|
28 Apr 05 - 04:14 PM (#1473526) Subject: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: breezy I think someones taking the preverbial piss on the mudcat. I havent read the Objection thread yet, so I could be wrong. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 04:18 PM (#1473530) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: breezy Yes he is Clinton Hammond is he a moron? |
|
28 Apr 05 - 04:48 PM (#1473559) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: robomatic I'm not against freedom of speech, including bawdy speech, but I personally am not familiar with (new?) poster John Mehlberger and all at once to have a lot of explicitly named songs cropping up with innocent sounding requests for information sounds like a weird sort of exhibitionism. And all the justification for it rather than a thread simply titled: "Bawdy Songs" makes me say to meself: "He doth protest too much." |
|
28 Apr 05 - 04:55 PM (#1473564) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Bill D amen, robomatic...I just posted a long reply in the other thread. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:02 PM (#1473569) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: nutty As did I |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:06 PM (#1473575) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: breezy well done chaps, thanks for the endorsements. standards and all that. cant have them bosch types coming in on here and behaving like that now can we? |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:08 PM (#1473578) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: wysiwyg John's been around quite some time. He's a scholar of bawdy material. Sometimes he gets posts of affirmation here.... and sometimes people act upset-- depends who's around that day. Visit his site and see for yourself. He's got quite a collection. Hi John! Love your work! ~The Pastor's Wife |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:13 PM (#1473581) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Rasener I do not like his thread titles. I don't give a toss what he puts in the message. I can give him as good as he can give back, but I choose not to. Whats the point. I just don't want to be faced with crude thread titles each time I log on. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:30 PM (#1473598) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: wysiwyg They are the titles of crude songs. See FAQ on Bawdy Lyrics Alert. ~S~ |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:34 PM (#1473601) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: greg stephens John Mehlburger appears to be using an international folkmusic forum to research traditional folksongs, in a scholarly and non-controversial fashion. What is conceivably wrong with that? |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:40 PM (#1473612) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: nutty Come on Greg .... no self respecting folksinger would sing such utter rubbish. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:43 PM (#1473620) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: wysiwyg Have you ever had Dick Greenhaus in your living room? Maybe not to John's level, but pretty earthy! ~S~ |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:46 PM (#1473626) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Rasener Hope you don't Greg :-) The Market Rasen Folk Club is starting up again, so I will be getting in touch with you soon as per our previous communication, if that still stands. Going to Moor and Coast tomorrow, so will get back to you when I am back next week. Don't worry, I am not a prude. Lived in Amsterdam too long :-) |
|
28 Apr 05 - 05:53 PM (#1473636) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: greg stephens I would not sing these songs in a folk club, sure. But I'm afraid the creation and performance of folk music has not confined itself to folk clubs, historically speaking. I might be tempted to go a litlle further, and suggest that no folk music has ever been created in a folk club. They are places for performance of certain kinds of folk material, but that is far as it goes. If drunken blokes, on their own, have tended in the past to sing songs of a certain crudity...well, this is another item in the Department of the Bleedin' Obvious. John Mehlberg collects them. Shock, horror. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 06:00 PM (#1473647) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Charley Noble John is a dedicated collector of bawdy songs. If this is not your cup of tea, find something else to do with your life. Censorship is never appropriate in my opinion. Charley Noble |
|
28 Apr 05 - 06:02 PM (#1473650) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: nutty The fact that John collects these songs is not a problem ..... he has a web site of his own ..... he does not have to use Mudcat so blatently. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 06:07 PM (#1473656) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: greg stephens Nutty: if you dont like people who collect folksongs, are you sure that Mudcat is your ideal forum? I'm sure there must be others on the internet that will suit your taste, but the thing is, this is a dedicated folksong site. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 06:13 PM (#1473667) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Malcolm Douglas He is simply using the internet's largest folksong resource, as we all do. He is a member of the more specialised Ballad-L discussion list, and doubtless other groups that I don't subscribe to. Why should he not also seek information here? See also Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'. Much the same points are being made there, though at greater length. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 06:14 PM (#1473669) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: nutty Greg ....you obviously know nothing about me. So please don't make such comments until you have evidence to back them. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM (#1473683) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: nutty I just find it very interesting that you can get away with anything under the assertion that its 'research' and, sadly, people will believe and support you. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 07:07 PM (#1473721) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Lanfranc "... but please, call it research!" ("Lobochevsky" - Tom Lehrer) I have no knowledge of this Mehlberger character, but, other than the fact that he is using "his" name, I don't see a lot of difference between him and the usual run of passing trolls. May I suggest that we ignore him, thus denying him the oxygen of reaction, in the fervent hope that he might go away? I guess that is asking too much. Freedom - Responsibility = Anarchy Alan |
|
28 Apr 05 - 07:29 PM (#1473748) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Uke Excuse me, but doesn't anyone find the title of THIS thread a little offensive? (Calling Joe Offer) Just because John is open and honest enough to use his own name on the site, should that be used against him in a form of ridicule? 'Sticks and stones', yes I know, but... In the 'other' thread, and making another point, Malcolm Douglas says the Mudcat is not a childrens playground. Well, I'm afraid the anonymity of internet 'user names' does seem to mean people can act in childish ways here at times - ways that frankly undermine their moralistic comments. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 07:56 PM (#1473765) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Leadfingers There is NO WAY that as a Professional musician/singer I would use any material that has any 'obscene' language in it ! HOWEVER as an ex regular Serviceman I HAVE sung a lot of these songs in various NAAFI bars round the world ! I would agree that the use of some of the words used as Thread Titles would be better '-----' Dashed out ! After all there is nothing to stop any Catters family logging in to the Cat , regardless of age , sex , or sensitivity ! |
|
28 Apr 05 - 08:56 PM (#1473820) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: masato sakurai "It is safe to say that no folk community in the world is without them [i.e., obscene or erotic songs]." (Kenneth S. Goldstein) |
|
