|
09 Apr 02 - 10:24 AM (#686129) Subject: How should we treat Guests? From: RichM How should we treat Guests?
I've been a regular participant on this forum for several years. There's no need here,for me to extoll this forum for its many positive aspects.
Guests, as a group, have often been smeared by the activities of the anonymous trolls, and I have defended guests as a group. I believed, and still believe, that 'guests' to an internet forum should be treated as I would treat a guest in my home.
I have come to agree, though that there should be a change in the way Mudcat accepts guest postings.
Up to now, I have felt that guests should be allowed the free run of Mudcat. However, the negative actions of a few, have tainted the definition of "guest" Rich McCarthy |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:33 AM (#686136) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST Keep this up and you'll have no bleedin guests...just the snobs and smartasses who want justice done..but always to someone else. Practically everyone on this forum "anonymous" to a certain extent..why single out guests. I could recite a list of names that come regularly to this sight who are often, rude, inflammatory or just plain obnoxious...do you reveal that e mail as well ? |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:35 AM (#686138) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Joe Offer Well, I don't think anybody should post their e-mail address in an open forum. It exposes people to Spam and other nastiness. We try to allow people to have anonymity if they want it. It's too bad that a number of people have chose to abuse that anonymity. How should we treat guests? Well, it they are civil, treat them civilly. If they are assholes, act as if they don't exist. As always, the best way to combat flamers is to act as if they were invisible. -Joe Offer- |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:39 AM (#686140) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Different guest than above RichM, it is difficult to have a discussion about why you want to reveal the identity of anonymous guest posters, if you don't explain what those posters are doing. You say: "...the negative actions of a few, have tainted the definition of "guest"..." Would you please give us some specific examples of the negative actions you are concerned with which caused you to change your mind? It would be helpful to the discussion, I think. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:46 AM (#686146) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Amy Which email address would you like? I have ten that I can think of. One for school, one for work, one for my ISP, a few others I got automatically for joining certain sites... Might as well just require everone to register. That's what most sites do, and they don't have any problems with rude people. Right? Of course right. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:57 AM (#686157) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Watson I think Joe's got it right - just ignore the obnoxious gits, just the same as you would if you encountered them anywhere else. I don't think they will ever go away, but we don't have to listen to what they say. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:57 AM (#686159) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy I have registered, but I get no recognition from the software, have been unable to bid on auction items, because it does not know who I am. I am not going to 'reset my cookie' every time I log on, nor am I going to make up a 'cute' name to "disguise" my identity. We know who most of you are anyway, & don't understand the need or desire for anonymity, unless you are going to be rude to people unnecessarily. If you have something to say in a public forum, you ought to be able to own up to it, unless by doing so you will jeopardize your family, or your job, or your life in some way. No state secrets divulged here so far, and maybe a bit less so, but still free to speak our minds. Come and get me if you want me! |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:05 AM (#686165) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Russ I agree with Joe. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:06 AM (#686167) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy and I should say I have posted as an anonymous guest ONCE, to protect the privacy of another individual I mentioned, whom I thought might not care to be identified with me or my opinions. It can serve a useful function to maintain things as they are, and as always, ignore the trolls, keep your tempers, have patience with those less knowledgeable than you & those that haven't gotten hip to mudcat protocol or sensitivities. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:08 AM (#686168) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Bobert I'm with Joe. If the guest has offered something thoughtful for which I wish to comment on, I will. If not. I won't. Just like I do with all threads. I mean, being a member doesn't automatically make one intellegent or interesting no more than being a GUEST makes one moronic and borish. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:25 AM (#686183) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Jim Dixon I agree with Joe Offer, but there is one additional thing we can do to help alleviate the problem. When we notice that someone has been unfairly attacked in the forum, we can PRIVATELY send messages of support to the person who was attacked. These messages of support reduce the tension and make people—both the sender and the receiver—feel less compelled to respond publicly. This has already happened to some extent. Of course non-members can't send or receive such messages, but that's just too bad. It's one of the benefits of membership. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:36 AM (#686200) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Bill D guests who can't 'register', but who identify themselves and sign their posts in a regular way, I have NO problem with. Guests who require TOTAL anonymity and won't even pick numbers so that we may distinguish between them, bother me a lot! WHY post as " GUEST,Different guest than above " when you could just be "Rumplestiltskin" or "turnip"? ....a very few folk have decided that their runinations should stand on content alone, and refuse to have ANY identity...even one which cannot be traced or identified by color, gender or planet of origin. I submit that if we all tried that, these threads would be total chaos! Human beings simply do not relate well to thoughts in isolation, even when those thoughts are relatively calm, polite and on topic. (and they often are NOT).... It is an affectation that is fairly new with the internet/WWW that people can do this---anonymous "letters to the editor" of a newspaper are simply ignored. In a society where civil rights are curtailed, people HAVE resorted to leaflets and posters to state views that would get them arrested...but I doubt a parallel can be drawn here....*wry smile*. I have not seen yet a clear, well-reasoned, satisfactory explanation as to why this small segment of the population feels that they should be allowed to play by different rules.....I suspect that some simply do it because they can, and actually enjoy the consternation it causes....like those who make anonymous phone calls just to upset people. ah, well...as usual, I have said my piece just to have it on record, and have no hopes that I convinced anyone of anything...but you CAN look up there and see who I am...
