|
29 Nov 99 - 12:02 AM (#141995) Subject: OS instead of BS designation From: katlaughing I guess by now everybody knows I hate the BS designation for a lot of the threads posted here. As we've discussed they can go from mundane to sublime no matter their category. So, while on my jaunt, I decided from now on when I post something I think is important to the community, but not specifically bullshit or specifically music-related, I am going to use OS for its designation which can stand for Other Stuff or shit, if you prefer. It is also a sort of play on the Latin word for mouth, which is "os", something we see quite often here.**BG** SO, for me at least....OS it is! kat |
|
29 Nov 99 - 12:09 AM (#141998) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: _gargoyle Tell you what...
If it ain't music...or even vaguely close to music.
Post it somewhere else!!! Far, Far away!! (Like Utah) |
|
29 Nov 99 - 12:14 AM (#141999) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: sophocleese kat, I don't actually think that's going to make much difference. The general disputes appear to be; labelling versus not-labelling, and to post or not to post. In either case the specific thread designation is less important than the underlying tension. |
|
29 Nov 99 - 12:16 AM (#142001) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Night Owl LOVE the idea kat, and WILL adopt it in the future. Plan to be asking for help here soon on restoring some music related stuff. Although my questions don't involve songs, tunes or lyrics, I certainly don't consider the problems to be BS!! |
|
29 Nov 99 - 12:29 AM (#142007) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Quickly glance over the MC at this moment. It is predominently MUSIC. Even half the BS threads are music This is good.
Some people were out of town for the holiday. |
|
29 Nov 99 - 05:39 AM (#142044) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Jon Freeman Kat, I've a feeling that sophocleese is right but for what it's worth, I gave my views on this subject a few weeks ago in http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=128302 Jon |
|
29 Nov 99 - 05:52 AM (#142045) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Roger the skiffler Since so many catters are foodies and threads stray into food how about FS for foodstuffs? (only kidding!) |
|
29 Nov 99 - 06:11 AM (#142047) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Banjer To further help muddy the waters, how about MBS or NMBS, Musical Bull Shit or Non Musical Bullshit. MOS or NMOS would equal Musical Other Shit or Non Musical Other Shit, and the word shit could be repalced with STUFF, for the more delicate amongst us! Then there's the other side of the coin....It's a community forum so just say what's on your mind....to paraphrase, One folkies BS is another's treasure. |
|
29 Nov 99 - 07:12 AM (#142051) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Micca I quite like this concept, but a lot of the fun of the 'Cat is the "waifs and strays" and diversions that occur even in the best regulated music Threads into BS and from BS to music. This argument has puzzled me right from the start, most, if not all, of the posters here are interested in music, BUT they are not ONLY interested in music, and like at a good dinner party the converstion flows from topic to topic. If the guests, like here, are predominantly interested in music, then they will talk a lot about music, but about other things too. I always remember a friend trying to explain Quantum theory using Morris Dancing as the analogy, and the Fool as the Uncertainty principle, Over several bottles of good red wine after a good dinner, it was hilarious and informative, the non scientists came away with a bettr understanding of something they would not have normally touched, and the Scientists with an appreciation of Morris dancing. And isn't that what this place is for( with the apparent exception of Gargoyle and his elf)to foster understanding through a love of music. Maybe this nostalgia for a perceived past,and "wishing for things to remain fixed" is "the tear in the orchestra"( for full quote see thought for the day 26 Nov)that is stopping this whole thing from working and singing, as wide ranging discussion group among people whose common cause is a love of Folk Music and who will not be bludgeoned or coerced down any narrow path of "true believers"whose vision is narrowed by their lack of imagination.To gargoyle and his elf ( whom I suspect is Loki, a Shit stirring, trouble making Norse god)I would say get a life, don't go away mad, just go away. you have a function to fulfill here, in playing Devils advocate and challenging orthodoxy but virulent personal attacks do not need to be part of it, so grow up. Micca |
