music festival where the bands invited to play did not realize til later that the event was a rally for a political (fascist/racist/ white supremist) group which used Irish music as a mask to draw people in to thier cause. I do recall that when volunteering as a young hospital aide ("candy striper") I was cautioned not to engage in conversations with patients around politics or religion. these topics often bring out the most personal feelings about beliefs held, and not always able to use logical and rational to respond to "belief" or "faith" as these ideas sometimes escape logic, or are held despite rationality. plus it might be dangerous to ones health to get riled up or have your blood pressure go up due to a reaction to an enraging topic. i hope we can revert to healthy conversations here and continue to allow a forum where all can express themselves. I have been questioned recently about my posts, and hope that we all can just learn to get along... Amos..thanks for the perspective by Carl Sagan reposted by Janie from the MOAB thread, the Pale Blue Dot, this planet we all share. It is the only home we have, and we need to concentrate our efforts on the continuation of Mother Earth and ourselves in order to ensure that there is a future where we will all hopefully co-exist. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:00 PM (#2755098) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Borchester Echo read tghis post, which explains correctly, why Folk against Fascicm is a misnomer !. I can spell fascism. 2. I do not screw up on the use of the apostrophe, nor commas. 3. I wrote an extremely long dissertation once on the roots of European fascism for which I was awarded rather more than a Desmond. 4. Why is a Murkan trying to tell English anti-fascists what to call themselves? Bit of a cheek, innit? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:08 PM (#2755106) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Now there you go folks, THAT is an example of the sort of gratuitously nasty post, that I would like to see removed. Because it is posts like that which drive away the more gentle and civilised poster, leaving only the abrasive and the argumentative. Such trashing of Art Brooks post, is unneccesary, and unpleasant. JM |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:12 PM (#2755110) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: catspaw49 Just out of curiosity............. I don't follow the BNP threads and I haven't really followed this one either but it seems a common theme is "they are stealing our music." How is it that its your music? Music kinda' belongs to anyone who wants to sing it or listen to it. The KKK is fond of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" as well as "Dixie" because some of the lines are things they like to say......"terrible swift sword" for example.......it means something entirely different to them than to me but........... Can I sing "Dixie?" Somebody got a reason why music is "owned" outside of copyright problems? Just curious......... Spaw |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:13 PM (#2755111) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing I must not have hit the right button. A few posts back, I thought I'd posted something like this: In a thread where we are discussing being disrespectful to Christians, I think it is rather odd to use "Xstians." Last I knew Christians view that abbreviation as offensive. Since I am not Christian, I don't know if that is true, but did want to make note of it. I know there is no malice intended the way it was used in this thread; just making an observation. kat |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:17 PM (#2755115) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing I also said I think we ought to be able to get by with one dedicated thread for Faf/BNP stuff with it being moderated. I get it and understand the need to keep folks informed of upcoming events, etc. I just don't think we need a gazillion threads about it and/or slagfests... |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:18 PM (#2755116) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Q (Frank Staplin) I wonder what use the BNP thread had to mudcat? I ignored it; seems like a UK problem to me and I know little about them (the posts to the thread don't explain how or why they exist or what their attraction is but just pour fuel on the fire). Others (several at least) are the Zionist Israeli vs. Palestinian threads; I have posted, often heatedly, because the conflict is important to the future of the Middle East and influences thought across Asia, but here again the thread really has little to do with mudcat. If they were cut out, I wouldn't complain. Perhaps some limits should be imposed, but I would have a hard time defining them. Maybe I am in a minority in that I enjoyed the extreme posts by Carol C. (sorry to see her partly muzzled, some of her recent posts are just too polite) and Gargoyle, but have been upset by others who seem to be untouchable- but I won't expand on that. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:20 PM (#2755118) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam I find the term "Murkan" insulting and antagonistic. 1. it (potentially) alludes to the way George W. Bush pronounces the word American. 2. it (potentially) alludes to the term meaning pubic wig. Neither very flattering, eh? I really wish Diane wouldn't put her attitude towards Americans on show, because it detracts from her arguments and puts people off gleaning the really useful stuff she posts here. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:27 PM (#2755121) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing I agree with you, VTam as to Murkan. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:28 PM (#2755122) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu The Borchester Echo... Nearly 5000 posts and this is the first time I have seen your name. How odd! I wonder why I have never run into you previously. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:38 PM (#2755129) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,harpgirl I'd like to see the BS section separated from the forum by another page so they are no longer on the same page. I'd like to have the forum sectioned into American music and Uk music and Other so I don't have to wade through so much to find something of interest. As I have said over the past eleven years, changing the structure of Mudcat would solve more of the problems than expecting that everyone who participates will behave at all times. But Max has moved on....ssdd |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:38 PM (#2755130) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman gnu, you have not been paying attention. it is a common problem for the ostrich ,it is part of the package of burying the head in the sand. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:39 PM (#2755131) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu Start your own website. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:40 PM (#2755132) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Old Vermin A BNP thread on Mudcat was a very good thing because it enabled information about an intended BNP infiltration into Cecil Sharp House to be got to the lady running the EFDSS before rather than after the event. Still haven't heard what happened, though! Strong argument for keeping it down to one thread just to keep the info in one place. Understand Joe being dismayed or distressed at the animosity flying about. Worth recalling that the British are very much sensitised about fascism and Nazism. Comes of having the refugees arriving in the 30s, and having to fight Hitler from '39 onwards. Then we see essentially a Nazi party here! OK, it was our fathers, or grandfathers for some nowadays, but you get the drift.... My personal guess - perhaps wishful thinking - is that the BNP lack the sort of demographic base the at the Nazis had - hundreds of thousands of desperate and hungry ex-soldiers and unemployed workers. That doesn't mean that they don't need to be very severely discouraged. And I shudder to think what could go wrong if the UK economy goes on sinking. That said, I hope never to use foul language or personal insult as a substitute for argument or indeed otherwise. I'd somehow utterly missed out on the anti-Christian thing, so no comment on that. I have friends who don't do monotheism for religious reasons, but not getting into *that* discussion... As for the lady who was fired from being a church organist for being a witch...the sheer cheek of it. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:41 PM (#2755133) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks Well, as far as I know, my usage of commas was entirely correct, and the only apostrophe I used was in "d'etre"; I'm pretty sure that's how one spells it. "Fascist" is spelled with a small "f" unless used as a proper name (e.g., "Fascist Party") - any other misspellings that you may have found are entirely due to my US English spell checker. As an American (and the word you may have been seeking is Mer'cn) with advanced degrees in European history and in political economics, I'd say I can offer a brief definition of fascism as well as anyone else. Besides, I said nothing about what English (or British, or UKish) anti-fascists should call themselves. What I said was that, as far as I can tell, the BNP are racists rather than fascists, and that to call them fascists gives them more credit than they are due. However, please feel entirely free to call yourself whatever you wish. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:42 PM (#2755134) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Borchester Echo I post "really useful" stuff? Yes, I and a gazillion others have posted again and again and again about how the BNP (just like the nazis before them) are moving in on trad music (and Vera Lynn) and subverting it. They stick it on their sites without permission from, nor with the knowledge of, the artists. They also market music via Excalibur, thus giving the impression that the artists support their nasty machinations. This, unsurprisingly, pisses off musicians considerably. It is not (necessarily) to do with copyright. This was one of the main motivations behind the formation of FaF. It is why FaF logos are beginning to appear on newly-released CDs, on the basis that the fascists will be deterred from attempting to market them. Perhaps you could all copy this post onto your clipboards ready for the next time (yes, I'm pessimistic enough to believe there will be a next time) some Bush clone starts bleating about "it's nobody's music, it belongs to all of us". |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:55 PM (#2755142) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: catspaw49 Sorry man....No Bush clone here and your answer is less than helpful as it implies YOU own something.......Try again? Spaw |
|
29 Oct 09 - 04:56 PM (#2755144) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam I note you did not respond to the charge that using the term a Murkan is inappropriate, especially in a thread that is charging us to treat each other with respect. Name calling is not respectful. I have posted enough in the threads showing my support for FaF and my disgust of the BNP to have 2 Fakebook profiles made in my name and image. But I will not apply a generalised label which encompasses many in order to drive my argument home. A Murkan is designed for maximum collateral damage, is it not? It is attacking all Americans not just the one who happens to be getting up your nose at the moment. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:05 PM (#2755151) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman gnu,or ostrich, I have a website here. have you not been paying attention againhttp://www.dickmiles.com |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:07 PM (#2755155) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam Damnit! Now I am going to have to change my Mudcat ID. Seems it is the new black this season. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:11 PM (#2755162) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Genie Wow! I saw this thread yesterday, when it had 3 posts (2 from Joe). Didn't have time to formulate a response then and still don't, except to say those 160 new posts sure popped up fast! Seems you've touched on a hot topic, Joe. G |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:17 PM (#2755164) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) I think the problem 'of' Mudcat is that it's an American site playing host to a large UK membership. Just like a country with another immigrant culture in it's midst. We have our own issues and our own threads covering them. And we also tend to do things 'differently'. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:25 PM (#2755172) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: akenaton The real reason there is such hostility to the BNP, is that it contradicts the mantra of "liberalism".....seeemple! People have become so politicised that every aspect of their lives has to be categorised as liberal or illiberal, this applies especially to how we think. Mr Griffin made a telling point on BBC television, referring to his unease about followers of Islam demanding the implimentation of Sharia law,special Islamic schools..... and the erosion of British culture in general, he stated that he had never harmed any Muslim and was against our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Labour government by contrast (he singled out Mr Straw), had the blood of over a million Muslim men women and children on their hands. Who are the evil ones?....is to think that the muslim population of Britain are eroding British culture in some way worse than being instrumental in the slaughter of a million Muslims in their own country? Why do we not turn our energy and wrath on the guilty...is it because we are all complicit? We knew that something smelt bad about Blair and the New Labour project...they weren't what we voted for, but they had power and knew how to hang on to it and most of us went along for the ride. Now we have sussed Blair and his cronies, as I have been saying for years we want them gone...Brown Straw Hoon Blair all the gang who remind us that we did not protest strongly enough, that we did not drag them from their lairs and put an end to them..... but we have not yet sussed the ethos which allowed them to practice their deception for so many years and still makes many of us look past the guilty for some more convenient scapegoats......Ake |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:39 PM (#2755183) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam Spot on CS, The UK membership is comparable to US considering the respective populations. From the Alexa site which tracks Mudcat demographics. 42.4% United States 16.1% United Kingdom http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mudcat.org |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:48 PM (#2755189) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman akneaton I do not want Brown gone,I think he is the best of a bad bunch,preferable to Cameron[bring back hunting],and Griffin. that does not mean I support troops in Afghanistan[do you seriously think Cameron or Griffin or the Liberals ,would have had a different foreign policy]. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:49 PM (#2755193) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: wysiwyg I would hope if proposed solutions occcur in this thread, a new thread titled so might be made, since I am prob. not the only one who spoke their piece and is now not reading it all. ~S~ |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:51 PM (#2755194) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu Dick... you have your own website... which is quite well done. Very impressive. And, you seem quite the lad. Unfortunately, I haven`t followed much of the controversey. Nor did I know you had such a nice website. All I saw was controversey. Is it the same at your websiteÉ Sorry... my keyboard goes odd now and then and the question mark becomes É |
|