|
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:44 AM (#686214) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Amos The code of courtesy generally held by folks around the world seems to indicate that guests should be honored and treated with every respect -- local customs vary, of course -- usually up to the point where they do not return the honor and respect. The Cat is mostly made up of people wishing to exchange ideas and communicate openly, and is usually a safe place for them to do so. The very few who violate that standard of conduct by making it unsafe to communicate, with ad hominem attacks and derogation, snide generalizations that destroy communication rather than support it, and other devices born of fear and anger, generally place themselves outside the pale of group protection or codes of conduct by their own actions. When that happens they either tend to get ignored or they get unfortunately called out in a firefight. Dropping communication works better. But I have never seen either remedy applied to a Guest in this forum who was honestly trying to express a point of view in exchange with others. It may have happened on rare occasions but it certainly is not a practice here. A |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:45 AM (#686216) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: mooman I always try to treat all guests with respect as I would in my own home or in a session and try also never to get drawn into troll wars and the like. If a guest is rude to me, then in the words of the old Zen Master "Your opinion of me is no concern of mine", i.e. I just ignore the insults. I agree with Joe about not posting e-mail addresses. In fact, in reading his message I realise I've just agreed with him completely! Best regards to all mooman
|
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:46 AM (#686217) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,#2 Yes, but what you fail to take into account Jim Dixon, is who is to judge when someone has been unfairly attacked, especially when the discussions are heated, like so many on Mudcat are? Are you going to censor a member who is unfairly attacking an anonymous guest, or just the anonymous guest who is arguing with that member, and expressing a controversial or unpopular point of view? There is already an awful lot of censorship done in the this forum in the name of "defending members from personal attacks". How many guest messages get censored, compared to member messages? Who is making the decision as to what constitutes legitimate criticism, and what constitutes an unfair attack? And what are their qualifications for making that decision? What are the parameters they use for making those decisions? Do they even have parameters, or do they just do it on a whim? How impartial are the site maintainers being about censorship here, truly? I believe people here are looking to the leadership--ie Max, who happens to be extremely thin-skinned, paranoid, and pretty much unable to tolerate criticism of himself or Mudcat, whether legitimate or spurious. Not surprisingly, that has attracted other people who are like that to join as members. Which is a guarantee that there will routinely be over-reactions by members and site maintainers alike, towards attacks which aren't attacks, and exist only in the minds of those paranoid, thin-skinned beholders. The general view of and behavior towards the anonymous guest is really warped here, compared to other sites in cyberspace. As Guest Amy has pointed out, it is easy to use fake identities when signing up at Mudcat, just like it is anywhere on the internet. One can post to chat forums which require user name and password by making up that information on the spot every time one posts, and do the same for the email account. All the "required" blanks these log-ins require can be faked. ISPs and IPs are pretty irrelevant too. You need court orders to get information about the identity of users, and no site maintainer is going to go through all that bullshit because someone called one of their members an asshole, or stole someone else's pseudonym. There are REAL problems in the world, and anonymous posting at internet chat sites like Mudcat, ain't one of them.
|
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:51 AM (#686224) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,jonesey As a guest I try to maintain the same rules of conduct I would if in someone's home. Be polite, even if you disagree and always keep in mind this is someone elses house. Be respectful in any discussion. The members should treat guests with the respect or contempt they deserve. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:59 AM (#686234) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Amy Rereading my post above it sounded meaner than I meant it. All I'm saying is, making people put a name to their rudeness won't necessarily stop the rudeness. If someone is rude to you on the street, what do you do? Stop them and demand to see identification? Most people just shrug it off and move along, I would think. I say if it makes someone feel better to vent anonymously, then let them. Better to let it out anonymously than to bottle it up inside. I wish it wouldn't hurt people in the process, but as my mom always told me life is hard and some people are mean. You have to live your life the best you can and not let others get to you. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 12:04 PM (#686241) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Ivan Treat the guests fairly. I registered then somehow got lost. Now I come in as a guest and don't see any reason to be mistreated. There are fools who we can all ignore. It would diminish the site if you were to shut out people whose cookie expires or whatever. I enjoy reading postings from fellow folkies and reap the benefits of links to sites giving me lyrics or other bits of musical trivia. Don't shut us out. (Sounds painful having your cookie expire.) |
|
09 Apr 02 - 12:04 PM (#686242) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Willa As potential members who may simply not yet have learned the rules but who may (in most cases) be willing to learn them. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 12:08 PM (#686246) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST BillD issues forth with: "....a very few folk have decided that their runinations should stand on content alone, and refuse to have ANY identity...even one which cannot be traced or identified by color, gender or planet of origin. I submit that if we all tried that, these threads would be total chaos!" BillD, it isn't chaotic for everyone. Honestly, it isn't. Not having a label to slap on a message as "identifier" doesn't bother some of us at all. Then BillD goes on to say: "Human beings simply do not relate well to thoughts in isolation, even when those thoughts are relatively calm, polite and on topic. (and they often are NOT)...." Again, I disagree with this statement. I rarely look at the byline of something before I read it, whether in a newspaper, or on a website. When I do, it is usually out of a positive desire to find more of the same, not to hang in effigy the person who has written an opinion I disagree with, find abhorrent, etc. BillD then claims: "It is an affectation that is fairly new with the internet/WWW that people can do this---anonymous "letters to the editor" of a newspaper are simply ignored." Yes, it is true that most newspapers nowadays won't print an unsigned letter. However, that is done to protect the guilty, not the innocent. The history of anonymous writing is as old as writing itself. Last time I checked, no one had yet taken responsibility for the ten commandments, either. Then BillD waffles a bit, and says: "In a society where civil rights are curtailed, people HAVE resorted to leaflets and posters to state views that would get them arrested...but I doubt a parallel can be drawn here....*wry smile*." I wouldn't be so smug about censorship and threats to those voicing unpopular views here if I were you, BillD...*wry smile*. Then BillD goes on to say: "I have not seen yet a clear, well-reasoned, satisfactory explanation as to why this small segment of the population feels that they should be allowed to play by different rules..." You are assuming we are all playing by the same set of rules. We aren't. For instance, I have strong anarchist sympathies. Is it your intention to keep people out of the forum because they don't share your sensibilities, values and beliefs? Then sadly, but somewhat predictably, BillD, like many Mudcatters, falls back into this sad state of mind, and says: "I suspect that some simply do it because they can, and actually enjoy the consternation it causes....like those who make anonymous phone calls just to upset people." A pretty irrational leap to judgment being made there, BillD.