|
29 Nov 99 - 08:09 AM (#142057) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Little Neophyte Kat I think it's a good idea which I plan to use in the future. Bonnie |
|
29 Nov 99 - 09:17 AM (#142085) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: JedMarum Kat - not a bad idea, but some cynical bastards may presume OS is Ostrich Sh*t - (or maybe Owl). ;-) |
|
29 Nov 99 - 11:24 AM (#142126) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: sophocleese No, no, no, liam...ocelot shit. |
|
29 Nov 99 - 12:14 PM (#142161) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: JedMarum chuckle@sopho |
|
29 Nov 99 - 01:13 PM (#142181) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: GeorgeH gargoyle, your post broke your own rule. Now when they're running for World President you're welcome to stand; until your inevitable success in that election do stop telling us what to do (or where to do it), there's a good chap. G. |
|
29 Nov 99 - 03:22 PM (#142226) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: katlaughing Well said, GeorgeH! Thanks all, and sopho? Ocelot???LOL!! |
|
29 Nov 99 - 03:28 PM (#142229) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Margo Here here, Micca! Remember, as Liz the Squeak said, elf stands for Egotistical Little Shit! Margo |
|
29 Nov 99 - 03:30 PM (#142230) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Margo Let me rephrase that.... Egotisical Little Fart. Well, I was in the right vacinity, cut me some slack! |
|
29 Nov 99 - 07:33 PM (#142328) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: kendall Where the hell does it say that ALL the posts must be about music? Personally, I enjoy reading comments from all you catters, almost regardless of the subject. Now, if someone advocated doing away with all MUSIC threads, then I would shit a well rope myself.I like choices. As Harry Truman said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." You dont like abortions? DONT HAVE ONE. You dont like BS threads, DONT READ THEM. |
|
29 Nov 99 - 08:01 PM (#142339) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: BSer As one who has contributed over 70 of the songs in the DT, and many posts with information on folk and other old songs, I don't agree. It's too time consuming to dig out real information from all the BS. But I'm just one of the oldtimers who helped make the Mudcat what it was that the new BS crowd wants to get rid of.
|
|
29 Nov 99 - 08:37 PM (#142351) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Jon Freeman BSer, what do you feel that those involved in the BS threads want to get rid of? Jon |
|
29 Nov 99 - 09:40 PM (#142396) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Lyle I'm sorry, but I can't for the life of me figure out what all this nonsense is about. I just checked moving from one thread to the next, and in 27 of those moves the average time it took to leave one thread and get to the first message on the next was 5.2 seconds. Now, most of the threads are pretty descriptive in the title - if they sound interesting to me, I look them over - if not, I don't go there. IF THERE IS SOME DOUBT, 5.2 SECONDS IS NOT A LIFETIME!!!!! Try the thread and see if you want to stay there. There are enough of us here that I would suspect we will have different likes and dislikes - that's what makes the whole MCAT so great. SOOOOOOO, if you don't like mudcat as it is now and as it has been for all these years, go annoy another group. Lyle |
|
29 Nov 99 - 10:02 PM (#142407) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: kendall Sorry about that tirade, but, my ex wife is a control freak, so, I'm super sensitive to any thing that smacks of control. And yes, it is MY problem. |
|
29 Nov 99 - 10:32 PM (#142428) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: McGrath of Harlow When I'm in a session or a folk club, or at a fesrtival, all the people I'm likely to be talking to are interested in folk music, or they wouldn't be there.
Some of the time we talk about music - what was that tune called, do you know this song I'm looking for, what kind of funny tuning are you using, did you know a new session has started in that pub...
Sometimes we talk about other stuff - personal stuff, politics, beer. The difference from conversations elsewhere is that we start from a shared common enthusiasm, which tempers the talk, and gives us common points of reference. Music and song creep, back in - you find yourself emphasising a point by quoting from a song, which you couldn't do in other company.