28 Apr 05 - 09:20 PM (#1473827) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Ferrara I have felt, reading a few of the less raunchy threads, that John is indeed doing research and trying to collect information about these songs. I'm all for letting him use Mudcat to do that. That said, I'm agin' letting him keep using explicit thread titles. Once would have been Okay, maybe. But seeing explicit titles on thread after thread is too much. And it's unnecessary. All he has to do is start the title with "Bawdy:" or even "Very Bawdy:" and use dashes in the critical words. By now everyone gets the point. What The Villan said: I just don't want to be faced with crude thread titles each time I log on. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 09:22 PM (#1473829) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Bob the Postman Like Greg Stephens, I too think Mr. Mehlberger is doing good work. This controversy seemed to start with the "Eat Bite" thread--a nasty and unclever little song which could, if done properly, make me bust a gut. Eat Bite and its cohorts might not be traditional in themselves but they are part of a performance traditon which dates back, if not to Aristophanes, then at least to those less-talented contemporaries of the Big A whose names are justly forgotten. Gross disgusting songs are fun, and tracing their histories is interesting, useful work. But if certain words in the thread title offend some folks, why not sprinkle a few asterisks over them? Er, I mean *terisks. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 09:30 PM (#1473833) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: dick greenhaus The ideal solution, I guess, would be to have some software patch that would allow sensitive souls to block any posting with a "Bawdy" tag. But we don't have such. The alternatives seem to be: a) don't address bawdy material. This is, IMO, too silly an alternative to consider seriously. b) Revert to the Victorian approach of using f**k, c**t, n***r, F******g, A******k atc. Not quite as, but almost as silly. I can just hear the kids: "Mommy, what does C********r mean?" It was a dumb practice in Victorian days, and it hasn't improved with age. c) Not include the name of the song in the posting. Well, I guess one could get responses from the first "LYRICS REQUEST: BAWDY", but subsequent requests for other songs would become incomprehensible. Or at least indistinguishable. d)Keep on the way we are. Which doesn't seem like too bad an idea to me. Sure, it offends some folks. But, I've found, the only way to avoid offending anyone is to do nothing. There is a wide spectrum of bawdy song, ranging from the one in question to the clever, witty ones. But they're all part of folk music. Folk NEVER has been a value judgment. And, since we can't find any agreement on the meaning of "Traditional", I would submit that the song in question fits the bill better than one like, f'rinstance, Waist Deep in Big Muddy (which I happen to prefer). And, by the way WISIWYG, what did I sing in your living room? |
|
28 Apr 05 - 09:34 PM (#1473834) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Ferrara London Derriere, maybe, Dick? Or Farouk? |
|
28 Apr 05 - 10:06 PM (#1473844) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: jimmyt Oh, come on! If this person is in fact a researcher who has any thoughts about getting cooperation from the masses of mudcat, wouldn't it be easier for him to post a thread title like "Need Bawdy Lyrics" rather than what stuff he or she has used for titles of threads" It seems that just a little sensitivity would provide the researcher with what he wants while keeping the titles within normal limits for us nonresearchers? Just a suggestion. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 10:10 PM (#1473847) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: dick greenhaus jimmyt- Problem with that is how is one to tell just which bawdy lyrics he's looking for? And, who has set the "normal limits"? |
|
28 Apr 05 - 10:32 PM (#1473856) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris The title offends me, but I support John's right to use Mudcat afor his research and have the explicit words in the title. It would be good to have a BS-like category that we could filter out if we don't want to see such titles. |
|
28 Apr 05 - 11:13 PM (#1473888) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: wysiwyg Dick, all I recall is laughing my ass off, and that ought to be enough to recommend the genre. You know the pressures my husband and I face in a life of ministry-- and a little relief is ALWAYS welcome. I have spent time at John M's site letting all the world fade away. I'd be sorry to see the work he does muzzled in any way. Still, I realize the situation for people whose work access will block a site with explicitness. I am betting Mr. Mehlberg can find a workable and creative approach, and that the rudeness of some of the ways people have offered their input will kinda roll off his back. Mudcat has a meanness about it these days-- everyone is so defensive, it feels like every little puff of wind instantly becomes a divisive factor that cuts deep. I myself have often been accused of not having a sense of humor when it comes to certain things I've found offensive. Who is lacking a sense of humor now, eh? ~Susan |
|
29 Apr 05 - 12:42 AM (#1473943) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,.gargoyle Or --- another simple solution
Keep and reap Johnny's "Rugby Songs" in Monkey-Boy's Rugby-Thread.
No different than YSWYG legitamatly suggesting BaaBaa being linked to NEGRO SPIRITUALS! (what planet you been livin on girl?)
Mr. Mahlberg is doing "original field research" - data, is data, is data - and every bit adds to the community.
Sincerely, |
|
29 Apr 05 - 12:58 AM (#1473947) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Rasener Why doesn't John Mehlberger ask Joe for a Perma Thread and head it up as "Research by John Mehlberger on very bawdy songs - Enter at your own peril" or something like that. I am definately not against John researching his subject - in fact I fully support his efforts. However, would it be possible to tone the thread title down please. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 01:31 AM (#1473960) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger - none From: Barbara Objection to JohnMehlberger. I have none. He is researching the topic, and I find his songs and searches interesting. I had no idea there were so many dirty songs I'd never heard of at all; and I like to see who does recognize them, what part of the country, what community, what era produced what. It tells what our culture is and how we change (or not). Taboos are a crucial defining tool for any group, and who knows how they will change in the future? Think how most of us react to songs that were bowlderized when they were collected in the last couple centuries. Most of John's songs I would never sing, but hey, most of everything posted here I wouldn't sing. A song has to strike me a certain way before I'll learn it. Perhaps if John posts his songs by the part of the title that doesn't have the offensive word in it (if possible) it would ease some people's pain. But my ears won't fall off if I hear the f word (nor my eyeballs fall out). Blessings, Barbara |
|
29 Apr 05 - 01:32 AM (#1473961) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: John O'L I think it's a little bizarre that he's started a thread with 'motherfucker' in the title, and then a thread in which people can object to 'motherf----er'. Seems to me he should have done it the other way around. But then if he had, he wouldn't have needed the second thread, would he? Being a serious researcher and collector doesn't preclude him from being a shit stirrer as well. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 01:41 AM (#1473966) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: RobbieWilson I have a problem with thread titles like the Eat....... thread, in that I log in to mudcat at work where the system has a profanity filter. So it is not a case of "don't enter this thread if you are going to be offended" I cannot get into the forun at all while such titles are in the list. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 02:17 AM (#1473973) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,Clint Keller Seems to me if your kids are smart enough to get to Mudcat and recognize the word 'fuck' they're smart enough o click on a thread title with the word 'f--k' in it. After all, do you try to censor their foul-mouthed little friends on the playground? How successful do you think it'd be? I'm repelled by all the songs in the Mofo Ball thread - all I read, anyway - but freedom of speech isn't just for stuff I like. clint |