|
|
09 Apr 02 - 12:18 PM (#686252) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Same Guest as 12:08 above Guest Amy, I couldn't have said it better myself. We wouldn't walk up to someone in public who was behaving rudely, and demand to see identification. That is a great analogy. Guest Jonesey, it seems to me you are contradicting yourself. First you say: "As a guest I try to maintain the same rules of conduct I would if in someone's home. Be polite, even if you disagree and always keep in mind this is someone elses house. Be respectful in any discussion." OK--the way I read this is as a guide to how a guest behaves, and that you feel a guest should remain polite, no matter how they are treated. Then, you say this: "The members should treat guests with the respect or contempt they deserve." Here, I equate "members" with host/hostess. You seem to suggest that it is acceptable for the host/hostess to treat their guests with contempt, if they believe the guest deserves it. This looks like a very negative double standard to have. Host/hostess can get away with treating their guests contemptuously, but guests have no right to do the same? Hardly the recipe for happy gatherings, IMO. I'll stick with Guest Amy's analogy. It seems to fit the circumstances better, and is much better reasoned, to my way of thinking. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 12:45 PM (#686271) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull We should be nice to the nice ones, and just ignore the bad ones. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 12:46 PM (#686274) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Slickerbill I'm having the same trouble as Bill above. I have tried to register, I've done the check, etc., but it's a pain in the ass to reset my cookie and often it doesn't work anyway. I've been coming to the site for awhile now and very much appreciate the discussion and the level of expertise here. Am I to be treated like crap because of the cookie problems I'm experiencing? Judge me by my contribution, not by the word "GUEST". Quite frankly there are a number of registered folks here that , in my opinion don't seem to contribute much at all to discourse on music, or much else for that matter, so this bitching about guests is getting a little tiresome in my opinion. SB |
|
09 Apr 02 - 12:48 PM (#686277) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: catspaw49 Was there any doubt as to where this thread was going? It was a good idea Rich and I can understand your question, but this topic is doomed from the gitgo. One thing....If a member has a problem with a member it can be and often is hashed out if not totally resolved through PM's. Both parties can have a say without it becoming a forum issue/argument/discussion. Within the past few weeks I have been on both ends of that type of thing as well as just general BSing thru PM's on things we had decided to keep off the forum. One of these was with a member who had taken acception to something I had posted. I respect this person a lot and when I read the PM I saw how affected they were by something that I had not even thought about posting. They were quite right and the whole thing was discussed without adding in a bunch of comments by others who were not involved. It was simply an opinion of one member versus mine......and I agreed they were right. Another had me "on the offensive" over a subject which I thought was worn out and that was successfully resolved. I had a third where a member angrily PMed me with an opinion and I PMed back with mine and what I felt to be good advice. Guess what....they agreed! And things have gone much better for both of us since. As it is here, much as I would like to debate the topics which "Guest @ 12:08" said in response to Bill, what's the use? I don't know Guest @ 12:08 so why should I bother? Bill D. I have known for 4 years and respect and we do not always agree.....But because I care about Bill as a person, because this IS a community of living, breathing, people, then I would have some reason to make my views clear to him and his to me. We have plenty of anonymous Guests who are just fine and some begin attaching names to their posts after awhile. Some of the named Guests are guests because of work or choice.....and many of them, like "Guest Russ" are the same as members because Russ posts consistently that way and we have gotten to know Russ pretty well. There's nothing wrong with being a guest. The PM thing is a small thing perhaps, but it does work and it's one good reason to be a member. Spaw (and you know better than to give me any crap about that being anonymous;16,000 posts and my life history on these threads) |
|
09 Apr 02 - 12:51 PM (#686280) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,#2 Amen, Slickerbill. I agree with you both, the cookie thing is a pain in the ass. I'd also humbly suggest that those same members who don't contribute much to the music or BS discussions, seem to contribute most to the Mudcat member sports of guest bashing, flaming guests, trolling to start flame wars, etc. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 01:11 PM (#686301) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST Catspaw, to you and many members, Mudcat is a community. To me, and to others (likely both members and guests) this is an internet forum for discussion. The rub is, those who feel that Mudat is a community believe they ought to be able to dictate the behavior of those to whom this is an internet discussion forum like many others. In most internet discussion forums, or at least those with high enough posting standards to be tolerable, attempts to control the behavior of other posters is pretty much frowned upon. As is flaming people for their opinions, unless they are racist, homophobic, sexist, religiously or ethnically bigoted, that sort of thing. Mudcat seems to revel in the fact that members aren't held accountable publicly in the forum, when they behave badly, or when they make racist, homophobic, sexist, etc statements. Sweeping all that bad behavior under the rug of the private messages available to members seems no different to me than what the Catholic hierarchy is doing about abusive behavior by their own. Not in terms of the crimes being equatable, of course. But the dynamic is the same. One set of rules for members, another for the guests. One set of rules for the Catholic clergy, another set of rules for the laity. And when the clergy breaks the rules, don't tell the laity, we'll handle it privately behind closed doors. And then let them loose on the unsuspecting laity to commit the same sins again and again. That is the dynamic on Mudcat as I see it. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 01:17 PM (#686308) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Clinton Hammond "In most internet discussion forums, or at least those with high enough posting standards to be tolerable, attempts to control the behavior of other posters is pretty much frowned upon." Bollox! Every internet forum worth its salt has mods who step up to the plate and delete spam, garbage, and trolls... Mudcat shouldn't be any different... Make membership mandatory, and log IPs, like any other decent Message board... |
|