Every now any again you run into someone who doesn't want to talk about anything except musical trivia - who played second guitar on so-and-so's third album, that kind of stuff. Anything you say will be dragged back to the obsession.
When you find yourself trapped like that, either you start playing or singing, or you make your excuses and leave.
What Lyle just said is exactly right. Except that I suspect the issue at stake isn't really anything to do with the ratio of non-musical posts to musical posts, it's about territory, about resentment of newcomers moving in and taking over space. "I'm just one of the oldtimers who helped make the Mudcat what it was that the new BS crowd wants to get rid of." In a context where being "an oldtimer" means getting there a couple of years earlier than some offending newcomer.
The truth is, trawl back through the archives, it really doesn't look very different, so far as content is concerned. Some of the names are different, is all.
|
|
29 Nov 99 - 10:36 PM (#142431) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: catspaw49 You have of course hit it exactly Mac...but it still will go on and on I'm sure. Such is life. Spaw |
|
30 Nov 99 - 12:48 AM (#142496) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: katlaughing Yeah, Spaw. Maybe this time next year it'll be you and I posting anonymouselee against all of the BS and change.**BG** |
|
30 Nov 99 - 01:16 AM (#142507) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: bseed(charleskratz) Kat, sorry--I'll never use OS: that's the abbreviation for Operating System, and even though there is the Mac OS, the phrase makes me think about Bill Gates and I'd almost rather think about Gargoyle (or BSer, as he's now calling himself). Too bad HE won't go back to talking about music. --seed |
|
30 Nov 99 - 01:41 AM (#142515) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: katlaughing Funny, I thought BS'er was probably someone making us an Offer. It's okay seed, I don't care if anyone uses it or not. kat |
|
30 Nov 99 - 01:55 AM (#142519) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: BSer There must have been something while here, or the recently arrived crew of thread trashers wouldn't have congregated to kill it with inanities. ----------Not Gargoyle, now or ever. He? |
|
30 Nov 99 - 01:59 AM (#142522) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Rick Fielding I dunno, ya sure make the same late night grammatical errors! |
|
30 Nov 99 - 02:35 AM (#142530) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Rick Fielding Hi Sandy, glad to see you're still up. That's a problem that we all encounter from time to time...jokes seem funnier to us when we write them than when they stare back at us in print. Perhaps I'll designate the odd aside with "IC" (ironic comment)! Should keep me out of trouble. Damn if I'd only learned how to do those computer "happy faces", or bring myself to say "Grin, Grin". Rick Bs. Os. LSMFT. |
|
30 Nov 99 - 02:37 AM (#142534) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: bseed(charleskratz) Dunno, Sandy--the protesters (s?) seem to have nothing but time on their hands--they are ubiquitous (everywhere but music threads). --seed |
|
30 Nov 99 - 01:10 PM (#142692) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Margo That's funny, Seed. It's true!!! |
|
30 Nov 99 - 04:53 PM (#142812) Subject: OS instead of BS designation From: Jon Freeman Yes Spaw, I also have a feeling that it could go on for ever.. but maybe it is something else to debate.. I remember once making an observation in a ng that more time seemed to be spent discussing what is on/ off topic... than there was on topic discussion!!! Jon |
|
30 Nov 99 - 05:13 PM (#142820) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Bert So BSer is not 'leading underscore' and he's an old time Mudcatter! NOT one of the gang of twelve by any chance! |
|
30 Nov 99 - 06:52 PM (#142860) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: BSer Not an original Mudcatter, and not Judas Iscariot of the gang of 12. But its time to retire the BSer moniker. I don't lack for others, but I've never used anyone else's except 'blank', in spite of great temptation at times.