|
29 Apr 05 - 04:27 AM (#1474022) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Richard Bridge Freedom of speech, fine. Incitement to (for example) racial violence - probably not fine. Incitement to (for example) socially unacceptable other practices - where does one draw the line? I think JM does his research in probably the only effective way, so unless we are to deny the research (which must itself be valid) we must accept the way it is done. It's not the same as actually doing harm to the non-consenting (smoking beagles in the name of tobacco research, etc) |
|
29 Apr 05 - 07:05 AM (#1474083) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: greg stephens Surely the offensiveness of a word is the product of how and where it is used, it is not intrinsically offensive in itself. Asking for information about the Motherfuckers Ball for resaerch purposes, on a folk music forum, is surely a completely different kettle of fish from going up to someone in a bar and saying "Out of the way, motherfucker". The latter is rude, and will get you your nose broken. The former, as far as I am concerned, isnt. B ut I do recognise that some people have deep seated taboos,(and I include "me" in "some people"). So maybe John should consider writing "M....f....." or something similar, in the thread titles. Quite why one is less offensive than the other is beyond me, but if it will please people, and not reduce the information content of the post in any way, perhaps it would be a good compromise. If a tad hypocritical....but then you have to be, sometimes. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 07:13 AM (#1474089) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Paco Rabanne I'm with breezy. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 07:39 AM (#1474106) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris I am as disgusted as breezy is, but I differ in that I don't want to open the doors to censorship on the basis of mere disgust. Clint Keller's statement is very important for me: "freedom of speech isn't just for stuff I like". It is too important a principle to compromise. Some principles have to be preserved in black and white, because once the grey seeps in, no matter how well intentioned, you can no longer defend the principle and you are on the path to dictatorship. I don't believe a court of law would find John's use of the words punishable. I cannot then "punish" him, reprimand him or censor him outside the law. If I don't like the law, I strive to change it; until then, I obey it. But I can say that I find his use of the full word disgusting. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 07:53 AM (#1474115) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: katlaughing El Grecko, one can use the filter box to filter out any thread titles which may contain offensive words. Just tick the little box which says "FILTER OUT" then enter whatever words which might twist the knickers, then hit GO!:-) I agree with Ferrara. kat |
|
29 Apr 05 - 08:01 AM (#1474120) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: greg stephens katlaughing: you dont seem to be agrreing with Ferrara at all. She is advocating some censorship of profanity from Mehlberg's posts, you are pointing out there is an existing filter system you can use if you want, so the censorship isnt needed. You seem pretty much opposed to Ferrara as far as I can see. Personally, I think no censorship should be imposed, but that John M might consider a little self-imposed toning down in his thread titles, if that's what it takes to please some shockable people. But he should definitely continue is work, and continue using Mudcat as one of his avenues of exploration. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 08:09 AM (#1474129) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: catspaw49 I think the real root of the problem here is in whether Mother Fucker is indeed two words or just one and does Motherfucker imply something different when written as one word. A collateral issue that's germane to this would also be whether or not the word(s) should be capitalized. .....ferchrissakes............. Spaw |
|
29 Apr 05 - 08:58 AM (#1474180) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST "Being a serious researcher and collector doesn't preclude him from being a shit stirrer as well." Just as posting with a username doesn't preclude people being shit stirrers too. One would think it is a no brainer to identify one who is devoted exclusively to the research of such marginal, largely offensive songs, to having some serious shit stirring proclivities, no? Especially when they get all up in the face of those whom they know to be easily offended? The words don't bother me. I hate the sexist and often abusive content of the lyrics in question. I hate even more that no one else has drawn attention to that aspect of these songs except a handful of people. But what I hate most is the impulse to censor here. I also think it is pretty hilarious that people still think of this website as a legitmate research resource for serious scholars. Barbara made this excellent point when she said: "Taboos are a crucial defining tool for any group, and who knows how they will change in the future?" It is true that we can learn about a culture by studying the subject matters that culture has defined as taboo. But this sort of research isn't all that revealing because, as others have noted elsewhere, these sorts of sexist, machismo songs are universal. All it tells us is what we already know--that the planet has been dominated by patriarch societies that allow men to "blow off steam" legitimately by singing these sorts of offensive songs, especially in traditionally all male settings like the military. There are probably thousands of these songs that are much more offensive to our contemporary ears being sung by the soldiers in Iraq right now. Does anyone know if the singing of those songs are negatively impacting female soldiers, including the high incidence of female soldiers reportedly being raped by their male comrades there? If the singing of racist machismo songs had anything to do with creating a climate where the abuse at Abu Ghraib occurred? I guess nobody wants to think about the truly serious aspects of legitimate research into these kinds of songs like that, do they? |
|
29 Apr 05 - 09:26 AM (#1474210) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Cool Beans You know what offends me? All this ranting from those who aren't bright enough to get the man's name right. As WYSIWYG and Greg Stephens have noted, it's Mehlberg, not Mehlberger. If you're going to complain about someone or something, at least identify it correctly. Sheesh, some of you are like the folks who protest a movie without having seen it. C.B. Former copy editor (and lousy typist) |
|
29 Apr 05 - 10:10 AM (#1474228) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Bill D you all will notice that those thread titles have NOT been censored yet! Joe and others who have the ability to do so have tried to thoroughly explore the issue and not go off half---ummmmm.... What many of us who have stated 'some' reservations to explicit thread titles are trying to do is request voluntary adherence to language in titles which would avoid the issue of 'censorship'. Several suggestions have been made ...any of which would work. I simply can't see why anyone would insist on having the most extreme title possible, when a less controversial one would do. If John had used a toned down title, and then noted the precise words in the body, you wouldn't be demanding the more explict title, would you? |
|
29 Apr 05 - 10:18 AM (#1474231) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST John is looking for a reaction to posting dirty little ditties. He has gotten it. If his desire to research them was genuine, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because a legitimate researcher wouldn't engage in this sort of shit stirring. I object to the same lame old double standard of what Joe censors and what he doesn't more than anything. But it doesn't really matter in the end, because Joe will do what Joe damn well pleases, members be damned.