09 Apr 02 - 01:20 PM (#686313) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST I've been on a number of good mailing lists without moderators Clinton. The membership on those lists have been self-policing, and it has worked very well. Other people's mileage has varied in this regard though, I'm sure. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 01:22 PM (#686315) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Watson GUEST, for "personal message" read "private conversation". I don't really see how that equates to abuse in the catholic church. I don't see anything wrong with people who use the forum - whether they are guests or members - trying to make it a better place to be. I come hear to learn more about the music I love, I read postings from members and guests with equal interest, but just as I distance myself from someone abusive in a pub, I can ignore postings in the forum. I don't always like what I read in members' contributions, but it seems more likely in my observation that obnoxious comments will come from anonymous guests. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 01:30 PM (#686323) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,jonesey Guest 12:08...No, I'm not suggesting 'my' behavior as a 'guide' to anyone. It is simply my approach to posting on this web-site. The question was asked in an open forum and I responded. And yes, it's my feeling that one should be respectful of one's host. As a guest are you afforded the same rights as the residents? I don't think so and nor should you be. The members support and maintain this website and are entitled to a certain amount of deference simply because of that. Others' opinions may differ about this including the members themselves. When questions are posted it would seem there's an objective truth for which any that respond are searching. And who's to say all gatherings have to be happy? "To my way of thinking..." is expressing an opinion based on exclusivity not necessessarily objective processing. Who's to say your way is the right way? Seems a little snobbish, with all respect. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 01:31 PM (#686325) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: wysiwyg God forbid we should let a month pass without rehashing this topic! ~S~ |
|
09 Apr 02 - 01:52 PM (#686348) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: McGrath of Harlow At this point there are 32 posts to this thread, including this one. Fifteen of those are from GUESTS, and 11 of those are GUEST + a pseudonym; no problem at all with that. And I've yet to come across anyone being hostile to people who do that. (Well, not for posting as GUEST + pseudonym anyway.)
However four of them are just GUEST, without any kind of handle, not even a number, and the problem there is that there is no way of knowing whether this is the same one posting four times, or four different ones or whatever. When you want to make some comment on what someone has said, it is bloody inconvenient having to say for example "As GUEST 09-Apr-02 - 01:20 PM said..." And it's inconvenient for the people reading it as well.
Deliberately causing inconvenience to other people for no good reason is a very unfriendly thing to do. And it also messes up the process of communication, and that is unfriendly too. Unfriendliness provokes unfriendliness in response. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 02:14 PM (#686367) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,#2 Actually McGrath, I don't ever find it inconvenient to either post "Guest 9 Apr 1:20" or to read it. It is no more difficult than having to scroll back up to see who posted a message I wish to refer to back to, return to the "reply to" window, and keep typing. That argument is a non-starter for me too. But I do notice McGrath, that you more than most seem to have a problem with anonymous posters. I see you making irrelevant comments about it in threads with anonymous guests all the time. It seems to me that when the anonymous poster says something you disagree with, but don't want to argue with on the facts, you resort to using the lame "I don't have to take anonymous guests seriously" defense. Silly, really. Just respond to the content, not the writer. It really is that simple. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 02:28 PM (#686377) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Mrrzy One guest above posted "The rub is, those who feel that Mudat is a community believe they ought to be able to dictate the behavior of those to whom this is an internet discussion forum like many others. " Nonsense - I feel very strongly that it IS a community, and I feel no urge to " dictate" - I just wish people would remember their manners. Miss Manners has several publications about how guests should act, and how host(esse)s should act; I recommend them all. The thing here is nobody is the host, unless you want to count the person who starts the thread as hosting THAT thread. There is no host for the entire Mudcat community. If you don't like a thread, or don't like why it was posted, why say so? Why not just click Back and go on to another post? That is dictating, and I (personally) find it's the guests who are more likely to try to dictate... it seems that the Why was this thread started, or Why should we care comments come more often from Guests, but of course that is an empirical question. Perhaps if we had some data on that? |
|
09 Apr 02 - 02:47 PM (#686398) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST Is it any surprise that members feel that it is guests who are the problem, and guests feel that it is the members who are the problem? I think that is a silly position for anyone to take, actually. Where does that sort of blame game get anyone? And (groan) please spare us from the "data on that"! <:-0 I'm that guest who said this forum is perceived differently by different users. Some people come here for community, some come here for information and the chance to discuss things, and nothing more. One group shouldn't be allowed to get away with bullying the other in a perfect world. But this being the internet, it is inevitable that it would happen, especially when one group has benefits and access, and the other group only access. However, considering that choosing which one has is a free choice made by individuals, it just shouldn't be an issue. There are member/trolls/jerks and guest/trolls/jerks. But as Guest Amy has sensibly pointed out, changing the log-in won't eliminate rudeness. Nothing can totally eliminate rudeness, but collectively a group of people can keep it to a minimum. However, as long as members continue to get a bug up their but over the guests, that collective group policing to keep rudeness to a minumum just isn't going to happen. Because those members who insist upon continuing to bitch about guests, whether anon, pseudo, or w/a name, you are going to have a much higher level of rudeness than if the members would just accept guests as they are, however they come, and quit their bitching about them. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 03:01 PM (#686408) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Amy GUEST 1:11 - Sweeping all that bad behavior under the rug of the private messages available to members seems no different to me than what the Catholic hierarchy is doing about abusive behavior by their own. Not in terms of the crimes being equatable, of course. But the dynamic is the same. You could've chosen a different analogy. It just seems inflammatory to me. I understand what you're trying to say but I wish you'd chosen a different way to say it. This just makes me sad. My unsolicited opinion, of course. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 03:24 PM (#686422) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST I agree I could have chosen a less inflammatory analogy. However, I chose this because it is a stark illustration of what can happen when we secret away the dirty laundry, in order to save face publicly. I'm a firm believer in using the fear of public shaming to get people to behave reasonably. I have never seen a more effective social mechanism to get people to behave decently. There is even honor among thieves, as they say, and thieves, like every other human being, doesn't want to be publicly shamed and humiliated. Max has made it a policy on Mudcat to allow guests to be publicly humiliated and shamed with impunity. He has another policy for members, which is to use the private messages to police members who behave badly. You won't ever see members being personally admonished by their behavior, ever. As I said, I could have used a less inflammatory analogy, but it likely wouldn't have hit the nail near as accurately. In this case, I chose accuracy. I'm sorry that saddens you, but even your sadness wouldn't cause me to change the analogy or apologize for the timely use of it in this instance. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 03:32 PM (#686429) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: MMario You won't ever see members being personally admonished by their behavior, ever. since When?