|
|
30 Nov 99 - 07:46 PM (#142889) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: McGrath of Harlow Now that's one temptation I'd find it remarkably easy to resist. But different temptations for different folks, I suppose. |
|
30 Nov 99 - 07:47 PM (#142891) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Jeri Yep, Jon, that's it in a nutshell. People who are interested in music only can talk music only. People who like talking about life can talk about life. Since the immature, sulky folks who make snide comments about BS or even attack individuals must have figured out those comments do nothing but add to the BS, it doesn't seem to me that it's really serious discussion of music they care about. It's about power and control. If they can't get everybody to play by their rules, they try to wreck the game. If they can't get the respect they feel they're owed, they try for fear. If they can't control, they disrupt. It's the same sort of behavior little kids engage in when they don't get their way. Intelligent adults usually ignore it. Are those of you who write snotty, vengeful comments proud of yourselves? Do you think these posts are examples of worthy contributions? Do you honestly believe anyone's going to listen to you now? Please note: if the shoe doesn't fit, let someone else wear it. Lots of people have been upset by this but very few have regressed back to thwarted spoiled kid mode. The occasional mean comment doesn't bother me. The constant conversion of threads to discussions of gargoyle, or "us vs them" BS/anti-BS acrimonious territorial disputes is something I don't want to deal with. If discussions are respectful on all sides, I may read them. Otherwise, I've lost interest. What's the worst thing that could happen if nobody replied to a nasty post? One nasty post. Better than a lot of nasty posts. The power/control freaks can fume at their ineffectiveness. |
|
30 Nov 99 - 11:00 PM (#142994) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Rick Fielding Well now Jeri. I knew I liked the cut of your jib! Oops I forgot, what's the Airforce equivalent? Rick |
|
30 Nov 99 - 11:05 PM (#142998) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: sophocleese Thank you Jeri. I am constantly amazed at the way some people can say what I'm thinking and make it sound reasonable and less bitchy than the way it would come out if I said it. |
|
30 Nov 99 - 11:10 PM (#143001) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: _gargoyle Dear B.S.er As far as I, personally, am concerned...
I have found you to be a "welcomed harmony."
THANX for the contributions. |
|
30 Nov 99 - 11:17 PM (#143006) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: My tactic of fighting inane BS with worse didn't work as well as I had hoped. Reasonableness is obviously useless. |
|
30 Nov 99 - 11:34 PM (#143019) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Áine Haven't you two learned by now that you can't bullshit a bullshitter(s)? |
|
30 Nov 99 - 11:35 PM (#143021) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: DonMeixner Hi All, I'm with Kendall, I like the bullshit. I contribute to it. Not every part of performing as a musician is musical. Its nice to know the crap that fills in the space between the songs. Since musicians have more crap than anyone else. I come here for the bullshit as well as the songs. The only better place to get this kind of shitt is from The Farmers Almanac, but I prefer to get directly from the Horses's A.......Mouth, another musician. Don |
|
01 Dec 99 - 03:48 PM (#143308) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Well, few can compete with you Áine. But your's is lost. That accent screws up Mudcat's search the forum software on your name. |
|
01 Dec 99 - 05:34 PM (#143355) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: poet I never Knew till now what the initials BS stood for but I've always Known what FORUM means. it means a free discussion of ideas usually around a theme but not neccesarily so, the accent is on the words Free. and by the bye gargoyle Misogeny is not an Idea its a sickness. Graham (Guernsey) |
|
02 Dec 99 - 12:05 AM (#143519) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: _gargoyle In the distant past, I have known a handful of chaps from Sark, Jersey and Guernsey. You don't seem to fit their mold....or their dictionary...... |
|
02 Dec 99 - 01:11 AM (#143536) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Free discussion, subject unlimited? GBS (Guernsey Bull Shit) |
|
02 Dec 99 - 01:42 AM (#143544) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: alison Yet another thread going over the same old stuff AGAIN.... and yes I know I'm adding to it... when I should just ignore and let it disappear... but seeing people at each other's throats over the last while has made me angry....