-Joe Offer- |
|
29 Apr 05 - 11:05 AM (#1474269) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris GUEST, you clearly have an axe to grind, you admitted so yourself earlier in saying that you have been censored in the past. And so accuse Joe of double standard. You may be right in your grudge - I don't know. If you care to post detils of the case where you were unfairly censored (not here, but in the "Censorship in Mudcat" thread), then we may be able to judge. Until then, and as long as you post anonymously, your grudge is moot and by necessity ignored. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 11:23 AM (#1474285) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST I see some of you feel more comfortable attacking the messenger than addressing the messenger's points raised. Typical. Doesn't bother me though. Just let's me know that the points I'm making are being perceived as threatening enough to certain Mudcat status quo warriors, that they "ignore" me by responding to my posts. You go, el greko. If you want to ignore me, go right ahead. But why make a point of telling me and the rest the world, and make a fool of yourself? Self-control issues perhaps? |
|
29 Apr 05 - 11:29 AM (#1474292) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: wysiwyg Guest, if you were reachable by PM you might have been included in an attempt to formulate a proposal to deal with this situation. Just because people don't answer you or post in agreement does not mean your viewpoint is not being considered. I happen to disagree that JM is a troll. He posts so seldom it just doesn't fit a troll profile. He posts a request for information, shares a link to a sound sample (usually), gives personal contact info if people prefer not to give their replies in the thread, and lets the thread go if no one responds. ~Susan |
|
29 Apr 05 - 11:39 AM (#1474297) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Actually Susan, his posting history shows that he has requested information and provided links to information consistently--and been largely ignored by the majority here. I don't think he likes that, hence him raising the ante with the thread titles. Is there some reason why he needs to be handled with kid gloves? Given such special treatment for posting sexist crap? Sure they are "traditional" in the sense that these sorts of songs have been sung for millenia on the fringes of civilized societies and uncivilized societies. So what's the point? Just what sort of response is this guy looking for? That we all pay attention to him and his dirty ditties, that's what. Is there a law that says we're all supposed to accomodate his obsession with dirty ditties, just because this is a forum for the discussion of traditional music? I don't think so, but I know some peoples' mileage will vary. Especially those that like to shock by posting and discussing the good ole boys' proclivities to sing dirty little ditties. Or racist little ditties. Like I said earlier--yawn. I am actually quite thankful that anonymity keeps me out of the shadow forum's PM loop. These censorship debates and attention seeking behaviors are bad enough in the forum itself. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 11:52 AM (#1474303) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: wysiwyg Guest, is it that you want to control JM's behavior? Also, what does it matter what his motives are? Do his motives control anyone else? I don't see an upping of the ante. I see song info requests that a lot of people are sensitive about, on the side of free expression as much as on the side of concern. How does that make it impossible for people who are NOT so sensitive about it, to think flexibly and perhaps discern a possible opportunity for consensus? Aren't some things in life basically just challenges to our problem-solving abilities? Sure, outrage is possible, but my experience in working with people in all kinds of settings is that when outrage becomes umbrage, one is not thinking most powerfully. ~Susan |
|
29 Apr 05 - 12:06 PM (#1474312) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: dick greenhaus Hey folks- In a very real sense Mudcat is a SOURCE--for anyone wishing to use it. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 12:19 PM (#1474321) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Susan, why are you assuming that the voicing of an opinion of the guy and his behavior here, which is what everyone else in the thread is doing, is the expression of a desire to control others? That is one pretty bizarre assumption. And why are you so bent on portraying this as an either/or control issue? That by posting here, either I'm trying to control him, or by him posting here, I am perceiving him as trying to control me? That is even more bizarre. And why do you assume I care about Mudcat posters "reaching consensus"? I could give two hoots. Also, don't assume that because someone articulates an opinion, that they are outraged. I'm not outraged. I'm not angry. I don't care how this person and his dirty ditty posting is dealt with. I'm just shooting from the hip here like everyone else posting here. Get over yourself. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 12:29 PM (#1474330) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Raedwulf I don't have the slightest objection to John Mehlberg. If he's a troll, then I only wish all internet trolls were like him. At least his posts appear to largely provoke an intelligent discussion, rather than highly polarized, mindless, vitriolic name-calling thinly disguised under a facade of debate (e.g. the attitude of too many posters in the thread with the three letters B, N, & P in the title). I do, however, hope that some of the less impassioned Mudcat members have taken the trouble to privately point out to him the valid arguments about the use of profanity in thread titles, & how it may prove counter-productive to his research if he continues in the same way. It doesn't bother me in the slightest (I'm with CH - a word is just a word), but I can understand the points raised. No-one has to concede anything, but "BAWDY: The Motherlovers Dance" would almost certainly have been just as productive, & would not have generated so much associated hot air... As for Guest 11:23 & 11:39, the attitudes & general contempt for Mudcat displayed in your posts generate at least as much ire in many named members as Mr Mehlberg does. So perhaps you might also wonder if you're getting your point across as well as you might wish? |
|
29 Apr 05 - 12:45 PM (#1474338) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST If you are able to articulate a response to me Raedwulf, then I must assume I'm getting my points across just fine. I'm a curmudgeonly sort, who does hold many of the posters and forum moderators in contempt. That much of what you say is true. But so what? If people want to read what I post, they do, if they don't, they don't. If they respond to what I post, fine. If they don't, fine. This is an internet chat forum. Some of us don't get our knickers bunched up over what complete strangers to us say in response to what we post. I am all too well aware of the fact that annoys the living shit out of some of you. C'est la guerre. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 12:45 PM (#1474339) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: wysiwyg Guest, I did not assume-- I ASKED. You responded defensively, based on your own assumptions, and then closed by attacking me. WHo is the troll? ~S~ |
|
29 Apr 05 - 01:00 PM (#1474351) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Give it a rest Susan. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 01:05 PM (#1474355) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: breezy I am offended by seeing profanity blatantly diplayed on thread titles on the mudcat. It is not censorship that would be applicable here as the content, sentiment and opinions would be unaffected. A little more taste and respect for decency and other peoples values is all that is expected. Barbara , you have lead a sheltered life, I heard most of these songs when at college, and I have never drunk cider since.In fact didnt I once hear you singing... Thanks for your support everyone,its not acceptable to allow things to go unchecked, but it does take character to confront that which you deem to be inappropriate no matter where you see or hear it, as my students will testify to. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 02:20 PM (#1474415) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that not putting profanities in the thread titles isn't going trip us all up. This John guy just needs a little tutoring in how to write a short, pithy, and accurate description that fits in the title line. So how in hell did this get overblown into yet another bloody battle over the Mudcat censor? Is it too much to ask that we not put the nasty words in titles, if we ask each other nicely? Who here wants the lyrics John is posting to be censored? Why this high drama and hysteria over such trifling matters? Why, when so many members who frequent this place have simply complained that having one of the seven+ (depending upon your level of dainty sensibilities) naughty words on the front page gets caught in the censorship filters, and defacto locking them out of the forum, can't everyone just agree that makes perfect sense and then have your beloved Mudcat censors edit out any offending words for the good of all concerned? Why the calls for censorship? Why can't there just be a bloody decision by the damn forum moderator to keep the nasties out of the thread titles, so more people don't get filtered out of the forum? Instead of leaving this whole thing open to discussion and hysteria mongering? Joe, why not just make a damn decision--it's what you always do anyway, usually with your head up your ass, like it is today. Jaysus, some days I think people here couldn't find their way out of a paper bag. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 02:39 PM (#1474438) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberg From: Joe Offer Well, my decision is to leave John's titles just the way John posted them. That's what I said from the very beginning. The general procedure is that the title of the song should be in the title of the thread - it makes things so much easier to find. However, if John wants to change things a bit in the way he titles threads, I'm not going to stop him. As usual, I'm open to disagreement - because I'm going to get it, whether I want it or not. I highly doubt that a three-year-old is going to be seriously harmed by reading the word "motherfucker" in a thread title. The argument that some filters won't allow access because of the bad words is a concern, but I'm not ready to consent to Victorian euphemisms because of it - I'm open to change on that one, though. What are you people doing Mudcat at work for, anyhow? Still, libraries and educational institutions often do use Mudcat as a reference, and I'd hate to have them blocked by a naughty word in the Forum Menu. But honestly, how often does that happen? By the way, I have to say that personally, I think John Mehlberg is a fine fellow. I have no objection to John Mehlberg whatsoever. I don't know who the f*** John Mehlberger is. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Apr 05 - 03:16 PM (#1474469) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Azizi "What are you people doing Mudcat at work for, anyhow?" Joe, everyone doesn't have a computer at home. And there are some jobs where people can legitimately go online and-yes- even surf the Internet and visit non-employment related sites such as Mudcat during work time and not just during their lunch breaks. For instance at one point in my last 9 to 5 position, I had to call a small number of folks and respond to calls from other folks. When I wasn't doing that I just sat there...I would have been bored as all getout if I hadn't had Mudcat to keep me company in between those in-coming calls. And for the record, since I'm posting on this thread, I am concerned that folks using library computers might be blocked access to this site because of the titles John uses. I agree with others who have recommended that John use more discretion out of consideration for that population if not others. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 03:35 PM (#1474480) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris I too wish that John would use more discression out of consideration of those being blocked by their system's "profanity filters". Or simply out of consideration for those among us (me included) who for cultural or whatever reasons are offended seeing such words in the title. But what if he wants to be inconsiderate and continue? In such case, I do not advocate that we block him altogether. I would prefer Joe and the clones to edit such titles by adding some prefix that we could use easily for ignoring such messages (Susan, I know I can use individual words for that in the filter, but how many? I would have to think ahead of the next distasteful use of a word; it's a losing game). However, Joe made it clear that he does not wish to edit the titles; OK, his decision. I'll have to live with that. It does strike me that John's choice of forum for researching such songs is not a good one though. We already said that such songs do not get aired in folk clubs or the usual folk music circles; surely he should be researching among Army Veterans and Rugby clubs? |
|
29 Apr 05 - 03:36 PM (#1474481) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer Hey, I used to work for a living. I'm glad it isn't something I have to do any more. I used to do Mudcat while I was waiting for people to return my business phone calls - but I was working out of my home and on my own computer, because my government agency employer was too cheap to give me an office. I do think though, that if your employer has a profanity filter, perhaps that's a message from your employer that you're not supposed to be doing Mudcat on company time or on company computers... And I still think that John Mehlberg is a fine fellow. Will "motherfu**cker" bypass the filters? -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM (#1474509) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: nutty if your employer has a profanity filter, perhaps that's a message from your employer that you're not supposed to be doing Mudcat on company time or on company computers... That's a very convenient way of thinking, Joe, it really justifies your decision to do nothing. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 04:19 PM (#1474511) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris Also, it does not hold for libraries. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 04:30 PM (#1474522) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Filters are customized by the powers that be that institute them. Joe, as usual you have come down on the idiotic side. Your decision is hostile and a flipping off of the people who access from libraries and schools. But then, your decision doesn't surprise me either. I've grown quite accustomed to your passive aggressive hostility towards people. Especially those who dare to call you out for being a jerk. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 04:37 PM (#1474527) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberg From: Joe Offer Hey, that stuff about the Mudcat at work is just an observation. But Nutty, do you have a problem Mudcatting because a profanity filter interferes? My real reason for not changing the thread title is that I think threads about songs should reflect the song title, and I don't like the idea of messing with song titles. The "surfing at work" argument has some merit - but note that those worksurfers are also blocked form viewing some of the index pages of the Digital Tradition because some of the DT songs have nasty words in their titles. And of course, many other Mudcat pages are blocked because of a stray naughty word here and there. So, how far do we go? Do we have to live our lives by the rules of a few profanity filters? And are there THAT many workplaces that have profanity filters that are so fussy? Did somebody hire my prudish ex-wife to program them all? How about it? Can people who actually do have this problem speak up? If it is a problem that blocks you from Mudcat access, say so. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Apr 05 - 04:46 PM (#1474533) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST The filters usually just pick up the front page (in this case the forum front page) when looking for profanity. Like I said--if your decision is to risk blocking access to the site from schools and libraries (and leaving peoples' workplace out of it entirely) you are GOD around here, and no one can argue with GOD. As you have made so plain to many of us over the years. |
|
29 Apr 05 - 05:29 PM (#1474559) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer Ayup. Sounds disgustingly reasonable, Dick. I don't know how to do "filter OUT" filter links, but Jeff can whip one up in a second-and-a-half that will eliminate every thread title with a bawdy tag in it. If there's a need for it, there could be a bawdy filter link on our www.mudcat.org page. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Apr 05 - 06:05 PM (#1474573) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: greg stephens Thank you dick greenhaus, for a very practical solution, which will take of all reasonable arguments that have been raised here. And nobody who doesnt wish to see a rude word will have to. I hope this can be implemented easily. I fear Joe Offer is right, though, it is not a solution that will appeal to all the sh*t-stirrers (there, I didnt use a rude word). |
|
29 Apr 05 - 06:29 PM (#1474588) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: John M. Joe Offer, As I understood Dick Greenhaus' over the phone, in our mudcat registration we will have a checkbox option for filtering out all forum threads with BAWDY: in them just as we have a checkbox option of eliminating all BS threads from the forum. This way all REGISTERED users who want to filter bawdy items will be able to automatically filter out these threads. This sounds good to me. And the title of the songs will not have to be changed...which what I didn't and don't want to do...but sensitive ears will be protected from all Bawdy: threads. Always yours, John Mehlberg |
|
29 Apr 05 - 07:04 PM (#1474608) Subject: RE: Objection to John Mehlberg From: Joe Offer Gee, Dick was busy on the phone today. He called me, too. He doesn't know if he should be pleased about his reputation for singing naughty songs, but he thinks he is. I told him I've heard more dirty songs from him in the last ten years, than I've heard from everybody else combined - but that Dick sings only clever dirty songs, which is the godshonesttruth. But anyhow, there are a couple of technical problems with using "bawdy" as a tag, so we're trying to think of another. I'm inclined toward "pg13." I'm not sure that it will be a cookie-enabled filter like our "BS" filter. That takes some tech work, and it won't work for those who aren't logged in whith a cookie. But we can come up with a filter link in a couple of days that will do the trick. I'll leave the matter open for discussion until Saturday, and then ask that you give us a few days after that to come up with the goods. And Dick agreed with me that John Mehlberg is a fine fellow. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Apr 05 - 07:48 PM (#1474631) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Folkiedave I have had correspondence with John Mehlberg and I agree his seems a nice enough bloke. I do not find words offensive at all. No way, no how. That sort of thing went out with Marie Lloyd. The objector was the quaintly and appropriately named Mrs. Ormiston Chant of the Purity Party. See: http://www.amaranthdesign.ca/musichall/past/lloyd.htm for the details of this. Serious researcher. Best regards, Dave |
|
29 Apr 05 - 10:25 PM (#1474693) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST And of course, the "PG13" filter will do nothing for those who will still be blocked from the site if posting from libraries and schools with filters. You guys are fucking rocket scientists all right. Those of you who all agreed with one another apparently spent the afternoon coming up with this fine "solution". Boys will be boys, and around here that testosterone is SACROSANCT.