|
|
09 Apr 02 - 03:38 PM (#686438) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST I should have said, you won't see them being personally admonished in the forum. Members get admonished through private messages, according to Max, because he thinks it works better that way. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 03:42 PM (#686439) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Clinton Hammond "you won't see them being personally admonished in the forum" Ya right... Don't say anything behind my back, you ain't got the stones to say to my face... that's how cowards work... |
|
09 Apr 02 - 03:44 PM (#686447) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Amy I have seen a member publicly admonished, actually. I don't read every single thread, but I can think of at least one instance. Always best not to use always/never. Just broke my own rule, didn't I? |
|
09 Apr 02 - 03:48 PM (#686452) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: McGrath of Harlow Once again, something that has been said many times - There has never been any objections about people posting as GUESTS who make the minimal effort involved in putting a pseudonym (such as #2 for example) after the GUEST.
GUEST,#2 - I'll explain why I find naked GUEST posts inconvenient (and thanks for having the sense to stick a number on your posts). Sometimes I read through a thread and want to reply at the end, and refer to some post made way up the thread.
If it's been made by a person who's put in a name or a number, it's an easy enough matter to find them in the index at the beginning and track down the post to have another look at it before writing.
But if it's just one among a fair number of naked GUESTS in a long thread, it's not convenient at all, either for me writing my post or for anyone reading it who might want to check that I haven't got things wrong. And that inconvenience has been intentionally caused by the naked GUEST.
And when a naked GUEST starts referring back in any thread about anything to something they have said before, but without giving a link or a clear indication of which post they might have written and be talking about, it just gets ridiculous.
Back to the question in the thread heading. Best thing is to assume that any naked GUEST is the same person as all the other naked GUESTS, and ignore them. Good advice I occasionally ignore, which is a mistake. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 03:54 PM (#686454) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Midchuck downstairs What could be worse than a naked guest arguing with his member? P. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 03:55 PM (#686456) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST I am talking about being publicly admonished by the site maintainers, not by other users. That gets done all the time. The site maintainers don't come into threads and single out a specific poster for public admonishment. I've never seen it happen. If someone can point out any number of instances (because just one example does not a policy make--it just makes it an exception to the rule) to prove me wrong, I'm sure they will. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 04:08 PM (#686464) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: McGrath of Harlow Well, a naked GUEST playing with himself is not a pretty sight either I would venture, Midchuck. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 04:10 PM (#686468) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: MMario So now we have gone from "Will never see it, ever" to "one example does not a policy make" - next I suppose you will say that Joe, Bert, Pene or any of the Joe-clones don't count - only Max? Max *does* have a stated preference to deal with problems out of the forum. This is simple for members - much more hassle for non-members. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 04:18 PM (#686481) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: SharonA The GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 01:11 PM says: "One group shouldn't be allowed to get away with bullying the other in a perfect world. But this being the internet, it is inevitable that it would happen, especially when one group has [member] benefits and access, and the other group only access." That's by the GUEST's choice. Besides, being a GUEST has its own benefits, including anonymity and lack of accountability. I certainly wouldn't call it a "benefit" to be subject to admonishment via Personal Messages, as members are. Ther GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 03:55 PM says that "the site maintainers don't come into threads and single out a specific poster for public admonishment." That may be true, but when a member is admonished via Personal Message and the member's post is removed from the Forum – either by the member's request or the administrator's – the result of that admonishment is public. Don't know if anyone's noticed it going by, but it's happened to me twice so far! |
|
09 Apr 02 - 04:38 PM (#686498) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: SharonA The GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 03:24 PM says, "I'm a firm believer in using the fear of public shaming to get people to behave reasonably. I have never seen a more effective social mechanism to get people to behave decently." Well, that explains a lot about the attempts at public shaming done by GUESTs, but I'm afraid your theory is flawed. Indecent behavior never breeds decency; some of those who are basically decent people to begin with may be "shamed" into acting in accordance with their nature, but others will simply become angry and stubborn in their refusal to change because they see the "shamer" as behaving in a worse manner than they have. And people who are basically indecent can't be "shamed" because they see nothing to be ashamed of. "There is even honor among thieves, as they say, and thieves, like every other human being, doesn't want to be publicly shamed and humiliated." Again, a flawed theory. Thieves and other criminals thrive on notoriety; what "shames" and "humiliates" them is being caught in the act or arrested and tried for their crimes. As long as they're getting away with wrongdoing, they will not only continue to do wrong but will be proud of it. "Max has made it a policy on Mudcat to allow guests to be publicly humiliated and shamed with impunity." He's also allowed GUESTs to humiliate and shame members, in virtually all cases without deleting the GUESTs' posts, and in fact the site maintainers' policy of not responding to flamers and trolls is directed at members. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 04:38 PM (#686499) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST Sharon A, Here is the complete quote: "One group shouldn't be allowed to get away with bullying the other in a perfect world. But this being the internet, it is inevitable that it would happen, especially when one group has benefits and access, and the other group only access. However, considering that choosing which one has is a free choice made by individuals, it just shouldn't be an issue." I apologize if I didn't make it clear enough for you to understand. My second sentence above should be read to mean that choosing to be a member or a guest is a free choice made by individuals, just as you point out. However, the point I also made was that which choice a person makes should never be made an issue in the forum. That is exactly what leads to the "bait and flame" game over the non-issue of how someone chooses to log-in to use the forum. MMario--as I said, if someone can prove me wrong by providing numerous instances where the site maintainers--and I include Joe Offer, Pene, Joe Clones, et al on that list. I have never seen one of them publicly single out a specific member and publicly admonish them for bad behavior in the forum. I have however, seen plenty of flaming of specific anon guests by those people, which is one of the reasons why I view this place as so unbalanced. Andy why I I used such a stark analogy of the current Catholic clergy scandals to illustrate my point. Some people really seem to need such stark analogies to get the point being made.