I am sick reading all of this BS vs music crap... it has all been said so many times before and no doubt will be said many more in other threads just like this one I am also sick of all the name calling and attacks there have been recently.... why is it that every time there is a new thread with a poster with a name we don't recognise , many people automatically assume it's gargoyle and launch right into them? This used to be a friendly site.... now a newcomer could well be scared off by the often hostile reception they get..... that's not the Mudcat I love. If you don't like the content of a thread... fair enough, leave it... but can we at least keep it civil? In answer to the actual theme of this thread... I'm sorry Kat.. but I don't see the need for new abbreviations which just replace ones that Max has already set up. slainte alison |
|
02 Dec 99 - 05:09 AM (#143578) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: katlaughing It's okay, Alison. I really was just sharing my decision with everyone and letting them know. I wasn't fostering another one of these endless, never agree to disagree threads, again! Thanks for bringing it back to the subject. After all of this, I've decided not to use ANY of the designations, except the music related ones for adding lyrics, etc. I am with you in being dismayed at the recent tone and sickened that this rages on, esp. the personal attacks from anyone, but esp. from those who post anonymously. As I've said before, Max said he likes a healthy mix, and that is the final and definitive word for me. Anyone going into a thread I start can take their chances or try to guess by the name. I do try to be as specific as possible. That is one of the first things I learned when I came to the Mudcat looking for lyrics. |
|
02 Dec 99 - 03:41 PM (#143761) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Suggestions for a useful classification of threads
INFO?: Requests and follow-up notes on subject of folk and other old songs, music and instruments. No BAT, and only highly relevant BOS.
No threads to start without a proper prefix Credit where due: 'by' should mean the author or composer. 'As done by' for performer/s, e.g., "Now westlin' winds"-by Gaughan; in the favorite Scots tunes thread. It's not by Gaughan, it's performed by Gaughan. It's by Robert Burns.
Statements with no citation of supporting evidence are often nonsense, no matter how firmly the author believes it. In the interest of saving space, I haven't always cited full references to my statements, but am always prepared to do so, promptly, if asked. I think if questions arise as to accuracy of statements the author should be prepared to answer them promptly. There's no moderator or censor for this Forum. If it's not to die by trying to make it everything, the end result of which is being nothing, we need some constraints. Not everyone visiting this Forum has a good background in the subject of folk and other old songs and music, and hoaxes and facetious questions and answers don't serve to educate them. Maybe we need another category for these. They are certainly out of place in INFO? threads.
|
|
02 Dec 99 - 05:48 PM (#143803) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: McGrath of Harlow Now, how come someone who takes all that time to tell us what we should all be doing (and getting on for half of what s/he says I might well agree with) feels it appropriate to post anonymously?
Failing to stick a name in - even a pretend name - just feels like bad manners. The net effect of that is to guarantee that whatever the anonymous poster has to say will be automatically discounted by most readers.
Maybe the finger slipped or something, and it wasn't intentional... (Though I wouldn't know how to post anonymously anyway, even if I wanted to) |
|
02 Dec 99 - 05:53 PM (#143805) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Thanks for calling attention to it. |
|
02 Dec 99 - 07:54 PM (#143882) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: McGrath of Harlow So we're supposed to take it as read that the last anonymous poster is the same as the one before? I suggest if our friend should try leaving out the post as well as the name, that way s/he can be really anonymous. |
|
02 Dec 99 - 08:28 PM (#143902) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: I guess that nothing can stand on its merits, it just might have a political agenda behind it, and we need to know who to blame it on. How about 'informed sources say....'?