-Joe Offer- |
|
29 Apr 05 - 11:14 PM (#1474718) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,.gargoyle Dear J. M.
It has been several years since the MC has seriously discussed the DT.
You appear, to have blessings of DT Pope...and the MC Cardinal...the final one to "check-in" (since it IS his play-pen) will be:
MAX!!!!
Sincerely,
80 years from now ... your recordings could become part of the "Library of Congress"
P.S. - Mr. Greenhouse - in the "early days" once gave me his personal "blessing" also....
|
|
30 Apr 05 - 01:26 AM (#1474775) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: greg stephens As an interesting side issue on this thread, it appears that some American(and possibly British too?) do not allow access to material containing the word "fuck" (among others). The Lady Chatterley's Lover trial happened in 1963(or thereabouts)...does this censorship still persist? I find this incredible. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 03:00 AM (#1474803) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Peace "But then, your decision doesn't surprise me either. I've grown quite accustomed to your passive aggressive hostility towards people. Especially those who dare to call you out for being a jerk." Talk about passive aggressive hostility. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 04:02 AM (#1474813) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris Brucie, Must have been the same one that accused me of having self-control issues for asking it to state in full its grudge for having been censored in the past :-) Good solution Dick; not 100% perfect perhaps, but hey, it's not a perfect world. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 05:26 AM (#1474837) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer So, any other ideas? What words won't get past the profanity filters? -Joe Offer- |
|
30 Apr 05 - 05:35 AM (#1474843) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris One thing I can think of Joe is to have a separate thread index for "BAWDY:...", so that the titles do not appear on the main page, with a link from the main page for those who want to visit it. That would require virtual duplication of most of the functions of the main index/page; it might be too hard work. But it would be the most foolproof method. It would take away the problem of access from libraries/schools etc, and also the problem of people being offended by seeing the bawdy titles staring them in the face. Anyone who wants to visit the Bawdy Index would be able to do so separately and explicitly. However, that may mean then that this index would get very few hits. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 06:20 AM (#1474857) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: The Shambles The practical problem is just preventing libraries and schools etc from blocking access. The over-sensitive way some are set-up it may not always be possible to get around them - but that does not mean the effort should not be made. Please, please let us have this issue used as an excuse for more imposed control and censorship - this end. If it is just these words in thread titles that are presenting the problem to profanity filters - then perhaps we can first ourselves just not use these words in titles and try (by setting this example) to encouurage others not to? {This for practical reasons - not of morality or taste.} |
|
30 Apr 05 - 06:37 AM (#1474859) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: The Shambles On the subject of imposed censorship. I am not too sure why any threads on this matter needed to be closed. I am pretty amazed that as two were closed and given a choice of three thread tiles - this was the one that was chosen to remain. I have no objection to John Mehlberger nor any other poster. I probably do have an objection to threads being started that have a poster's name and invitations for fellow posters to pass their personal judgement. Perhaps a better example can be set?
-Joe Offer- |
|
30 Apr 05 - 06:56 AM (#1474868) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: kendall What is so difficult about posting ones opinion without resorting to name calling? When you sink to that level you are saying much more about you than about your target. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 10:15 AM (#1474963) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST I don't know Kendall. Maybe you should ask Big Mick or Spaw? |
|
30 Apr 05 - 10:26 AM (#1474968) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Big John sez (revealingly): "This way all REGISTERED users who want to filter bawdy items will be able to automatically filter out these threads. This sounds good to me. And the title of the songs will not have to be changed...which what I didn't and don't want to do...but sensitive ears will be protected from all Bawdy: threads." Yes, that is right. REGISTERED members only. I'm sure you are delighted with the outcome. However, anyone who might just be doing research on traditional music from schools and libraries may well never reach the site to be enlightened by your tittie dittie thread titles. Thank you for furthering the cause of "serious research" here at Mudcat. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 11:25 AM (#1474989) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: John M. What we have is a conflict of traditions. One of the traditions is, when one wants to post a new song to digital tradition, one uses the form to post the song title and a example text of the song. See here: Google search of MudCat "Lyr Add" threads The other tradition is that -- for filter reasons and for not offending other people sensibilities -- is the tradition of dash expurgating words: "fuck" becomes "f---", "nigger" becomes "n-----" Yes, I knew I would be offending people if I posted the unexpurgated title of the song and I knew from a previous song thread 'Eat, Bite, Fuck, Suck' that people would be posting their objections to the unexpurgated song title to the thread itself and causing the "offending" words to be at the top of the forum. Since I did not want any posts to 'The Motherfucker's Ball' that are NOT relevant to the song and I didn't want to unnecessarily have the "offending" word at the top of the forum, I came up with the solution of starting two threads "The Motherfucker's Ball" and "Objections to The Motherf---er's Ball". If I was a "shit disturber" as some have said, I would have had only one unexpurgated thread which I kept "refreshing" by responding to the objections. If I was a "troll", I could have kept this going for days. Sorry I don't enjoy the controversy around the song or the song's title. I even called Dick to apologize for causing him and Joe problems. Joe & Dick have come up with the "pg13" filtered forum list proposal which should allow for the posting of song titles and not offend anyone who wants to filter or is being filtered at work. This sounds like a great idea and I will be just to place the pg13 preface to objectionable thread titles. Joe, do you have a list of words which should be pg13? Is this designation for just the titles or to be used for the content of the song also (see Uncle Bud)? Joe is the pg13 filtered list to be the DEFAULT for the forum or will those who want to have (or need) filtering have to click a special link? |
|
30 Apr 05 - 11:25 AM (#1474990) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Thanks to Dick Greenhaus and Joe Offer for proposing a reasonable solution to this so-called "problem". As to the general use of profanity, I think any child over the age of 5 or 6 is exposed to this at school! Otherwise how does any of us recognize them as "bad" words? In this world,War, murder, rape, disenfranchisement, persecution of minorities: I think that these are all more serious transgressions than *words* . |
|