|
|
09 Apr 02 - 04:42 PM (#686504) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST GUEST 12:08 ... your post is by far the most succint and coherent redress of member BillD's concerns submitted to this forum. The problem is, "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." This GUEST tried, less eloquently, to make some of the same points as you, but my keystrokes fell on blind eyes, as his did on mine. Viva la difference, and let me raise a glass to you both. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 04:56 PM (#686517) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: SharonA To GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 04:38 PM: Sorry that I said you were the GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 01:11 PM when, in fact, you were the GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 02:47 PM. That confusion may be the reason I missed seeing the follow-up to the statement I quoted. Someone else here mentioned that it is confusing to try to make reference to things that various GUESTs have said in a thread, and this is one fine example. BTW, you said, "Which choice a person makes should never be made an issue in the forum." I don't entirely agree, because when someone makes the choice not to register as a member (and thereby submit personal information such as an e-mail address or other contact address) for the specific purpose of flaming, baiting, trolling, shaming and humiliating other people without being accountable for their actions, it then becomes an issue. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 04:59 PM (#686520) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: MMario Guest - I know *I* have been - and I believe several others - at least I have seen posts that *I* certainly felt were them being pubicly admonished. I am too brain burnt currently to search for them. Hopefully someone will bring up some examples for you. I can say I have never seen more then one per member |
|
09 Apr 02 - 05:13 PM (#686526) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST I think I'm too tired to keep this up. I'm starting to make mistakes, and less and less sense. First--thanks guest 4:42, but I think you are most certainly the more eloquent, and certainly the more patient of the two of us! SharonA--the quote I gave in my 4:38 message was all in the same post--the one you yourself quoted in your 4:18 post. And no, I'm not the least bit confused referring to posts by date and time, because I respond to what is actually being written, not to the way that people choose to log in to use the forum. MMario, I will be perfectly happy to dine on crow if someone can come with a number of such individual members being publicy chastised by the site maintainers for bad behavior. I'm pretty certain someone can prove me wrong with one or two instances. If, as you say, it proves to be true that members are admonished by the site maintainers, then my next question is about your last sentence: "I can say I have never seen more than one per member". Do you mean then, that public admonishment seemed to be an effective deterrent? |
|
09 Apr 02 - 05:47 PM (#686546) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST,Truthtroller Have you ever sat in a cafe and listened to a conversation next to you thinking 'why don't these people get a life?' That's what I think. Of all the posts you could be contributing to you pick this one. Shame on you RichM for dragging up this same old lame story again.!!! And I notice RichM that you've made not one comment other than the original posting..... who's the troll????? T.T. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 05:53 PM (#686550) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Wincing Devil I object to Anonymous Trolls who just delight in causing trouble. There is nothing wrong with "stirring the pot", but to do so and not stand behind your words is, IMNSHO, cowardly. The US Declaration of Independence is signed with names, not "Philadelphia Benjy" nor "JA from Braintree" and certainly not GUEST. I use "Wincing Devil" because I think it's cute, an anagram of "Vince Wilding". I'll stand behind what I say. Most of us will gladly identify ourselves when the need arises. Signed: |
|
09 Apr 02 - 05:56 PM (#686552) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: SharonA Guest of 09-Apr-02 - 05:13 PM: I know that your remarks appeared in one post. What I was saying was that I referenced the wrong post, then failed to find the latter part of your remarks when I returned to that incorrect reference. Hope that's clearer! |
|
09 Apr 02 - 06:10 PM (#686561) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: SharonA p\P.S. to the GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 05:13 PM: If, as you say, you "respond to what is actually being written, not to the way that people choose to log in to use the forum", then why are you even making a point of classifying people into groups such as GUESTS-who-are-flamed-by-members and Members-who-are-not-being-seen-as-publicly-admonished? Why not say that they are People-who-are-being-flamed-by-other-people and People-who-are-not-being-seen-as-publicly-admonished? I contend that you do indeed respond to the way people choose to log in to use the forum, and that your posts to this thread ARE such a response!! If you really hadn't paid any attention to what appears in the "From" line of each post, you wouldn't have entered this conversation. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 06:55 PM (#686587) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Bill D guest 12:08 replied to me that it "has anarchist sympathies"...that tell me a lot. There are sound philosophical principles for having people play by the same rules when they are reciving the same benefits ...and if they will NOT follow those rules, why call them "guest"? *(see below) it also says.."Then sadly, but somewhat predictably, BillD, like many Mudcatters, falls back into this sad state of mind, and says: "I suspect that some simply do it because they can, and actually enjoy the consternation it causes....like those who make anonymous phone calls just to upset people." A pretty irrational leap to judgment being made there, BillD." pooh!...I said "suspect...some"...and watching all the trolls, it is far from irrational! Lacking proof does not make it an irrational suspicion.