|
|
02 Dec 99 - 09:02 PM (#143920) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: katlaughing That might hold in general public, but at the Mudcat, it is just plain good manners and common courtesy to post one's name. It's a bit like the neighbourhood child who rings the bell and runs. |
|
02 Dec 99 - 09:19 PM (#143927) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Áine I consider anyone who intentionlly posts on this forum anonymously to be in the same class as vandals who spraypaint graffiti on buildings and scribble obscenities on bathroom walls, and those of us who have the courage of our convictions, and are willing to identify ourselves here when we express our opinions, should treat these invisible posters with the total disdain that they deserve. -- Áine |
|
02 Dec 99 - 09:45 PM (#143933) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Ánon All right if you insist. Now, can we consider the real questions. |
|
03 Dec 99 - 08:52 AM (#144087) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Paul S In defence of people who don't post their names: When I first started coming here, I was afraid to post, just out of general shyness. Then I started posting under a new name every time. There was no logical reason for it; somehow it just felt safer. Finally, a few months ago, I gained enough confidence to register. I don't know why I needed this "introductory" period, but it felt a lot better. I always feel better if I see a name, as well, but I can understand why someone may not want to post their's. Paul |
|
03 Dec 99 - 03:28 PM (#144278) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: McGrath of Harlow Easy to se whty anyione might feel a need to be anonymous, but that's what psudonyms and aliases are for. Leave out any name at all, and how is anyone supposed to be able to tell whether two nameless posts come from different people, or the same person?
But please kat, don't compare nameless posting to playing "Knock Down Ginger", which is an ancient, albeit annoying, traditional pastime, all written up in the folklore literature by the Opies, and opriobably others.P> The best way, of course, is in a narrow street where houses have knockers on the doors, when the game is to tie the knockers together and rap on one of the doors and hide round the corner. The idea being that when the householder opens the door, finds noone there, and closes it, this operates the knocker on the opposite house. When the second householder opens the door and closes it, this knocks on the first house -- and so on.
|
|
03 Dec 99 - 03:43 PM (#144282) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Áon I am well aware that McGrath is not a BSer, and has contributed much good information to this Forum, but posting a real name just tells BSers (with monikers that are really anonymous) who to attack, and get things further off track. |
|
03 Dec 99 - 04:31 PM (#144303) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Áon Whoops, I might have the wrong McGrath. Frank seems to have disappeared last July. |
|
03 Dec 99 - 08:06 PM (#144388) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: McGrath of Harlow No,it's Kevin not Frank. As I said, being anonymous isn't the problem. But leaving off any kind of identifying label gets in the way of any kind of exchange of views. Which means that it conveys an attitude that an exchange of views isn't envisaged, just a bit of graffiti stating a position and asserting a claim to territory.
But the original post by the nameless one, who now I take it is the same as Aon (that's purely a guess on my part of course) was clearly argued and logically expressed. It didn't read like unattributable graffiti, which is why I expressed surprise, and speculated whether the lack of a name might just have been a slip up rather than a statement.
Saying it was logical and clearly argued doesn't mean I agree with itmore than some lf the way.
I quite like the idea of prefixes which are more informative, to give a better idea of which threads are worth dipping into when time is short.
And I also get irritated when people or documents say that a song is "by" the person who is best known for singing it, ignoring the person who wrote it, or collected it - though that happens all the time in the face-to-face world, and, as there, the only answer is for those who have the facts to chip away and put in the needed corrections.
Yes, and not everyone is as funny as they think they are - and that's something that happens in the face-to-face world as well.
But the distinction isn't between stuff that is appropriate to a folk-based site, and stuff that isn't and shouldn't be there.
It's much more between stuff that is interesting and cogent to whatever kind of thread that is going along (which doesn't mean it may not be trivial and lightweight at times - just as there are excellent somngs which are trivial and lightweight), and stuff that isn't - and that can include stuff which might be formally about music or songs, but is really about trainspotting. (Though I use that term as shorthand, and bear no illwill or contempt towards real trainspotters.)
But there's no way in an unmoderated forum - and from his or her post Aon (or whoever) appears to agree that that is what we want to keep - that you can exclude stuff that doesn't measure up to whatever standards you'd like to apply, even if there was any agreement on these things, which there never can be.