30 Apr 05 - 11:32 AM (#1474997) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Once Famous Is the word "fuck" more sacred in one form than another? fuck is fuck. parts is parts. And this thread is about double standards. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 11:50 AM (#1475014) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Smoke and screens! The 'proposed solution' will not solve the problem of the profanity in thread titles causing non-member posters from being denied access to the forum, if they are using computers in most libraries and schools. I am a school librarian. I know whereof I speak. In a head up their asses ignorance of just how much profanity filtering is now done by libraries and schools (all kinds of schools, including colleges, universities, technical schools, etc), and how those filters will block user access to this website, the Mudcat pope hath decided that potential blocking of new users from the site is the price to be paid to protect the sacred rights of the Tittie Dittie man. Let's hear it for the infallibility of the Mudcat pope. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 12:39 PM (#1475038) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Just to give one example of one of my recent attempts to do an innocuous web search that was blocked by my district's filters: "X-country". Yup. We (two astounded honors students and I) tried and tried and tried getting around the district's filter in our google search using "X-..." words and couldn't do it. Any educated guesses why? Here is yet another mind fuck from the school censors: While attempting a google search for an AP economics class project, my students discovered our district censors had blocked access to Bloomberg's website for financial news. Bloomberg bills itself as being in the top five trafficked financial sites on the web (along with WSJ, etc). When I called the district censor's office to gently suggest we make a quick adjustment that would allow the economics students to gain access to one of the web's major financial news and information sites for their research paper, I was of course slapped down by the district Vogon, and told she absolutely would not allow access to Bloomberg without the proper paperwork being submitted with proper documentation--and even then it isn't likely the site would be made accessible because--wait for it--"we don't block web sites without good reason for doing so." That is the battle we on the frontlines of anti-censorship are fighting, every damn day of the week. I am adamantly opposed to the censorship of actual content here. But it is idiotic not to take into account the profanity filters and the use of most common filter-trigger words in thread titles. The heads up their asses Mudcat powers that be are coming down on the side of a much greater form of censorship in their rush to protect the Tittie Dittie man and his sacred sexist lyrics. They will, by imposing this "compromise" upon the forum, be censoring an untold number of potential new visitors to the DT and Mudcat, who won't be able to get here because the profanity in thread titles here will automatically trigger the profanity filters on the library and school computers millions of people use for their access to the web. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 01:24 PM (#1475062) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Jeysus, you asshole, you still around? Don't you get a break for a shitlick or something? |
|
30 Apr 05 - 01:36 PM (#1475075) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer Let's hear it for the inability of school librarians to read.I answered our anonymous school librarian long before the librarian even posted the question, and then I answered it again in a brown comment, when the question was raised. I have already added a "pg13" tag to all the "fuck" threads - we have about ten of them. I have asked Jeff to put a filter link on the Mudcat Home Page, www.mudcat.org. With that link, you will be able to filter out all of the "pg13" threads, whether you are registered or not. Jeff has other things to do with his life sometimes, so it may take him a few days to give us a filter link. If Jon or somebody wants to post a "filter-out" link for us before Jeff gets to it, that would be nice. I forget how to do it. Note, however, that in the 8-plus years of Mudcat existence, we may have had profanity-filter-sensitive words active on the Forum Menu for a total of maybe 45 days. 45 days of profanity filtering over 8 years is not what I think of as a huge problem. I suppose this isn't going to be a perfect solution - no doubt, somebody's profanity filter is going to stick on "cock" when we're referring to roosters - but it's something we can do to help. I suppose we could set and enforce rules for wording of thread titles, but I don't want to get tied up in more of this petty censorship squabbling. Last time I went down that purple path was when we had a thread on "vagina voters" that some people objected to, and then I got all jumped over when I tried to satisfy the objectors. I believe our librarian will recall that brouhaha. Anyhow, I'm looking for a list of words that are commonly stopped by profanity filters, so I can add a "pg13" tag to threads that have those dirty little words in them. Can anybody give me a list? -Joe Offer- |
|
30 Apr 05 - 01:46 PM (#1475087) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,Lighter at work John Mehlberg is picking up exactly where the late Gershon Legman left off in documenting and clarifying anonymous songs that have circulated almost entirely by word of mouth. (That makes them more-or-less traditional, as others have observed, and therefore fit for discussion on Mudcat.) Based on his own work as well as Vance Randolph's song collecting in the Ozarks, Legman estimated that roughly 15% of all folk songs were overtly concerned with "taboo" subjects. How do you study a subject honestly while ignoring and suppressing roughly one out of every six or seven instances of it ? What is more disturbing than Mehlberg's rowdy material is that we now have a Mudcat thread devoted specifically to the abuse of a serious researcher and song collector. That's quite a precedent. Along with what appears to be the majority of Mudcat posters, Joe has decided that Mehlberg's posts have not been inappropriate for this forum - except perhaps in the number of essentially useless asterisks that might or might not be used. So why the need for personal abuse ? Regardless of the asterisk question, Mehlberg's only sin has been in trying to extend our knowledge of rebellious "folk tastes" in directions that make some 'Catters feel uncomfortable. Those who think his energies are misplaced may register their honest opinion and then look for more comforting Web sites if they wish. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 01:58 PM (#1475094) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Oh please, get off your sanctimonious high horse. Do you really think this clown has been trying to bring something to our attention we weren't all aware of--for years, for chrissake? I can't believe any one who posts here regularly or uses the DT regularly, is unaware of the existence of the traditional dirty ditty. Give me fucking break. As to abusing serious researchers and song collectors--there is a long Mudcat tradition of that one as well. Folk song researchers and collectors aren't the bleedin' messiah, and shouldn't be given any more respect than they have extended to the forum. This guy has struck me all along as being an arrogant bore and a jerk, who gets a secret kick out of trying to shock people with juvenile, testosterone 'fuck the bitch' songs. Whooppee. We're so fucking enlightened. Or would you prefer we be shocked? Here's my beef--I find the work he does to be a bloody bore. I don't want to be preached at, and all I want now is for Joe Offer to learn something about the fucking filters. It's the URL, stupid. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM (#1475098) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer OK, so I think I learned what I needed to learn about the "fucking filters," and I added this to the first message of the FAQ. The Filter(searching by thread title)Toward the top of the Mudcat Forum main menu (click here), you'll see a "filter" box - put an appropriate word in the box and set the age to whatever is appropriate to cover the period you want to search. Click the grey "reset" button, and all threads with that word in the title should appear (a "thread" is a series of forum messages, posted on a specific topic). Here's a filter box you can try: |