.............................................. *one thing more...there a lot of weight put by some on the idea how we treat "Guests"...I really wish there were a different word used, as "Guest" is a loaded term. All we are really talking about here is folks who are unwilling to use a name I have NEVER had a "guest" in my house who walked in wearing a mask, refused to be identified, communicated with signs and notes, and thru it all, availed himself of my library and telephone while regularly complaining, in his notes, about his treatment! Wincing Devil makes my point very well...and with fewer words...
|
|
09 Apr 02 - 07:21 PM (#686610) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: McGrath of Harlow Theme song for our invisible friends |
|
09 Apr 02 - 07:42 PM (#686619) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: artbrooks I agree with Joe Offer's original statement. This has now turned into a Troll thread, which certainly wasn't RichM's intention, thanks to GUEST, or maybe GUEST, or possibly GUEST. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 08:01 PM (#686634) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Col K WEwould never have guessed where this thread can end |
|
09 Apr 02 - 08:33 PM (#686651) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: michaelr Question to Spaw - I'm curious how you determined that "we have plenty of anonymous guests who are just fine". For me, there's no way to tell whether there is just one person posting as "GUEST", or three dozen. And how do you know that some of them eventually attach names to their posts? Those could be completely new guests. Or is this a case of the Mudcat Inner Circle having access to information about the site that the rest of us don't have? Just curious. Regards, Michael |
|
09 Apr 02 - 09:11 PM (#686676) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: sophocleese And around and around and around we go. Yes I agree with those guests who suggest that that some Mudcatters are irrationally concerned with identity over content, something that is particularly distressing to see in the context of Folk Music which tends, slightly, to be less image-based and more content-based. However arguing with such fallacies rarely works as those who sincerely believe in them believe in them sincerely and without reason. Yes some members are rude. Sorcha in particular seems to delight in writing to a threads simply to say that she finds it boring. Wow! Does she walk up to strangers in a cafe and say "Fuck you're boring!"? If not why do it here? I've said it once and I'll say it again, guest versus member is a non-issue, rudeness is the problem from both members and guests. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 09:21 PM (#686683) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: catspaw49 Michael.......No, I have no more information then you have. What I meant by that was that there are an awful lot of anonymous postings that are simply anonymous....no intent to troll or flame, just opinions or questions and all phrased in such a way that it really isn't a problem. And yeah, I agree with Bill D. and Wincing Devil too. Some of these "Guests" act as Bill's very apt description don't they? I just hate to lump them all together. Some simply don't use a name while others are unwilling...and there is a difference. This thread alone shows the subtlety of drawing people in by using language that tends to anger rather than explain.....a popular "Guest Troll/Flamer" tactic. Then the Guest explains it really isn't a flame, but it's our fault for reading it that way and not agreeing with him/her. The whole thing is a true "No-Win Crock-O-Crap" and not worth the effort as there is no resolution. As soon as one gripe gets even close to being handled, the subject changes and when we address the new topic, they then go back to the old. "Show me an example," they say......and if we showed them 25, none would meet the NEW criteria for their acceptance. Bullshit. Sorry if I gave you any other impression Michael. Spaw |
|
09 Apr 02 - 09:32 PM (#686687) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST (humble appreciation for your clarity of thought Sophocleese...once again you've struck a blow for rationality by hitting the nail on the head) |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:31 PM (#686716) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: DonD I started to use the DigiTrad, then to read some threads about music and learned a lot, then to read some Bs threads, and when I decided to add my two cants, I signed up. It was painless, and I figured that I'd know if someone was answering me and not someone else. If I go to a meeting and don't like the people there or the way it's run, I don't go back. If I want to change it for the better as I see it, I join up and get involved as a participant, If someone crashes a party at my place and doesn't like me or my friends and just scarfs up the food and drink, either he chooses mot to come again,or is made to understand that he's not welcome. If GUEST, GUEST, or GUEST don't like it hee, why do they keep cpming back to complain? Aren't there a zillion other sites they might feel more comfortable? Do they just like to bitch? And to pretend that there's some musical connection on Mudcat, --- "And if you don't like me, well leave me alone!" |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:43 PM (#686748) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: khandu I accept guest into my home often. I treat them with the respect that I would give anyone, unless they prove unworthy of that respect. In that case, they are removed from my home. Anyone who refuses to give me his name will never enter into my home. He gets no respect, no favors. He gets the door closed in his face. At the Mudcat Cafe, I respond to guests often. I try to find lyrics, etc., that they may seek...if they sign a name. If they are "nameless" guest, I totally ignore them. Nothing they have to say interests me, therefore I do not even read any posts written by the nameless one(s). Upon opening a thread created by a nameless guest, I immediately close the thread. I am khandu, my e-mail address, my photo and my given name are posted in Mudcat Personals. I have, in the past, posted under other names, perhaps even as a nameless guest. As I became more accustomed to the Mudcat Cafe and realized that it was a community in which I desired to be a part, I dropped such practices. The Cafe is a great place to visit, a wealth of information can be found here. Equally as wonderful is the wealth of personalities that is here. I love this place. I intend to continue to drop in often. To any nameless guests I say this, There is no need to be nameless. Even typing one letter in the "name box" identifies you and separates you from other nameless guests, and cuts down confusion when other nameless guests post on the same thread. If you (nameless ones) want to respond to what I have said, feel free. But I will not see the response. I will continue to ignore your posts. To all other Guests, welcome. Any help I can give, I will do so cheerfully. khandu (Ken Whitfield) |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:53 PM (#686757) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: RichM Truthtroller asks why I have not made further responses. Truthfully, my initial posting stated my question, and my proposed solution: "I propose--for purposes of discussion here-- that guest postings should automatically reveal their email addresses. Anonymity would only be available for registered users. " And then I asked a question: "What do you think? " (to which you have all responded-thank you) And then I signed my real name: "Rich McCarthy " |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:57 PM (#686761) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Blackcatter Yall are nuts: members, guests, trolls. If you are deriving enjoyment from this exercise - more power to you, but if not and you are engaging in this conversation to really change things or to possibly irritate other people - good lord, can't you think of anything better to do? I do have to thank you, though - nearly all the above posts have given me a few seconds of humor. Maybe this is the formation of an new genre of humor... Pax yall |