29 Oct 09 - 05:59 PM (#2755203) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) ""Xstians." Last I knew Christians view that abbreviation as offensive." I use it out of shorthanded laziness. But I'll desist if it's disliked. Overall though I far prefer the adjective, it says something much more meaningful to me than either the long or abbreviated noun. If I had more cause to use that, the world would definitely be a better place - no offense to Christians.. ;-) |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:10 PM (#2755210) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu Cool Crow.... next apology is for the Brits. They have supported this forum with funds to a great extent over the last twelve years and to dis them is just not knowing that they did, I hope. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:21 PM (#2755221) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I am beginning to think that **ANY** discussion of the BNP ought to be off limits."" Of all the posters on Mudcat whose opinions I've come to respect and often admire, you are the very last I would have expected to advocate a lock down on free speech, Bill. I confess I am totally gobsmacked. Don T. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:23 PM (#2755224) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Georgiansilver True Christians are those who not only follow the words of Jesus but the pattern of his life also..... allowing themselves to be guided by The Holy Spirit.... otherwise known as 'the helper' that Jesus talked about in the NT. They become disciples of CHRIST.... hence CHRISTian....... Crow Sister... using Xstian is like saying X= cross... stian... does it actually make sense to anyone??? Crossstian.... is not something as a Christian that I recognise... however.. if you choose to use it... who am I to question your use of it? ... we all choose our way... rightly or wrongly.... you can call us what you like... it makes no real difference Best wishes... Mike. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:24 PM (#2755225) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu Crow... I see you have been posting here about seven months. And you have the gall to trash the Brits? To wit... "I think the problem 'of' Mudcat is that it's an American site playing host to a large UK membership. Just like a country with another immigrant culture in it's midst. We have our own issues and our own threads covering them. And we also tend to do things 'differently'." Goodyness gracious! I think you have issues to deal with. But, I don't expect an apology will follow. Sigh.... once again... gnightgnu |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:26 PM (#2755226) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks Gnu, I think Crow Sister is a Brit. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:28 PM (#2755227) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA I've read a few of the initial posts here but have skimmed/skipped the rest because so much of it has become a BNP discussion and, as an American, I feel that the BNP itself is irrelevant to me (though I am glad to be made aware of folks' concerns with it, in a beware-the-wolf-at-the-door sort of way). As far as the discussion of Mudcatter meanness toward Christians is concerned, I'm not sure that one can generalize it quite like that. Certainly there is meanness by right-wingers toward left-wingers and vice versa, and in America, at least, that often means meanness by the religious right toward those they consider "secular" and vice versa. But if conservative-bashing and liberal-bashing have turned into religion-bashing, I must have missed those threads. I will say that, as an atheist who does not believe in any sort of life after death (including sentient-but-bodyless spirits of any kind), I have sometimes been treated in a mean-spirited way at Mudcat by those who take offense at my attitude toward the dead. For instance, when Ted Kennedy passed away and an "Obit" thread was started, I was not the first poster to mention Chappaquiddick but I did make a metaphorical statement that, because that incident will forever be associated with Kennedy in the history books, he will "never rest in complete peace". Oh, what a hue and cry resulted from that! The worst responses: Kat was calling me "rude, ill-mannered and judgemental", demanding to know "You sit at the right hand of whatever god you think might declare that? Such arrogance..." and apparently wishing bad "karma" upon me. Meanwhile, Spaw seemed to think that I was declaring myself as having "been so blessed as to be given the gift of perfection" and, since in his opinion I had "cast the first stone" at Kennedy for being imperfect, Spaw threatened to give me a hot lead enema ("just bend over while I get the funnel"). So I submit to you that it's not just Christians who are the recipients of "nastiness" by those of a different religious belief here at Mudcat. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:31 PM (#2755229) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Mike, well funnily enough I *have* used christian in an offensive way - when calling a Pagan friend of mine "christian" (as in someone who behaves in a kind and giving fashion), she was most put out about it too!! But unfortunately I feel the particular use and indeed general understanding of that term, seems to be falling into dis-use. Perhaps it's an anachronism in our multi-faith world, yet as I adored Bunyan as a child - I think (as well as being a bit of a hippy) I'm a little 'quaint' or indeed old fashioned in some areas. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:33 PM (#2755230) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu Really Art? Odd posts. Perhaps I am WAY off base. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:34 PM (#2755231) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam Me thinks the gnu gnows that CS is a Brit. He is playing around a bit as a fun loving gnu is wont to do. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:36 PM (#2755232) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu And I apologize if I did not know what Crow was talking about. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:39 PM (#2755235) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Yes Gnu, you have exposed me! Actually I come from Inner-Space, an interdimension where everything is upsidedown and insideout. Just like the Brits, we walk among you, and do things 'differently'. Like eating sleeping brains. Sweet Dreams.... |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:40 PM (#2755236) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu No, VT... I honestly thought she was a Yank and was Yanking the chain. I apologize to her and to all for my offensive remarks. My bad, definitely... big time. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:41 PM (#2755237) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge 1. People should check where their posts are being misused. 2. The USA is the birthplace of the idea that "folk" follows in the footsteps of Pete Seeger and Woodie Guthrie... |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:42 PM (#2755239) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu Crow... "Just like the Brits, we walk among you,..." So, is she a Brit? Or a troll? I am tiring quickly. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:42 PM (#2755240) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Don't sweat it Gnu... I'll just pop it into my 'bank-account' to offend myself with at a later date, y'know on a quiet day at Mudcat when things are dull. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:43 PM (#2755241) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Georgiansilver Well Crow Sister... I guess you have assembled some sort of personal identity whether good or bad..... but what the heck has Bunyan got to do with anything??? You are.... perhaps... quaint or a little old fashioned in your ideas.... but I guess at least they are your own ideas..... I just prefer to go with Gods ideas ... they seem to suit me more than adequately. So far His word (the Bible... the New Testament particularly) has given me direction in my life... allowing me also to be led by The Holy Spirit by choice......... the helper that Jesus promised....... I am really happy with my life and my lifestyle... are you....????.... no... are you really??? What is the point of your existence? Why are you here??? I know why I am... do you??? Best wishes whatever.... Mike. PS... you think calling a pagan friend Christian is funny??? mmmmmm is it really? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:45 PM (#2755243) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I don't follow the BNP threads and I haven't really followed this one either but it seems a common theme is "they are stealing our music.""" That is not strictly what was said. They have been trying very hard to present themselves as champions of what they describe (erroneously) as disenfranchised white indigenous British people. To further this aim of making their policies more palatable to the populace, they have been hijacking festivals such as St. Georges Day celebrations, stealing (there is NO other accurate description) the musical output of Folk artists, and selling it for their own profit on labels owned by the party e.g. "Great White Records", a name which, in itself, exposes their racist message. I'm a very minor semi pro performer, who has seen fit to challenge them, with the result that my identity has been cloned on fake Facebook, and Bebo, profiles which show me as a BNP supporter. This has actually cost me future bookings, and I suspect others will have similar experience. This is designed to harrass and intimidate until we go away, leaving them free to debase our culture and heritage, as if New Labour hadn't done enough damage already. That, if you'll all forgive me for saying so, is why I will not stop challenging them, unless I am thrown off this site. Don T. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:46 PM (#2755244) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: gnu Troll... gnightgnu. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:51 PM (#2755247) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Smokey. "Anti-christian bigotry" is adequately illustrated in Luke, 11:23. One man's bigotry is another man's paranoia. As for the BNP, they are what they are, and don't make much secret of it. I doubt very much they are responsible for any of the mischief on this forum or towards members on Facebook, but that's just my opinion. I still detest what they stand for. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:52 PM (#2755248) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Mike, no I didn't call my Pagan friend "a Christian", I called her "christian": meaning charitable, kind, forgiving. It's becoming a term less well used today. And I think unfortunately so. It wasn't meant as a joke, it was an observation of her character based on her behavior *not& on her religion. By "funnily" I meant "oddly". But I have this feeling that for whatever reason my posts on this thread are being almost perversely misinterpreted. Perhaps with everyone being determined to be offended around here, a little tolerance for light-heartedness would not go amiss! |
|
29 Oct 09 - 06:57 PM (#2755252) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Gervase X used as shorthand in 'Christian' has a long lineage. It's the Greek letter Chi, as seen in the Chi-Rho symbol scrawled in the catacombs in Rome in the second century, which stood for the first letters of the word Christos, or 'anointed one'. To be honest (as an atheist), I really don't think any true Christian would feel upset about being reminded of the two millennia of history behind his or her faith. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:09 PM (#2755258) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Georgiansilver With respect Crow Sister... Christian means of Christ... not charitable, kind, forgiving.... although those are attributes of a true Christian. A CHRISTian is a follower of Christ.. a disciple... nothing more... nothing less.... you cannot make it what you want it to be!!!!! You are not so much being perversely misinterpreted as misinterpreting...... You want lightheartedness and tolerance... then please try to understand that your interpretations may not be accurate and your 'wording' inadequate. You have my best wishes and prayers for the growth in your wisdom. Mike. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:14 PM (#2755259) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rowan I'd like to have the forum sectioned into American music and Uk music and Other so I don't have to wade through so much to find something of interest. I suppose the formal application of "First past the post" voting rules might support both CrowSister and VirginiaTam but it seemed to me, when I first started perusing Mudcat, that many from north of the equator seemed happy to make blanket statements about various aspects of folklore, music etc, as though they were describing 'the universal set'; in my experience many of the blanket statements just didn't apply to the bit south of the equator that I know. So I became a member and like to think I have added a little value, here and there. But I realise the problems of UK and Eire, Asia Minor (from where I sit, "Middle East" seems a misnomer when applied to the eastern edge of the Mediterranean) as US elections are dogfights in which I have no dog; all I can do is try to work for the recognition of peoples' better instincts and humanity. Very rarely have I felt I can contribute anything positive to such threads. And I'm engaged in enough domestic dogfights to keep me occupied without intruding on others'. Early in the thread, someone posted the notion that people from the US and UK perceive the politics and religion generally (and, it seems to me, the BNP, Christianity and Islam particularly) through different lenses; both nations also have a different take on freedom of speech, which may have contributed to Mudcat's attractiveness to those from the UK. Pleasingly, this thread has mostly stayed focussed on the worth of ideas and, while ideas have been strenuously attacked there has been an avoidance of ad hominem lines of argument; the one or two that have been, allegedly, so identified may well be due to the differences between cultures. Here's hoping other threads may benefit. Cheers, Rowan |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:22 PM (#2755262) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA I for one understand what Crow Sister is saying about the word "christian" with a lower-case "c". It is a term in common use in the US, though not as common as it used to be. The fact that Mike is zeroing in on Crow Sister and calling it "HER 'wording' " -- calling it "inadequate" and, by wishing she would "grow in wisdom", calling her foolish -- is a fine example of what I was saying in my previous post. It's not just the Christians who are being bashed around here. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:23 PM (#2755263) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Suibhne (Astray) You have my best wishes and prayers for the growth in your wisdom. Mike. Jesus thinks you're a jerk. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:23 PM (#2755264) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) I didn't make it up Mike. It can be commonly found in literature, but the usage seems to be less common now. As I said perhaps it has something to do with our modern multi-faith society. Small c christian. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:26 PM (#2755268) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA Mike, a definition of small-c christian can be found here, too: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_term_'small-c_christian'_mean |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:28 PM (#2755270) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: bobad Usage of X for Christ in ancient languages The word "Christ" and its compounds, including "Christmas", have been abbreviated in English for at least the past 1,000 years, long before the modern "Xmas" was commonly used. "Christ" was often written as "XP" or "Xt"; there are references in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as far back as AD 1021. This X and P arose as the uppercase forms of the Greek letters χ and ρ used in ancient abbreviations for Χριστος (Greek for "Christ"), and are still widely seen in many Eastern Orthodox icons depicting Jesus Christ. The labarum, an amalgamation of the two Greek letters rendered as ☧, is a symbol often used to represent Christ in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian Churches.[8] The occasionally held belief that the "X" represents the cross on which Christ was crucified also has no basis in fact. St Andrew's Cross is X-shaped, but Christ's cross was probably shaped like a T or a †. Indeed, X-as-chi was associated with Christ long before X-as-cross could be, since the cross as a Christian symbol developed later. (The Greek letter Chi Χ stood for "Christ" in the ancient Greek acrostic ΙΧΘΥΣ ichthys.) While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat, others see it as a way to honor the martyrs. The use of X as an abbreviation for "cross" in modern abbreviated writing (e.g. "King's X" for "King's Cross") may have reinforced this assumption. In ancient Christian art, χ and χρ are abbreviations for Christ's name.[9] In many manuscripts of the New Testament and icons, X is an abbreviation for Christos, as is XC (the first and last letters in Greek, using the lunate sigma); compare IC for Jesus in Greek. Wikipedia |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:45 PM (#2755277) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing Thanks, Gervase and bobad. I was thinking of the "X" which was used to mark out CHRIST in Christmas. Apparently they are two different things. My apologies, CS. SharonA, I have no need to wish you or anyone else "bad karma." Bad or good, we each bring it on ourselves. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:48 PM (#2755278) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman I am an Earthian, I come from planet Earth, I presently reside in Eire. Eire is not part of the UK,any more than America is part of Australia. I have lived in Eire for 20 years,although I was born in England. I am English,that means I have German and Irish and English ancestry as well as English,so like most English people I am a mongrel,woof woof woof. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:51 PM (#2755283) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA Mike (Georgiansilver) says: "True Christians are those who not only follow the words of Jesus but the pattern of his life also..... allowing themselves to be guided by The Holy Spirit.... otherwise known as 'the helper' that Jesus talked about in the NT." Mike, you appear to be saying that non-trinitarian Christians are not "true Christians". Hmmm, here's an example of a Christian bashing other Christians! Mike, please read the following article which explains that some people who consider themselves true Christians believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is a false one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:53 PM (#2755285) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA Hi, kat: Thanks for the clarification! That's been bothering me for months! |
|