The price of freedom is eternal tolerance. All we can reasonably demand of each other is that we are reasonably polite and friendly and don't try to hurt each other. And maybe if a thread is getting a bit heated, bring in a song, the way Quakers bring in a silence.
"Let no man come into this hall,
If that he say he can nought do,
The reason I put that in is that it is about what links everyone who visits Mudcat. We're willing to risk making fools of ourselves in public to help the party go better. This isn't true for all that many of the people around us, and that is a pity. But with that in common, it means we ought to be willing to put up with and respect each other - and most of the time, we do.
|
|
04 Dec 99 - 09:49 AM (#144561) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: katlaughing Well said, McGrath! Love the lyrics! tks, kat |
|
04 Dec 99 - 02:23 PM (#144628) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: With original spelling, McGrath's song is #2 in Rossell Hope Robbins' Secular Lyrics of the 14th and 15th Centuries, 1952. Robbins notes several earlier publications of the song from the MS. |
|
04 Dec 99 - 04:36 PM (#144671) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: wildlone Looking at a BS thread the "Archers"I remembered that an actor in it was also a fine folk singer I knew I had one of the song he sang somwhere. It was not in the DT,I found the song in one of my books and posted it as a LYR ADDED thread so that at least might make some body happy.But I think our friend might be happier with a mirror on a stick so he can survey his rectum. |
|
04 Dec 99 - 06:12 PM (#144700) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: McGrath of Harlow Back to leaving out our current pseudonym I see, Aon. Or rather, I surmise, since of course it might be a completely different nameless one. What an unsettling thought that is...
As for the song - well I took it from a book published in 1928 called "A Christmas Book - an anthology for Moderns", with Richard Hill's spelling from his Commonplace Book, 1500-1535. Which is no doubt the spelling used in the 1952 work cited by The Nameless One, (who may be the same as Aon, The Faceless One).
Whether Richard Hill's spelling was the original spelling I have of course no way of telling, since he is no longer with us. I assume he wrote it down in the current conventional spelling of his time, and I did the same. It seems a sensible practice.
One thing I left out was the title given to the song in the book I took it from:
Whether that was Richard Hill's title I am not sure. However it is perhaps rather an apt title, in the present context. And here is another brief passage which has a certain current resonance:
As I was going up the stair
(Which was, I understand, written by someone called Hughes Mearns, born in 1875. Except he wrote it slightly different from the way I've got it, because the folk process has been at work I'm afraid. As it will. The original version is in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations)
|
|
04 Dec 99 - 06:24 PM (#144704) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Áine A few quotes about bores: Boor, n. A person who talks when you wish him to listen. - Ambrose Bierce There are few wild beasts more to be dreaded than a communicative man having nothing to communicate. - Christian Nestell Bovee [A bore is] a guy who wraps up a two-minute idea in a two-hour vocabulary. - Walter Winchell People always get tired of one another. I grow tired of myself whenever I am left alone for ten minutes, and I am certain that I am fonder of myself than anyone can be of another person. - Bertrand Russell -- Áine |
|
04 Dec 99 - 06:39 PM (#144712) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Liz the Squeak A bore, or one with a two hour vocabulary.... If you see two guys talking and one of them looks bored witless, he's the other one..... LTS |
|
07 Dec 99 - 12:11 PM (#146023) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: |
|
02 Mar 00 - 11:26 PM (#188573) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: GUEST Refresh why Katlaughing does not like BS |
|
02 Mar 00 - 11:35 PM (#188579) Subject: RE: OS instead of BS designation From: Sorcha Guest We think we know who: Personally I do not mind the "BS" acronym because it is now accepted in "Polite Society" as opposed to Bullshit. I don't really care if we call them BS or OS or PMS, as long as you can tell they are not MUSIC RELATED AND STAY OUT OF THEM!!! because NONE of us really want to hear any more of your non-music Rant of the Thread. |