|
10 Apr 02 - 12:01 AM (#686769) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Lepus Rex "good lord, can't you think of anything better to do?" Heh. Who sat there and read the WHOLE DAMNED THREAD, then posted to it at 09-Apr-02 - 11:57 PM? ---Lepus Rex |
|
10 Apr 02 - 12:12 AM (#686783) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Blackcatter Yes - but I ENJOYED reading all the stuff - I just question those who do this for the reasons I listed above. That's all. But then again, maybe you didn't have time to read all 82 words in my post. I come to the Mudcat to learn and enjoy myself - I don't allow Trolls to ever upset me - for 4 years now, I have heard them and have called them on their statements sometimes, but they have never "upset" me. Consequently, I've never considered that any action needs to occur to "curtail" their actions. The managers at Mudcat have better things to do than that. Pax yall |
|
10 Apr 02 - 12:14 AM (#686787) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST As a guest of a guest.
I am very happy with this place becoming membership only.
Its inbred death from mutual admoration adulation will render a sweet smelling incense to the air of cyber-space. Its alread pretty putrid. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:12 AM (#686940) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Dave the Gnome Ah well. It fills up an otherwise boring lunch break... One major logic flaw I spotted was the arguement that guests get publicly admonished while members have their botties spanked in private. Huh? How on earth can guests be punished in private when there is no mechanism for that to happen? Surely if a guest feels upset by being publicly humiliated all they need to do is join. Or am I missing something? Having said that I have now know that guests do have a lot more courage that I had previously realised, as I shall show shortly. To get back to the original question in the thread - how should we treat guests? My answer would be to treat all people withh respect. If that civility is abused ask yourself the question, "does it matter?". I, for one, could not give two hoots if someone I don't even know and does not know me voices an opinion I disagree with. It is not that their opinions are any better or worse. It is just that I don't really care. It does not matter. Likewise if my opinion is dismissed by a guest it does not lessen its value. It is still my opinion. I believe it is still valid. Ah well. teabreak over. back on yer heads...;-) Cheers Dave the Gnome |
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:18 AM (#686943) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: GUEST I am guest of 12:08 April 9. My hobbies are playing the banjo and sniffing bicycle seats on warm days. I have a spotty bum, green teeth and I sleep with Camels. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:33 AM (#686953) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Dave the Gnome It wasn't guest of 12:08 at all, of course, but the gnaughty gnome :-o Nothing personal 12:08 - just pointing out that it does indeed take some bottle to leave yourself open to attacks like that! (Not that anyone in the mudcat would REALLY do that!) Now, as a member, two of the main benefits I find are the ability to PM and the security of being safe from bogus postings. Someone could, of course, use "GUEST:Dave the gnome" but if such a posting were defamatory is not likely to be taken seriously. At least not by people who know me, which brings me back to an earlier point... So, guests, please continue to visit. Members, please respect everyones views and above all, everyone, remember that life's short enough anyway:-) Cheers Dave the Gnome |
|
10 Apr 02 - 02:35 PM (#687228) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Dave the Gnome Oh - and I should apologise to 12:08 for taking your name in vain - It was just picked at random. I'm sure you are not guilty of any of the heinous crimes listed. Sorry:-( And apologies to Max, Joe et al of course - I would never ever log out to use a guest tag on purpose for malicious purposes and anyone guilty of doing so should be kicked out and shot at dawn. To the sound of a traditional death march of course...;-) Cheers DtG |
|
10 Apr 02 - 03:51 PM (#687291) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: McGrath of Harlow Traditional dead march by Beethoven, no less.
I knew this thread would drift into music sooner or later. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 04:14 PM (#687312) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: Herga Kitty On this "community" versus "resource" and general website issue.. I would have thought that in the context of folk music in particular "Community" should mean "accessible to anyone interested", including guests, not "inward looking members-only clique". Some threads may be narrower than others in that they only apply to the folk music scene in a particular country (or even more localised than that). And guests may sometimes have good reasons for not identifying themselves, which as far as I can see Mudcat generally understands. But snide and abusive comments from anonymous "guests" who show no knowledge of, or interest in, any aspect of folk music are just gatecrashing. Which of course anyone can do on any open website, if their lives are sad enough. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 04:39 PM (#687327) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: RichM For the word 'cluque, substitute 'community'; it means more than simply 'anyone interested'. Community means being aware of the generally accepted principles of behaviour in that community. If you are a guest in my house, I expect that you will treat *me* and other guests with respect. Maybe I should restate my original question: Can we have a filter system similar to email programs? Richard McCarthy |
|
10 Apr 02 - 07:54 PM (#687482) Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests? From: harpmaker 'Time on hand' comes to mind, and 'too much of it' Let's face it, 'Guest's' are only human, same as members!-- Oh precious one. "YOUR SO VIEN, YOU PROBALY THINK THIS SONG IS ABOUT YOU" Now't wrong wi' guest's!! In my book anyhow. |