29 Oct 09 - 07:57 PM (#2755291) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: skarpi uhhh sorry folks , am I missing something ? what is BNP ? and what do they stand for anyway ? what , I mean , who is... ???? I dont understand any of this . all the best from Iceland Skarpi . |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:00 PM (#2755295) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D "**I am beginning to think that...** Ok, Don...point taken. I have stopped beginning....I was getting pretty upset when I wrote that. I'd hope you can at least see why.... (remembering Shambles 1000s of posts on the pub laws) |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:07 PM (#2755299) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Azizi It occurs to me that part of the "problem at Mudcat" is the result of individuals from multiple cultures attempting to communicate with each other about subjects they consider to be very important. One tie that binds us is our interest & love for folk music-though we may define "folk music" differently. Another tie that binds some Mudcatters is our interest in the study of folk cultures. But even though English is the "mother language" for most of us, we are truly "divided by a common language". Even if we use the same words & phrase, those words & phrases may have different connotations for different Mudcat members & guests because of the different cultures we all belong to within the same nation and within different nations. It seems to me that it's vitally important to recognize that misunderstandings are bound to occur on an international discussion forum, particularly one in which participants are from diverse populations of religious, non-religious, liberals, progressives, conservatives, and a-political individuals (to name some of the "interest groups" that are represented on Mudcat). It's inevitable that misinterpretations will occur and it's inevitable that people from one or more cultural groups may not "get" what you're saying (and the cultural implications & connotatations of what people from other cultural groups are saying). If we keep this in mind, maybe we won't get bent out of shape when this happens. Maybe we shouldn't assume that people always understand where we're coming from and instead should be more comfortable "breaking things down" (i.e. explaining what we mean by what we write, in other words). To use a phrase that has been popularized by United States President Obama, maybe we should be more aware of those "teachable moments" that may occur on Mudcat discussion threads. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:18 PM (#2755309) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jeri This has become absolutely hilarious. With respect for those with an honest anger response to things that make many of us angry and not the contrived control-freak outrage borne of not being able to get other people to 'behave', there is one common thread running through this... um, thread. Everybody contributing* is upset, put-out, peeved, pissed, insulted, or outraged about something, and there's a whole bunch of different somethings. There's no consistency about what we're peeved about. We're all just upset and eager to share that with those who might like something else from us. I will say that I believe there IS some cultural dissonance between UK and US posters (with Canada somewhere in between). It seems as though a person can get as nasty as they want, sneer, bully, stalk or whatever, as long as they don't use profanity. You say one little four-letter word, and your post isn't acceptable. Oh, and then there's the whole 'she MADE me say it--not my fault' that is so popular. I don't know what can be done about that. Maybe just being willing to try to understand others before judging what they say or do (which Azizi just talked about), but does anyone really think that has a chance of working? *Except Bill D who is disgustingly NOT upset, put-out, peeved, pissed, insulted, or outraged. This pisses me off. Bill, get with the program and get pissed about something. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:21 PM (#2755311) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: catspaw49 Teachable moments are great Ziz, as long as there are some equally into learnable minutes as well........... Spaw |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:30 PM (#2755315) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Azizi I agree, Spaw. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:34 PM (#2755319) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Amos I think it's clear from these many tangents that there is no problem with Mudcat that is not a problem in the individual temperament of an individual Mudcatter. Perhaps it would help if we took to heart the principle that we are not only promoting ourselves when we post, but we are also contributing some representative piece of the community. Maybe the frothing and raving would die out if it were replaced with more responsibility for the whole, is all I mean. A |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:35 PM (#2755320) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Fooles Troupe "I will say that I believe there IS some cultural dissonance between UK and US posters (with Canada somewhere in between)." Not to mention, Aussies, Kiwis, etc.... :-P |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:51 PM (#2755327) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Leadfingers I was going to make a comment about how absurd all this arguing is , but I think I would be wasting my time |
|
29 Oct 09 - 08:54 PM (#2755331) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Mick called me about this thread this morning, before I had a chance to get online (his time zone is three hours ahead of mine, so I'm allowed to sleep later). He suggested I have two cups of coffee and some Irish whiskey before I started reading. Well, my AT&T Internet service was down today, so I had to wait until the library opened at 3 PM - and I forgot to bring the whiskey. I'm going to close down this thread pretty soon and go back to our police of prohibiting threads like this, but I'll let it go a bit longer. I'm feeling like a poor, whipped puppy about now. Nobody seems to understand me..... About this Christian thing. I'm opposed to televangelists and door-to-door evangelists as much as anybody here; and I'm a Catholic, but I certainly don't take my marching orders from the Pope. The think I object to at Mudcat is that the Conventional Wisdom defines all Christians as mindless fundamentalist drones, and all Catholics as zombies under the direct control of an evil Pope. There is almost no acknowledgement of those of us who are of the progressive ilk. The mudcat Conventional Wisdom follows the party line of the fundamentalists, who say that we progressives "aren't really Christians" unless we are zombies like they are. Hey, this faith is part of my being, and I'm not about to abandon it to the zombies. Most of us Christian Mudcatters are progressives - don't forget or deny that we exist. I didn't complain about anti-Americanism, but it does persist among the Brits at Mudcat, who seem to think we all support the policies of Dick Cheney and his lackey, George W. Bush. Most of us hated him. And about the BNP - I detest it. Don't try to say I don't, just because I cannot support the use of brownshirt tactics to oppose it. All I'm saying that in opposing the BNP, we need to use a peaceful, rational, non-hysterical approach. We won't defeat the BNP by being meaner than they are - we CAN defeat them by being smarter than they are. As for the false Mudcat stuff on Facebook - I can't control it, so I won't concern myself with it. If you Facebook participants want to deal with Facebook to have it deleted, that's fine. But I have reasonably good information that the Facebook troubles are mostly the work of good, old-fashioned trolls who just want to play us for suckers. Maybe I'm wrong and the Facebook stuff is the work of the BNP, but I tend to doubt that. And I don't care what a person's political views are - what they think does not justify our bullying or scapegoating them, whether they be MBSGeorge or Walkaboutsverse or whoever the current Mudcat scapegoat is. Mudcatters, especially the 'in crowd' of Mudcatters, have an embarrassing tendency to identify and destroy their chosen scapegoats. Maybe I'd better go home and have that whiskey.... -Joe- |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:00 PM (#2755334) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jack Campin About this Christian thing. I'm opposed to televangelists and door-to-door evangelists as much as anybody here; and I'm a Catholic, but I certainly don't take my marching orders from the Pope. The think I object to at Mudcat is that the Conventional Wisdom defines all Christians as mindless fundamentalist drones, and all Catholics as zombies under the direct control of an evil Pope. I'm not seeing that, at all, from anyone. It would help if you named some names. Are you saying I've expressed such opinions? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:27 PM (#2755348) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Q (Frank Staplin) whiskey spelled (not spelt) with an 'e', thus a good sour mash bourbon? The very word is controversial! |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:30 PM (#2755350) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Well, I haven't noticed THAT from you, Jack, but I did get an earful from Sing Out! Magazine about how unfairly you treated them in a thread you started about Sing Out! and the blind - especially since I was able to prove (almost a month later) that your allegations were totally untrue. Your thread certainly didn't help to give Mudcat a good name in the U.S. folk community. But that's another matter. I'm not going to name names or cite specific circumstances, but the anti-Christian stuff and the irrational BNP hysteria have oftentimes come from people I admire very much, and that disappoints me. -Joe- |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:37 PM (#2755354) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ed T "Our principles are the springs of our actions. Our actions, the springs of our happiness or misery. Too much care, therefore, cannot be taken in forming our principles." Red Skelton |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:45 PM (#2755363) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: number 6 Geeezuz Joe .... I thought you'd open a bottle of scotch and poured yourself a stiff tall one after you initiated tis thread ! biLL :) |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:46 PM (#2755364) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing Joe, has there been some recent anti-Christian stuff? I've missed it, if so and in fact can't recall much of any in recent times. It's possible, of course, that I missed it...there are a lot of threads I do not open these days. |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:49 PM (#2755366) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jeri biLL, I thought he did that BEFORE he started this thread! |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:55 PM (#2755372) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: michaelr Far be it from me to engage in Joe-bashing, but I'm compelled to gently point out the following: I am quite sure you're no pedophile, but you do identify as a member of an organisation whose (albeit unstated) policy it has been for a number of decades, if not centuries, to shelter and protect sexual predators and abusers of children. If it was me, I would have cut all ties to said organization a long time ago, and I certainly would not admit publicly to being a member. Best regards, Michael |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:56 PM (#2755373) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Amos Joe: I have to tell you that I have a much deeper respect for practicing Christians than I did many years ago, and that this change in my respect is almost entirely from talking to you, and people like you, who are clear-thinking and compassionate people, rather than ideologues. Although I have done my share of bashing unclear thinking, and ideology used as a substitute for compassion, I have never seen any of that from you. So thanks, and please accept m,y apologies if I have contributed to your discomfort on this topic. A |
|
29 Oct 09 - 09:57 PM (#2755376) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: catspaw49 You can pour a stiff tall one using Scotch? Man, that's gotta' be cheaper than Viagra! Spaw |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:03 PM (#2755382) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: number 6 Good one Spaw !! |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:06 PM (#2755384) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: TheSnail Oh dear, Joe. You just don't get it do you? Have a look at these links - http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg07.htm http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-a-party-of-convictions.php These are the people that MBSGeorge has chosen to join. Do you still think that those who oppose them are "meaner than they are"? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:32 PM (#2755396) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rowan Although I've had no personal contact with Joe, apart from the rare PM, I share Amos' praise of how Joe has presented his reasons for his religious beliefs and how he applies them in practice. Dogmatism is something I've tried to avoid, whether coming from me or coming from others and I have respect for those who try to manifest the positives of their belief system against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. To be a moderator on this forum and still have a life would be impossible if moderating required one to monitor all of Mudcat's threads let alone deal with putative miscreants. From what I've gleaned, it's difficult enough just responding to allegations that members raise; part of the difficulty must arise from the fact that just receiving the allegations must expose a moderator more to our faults than to our good side. It might be that, to start any proper discussion on our behaviour, Joe had to lead with his chin, and the posts he's experienced about the BNP and about Christianity provided recent and/or apposite examples. So far, the discussion has been interesting (to me) and mostly good humoured. If it must be closed, I'd regard that as a pity but, so be it. Many thanks for the thread Joe. Cheers, Rowan |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:38 PM (#2755397) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ebbie Are you speaking of Scotch Tape, Spaw? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:40 PM (#2755400) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D "Bill, get with the program and get pissed about something. " ummm...well.... Ok, I uh... I'm royally pissed at myself for not being so exquisitely clear & coherent that everyone would have instant awareness of the perceptual incongruities inherent in this conglomeration of divergent concepts of relevant mmee,,,errttt uh...what was the question again? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:45 PM (#2755402) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ebbie Forget the question, Bill D. What was the answer? |
|
29 Oct 09 - 10:47 PM (#2755404) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D The answer, Grasshopper, is found within..... (it sure ain't found out here...*grin*) |
|
29 Oct 09 - 11:13 PM (#2755412) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC I'm going to break the rule one more time. Thank you, Joe, for your post of 29 Oct 09 - 08:54 PM, second to last paragraph. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:25 AM (#2755432) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie michaelr, I truly gently suggest that is throwing the baby out with the bath. Change is most likely to occur when it comes from within, as well as from without. As a public servant who has always worked within the "system", I fully see and endorse the value of the "gadflies" outside of the system, (regardless of what the system, beaurocracy, power structure may be -church, large corporation, or government.) I also fully endorse and know the value of those working within the system to serve and operationalize the core values and mission of the service organization, sometimes with the support of the organization, sometimes in spite of the organization, and in every shade in between. I tend to agree with Joe that there are a lot of posts that indiscriminately bash Christians on the threads that arise about religion and diety. However, I suspect that an analysis of those posts, and of the posters to the threads that deal with these issues would reveal that a relatively small number of Mudcat members tend to post to them, regardless of position. If one focuses on those threads, there is a lot of knee-jerk bashing of all Christians (actually, of all religion.) But those bashing posts are made by a small number of the people who regularly post to Mudcat. My impression is that both believers and non-believers who frequently post to these thread are in "emotion mind" and are reactionary instead of responsive when they post. The same is true on other "hot topic" threads. People (the world over) tend to mistake belief for fact, and to let emotion mind drive the bus. Because of my own upbringing and struggle to overcome the effects of fundamentalist and cultural indoctrination, my initial gut reaction to postings that state religious and spiritual beliefs as fact is irritation and adversarial (sp?) refutation. That is my problem. It is then my responsibility to own my emotional reactivity, and change out the lens distorted by my own emotional experiences for a lens less distorting before I react. All a very long-winded way of saying I am responsible for what I post, and responsible for my reactions to what I post. The Mods are not responsible for my behavior on line. The Mods are responsible for carrying out Max's philosophy regarding self-policing, and therefore moderate with a very light hand. It is ludicrous(sp) to me, given the parameters Max has articulated, that people hold the mods. responsible for the behavior of themselves or others beyond a very limited mandate. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:40 AM (#2755435) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Damn. That last post of mine was almost coherent. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:05 AM (#2755438) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: michaelr I see your point, Janie -- but the only "diety" I recognize is Jenny Craig! ;-) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:11 AM (#2755440) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rowan And your other spellings, Janie, were OK. Cheers, Rowan |
|
30 Oct 09 - 03:49 AM (#2755457) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener >>And I don't care what a person's political views are - what they think does not justify our bullying or scapegoating them, whether they be MBSGeorge or Walkaboutsverse or whoever the current Mudcat scapegoat is. Mudcatters, especially the 'in crowd' of Mudcatters, have an embarrassing tendency to identify and destroy their chosen scapegoats. << Hear hear. So moderate and remove posts that do such things. Stop allowing people to bully or make certain people scapegoats. At the moment you are condoning it by not taking such action. As far as religion goes, you are entitled to do what you want Joe. I will respect you as a person. However, if anybody tries to preach religion to me, then I just remind them I am not interested. I still respect those people, but I will not listen to any preaching of religion from anybody. By the same token I expect religious people to respect the fact that I choose not to believe and leave me in peace. I think that Religion and Politics, more than any other subjects in Mudcat, create most of the issues and I would say strong moderating in those areas woudl probably take away most of the issues that Mudcat are suffereing at the moment. Why don't you create a seperate section for Religion and Politics and just moderate that area strictly and carry on the way you moderate the rest as is. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 05:02 AM (#2755476) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: MartinRyan Several months ago, I stopped posting to Mudcat under my own identity, having come to the conclusion that I didn't want my name associated with a site which, in my opinion, was being used by a particular clique (the anti-BNP group) as a platform to propagate their brand of moral purity. I found, and find, their peculiar combination of self-righteousness, mutual admiration and simple bullying, repugnant. The only exception I have made to not posting, was in an Obit. thread where sentiment prevailed over sense. I have continued to post, anonymously, to music threads – I have never used a pseudonym in my life and have no intention of starting now. (The cynics among you may suspect that I'm afraid I'd forget my "name"!). I have also, on occasion, posted anonymously to the BNP threads in an effort to draw attention to some of the abuses that prevail there. The shrillness with which such posts are hunted down by anti-BNP supporters as "against the rules" contrasts strongly with their efforts to circumvent the moderators' attempts to limit their profile on Mudcat. The Mudcat community needs to decide whether it is prepared to be exploited in this way. Ironically, of course, if enough members follow my example, the group concerned will simply try the same tactic elsewhere. p.s. In relation to Joe's comments on abuse of Christians and/or Christianity, I confess (sic) that I haven't noticed any more than the fairly common phenomenon of abuse of the institutional church(es) for past and present clerical sins – and some special pleading in particular cases. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 05:25 AM (#2755488) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Suibhne (Astray) Walkaboutsverse or whoever the current Mudcat scapegoat is. Don't know anything about MSBGeorge, but I do know Walkaboutsverse, who was dealt with purely in terms of his published manifesto in an effort to educate him on its innumerable errors both factual and ideological. The last thread that attempted to do this was The re-Imagined Village which remains my favourite ever Mudcat thread - good humoured banter in an open celebration of common culture with a view to enlighten someone who has got it so completely wrong. The X in Xmas is exactly the same X as in the chi-ro, though it might be regarded as an essential secular shorthand. I think Xtian was first used by John Betjeman - I've also seen Xan, but use Xtian myself. My only problem with Xtians is their belief that the rest of us are going to hell and the sort of righteous pomposity this gives rise to. Georgiansilver's last two posts are a perfect example of: I am really happy with my life and my lifestyle... are you....????.... no... are you really??? What is the point of your existence? Why are you here??? I know why I am... do you??? It's this sort of inane superstitious bullshit that needs moderating; in fact, any form of evangelising really ought to be regarded as a hate-crime and the perpetrators punished accordingly. Otherwise I've no problem with religion as a cultural / folkloric phenomenon and happily accept any individual of any faith into my home, but once they start to preach they will be evicted with extreme prejudice against the notion that truth is to be found anywhere else but in the collective heart of humanity. Just a shame there's so much other crap in there too... S O'P |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:03 AM (#2755506) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie So that's it then is it? The problem at Mudcat is not the way the site is run, or moderated, but it's the way people post things that other Mudcatters disagree with! It has dissed Christians, also Xstians [sorry Xerxes] No it hasn't! It has dissed pagans [allegedly] Has it? It seems to me that it all comes down to a couple of things. The determination to allow people to post anything they want, as long as they don't attack another Mudcatter. Apart from that they can attack anyone else in the universe. Apart from that, there are no rules, unless Joe says there are! JM |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:45 AM (#2755518) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: theleveller "I found, and find, their peculiar combination of self-righteousness, mutual admiration and simple bullying, repugnant." Interesting how standing up to thugs and bullies like the BNP can be described as "bullying". "Self-defence" would be more appropriate. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:50 AM (#2755521) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam Once upon a not so very long time ago, when I was a fire breathing baptist, I used to love to watch Catholic masses on TV. Something so calming and lovely in the Latin and English congregational chanting. My baptist "friends?" would have frowned on such activity as of the devil. What head shaking and out loud commentary there was the one time my daughters and I sang Panis Angelicus and Ave Maria during singing sessions after a church homecoming. How I wondered in my feeble brain, is it so terribly different from reading the scriptures in unison and singing hymns every Sunday morning? Catholics believe in the same Father God and Son Christ. They take communion and practice baptism after a fashion. How is supplication to Christ or the Holy ghost (I never understood this abstract) so far from praying to saints for help and forgiveness? For michaelr - pedophilia and incest is not unheard of in the baptist community. Expecting someone to disengage from an organisation due problems with a minority is bit like expecting people who can't abide any (even trace) amount of pollution to move to another planet. Isn't it better to stay in and work to fix the problem? Isn't this thread a microcosm of just that. Staying and trying to work out a problem? Anyway-- in my early 30's my AMEN (so be it, that's the way it is), turned into an AHEM (hang on minute, something's not quite right here) and then to AHA (I can only answer to myself and my fellow human beings). The figure of Jesus, gives me a good pattern to follow in dealings with mankind. For that I am eternally grateful. Do I want to ascribe to a belief that he is God or the Son of God? No. All the writings through all the ages are just that, writings set down by human beings. Not the hand of a god. Humans are imperfect and fallible and so the writing will be. Language develops and interpretations distort over time and cultures. Nothing written can be known as solidly, irrefutably, provably true. End of! But our own hearts can be true, known and shown in the here and now. "A soft answer turneth away wrath" is effective for some. For others it is incitement to sneering, disrespect, even violence. But here goes anyway. Mudcat is our village. OURS! To some it is sanctuary. To some a dumping ground. It belongs to all who wish to live here. Is it out of the question to take personal responsibility for how we look after it and treat everyone who lives here? |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:59 AM (#2755524) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow As long as I've been coming to the Mudcat (back in the last century) every now and then we get occasional moral panics, and Jeremiads about how the Mudcat has degenerated from a former Golden Age, and how nasty it all is these days. And the Golden Age in question is always a time when there were people just that same thing. To me it seems as if it's still much the same ramshackle assembly of songsters, oddballs, jokers and beady-eyed obsessives it's always been. The same kind of crowd you might get at a folk club or festival, with the bonus that it's a much more international crowd than you ever get in real life. There's the occasional nasty character hangs around for a bit, or sometimes the nasty side of some generally OK character reveals itself, but it rarely gets out of hand. We probably owe a lot of thanks to Joe and the clones for behind the scenes work on that, accepting that can't be easy, and that if the occasional mistake gets made that's understandable. Basically, the Mudcat continues to be something for which I am extremely grateful, and value enormously. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:09 AM (#2755530) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Suibhne (Astray) To me it seems as if it's still much the same ramshackle assembly of songsters, oddballs, jokers and beady-eyed obsessives it's always been. The same kind of crowd you might get at a folk club or festival, with the bonus that it's a much more international crowd than you ever get in real life. Thanks for that. You've just reminded me of something I was in danger of forgetting. S O'P |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:12 AM (#2755532) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ruth Archer "Oh dear, Joe. You just don't get it do you? ... These are the people that MBSGeorge has chosen to join. Do you still think that those who oppose them are "meaner than they are"?" Snail, I think there are two issues here. Firstly there is the treatment of MBS George, and secondly the rather hysterical response on Mudcat to some sick and sad individual trolling on Facebook. I stopped responding to the FaF threads here because they seemed to be much more about the self-righteousness of the contributors than they ever did about any real threat from the BNP. I tried to point out that the Facebook dramas were playground crap, and had little or nothing to do with real threats from the BNP or others on the far right - my feeling is, when your face is on Redwatch, that's when you start worrying. I was one of the first people to have my identity cloned by someone on Facebook (either a BNP member or a Mudcat troll - who knows?) - it was very unsettling, but then I decided to ignore it and focus on other things, and they pretty much left me alone. But the people who kept screeching about it gave the troll exactly the response he was after, so it escalated. They became the focus of his attentions. At some point it stopped being anything to do with FaF or the BNP - it became a het-up minority of people who were just waiting for someone to jerk their chain, and some sad, rather sick bastard on Facebook who was only too willing to accommodate them. I'm sorry to say that some of them seemed to be getting off on all the attention, as they certainly didn't seem minded to just walk away in the hopes that the troll might get bored. This is one of the reasons that the FAF messageboard on Facebook was shut - to stop the stupidity on both sides, because it was actually detracting from the matter at hand, which was to highlight the attempts by the BNP to colonise and appropriate folk music and culture. You'll notice that the FaF website does not have a messageboard. Now you know why. All of this crap did a lot of damage to FaF's credibility, which seems counter-productive to say the least. MBS George did choose to align herself with a fascist party. When someone stands for office representing a party that espouses racism, intolerance and the denial of fundamental human rights to a large quantity of the population, I find it extremely hard to separate that individual from their politics. "He's a really nice guy - he just happens to be a member of the KKK" wouldn't really wash, I presume, in the circles Joe Offer moves in either. Having said that, the Mudcat responses to George when she finally raised her head above the parapet seemed not so much a proportional response to her actions, but a pissing contest in moral outrage. Again, it seemed to be more about the people involved than the issues themselves and, IMHO, did neither those people nor FaF any favours. Re Christian-bashing: my only recollection of a discussion involving Christianity was about a nurse getting sacked for proselytising while at work. I still think that's wrong. I have no problem with Christianity, I have problems with evangelists. And that includes all faiths. And having gone to a convent school, I am not a big fan of nuns. :) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:17 AM (#2755534) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Borchester Echo It's this sort of inane superstitious bullshit that needs moderating This was said about someone who spouts extraneous religious claptrap at any opportunity, oblivious of how his degrading attitude towards women (at music venues, just to emphasis that this comment is on topic) is in bizarre contrast to an assertion of being "happy with his life". I couldn't agree more with the sentiment and if moderation could extend to preventing such proselytisers from turning up on my doorstep peddling Warcry I'd be even better pleased. Meanwhile, this is someone else's weird and disturbing view of anti-fascists: I found, and find, their peculiar combination of self-righteousness, mutual admiration and simple bullying, repugnant This is despite innumerable explanations of what fascists did to trad music in nazi Germany and what is their declared aim here. I can only assume a peculiarly Murkan* myopia that renders them incapable of assimilating the concern prevalent among musicians and in the industry in general that prompted the formation of FaF. They seem to live in the cloud cuckoo land of assuming that fascism in their land consists of half a dozen KKKers sitting round playing Dixie. This is a jolly fine tune and if I were you, I'd go about reclaiming it. Someone else advocated the separation of "religion and politics" from the main forum. This is patent nonsense. Religion has a place in a music forum insofar as it was once an integral impetus for composition. It is, however, an impossibility to separate politics from life. It is what the content of our music largely comprises. Finally, on the subject of Murkans*, this is what many people tend to call inhabitants of the North American continent. Until and unless you desist from referring to all inhabitants of this sceptr'd isle as "Brits" as though were were a bunch of football hooligans, I shall continue to do so and you can get over it. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:52 AM (#2755550) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) I found this thread last night quite odd. First I started by standing up for regular Christians, who get a bad rap due to the behavior of a few extremists. From this point I was criticised for using what I (rightly) assumed to be a conventional abbreviation of Christian, then attacked for Brit-bashing, then accused of being a Troll when responding with a silly reply to someone who was themselves supposedly only "messing around", then criticised again for using the prior conventional abbreviation after I'd already apologised, then barracked and preached at for using 'christian' as an adjective (the use of which may of course be readily found in the dictionary). From this, I'm rather tempted to echo some of SharonA's thoughts... "Murkan" is quite a new one on me, I assumed it was a play on 'mirkin'. Otherwise, as to "Brit" I can't abide it either! Only lager-louts tend to call themselves "Brit", y'know the ones with shaven heads wearing war paint - like members of the BNP in fact. I prefer to refer to myself as English, and I come from the UK * * Gnu, I aughta probably confess at this point, that I don't actually come from Inner-Space. I do however have a silly sense of humour, and as VTam stated you liked to mess about.. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:54 AM (#2755551) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: theleveller "To me it seems as if it's still much the same ramshackle assembly of songsters, oddballs, jokers and beady-eyed obsessives it's always been. The same kind of crowd you might get at a folk club or festival, with the bonus that it's a much more international crowd than you ever get in real life." Now I really feel that I'm amongst friends! |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:23 AM (#2755564) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: kendall Soldier, I do understand; all I said was History repeats itself. Can you agrue with that? |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:29 AM (#2755566) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam Finally, on the subject of Murkans*, this is what many people tend to call inhabitants of the North American continent. Until and unless you desist from referring to all inhabitants of this sceptr'd isle as "Brits" as though were were a bunch of football hooligans, I shall continue to do so and you can get over it. Your argument doesn't wash Diane. What many people? Who? You are the only one I have seen use it. Americans don't associate the term Brits with shaved head lager louts. We see it as an nonprovocative collective term for the people of Great Britain. An appellation your people first applied to yourselves, not Americans, or Europeans or Martians for that matter. However, if you don't like it, fine. I will try to remember to desist from using it. I don't want to continue to offend once I know something I am doing causes offence. However, "a Murkan" and "Murkans" as you use the terms are still an all encompassing willful insult to Americans as a whole, because of the allusion to George W and to the association by sound to a pubic wig. You still knowingly and willfully generalise all Americans in a negative way, when you use these terms. We Americans, do not when we use the term Brits, think lager louts. Ours is due to ignorance about a relatively recent connotation. What is your excuse? It looks from my POV that yours is a dislike for Americans. All of us. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:45 AM (#2755572) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Borchester Echo What Crow Sister said. I am English, one of three nationalities on the island of Great Britain. When you say Americans don't associate the term Brits with shaved head lager louts you are apparently speaking for yourself. The rest of the world does. Did George Washington have a pubic wig? I'm not sure that I need or want to know the answer to that, though I have read that he had wooden teeth, possibly fashioned from cherry tree wood. I dislike Murkans who wilfully (one 'l' in the middle) and persistently fail to recognise the threat fascists pose to the music industry and to national heritage and belittle efforts to do something about it. They may not have been aware at the outset but bloody well should do by now. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:55 AM (#2755579) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks I am also very sorry. I have always understood that the preferred expression for inhabitants of the British Isles was "Brits". So please tell me.us - what is the collective noun for those who live in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Is it British? And BTW, I had never heard of a murkin/mirkin, meaning pubic wig, before yesterday. My wife says I'm an ignorant lout. Maybe its a girl thing. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:12 AM (#2755586) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman I am an EARTHIAN. I dislike being called a Brit. Skarpi asked a question;the BNP ,British National Party are a small political party,some of whose members have been convicted of assault arson and violence against other ethnic groups in the uk. their leader denied the existence of the holocaust,and has the support of the KKK ,KU KLUX KLAN. Their policies[imo] would not to cure economic recession,but arguably could make it worse[sending back thousands of people to their ancestors homelands] would be expensive ,and in the case of other europeans against european law. the BNP fail to understand that all people regardless of their colour are consumers,and are an important part of the consumer society,and thus a necessary spoke in the wheel of capitalist society. they also fail to understand that many of these[foreigners]are highly skilled,and occupy jobs,that could not easily be filled by the people left behind in the UK. .what would the bnp do about Barrack Obama,where would they send him. Skarpi,they are a ridiculous bunch ,some of whom have been convicted for violence against so called foreigners. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:13 AM (#2755587) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Backwoodsman Ve-e-e-e-r-r-rrrrry interesting! I'd never heard of such a thing as a pubic wig either - what a weird, perverted concept. Nor had I heard of 'Murkans'. I thank God I live in the (civilised) Backwoods. And I don't give a FF if someone refers to me as a 'Brit', or a 'Limey', or a 'Rosbif' or a 'Yellow-Belly', or a 'Backwoodsperson' or even a 'Backward-person'. Couldn't care less, far more important things to get my nether-garments in a bunch over. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:18 AM (#2755593) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Borchester Echo "The British Isles" is a geographical term for the various islands offshore from mainland Europe. Not everywhere is "British", a political term. Most notably, the island of Ireland is divided into the Irish Republic (26 counties) and the statelet of Northern Ireland (6 counties). "Britons" might do but there an awful lot of Northern Ireland residents who would object for historical / cultural reasons, as would residents of the Isle of Man and several Channel Islands. I'm an ignorant lout too as far as pubic wigs are concerned. Never heard of them, nor can I imagine their purpose. Are they the same as fig leaves? "Murkan" is a fairly widespread (even if the contributor from Virginia has never heard it) term for an American, based I would imagine on how many of them pronounce it. It is not especially derogatory, if at all. Surely you wouldn't prefer "Yankee"? This would surely disenfranchise all those resident south of the Mason-Dixon line. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:18 AM (#2755594) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam I dislike Murkans who wilfully (one 'l' in the middle) and persistently fail to recognise the threat fascists pose to the music industry and to national heritage and belittle efforts to do something about it. They may not have been aware at the outset but bloody well should do by now. 1. Willfully - Why should I spell it the English way when I am an American posting to an American site? Usually I do spell the English way, as I live in the UK, extraneous 'u's and all. The spell checker just didn't catch that one. And what a piss poor thing to flag. 2. I am not one of those Americans who persistently fails... etc. The BNP or MC troll have/has targetted me, because I support FaF and deride the BNP. But I, an American, am still offended by that term. 3. I have ceded to you (and others) wish to not be referred to collectively by a term that is repugnant to you. You still persistently fail to see how the term you use offends the lot not just the one you say you intend it for. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:19 AM (#2755595) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) I don't personally think it's an *offensive* term Artbrooks. I just *personally* dislike it. The term has some decidedly negative connotations especially from Europe, because of the type of behavior commonly to be seen among classic self-defined "Brits" abroad - particularly those of the lager-swilling shaven-headed variety. However this is not the only usage. As a diminuitive of "British", we can commonly see more 'affectionate' or informal usage of the term too. And I expect that's precisely the way most Americans here would use it. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:32 AM (#2755609) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) For those desiring to know more (Guardian article): "A short and curly history of the merkin Comedy terrorist Aaron Barschak has another claim to fame - he's put the merkin back in the spotlight. Before his royal gatecrash, the prankster amused crowds and cameramen outside Windsor Castle by lifting his pink ball gown to reveal a luxuriant, black pubic wig - making him the latest in a long history of merkin-wearers. The Oxford Companion To The Body traces the merkin back to 1450, a time when the bidet was a distant prospect and personal hygiene fell well short of the mark. Pubic lice were common - so some women, fed up with the constant itching, just shaved the lot off and then covered their modesty with a merkin. Prostitutes, too, were frequent wearers. In the days before penicillin, it didn't take long to become infected with sexually transmitted diseases. They knew it was no work, no pay, and didn't want to scare the customers off with their syphilitic pustules and gonorrhoeal warts. So the merkin was used as a prosthesis to cover up a litany of horrors. The Oxford Companion recounts an amusing tale of one gentleman who procured the disease-riddled merkin of a prostitute, dried it, gave it a good comb and then presented it to a cardinal, telling him he had brought him St Peter's beard. Some prostitutes even used them to give their nether regions a bit of razzle-dazzle. So a natural brunette could offer differing collars and cuffs to demanding customers. These days, merkins are largely the preserve of sexual fetishists - although the Oxford Companion notes that this piece of "female finery" is also an "essential piece of the serious drag queen's wardrobe". They can be made from nylon, human hair or even yak's belly, depending on what the erotic dabbler enjoys feeling against her skin. And they're either woven on to a mesh and stuck on with spirit gum, or attached to a transparent G-string. "I know a bit about merkins, but I don't know anyone who wears one and won't be designing one myself," says Red or Dead founder Wayne Hemingway. "I can't see them making a comeback, but it is a bloody good word." Would-be wearers will struggle to find any merkin retailers. "We're not 100% sure our customers would buy into the merkin," says Ann Summers spokesman Philip Tooney. "The trend at the moment is less is more - with the 'full Brazilian' and the 'landing strip' proving popular." But fanny fashion can be fickle. And if there is a return to the dense undergrowths often seen in 70s porn flicks, then the waxed, electrolysed women of today may be reaching for a merkin until nature restores their full glory. Gareth Francis " |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:34 AM (#2755612) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks From a left-ponder's perspective, "Mer'kn", however you want to spell it, goes with the sort of jerk who says things like "I'm a g/God-fearing red-blooded Mer'kn, and I think all them ni***rs and Eye-rakies should crawl back in their caves". There are a few of them around - a lot less than others may think - and it's not an image I'd like to be associated with. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:37 AM (#2755613) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ruth Archer "However, "a Murkan" and "Murkans" as you use the terms are still an all encompassing willful insult to Americans as a whole," I've seen other American Mudcatters self-refer using this term. I had never even encountered it before I saw it used on Mudcat, and it seemed it was usually Americans using it. SO maybe it isn't meant as derogatorily as VT thinks, and perhaps Diane didn't actually mean it as an insult. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:39 AM (#2755615) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: skarpi if those people are taken jobs from UK poeople , why did that people got those jobs in first place ? is it becouse the people in UK dont want to work those jobs ? I wonder . These people who come from other countrys for work are lookin for a better life , and they all the right in the world to do so . I don´t have many friends here in Iceland , but half of them are people , Bosnia , Asia , Turkey , Scotland , England , USA and Sweden , even from Ghana in Africa, so ...... they are human just like us ,. BNP , shame on you . Politics urrrr I hate them ....... All the best Skarpi Iceland . |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:08 AM (#2755633) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: TheSnail Ruth Archer Having said that, the Mudcat responses to George when she finally raised her head above the parapet seemed not so much a proportional response to her actions, but a pissing contest in moral outrage. Again, it seemed to be more about the people involved than the issues themselves and, IMHO, did neither those people nor FaF any favours. Really? Where are you finding that? As far as I can see, her first post to a Mudcat thread was one she started herself - BS: I am the BNP candidate in Chippenham where the initial reaction was along the lines of "Oh no, please tell us this isn't true" followed by pleas for her to see the error of her ways and get away from the BNP or, failing that, justify her decision. She never replied; she never does. Look here for all her responses. On the BS: BNP: What would you do? thread, it was about six weeks before there was any nastiness directed at her although a great deal was said about the BNP and people insisted on wasting their time arguing with "Daily Mail Reader". |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:15 AM (#2755641) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: jacqui.c I'm English, living in the USA for the past five years. I must admit that I have never heard the term 'Brit' used as anything but a collective word for the inhabitants of the British Isles, but, in spite of regular visits to the UK, maybe I'm out of touch with use of the language. It has always, to me, just been a shorthand term for British. IMHO the use of derogatory names, when one is well aware of their impact, just because someone else has used a word that you don't like, is rather childish. Surely it is better to explain in civil terms that the word being used is considered to be offensive to you and ask that it isn't used again. Having now experienced the culture the other side of the pond from that I spent the first 58 years of my life I have found that the people here are much the same as those in the UK. For the main part they are warm and welcoming to an outsider. In my time I have met, on both sides of the Atlantic, a lot of folk that I have had an instant rapport with. My friends are of many faiths and political views but there is respect between us, an acceptance that, whilst we may think differently about certain subjects, we can still have a valuable relationship. The people that I try to avoid are those who are so sure that they are right, that their god is the only one that exists, that their political view is the correct one for everyone or that, in any way, they have the final answer and insist that I take the same line. Trust me, in my life I have had other people's beliefs shoved down my throat a number of times and that has left me with an antipathy toward anyone who takes that line. If, in the past, that has shown up in my posts on the 'Cat, I apologise. I can understand where the UK 'Catters are coming from apropos the BNP. They basically are racists, who foster the idea of white supremacy. For me, anyone who embraces their ideals enough to stand for election under their banner is someone that I would have to treat with a great deal of caution. Insofar as attacks on particular people are concerned, it is all too easy, in certain circumstances, for the herd instinct to kick in and for people to 'follow the leader' in delivering the next blow to that person. I've been guilty of that myself and, once again, would apologise. I try to stay out of threads where I might be tempted to do that, not always successfully. I've forgotten who said it, but a great piece if wisdom I learned many years ago, is that, when one person in a discussion starts shouting, swearing and/or name calling, they have found themselves on the losing end of that discussion. At that point discussion ends and argument begins and that is the time to walk away. I hope that this makes sense - just my opinion, anyway. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:15 AM (#2755643) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ruth Archer Snail, my recollection (I can't remember which thread it was now because there have been so many) was that when she did eventually respond to defend herself, rather weakly, with one post, piles of people subsequently leapt in. I wish I could find the thread now, but I haven't got the time to fish through them all at present. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:19 AM (#2755646) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Peter Laban Maybe in all innocence, I always though that the use of 'Merkin' for American was derived from the Irish for 'America' : Meiriceá with Meiriceán being a straight forward translation into Irish of 'American'. I first saw 'Merkin' used on the internet by Irish (and Bretons). |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:39 AM (#2755669) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Backwoodsman Nice post jacqui. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:45 AM (#2755677) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: irishenglish So many apologies on a single thread, for this or that! Well yesterday I offered my apologies to anyone I may have gotten carried away with in the heat of the moment. I freely admit to joining the fray against WAV, not for his poetry, but his inane views on music. I think I did it with a balance of humour, knowledge, and a gentle kick in the pants....but his own obfuscation got the better of me. Joe, since you think people may not be understanding...I get your basic point-don't fight fire with fire, regarding the BNP. You certainly can't do anything outside of mudcat, be it facebook, or other web sites-and no one would expect that of you. So lets talk about here then. Lost in this murkiness of "Murkans", "Xtians" et al, has been suggestions for altering Mudcat, and some good ones at that, and I'm not just talking about mine. Someone said this place is a democracy, anythings on the table for discussion. Arguably, its not, but in a good sort of way. There are certain taboo subjects one would not expect to see on Mudcat. If a guest, or anyone posted a blatantly racist thread, or sang the praises of child porn that thread wouldn't be around long right? So that being said, I'll apologize to you and the other mods for dealing with us. In the very limited personal dealings I have had with you, I never had any problem with your response. But I still don't understand why you, and whoever else at Mudcat dont' make changes. Only major change I have seen since I've been here is no guest postings. But even that is not 100%. I appreciate the scope of the original post..but its no good saying now children play nicely when your back is turned, which because of the large number of posts on mudcat about everything, must surely be turned a lot. Perhaps a suggestion thread is in order. I'm sorry if this is another pile of shit dumped in your lap Joe, I don't mean it to be. If you're in NYC I'll buy you a whiskey at my local with pleasure. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:50 AM (#2755680) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow "what is the collective noun for those who live in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Is it British?" There isn't one, really. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:59 AM (#2755690) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam Please respond directly to me. I am not the contributor from Virginia. I am the contributor from Essex UK. My name is Tam or Tamara or VT or VirginiaTam, if you prefer. Take your pick. Just talk to me not around me. If the term is, as you say, widely spread and in use among Americans, that is different. "We can poke fun because we are one." If it is widely spread in the UK/Europe, how is it that I do not hear or see it in the UK? I have taken abuse and overheard abuse targetting Americans, F2F, on radio and telly. But not that term, except by Rory Bremner and Jon Culshaw parodying George W. They are not name calling when doing an impression. Your use is direct insult not an impression done for a laugh. Some months ago when I first saw it used by you, I mentioned the term to a non Mudcatting, English/Catholic/Gay friend. He immediately picked up on the insinuation to pubic wig and thought it extremely insulting to Americans. Is it a gay thing, a young thing, a catholic thing? I don't think so. It is a respect thing. I had supposed the connotation was relatively recent. Samuel Pepys mentions merkins. But was he referring to the head wig fashion or the custom by prostitutes to shave the business area and wear a wig? Rake that Samuel was, I am inclined to think the latter. I really should read him again. Been too long. Anyway, I still don't like the term. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 11:10 AM (#2755698) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Well like Mae West, we have certainly drifted. Could we get back to the subject of the thread please? Joe asked a question, and very few have answered it. Although this thread is a fine example of what's wrong with some Mudcatters. The inability to stick to the subject, coupled with the ability to take offence where none is intended, just about covers it. In one pub I used to call my local, there were three banned subjects, politics, sport, and religion. Oh how I miss that pub! JM |
|
30 Oct 09 - 11:35 AM (#2755709) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA "Finally, on the subject of Murkans*, this is what many people tend to call inhabitants of the North American continent. Until and unless you desist from referring to all inhabitants of this sceptr'd isle as "Brits" as though [we] were a bunch of football hooligans, I shall continue to do so and you can get over it." I (an American citizen and proud resident of southeastern Pennsylvania -- GO PHILLIES!) have used the term " 'Merkun" here at Mudcat, too, and also without knowing about the pubic-wig connection. I am pronouncing it "MARE-kunn" with a pseudo-country drawl; what is the pronunciation of the term for a pubic wig? For me, the origin of the term is in that gawd-awful Lee Greenwood song: "...and I'm proud to be anna MARE-kunn, where at least I know I'm free..." Now that I know about the pubic wig, I guess I'd better stop using the term. Mannnnnn, it's been 233 years now, and you Brits are still tryin' to spoil our fun! :-) Well, shoot, I can't even say "Brits" anymore... or "British", either, apparently. "English"? "Englanders"?? "UKers" ("You-KAY-yers" or "YOU-kers"?)??? Oh, yes, and we don't consider Brits to be football hooligans. Americans are football hooligans. Brits are soccer hooligans!! :-D SharonA, with tongue firmly in cheek |
|
30 Oct 09 - 11:39 AM (#2755711) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Backwoodsman "Brits are soccer hooligans!!" Not all of us, Sharon. Some of us are CRICKET hooligans!! :-) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 11:49 AM (#2755720) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Whats all the hype about. Isn't this what a Merkin is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin Incidentally, I call you people over the water "Yanks" or "Americans". I use "Yanks" Because I can't be bothered to type "Americans". I don't mind being called a Brit or British or English. I do not like being called, Scottish, Irish or Welsh, becuase I am not. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 11:59 AM (#2755731) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D I can almost always tell when I am being intentionally insulted. I NEVER thought of the term 'Mur'kin or Mer'can...whatever... as anything but a sort of Southern or rural pronunciation, and/or as a way to poke gentle fun AT them or at some aspect of being in that culture. I NEVER associated the term with 'merkin', the pubic wig. In the same way, I have NEVER used 'Brit' in an insulting way, but merely as shorthand when I meant 'all you folks over in that batch of islands'. What I do is assume that I am NOT being insulted, until it is clear that I am. It is a LOT of work to keep track of ALL the little things someone might object to. I know the really offensive ones, and avoid them. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:01 PM (#2755732) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Gervase I thought Brits were from Yurp. As such, they'd be Yurpins. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:09 PM (#2755738) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: theleveller "I can almost always tell when I am being intentionally insulted." Me too. I'm a Yorkshireman (and a cittern player) so I've had a lot of practice. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:23 PM (#2755746) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: folk1e I think that this could so easily have descended into an argument with no solution. It was therefore a brave act on the part of Joe! Reading between the lines, I think there has been a genuine effort to solve (or at least start to solve) some of the problems here. This in itself is an arguement for both behind the scenes fixing of problems and of front of house good (ish) behaviour by individual 'catters! Well done guys (seriously)! I am with Joe in the belief that you become corrupted when you use the tactics of hate. I knew there was a good educational reason to watch Star Wars (Grin)........ live long and prosper! |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:27 PM (#2755752) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA (Psst! Folk1e! "Live long and prosper" is from Star Trek, not Star Wars! "May the Force be with you" is the Star Wars phrase!) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:34 PM (#2755758) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: jacqui.c Hey - Sharon! I thought that too but didn't want to be too much of a pedant. :) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:35 PM (#2755759) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ebbie "what is the collective noun for those who live in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Is it British?" There isn't one, really." Kevin There isn't one for the USians, either. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:53 PM (#2755777) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA Hi, Jacqui: Nah, no such thing as being "too much of a pedant"! :-D |
|
30 Oct 09 - 12:55 PM (#2755779) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: kendall Just for the record, George Washington never had wooden teeth. His denture was made of ivory. Hippo tusks to be precise. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:03 PM (#2755789) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SINSULL UKers appears here fairly often. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:03 PM (#2755790) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: folk1e Hmm ....... The Star Wars refrence was on of Yoda's ..... ".... and that leads to the dark side" Live long and prosper is the traditional (in Sci-Fi) greeting or farewell with the "Double Vee" salute! The Vulcan race had eschewed emotion in favour of logic. Maybe I should have been clearer? .......I'llsethee? (it is a brittish 80's TV thing) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:11 PM (#2755804) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA Kendall is partial-ly right (get it? partial?). Anyway, a laser scan of one of Washington's four known sets of dentures, done at the National Museum of Dentistry in Baltimore, MD revealed: "The dentures are made from gold, ivory, lead, human and animal teeth (horse and donkey teeth were common components). The dentures had springs to help them open and bolts to hold them together." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6875436/ Here's another article, possibly the one where Kendall got the info about hippopotamus ivory. Human teeth were in that set of dentures also. Another set was made partly of gold: http://www.americanrevolution.org/dental.html |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:11 PM (#2755805) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,number 6 Did Ben Franklin invent Poligrip ? |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:25 PM (#2755810) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: VirginiaTam Then maybe the mofo Georgie could get down with the gangtsa rap, gold teeth an all. Smoove. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:39 PM (#2755829) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Sharon, you are going to keep this up, and end up convincing me you have a great sense of |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:42 PM (#2755834) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Amos PATIENCE All things pass...Patience attains all it strives for. St. Theresa of Avila -- Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:46 PM (#2755840) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA Hi, Mick: Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I do have a good sense of [stateside] humor if I do say so myself! Runs toward the ironic, it does. The pity is that I have a stodgy writing style. Also a pity that we never met for that cup of coffee when you were in southern New Jersey (then you'd already know about my sense of humor!). I haven't forgotten -- you still owe me that cuppa! :-) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:49 PM (#2755844) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Hey, what happened? I thought this was supposed to be the latest designated punch-up! |
|
30 Oct 09 - 01:53 PM (#2755851) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Sharon, we are going to remedy that. I will be back on the East Coast for a ramble at some point, and you are at the top of the list. All the best, Mick |
|
30 Oct 09 - 02:42 PM (#2755913) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: catspaw49 "Hey, what happened? I thought this was supposed to be the latest designated punch-up!" Yeah CS.....Good point........Kiss my ass.......That's right......ass not arse you freakin' Brit! Spaw |
|
30 Oct 09 - 02:46 PM (#2755918) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks Both of yuns are Easterners... |
|
30 Oct 09 - 02:57 PM (#2755926) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie I find the most frequent users of the word Brit, and in a most derogatory fashion at that, are members of the various Republican factions in Ireland. :) When they say it, it really does sound like an insult! JM |
|
30 Oct 09 - 02:58 PM (#2755928) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SINSULL WHO is at the TOP of your list, Mr. Lane? HARUMPH! Now it will get very nasty very fast. And I want that #*@&@^@%$)?><:<#@$in' ring. NOW! |
|
30 Oct 09 - 03:06 PM (#2755935) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Loyalists are known to use Brit in a disparaging way as well. (Now, if we start talking about Ireland, that should heat the thread up up once more...) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 03:16 PM (#2755944) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Mike, no I didn't call my Pagan friend "a Christian", I called her "christian": meaning charitable, kind, forgiving. It's becoming a term less well used today. And I think unfortunately so."" I agree with that Crow Sister, and may I say that I don't find any difficulty in interpreting your posts. In relation to the above quote, I would state that I consider it more important, more fulfilling, and (in others) more admirable to be christian than to be A Christian. As I have said above, I regard "christian" as an adjctive rather than a name. If ever I have had problems with anything to do with religion, they have been with A Christian, never with christianity, or with A Muslim, never with Islam, etc. etc. Don T. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 03:17 PM (#2755945) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Well, I apologise for falling into the sidetrack trap. Please can we stick to the subject folks. Unless of course. you are happy with the status quo. In which case, I may as well give up now. JM |
|
30 Oct 09 - 03:22 PM (#2755948) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: jacqui.c Sharon, we are going to remedy that. I will be back on the East Coast for a ramble at some point, and you are at the top of the list. Mr Lane - I second the utterances of Sinsull! If you're on the East Coast you had better get your arse(Brit spelling!) up this end of the country some fast. Otherwise you are in so much trouble....... |
|
30 Oct 09 - 03:51 PM (#2755973) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,pattyClink Haven't noticed the offending threads, I guess the casual user is not seeing all the ugliness that the moderators see. So first I would say, let's not let a little dirty tidal pool distress us, let's appreciate the vast ocean of good stuff right next door. This site is supposed to be about music, with BS threads tolerated in the spirit of friendship, conversation, and discussion. There are three ways to deal with ugly contributions. 1. Disenfranchize problem posters bent on sowing hate or discord. 2. Delete nasty posts one at a time. 3. Or, and this is my preference, shut down and delete threads that start out nasty or become that way. Once the trolls and hostiles can no longer pursue their game, they go find a new playground. Does that violate absolutely pure free speech? Yep. Does the Mudcat community have the right to bounce or thwart troublemakers? Yep. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 03:56 PM (#2755978) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) With particular reference to Joes opening post, as far as I can see there is a very straightforward division of opinion: Firstly: The Majority of American based posters dislike BNP threads. The Majority of UK posters feel they are very important. Secondly: Most American posters probably consider themselves Christian with a capital C, or small c. Most UK posters probably consider themselves non-religious (small c christians and humanists included) and either agnostic or atheist. As I mentioned previously when making a more subtle attempt to adress Joes opening issues regarding conflict over threads or comments pertaining to the BNP and Christianity: "I think the problem 'of' Mudcat is that it's an American site playing host to a large UK membership. Just like a country with another immigrant culture in it's midst. We have our own issues and our own threads covering them. And we also tend to do things 'differently'." Finally Spaw, you can kiss *my* 'fat English arse'.. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:03 PM (#2755986) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: skarpi is it possible to have : Registration required! and is it possible that every other day the system could scan for words like ( Fokkings ) words or even every day and if it can find it , it will take out threads and automaticly make them off limits ? I mean could the system cross exam the words , sorry if my english is not good . nihh I am just wandering about this all . this may well not be possible ? all the best from the snowhouse in Iceland Skarpi Iceland |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:12 PM (#2755992) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Anybody want a second-hand hair shirt? |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:20 PM (#2755997) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: skarpi jo no I have my own , on my chest . thank you :Þ kv Skarpi |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:36 PM (#2756016) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: kendall Not to put too fine a point on it, George had more than one set of dentures. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:41 PM (#2756022) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ed T Canadians are those quiet, kinda nice folksie people, somewhat between a Brit and an American (though Canadians could be calle American, since they have a big chunk in one of the Americas, but they are mostly too kind to say so:). Opinions are fine....but, they don't change much. So it's puzzling to me that they get in the way of some folks getting along. But, people discuss issues differently....and differ in what they see as important and even sacred. You can encourage respect and civil manners....but sometimes youy need a big stick to encourage it....when things, or people get out of line and forget their manners (it's easy to do in the heat of an argument/discussion). But, to be effective, the big stick has to be used (when needed), or it will just become an ineffective ornament. Impacted people mostly whine, if they feel someone is listening. So, I encourage rules of behaviour that are moderated fairly...and recommend they be applied reasonably and sparingly, but firmly when needed. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:42 PM (#2756023) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Q (Frank Staplin) "Brit" is in wide usage in the U. S. and Canada; it is fixed firmly in our vocabulary. "True Brits" was the title of a three-month long screening last year of films made in GB? UK? Britain? That little island to the east of the puddle? ....., shown by the Kansas City, Mo., Public Library. One of the co-sponsors was the Britcom Club, which shows British television and film comedies, organized by Kansas City Public Television. "True Brit" is the title of a recent book featuring former Brit cartoonists who now live in the U. S. Or should the appelation be expanded to "True Briton," as in the 18th c. English toast, and the old song once sung to "Hearts of Oak"? Should John Cleese be condemmed for his contribution to the comic, "Superman, True Brit"? |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:43 PM (#2756024) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow But my impression is that the kind of posts that got Joe lamenting that "the Conventional Wisdom at Mudcat is that Christians are evil" (mistakenly in my opinion, though I can understand why he felt moved to write it) have been at least as likely to come from Americans. What can be called the fundamentalist mindset is not always confined to people who claim to be religious. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:46 PM (#2756028) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SINSULL Canadians are a sneaky bunch - tossing worthless coins into our tolls and then using our roads anyway. I am neither Christian nor christian and certainly not Murkan. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:47 PM (#2756029) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Lizzie Cornish 1 If Christians/Catholics are all like Dan, then let the whole world take on Christianity right now, because, heck, can that lovely man show many people on here the *right* way to feel about your fellow human beings. Personally, I think someone should tell the Pope about him....let him take over The Vatican, because heck, would Dan get a few changes made, for the better! :0) He is kindness personified, and I very much hope that he comes back to Mudcat soon. As for those who choose to join the BNP, then tell folks on here they've done so, well...er..what do they expect to happen? I mean, do they think there's going to be a few pats on the back and choruses of "Oh, well done, dear!" The very fact that the lady in question came on here to tell folks was questionable in itself. It is no good joining the BNP thinking that they're all about 'being English', 'cos they ain't. It is no good saying that Nick's a really good chappie, 'cos he's nuts..and he's a Dangerous Nut at that. (Apologies to all Nuts out there who may be deeply offended, but he's King Nut and it has to be said folks!) Helloeeeeeeeeee, Youtube has been Nutty Nick's downfall, because every time he says 'I NEVER said that!' we all fall around, as we're watching him saying *exactly* that to his KKK buddies, or his Non-Holocaust Believers....I mean any woman who can want to stand beside a man who not only says that, but then says 'Oh, I don't know what made me say that' has to be more than sixpence short of a shilling.. Sorry kid, but you have sooooooo joined the wrong party! Unless of course, you're a racist, a person who hates those who 'don't belong here', have the wrong colour skin, believe in the wrong religion, have the wrong surnames or dress damned funny, eating smelly food....in which case, you have soooooo joined the correct party, and I'm sure you'll have LOADS in common with King Nut and his BNPy Buddies. After all, Nutty Nick even has God on his side, with his very own Nutty Vicar and Church. How cool is that, your own Nutty Vicar! As to those who explode over the BNP and all who sail in her, using the f word very liberally...well, good on them! And of course, there is one person in particular for whom I have the greatest admiration, because unlike those in the KKK who have set folks on fire for being the wrong kind of folks, he actually goes into any fire and rescues all *people* in there, regardless of race, religion, colour or creed. So if he tells 'em all to fuck off, with bells on, good on him! Hell, we so need more people like him who aren't bloody scared of scumbags. And as for all those who fall over sideways in shock over his anger at the BNP...oh, come ONNNNNNNNN! Grow up, guys. What's wrong with Mudcat? Nothing, Joe. It's absolutely bloody wonderful!!!!! :0) It is one of the few places where freedom of speech still pretty much goes...and all of those who want more moderation, of fer fook's sake, go and live in Orwellianville and stop trying to control others! This place is bloody marvellous! And I LOVE it!! I also like that nurse who prayed for her patients, because hell, I expect she knows that The Devil has arrived inside the NHS, trying to turn it into the National Hell Service, which is why my 95 year old ex mother in law was told that she'd have to stand up and wash for the rest of her days because they'd not give her handles for her bath as she was considered too healthy! Yeesh! And I tell you what, some deeply kind souls took the trouble to ring up and write in to her, even sending her £20 in a sweet anonymous note...so yes, there are still christian people out there, who care about others.... And now I'll leave all those with The Christian Agenda to argue over big C's and little c's..and which means what.. I'm not 'a Christian' nor anything else, but I have tremendous Faith, something that's always been inside me, just 'there'...but I tell you what, this ol' world could sure do with a Jesus right now, or a Buddha, or a Mohammed.. And the Americans and Canadians are pretty darn cool....whilst the Bloomin' English are hellbent on being as bitchy and bogminded as they can possibly be, because we have become a culture of spite, where put downs score points... Well, sod the put downs...bring back the kindness! And THAT reminds me.... BRING BACK DAN!! Spaw, go find him, immediately...and tell him he's missed and loved by us all. And *that* is an order! Long Live Mudcat! :0) xxx |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:49 PM (#2756032) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SINSULL A serious response to Joe's opening post. I am an ex-Catholic for many reasons but have no animosity towards anyone who sincerely practices a religion. I hope that my posts have reflected that. If not, I apologize. In a way I envy those with a belief system to guide them. I constantly have to revise my own rule book and it is tough. Mary |
|
30 Oct 09 - 04:59 PM (#2756038) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener I think anybody that does not live in America, should be banned from joining Mudcat. That'll sort it out. We Brits won't have to put up with your whinging about your presidents and future presidents and religion etc etc. You then won't have to put up with us in the UK going on about the BNP and religions in our country. :-) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 05:06 PM (#2756045) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Does anyone think that part of the reason the Brits' children are spewing up their souls on our city streets each night, bankrupting the National Health Service on the way, may have anything to do with a country who has denied it's people faith, making all feel that believing in Christianity is 'kinda weird, man'.... Our children have nothing to believe in. Their religion has gone, their culture has gone, their history is belittled, they're made to feel that they've been horrible to the entire world and now have their just desserts. Is it any wonder that they now worship Simon Cowell. Jesus? Simon Cowell? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....... "Pass the Budweiser, mate..." burp... |
|
30 Oct 09 - 05:15 PM (#2756057) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Well bar this LC: "And now I'll leave all those with The Christian Agenda to argue over big C's and little c's..and which means what.. I'm not 'a Christian' nor anything else, but I have tremendous Faith, something that's always been inside me, just 'there'...but I tell you what, this ol' world could sure do with a Jesus right now, or a Buddha, or a Mohammed.. And the Americans and Canadians are pretty darn cool....whilst the Bloomin' English are hellbent on being as bitchy and bogminded as they can possibly be, because we have become a culture of spite, where put downs score points..." I could give you a big fat English-arsed hug! Because I personally think Mudcat works pretty well considering it;s a ferment of so many different countries and cultures. Of course I was barracked a bit by one of the resident Xtians over my use of a word to be readily found in the OED, but never mind - I was just pointing out that Christian is as christian does! |
|
30 Oct 09 - 05:50 PM (#2756100) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: skarpi this is not goin anywhere , I am out of here kv Skarpi Icland. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:00 PM (#2756108) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Agreed Skarpi The topic has run its course. Not sure if anything has been achieved other than people being pretty nice to each other. However give it a week and something else will explode :-) Thats Mudcat. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:19 PM (#2756122) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: SharonA Sinsull and jacqui: It was July 3rd, 2006 when Big Mick sent me a PM -- an olive branch after a long-forgotten verbal dust-up on a long-forgotten thread -- saying that he lived (at the time) in the same metropolitan area as I, and offering to buy me "a cuppa coffee", get to know me and swap some songs. I am still waiting, even after several attempts to arrange a meeting when I had a gig near his stompin' grounds.... so if I'm truly at the top of Mick's to-do-on-the-East-Coast list, I'll believe it when I see that list -- and him!!!!! :-D :-D :-D |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:23 PM (#2756126) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Hey, Villan, I just got Internet service back, and I've been stewing over things for a day and have a few things to say....
Except for my brief time at the library yesterday, this is the first time in 24 hours that I have been able to view this thread. AT&T says my Internet connection is fine, and Netgear says my modem is fine - but all I can usually load is the title and first three lines of Web pages. Maybe my service is improving - it took only three minutes toload this page..... [but when I finally posted this, I had GREAT Internet service, and the AT&T technician was wonderful]
Posted By: michaelr 29-Oct-09 - 09:55 PM Thread Name: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread Far be it from me to engage in Joe-bashing, but I'm compelled to gently point out the following:
Michael, I thought you were smarter than that. There is no such policy, stated or unstated. What was done was an aberration, and the overwhelming majority of Catholic lay people, priests, religious, bishops, and popes are mad as hell about it. Yet I have to admit that some of those in management positions may have covered this conduct up out of fear or denial, even though they detest the conduct itself. Such is the nature of organizations - managers like to believe they are flawless, and they tend to cover things up when they aren't. I suppose we all are guilty of covering up our shortcomings at times. But I don't believe in the management of the Catholic Church - or in the managers of most organizations. I think managers tend to be corrupt, even though I might believe passionately in the goals of their organizations. Even Cesar Chavez disappointed me when he became a manager. And now on to the BNP. It's obvious that the anti-BNP extremists just don't understand that those of us who disagree with their abusive tactics, DO agree with their opposition to the BNP. It's like I said about people like me who are pro-choice, pro-life, anti-abortion Catholics. I agree with Barack Obama that abortion is a bad thing and that the number of abortions needs to be greatly reduced by reducing the need for abortion, but I don't think abortion can be ended by coercion. But the anti-BNP brownshirts call me pro-BNP, and the "pro-life" extremists call me and Barack "abortionists." In both cases, I agree with the goals, but not the abusive, coercive tactics of the extreme proponents of these causes. Irishenglish defined my point of view quite succinctly:
What I'd like to see in the face of controversial issues, is the best of Mudcat, not the lowest common denominator. I hate to see the loudest screamers prevail, even though that's the case over so much of the Internet and other media - I want to see Mudcat as a home for good spirit, good listeners, and rational and creative thinking. Mudcat is a music site - I'd like to see songs written to oppose the BNP, and I would hope those songs could be rational and witty and insightful - just like the discussion should be. I'd like to see an end to name-calling and bullying and rash generalizations and scapegoating. I'd like to see a healthy dose of humor in every discussion - clever humor, not the nasty sort. I'd like to see gentle integrity prevail over oppressive aggression - at least here at Mudcat. And I believe that most people at Mudcat ARE people of gentle integrity, even though they may fail sometimes and slip into the Conventional Wisdom and rash generalizations that I complain about. I'm sure that a few people will think of me as a hypocrite for saying all this, since I had to take rather harsh measures against them because of their conduct caused long-term problems - at least three of them have posted in this thread. I notice one simply reeks with sarcasm. I can understand why his feelings were hurt, but such is life. He did nothing wrong, but what he was doing was causing a serious problem. -Joe- |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:33 PM (#2756137) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: skarpi many Europeans are still blaming us for George Bush and his dirty little war. Joe At least here we DONT blame you the people of this war , there are two men who that made that dirty war , one is Bush and the other witch many people will forget is Tony Blair . And I am not an European , and I never will be . Joe thanks for good words up there . sorry I came in again kv Skarpi Iceland |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:36 PM (#2756140) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Amos I want to see Mudcat as a home for good spirit, good listeners, and rational and creative thinking. Hear, hear, hear, hear. A |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:37 PM (#2756143) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: skarpi thats what I ment Amos :) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:47 PM (#2756151) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Well I haven't been here very long. But I've nevertheless successfully totalled three members from the UK that were prior PM'ers, but have left out of frustration with the situations they have encountered here.. Nothing at all to do with either Christianity or the BNP, and none of them have left in a big fan-fair either. My take is that they were of a similar mindset to me in fact and I'm pretty easy going IMO. Oddly enough when I first began posting, I received an unexpected PM from another UK member saying it was nice to meet me, and that they sometimes left Mudcat to get a breather, due to how oppressive it could feel here... Just saying like! Hope it helps... :-) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 06:48 PM (#2756152) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ed T I cannot see how questioning, or challenging past actions of the "Catholic Church" organization" and shameful (and I submit ant-Christian) practices of some priests and people in positions of authority (and policies that allowed it) are anti-Christian? Most of these folks do not disrespect Catholic ttheology followers. I also submit that the same goes for any similar despicable situation or actions involving any Christian religeon (or individual in authority) from any organized religeon, Christian or non-Christian. I am a Christian, and respect all religeons. I do not have any special place for Christian wrong doing. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:05 PM (#2756171) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Paul Burke Hah Joe, you think you won over Bush... we thought we'd won over Thatcher's Tories in 1997. And we are comparing Obama with Blair. I think you're partly right and partly wrong over the nastiness on Mudcat. Nastiness isn't new- remember those two guitars? And I preserve on my computer copies of PMs from certain members who like to pose as models of tolerant open- mindedness, just for fun. I've posted here opposing crude antiFascism. On the grounds that it doesn't work. I sometimes think you (personal attack) have something of the mindset of the ACLU - allow them enough rope, they'll hang themselves. Probably true, but they'll also probably hang us first. Over the Catholics, you're a child of Vatican II, and see Christianity as a community. Don't forget that the fundies hate you as much, if not more, than Muslims. You're the Whore of Babylon. As for child molestation, it's not exclusive to any organisation, but any organisation that hides it as an internal matter deserves a thumping when it leaks out. I do think Mudcat has split badly in recent years, but the reason in my (absolutely unchallengable) opinion was the wrongheaded reaction to 911- a lot of people saw friendly criticism of the USA as treason or worse. And Mudcat still has its good side of caring and supportive people who will rally round and give a leg up to the lonely, despairing or lost, and that is what a real community does. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:16 PM (#2756179) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ebbie Joe, that is a good 'un, and, possibly, a good one to end on. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:18 PM (#2756181) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Paul, what you say shows real wisdom. The fight for justice and integrity must continue. But I think most of us here feel more-or-less the same way, even though we may disagree on the fine points of some issues. I'm an activist, and I have fought my entire life for justice and integrity and tolerance. I've always found that most folkies share my ideals - but at Mudcat, we sometimes forget how much we have in common. I come to Mudcat partly for solidarity and support, and sometimes I find unfair condemnation instead. -Joe- |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:18 PM (#2756182) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jack Campin Joe Offer wrote: the anti-BNP brownshirts That is WAY over the line. You owe an apology to the people you meant by that. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:18 PM (#2756183) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow ...the wrongheaded reaction to 911- a lot of people saw friendly criticism of the USA as treason or worse. Maybe I'm blockheaded, but that wasn't how it came across to me. As I experienced it, the people who saw it that way on the Mudcat were pretty few and far between. Lots of arguments about going to war, but that's another matter, and the advocates of war were as likely to be British as American. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:33 PM (#2756193) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks Is there something wrong with being opposed to the brownshirts of the BNP? |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:44 PM (#2756196) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Jack, I meant exactly what I said. Those who use bullying, Brownshirt tactics to oppose the BNP, are deplorable. They are no better than the abomination they oppose. Same thing applies to those who kill or terrorize or bully in their so-called "pro-life" campaign. And you, sir, are one who has used those tactics in your misguided and misinformed attack on Sing Out! Magazine. You should be ashamed of yourself for what you did in that thread. If you had an ounce of integrity, you would go to that thread and post an apology, and send a copy of the apology to the editor of the magazine. Tactics like that are wrong, no matter how righteous the cause; and I think it's time to speak out against such tactics. -Joe Offer- |
|
30 Oct 09 - 07:49 PM (#2756205) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: michaelr Joe, I have great respect for you, and I really don't want to appear to tar you with a broad brush, or to turn this into a fight (although "I thought you were smarter than that" does ring just a bit condescending). Let me just respond to your statement that "There is no such policy, stated or unstated. What was done was an aberration". That is the same argument ("a few bad apples") made by the US military and numerous government officials when the tales and photos regarding prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo/etc. were made public. I'm afraid it doesn't wash. Such criminal behavior would not have been possible on the scale it was perpetrated without implicit condoning by the management, i.e. an unstated policy. The same is true for what's been going on in the Catholic Church, and to me is a clear symptom of systemic internal rot. You also said, "The statement also makes the very clear implication that ALL members of the Catholic Church have condoned the child molestation problem". No, it does not. I'm sorry you read it that way, but it is not at all what I was saying. I'm sure that most people (of faith or no) abhor these practices. It's the church's management that has condoned the problem by systematically shielding the offenders from dismissal and prosecution. Virginia Tam, you wrote: "Expecting someone to disengage from an organisation due {to} problems with a minority is bit like expecting people who can't abide any (even trace) amount of pollution to move to another planet. Isn't it better to stay in and work to fix the problem?" The pollution/another planet analogy is hardly apt. Rather, following your line of thought, should folks not then try to reform the BNP from the inside, instead of turning their backs in disgust? |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:00 PM (#2756211) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie I'm like you Bill D. I don't look for opportunities to feel personally insulted. As far as I can figure out so far, I haven't been harmed by that attitude. Perhaps some insults have sailed over my head (or under my radar) - suits me fine, because it works for me. I also don't look for opportunities to be personally insulting. I ascribe to the Rogerian notion of "unconditional positive regard" for other people. This is a value I have chosen because in my experience it is much more likely to be effective. I'd much rather be effective in changing the attitudes and irrational beliefs of a racist, than in asserting my moral superiority over that "evil low-life." I try to challenge illogical beliefs, but respect the personhood of the individual who holds that belief. People are complicated. I try to respect that. If a person experiences my interchanges with them as being respectful of them as an individual, they are more likely to seriously consider my own differing view as having at least as much validity as theirs. Who knows, they may even, over time, change their belief? (And since I do not have a corner on the market on truth or reality, sometimes I change or modify mine.) My experience and observation regarding overt racism (and with most hardcore "isms") is that they are based on fear and a misapprehension (sp?) and miss-identification of the actual source of the threat. Often I understand the threat to be a bogeyman (like I said, I'm hard to insult,) but can accept the fear the other experiences is real. That is, to be clear, they truly, really, are experiencing intensely fearful emotions to a perceived threat. Fear is more difficult to tolerate than anger for most people, so people have a tendency to consciously experience the anger emotion, and the fear is more unconscious. For myself, I prefer to respond to a person with racist beliefs in a manner that could possibly result in a change in their perspective. I will rationally challenge their beliefs, but will do my best to respect the person. Sometimes it works. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:02 PM (#2756215) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Ah, Michael, Michael - You are absolutely right - and you are profoundly wrong. You present a very good analogy. There is no doubt in my mind that the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo scandals are proof of deep-seated corruption in the leadership of the U.S. Military; and I have no doubt that the child molestation scandal is proof of the deep-seated corruption in the leadership of the Catholic Church. So, do you propose that the U.S. Military be completely disbanded? No, you can't - even I as a pacifist, acknowledge that we have to have some sort of organization for national defense. Same thing holds true for the Catholic Church - the management may be profoundly corrupt, but the Catholic Church has been the seat of the Catholic Faith for two millennia; and the Catholic faith is my faith, it is part of who I am. In both cases, abandonment is not a realistic choice - the only choice is to stand and fight for what is right. And if I stand for justice and integrity, then I think that those who share that value should support me, and not condemn me for failing to run away from the problem. -Joe- P.S. I do not acknowledge the primacy of the Pope or the authority of any bishop or priest over me. I consider them to be my equals (and sometimes, I tend to look down on them). |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:11 PM (#2756224) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Hey, Janie, how can anybody insult you or Bill because of your identification with a group? The two of you are one of a kind (individually and separately) [or two of two kinds]. What group can we label you with, "eccentrically philosophical Kansans and generic Southerners"? -Joe- Get your comments in, folks. I plan to close this thread sometime tomorrow. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:14 PM (#2756226) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ed T Janie That was nice and a thoughtful, and a well thought out approach. Good advice for any of us. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:29 PM (#2756233) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow There's also the difference that with Abu Ghraib it seems pretty clear that what happened there was in line with a semi-covert official policy of terrorising and maltreating prisoners, and the problem was that it came to light because of clumsy local application. What has happened in the church has been a culpable failure to identify and prevent abuse, and flawed efforts deal with it internally, together with institutional attempts to conceal such failures from the outside world, and from congregations. .................. A possibly pedantic point. "You can't fight fire with fire" is what I'd call a very treacherous metaphor. When it comes to fighting actual fires, fire is often one of the most important tools that are used. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:47 PM (#2756249) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: michaelr No, Joe, I'm not saying that either the military or the church should be disbanded. As a person who chooses to fight for justice and integrity, you may claim the moral high ground over me, who prefers to have nothing to do with either. I'm ready to let this topic rest now. Cheers, Michael |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:51 PM (#2756251) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks Sorry, but what happened at Abu Ghraib was an entirely unauthorized abuse of prisoners, done by poorly-trained Army Reservists who were badly supervised by other Army Reservists. It was neither semi-covert nor an official policy. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:54 PM (#2756254) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Lizzie Cornish 1 The story of fire fought with fire....and of one ffirefighter's survival because he did exactly that, whilst his comrades took to the hills, and perished...written by James... James Keelaghan 'Cold Missouri Waters' Maann Gulch Fire Tribute - with James' song... |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:54 PM (#2756255) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: skarpi I wrote this messages , becouse I thought that people would like solve this problem, but it does not matter what is written , nothing else matters then the anger witch has taken place here in this thread . I thought Ideas was needed , comon folks ideas lets all thing about ways to solve this , mine may be stupid and unthinkable who knows. You can talk about this to the end of the world and you would get any result . Date: 30 Oct 09 - 04:03 PM is it possible to have : Registration required! and is it possible that every other day the system could scan for words like ( Fokkings ) words or even every day and if it can find it , it will take out threads and automaticly make them off limits ? I mean could the system cross exam the words , sorry if my english is not good . nihh I am just wandering about this all . this may well not be possible ? all the best from the snowhouse in Iceland Skarpi Iceland this will be the last of me in this thread , all the best Skarpi |
|
30 Oct 09 - 08:56 PM (#2756257) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Sorry, "past my bedtime" [the name our anonymous guest chose this time], but you posted under a false name and a (relatively) untrackable IP, so your post was deleted. Too bad you don't have the guts to post under your own name. Trouble is, you've posted under so many names in the past, that you've compromised your ability to post in this thread at all. Please see restrictions in the first message of this thread. -Joe Offer- |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:03 PM (#2756261) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Tinker Sometimes truths show up in the darndist places. Used the quote below alot with my kids when we had to discuss behavior. It was a great cartoon episode that had good and evil going head to head in a baseball game. You can call someone for bad behacior but that doesn't justify using it yourself. Just my two cents. "When good cheats evil wins." "The Real Ghostbusters" Tinker (who stays away from religion and politic threads) |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:04 PM (#2756264) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: michaelr Crap! I meant to say, of course, that I prefer to have nothing to do with military or church - not justice and integrity! |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:17 PM (#2756273) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer There were many who chose violence in the crusade to achieve independence in India. Gandhi refused to go along, and made concessions to the British instead of resorting to violence. He was branded with all sorts of labels, and excoriated as a British sympathizer. But he maintained his integrity. I think the same is true in the face of the challenge of the BNP. If we follow the difficult path that Gandhi followed, we will prevail. If we choose abusive tactics, our victory may be short-lived. -Joe- |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:22 PM (#2756279) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie And one could say the same of Dr. Martin Luther King. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:38 PM (#2756295) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jack Campin This represents the BNP's tactics: David Copeland Those who use bullying, Brownshirt tactics to oppose the BNP, are deplorable.Those who use bullying, Brownshirt tactics to oppose the BNP, are deplorable. So which of us are you accusing of carrying out nail bombings? The people who set up Folk against Fascism? |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:53 PM (#2756307) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer From what I've seen of Folk Against Fascism, Jack, I think they're doing a very good job. I don't have a complete picture, but I've been impressed with what I've seen. But I'll say what I said again: think of the tactics of Gandhi. If you haven't read a biography of Gandhi, do so. It will change your life, and it will make you a more powerful person. Nonviolence and integrity in the face of evil, is the most powerful weapon ever conceived. -Joe- |
|
30 Oct 09 - 09:58 PM (#2756311) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ebbie Skarpi, I hope you realize that Joe Offer was not responding to your post! {{{{hug}}}} |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:00 PM (#2756313) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jeri Joe, Gandhi was Victorious because the people he opposed had faces and names and consciouses (or at least understood public shame). It won't work on invisible, anonymous (maybe not so much) terrorists. You might feel more righteous as the place goes to Hell, but it's still going to go to Hell, no matter how happy your own personal conscious is about it. |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:04 PM (#2756315) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Janie Jeri, Not sure I am correctly understanding your post when I take it that you are expressing an opinion that Mudcat is going to hell. Don't want to beg to differ if that is not what you mean. Clarify please? |
|
30 Oct 09 - 10:40 PM (#2756327) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: catspaw49 Probably worth mentioning that MLK also employed non-violence in the south working for civil rights. However, it is also a fact that those same tactics were a failure in the northern cities where Malcolm's ideas worked better although more violently. That's another one of those subjects which would make a good thesis (like the lock-step paths of big time TV wrestling and big time TV religion--(;<))). Spaw |
|
30 Oct 09 - 11:24 PM (#2756339) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: catspaw49 But having said that......let me add this bit as well. Perhaps all of you who are strongly and rightly wishing to oppose the BNP might learn from some of the things that have happened here. I think the BNP has. They have probably seen how successful the Klan has been in employing non-violent tactics of their own over the last 25 years. Its true. What became a huge problem here was those who came to Klan rallies to protest the Klan were goaded into starting the violence. Since the Klan acted entirely peacefully and made their illogical and bigoted views sound completely sensible, the protesters came off as raving idiots instead of the other way round. I know you all probably won't bother but if you really want to see an effective combatting of groups like the BNP and Klan, go read a history and the current activities of Mo Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Spaw |
|
30 Oct 09 - 11:42 PM (#2756344) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rowan Last night (Oz time) I was reading an article in New Scientist about the origins of spite in human behaviour. The gist of it seemed to show that those individuals who tried to increase their own rewards at the expense of others who 'played more fairly and equitably' were quickly brought back into line when a short bit of punitive behaviour (defined as "spite") was unleashed at them by the otherwise equitable rest of the group. The relevance of that article (early May, 2009) to this thread seems, to me, to be that individuals that the community regards as 'miscreants' bring their behaviour closer to the community's favoured norms when everyone sees that objectionable behaviour incurs visible retributive response. To me, that suggests that Mudcat moderators could make their moderations more frequently and obviously public. Several posters in the thread have suggested such a move as a putative improvement at Mudcat, and others have suggested that this might remove favouritism in the treatment of particular 'catters. I can't say I've noticed anyone being treated more or less favourably that others but I might be too new (or too selective in the threads I peruse) to have experienced it. Normally I abhor retribution as a behaviour but the evidence in the article was impressive. If it were canvassed I suspect that then we'd be entangled in quarrels about standards, real or imagined, and "rights". In the meantime I enjoy the vagaries brought to our community by the varieties of outlooks and individuals in it. And try to write in terms I'd be happy to see against my name in the Final Ledger. Assuming there is one, of course. Keep up the good work, Joe. Cheers, Rowan |
|
31 Oct 09 - 12:37 AM (#2756360) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing Good points, Spaw. It is ludicrous(sp) to me, given the parameters Max has articulated, that people hold the mods. responsible for the behavior of themselves or others beyond a very limited mandate. Thanks for that, Janie. |
|
31 Oct 09 - 01:31 AM (#2756364) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Right, kat and Janie- - we're still part of Max's experiment in "civilized anarchy," or whatever it was called Way Back When. The idea was that this would be a largely unmoderated Website, with conduct controlled mostly by the societal pressure of our community. I see many comments above that set expectations that Mudcat be more tightly controlled, but we have survived quite well with minimal moderation for 13 years now. We are indeed a wonderful community, where people go out of their way to show concern for each other and to share themselves with one another. We're not perfect, but a lot of good things happen here. With few exceptions, most people whose identity is known, behave quite well. Most identified people who post, can be assured that their posts will almost never be deleted or altered. If a post from a known Mudcatter is objectionable for some reason, it usually won't be deleted unless it is a personal attack and the target of the attack complains. Somebody above said that if there were a thread on child pornography, that the thread and its participants would be eliminated - I'm not so sure of that. If it had been started by a visitor, then yes, it would be deleted. But most of the time, we do not make judgments on the content of posts, and do not delete or edit unless there are precedented reasons for doing do. And despite what some may see as our negligent lack of moderation, we do pretty well. The stuff I complained about above, is nothing I would ever consider deleting. Still, I think it's worthwhile saying something about it, when it disappoints me. -Joe- |
|
31 Oct 09 - 02:25 AM (#2756368) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC When conduct is left to be controlled by the societal pressure of the community, that societal pressure will conform to whatever the norms of the community are. If the norms of the community are ganging up on people and scapegoating them, that is the societal pressure that will control the conduct. I have seen many people, who don't conform to what some members find pleasing, not because their behavior was inappropriate, or because they were breaking the rules, but because people just found it unappealing (one example would be the poet who has been so abused by so many people), or for other reasons having more to do with esthetics than anything else, be literally hounded off the site altogether. This is not a lack of rules or moderation. What it is, is two sets of rules - one written and acknowledged set of rules, and an invisible set of rules that are never posted or articulated, but are enforced with even more rigor than the written rules, and moderation by mob rule. This is clearly not working. The solution to this problem is not necessarily more rules. The solution is to enforce the rules that already exist fairly and consistently. The solution is to not allow the mob run the show. |
|
31 Oct 09 - 03:32 AM (#2756380) Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Well, as I said, I intended to allow this thread to run a limited time, to give people a chance to say what they have to say. Now we're back to our usual policy of not allowing such discussions, because they always seem to end in animosity. I cannot answer those who believe there is some sort of conspiracy in our moderation practices, and that we intentionally play favorites. If there is such a conspiracy, I haven't noticed it. I can't really see a reason why there would be. I think we do the best we can, within our tradition of free speech. We can't satisfy everyone, but we try to keep the peace with limited moderation. G'nite. Thead closed. -Joe Offer- |