|
30 Apr 05 - 02:17 PM (#1475103) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris 100 |
|
30 Apr 05 - 02:19 PM (#1475106) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: George Papavgeris I really must get a life... But well done folks |
|
30 Apr 05 - 02:27 PM (#1475111) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer |
|
30 Apr 05 - 02:28 PM (#1475113) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST Joe, most internet anti-pornography filters being used by public schools and libraries will block people from ever reaching www.mudcat.org to begin with, as long as there is any profanity on the forum's front page. So the lovely 'compromise solution' you are doing show and tell with here will not matter one iota. Yes, there have only a handful of days I've had my access blocked to the forum from school, as you duly noted. However, most of my days of blocked access to this site have occurred in the last week, not the last several years. My access was blocked whenever I used 207.1093.108.99 either to the Mudcat Home Page or the forum front page since last Monday (the first time in awhile since I had tried logging on from work). BTW Joe, 'vagina' is not a common trigger word for most anti-porn filters, though the installer and maintainer of the filter software can customize their copy to filter out anything they want. My district's filter doesn't filter out 'vagina', but it does filter the word 'fuck' in any of it's guises. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM (#1475118) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer I can't say I really understand that. The Home Page of Mudcat is http://www.mudcat.org/ (the Forum Menu is http://www.mudcat.org/threads.cfm). That Mudcat Home Page is a stable page that does not contain any so-called "profanity." It seems to me that if we put a Filter on that page and you filter out the "pg13" threads, you should be able to access the Forum Menu. If your profanity filter blocks access to THAT page, then I guess we'd have to censor out profanity from the entire site to get past your filter - and we don't want to engage in that sort of censorship. Shouldn't you should be able to go to the http://www.mudcat.org/ page or the help.mudcat.org, and access the filter through the FAQ link? If you have problems with a profanity filter, then it seems that the FAQ would be the likely place to resolve your problem. Those of you with profanity filters, I'd like you to give this a test. Yes, I'm sure there will be filters that will still block Mudcat access - but if that's the case, I don't think a Forum Menu Code of Decency is going to solve the problem. You need to complain to your network administrator and get the profanity filter to lighten up. -Joe Offer- Another solution might be to go to this page (click). Either save the URL, or save the entire page on your computer. I still think our librarian needs some work on reading comprehension. If you will look back on my reference in a previous message to "vagina," you will see that I said I tried to deal with the thread title to try to satisfy the objections of people who were offended by use of the term "vagina voters" in a thread title. My first attempt brought out angry cries of "censorship" from other Mudcatters. My final solution was to put "vagina voters" in quotes, and that seemed to settle things down. My POINT was that I didn't want to get stuck in the middle of some petty censorship argument again - not that "vagina" was going to provoke the profanity filter software (even if many filters gag on "breast.") I'm still looking for a workable list of words that the profanity filters look for. We're never going to be able to outsmart every filter, but maybe we can tag the major objectionable words. I'm also looking for a term that's better than "pg13," something that isn't tied to the movie industry. Maybe "bawdy" would be better, but it doesn't seem quite right, either. Jeff is working on ideas for a more elegant solution to this issue, and I may come up with changes before he gets his thing done. In the meantime, you have the pg13 filter on this page (click). |
|
30 Apr 05 - 02:43 PM (#1475120) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: wysiwyg I think the prefix plan meets some of the concerns people have stated, but not all. One unmet concern is the preference many longstanding members of this community have stated in civil terms-- that there be some restraint about the raunch level. Also, it has been a tradition at Mudcat-- and sometimes policies have reflected this-- that universal access is desirable when operationally possible. Thus we have thread title length limits partly so that WebTV users can read them.... we have a Help Forum that rightly helps people no matter WHAT browser, people prefer to use. We have Guest access for people who can't cookie from work. We help newbies find their way around, including people new to computers. And so forth. One of the people who has had concerns about lack of access to the forum on a regular basis, due to workplace content filters, happens to be someone who finds and posts a HUGE number of missing tunes as MIDIs. He doesn't Mudcat from work because he doesn't care to pay for a computer. I believe he has indicated in the past that the online access he has from the rural area where he lives is spotty on home connections-- it's just much better to access Mudcat from his workplace. Would he be able to get to the main forum page even to set the filter??? Would this apply to others? Neither of these concerns have to be met by censoring anything. They can be met with strictly practical approaches that should not cause concerns about PC or censorship. If a few dashes are used in a thread title, people will have no trouble reading the actual intended song title if they pause long enough to let the mind reveal it-- this has been shown in a number of BS threads in the last year, where the concepts underlying our minds' ability to do this was laid out and a lot of posts were made based on it. So the concern that people would miss the title is, fortunately, baseless. For facilitating clarity in case the reader CAN'T make out the intended title-- the SUBJECT LINE of every post can be changed by the person posting. Chaqnging the subject line at the time the thread is created would result in a fully searchable, as-intended title popping up in Supersearch. There would not be a need for anyone to do anything complicated. It could just be a policy that makes it possible and minimally offensive to post ANY material people might not handle well. It would obviate the need to create the next "logical" filter/thread prefix, such as "NonPC." Or "Religion." Or all the hot buttons people list when we get a hair across our ass. :~) People have widely misunderstood and mischaracterized my effort to resolve a past situation when I titled a thread, "Run, ======, Run." There are MANY songs titled "Run [insert word of choice], Run," and the thread was meant to serve as a place where those variants could come together. My having done that has been touted whenever someone has wanted a pungent example of the wrongness of censoring-- I don't understand this, myself, but I guess soapboxing is easier when one has an effigy to beat. I'd like to request now, in respect for those whose primary reaction remains that I had "censored" the word "Nigger" which is one of the variants posted in complete, non-PC clarity in that thread and its predecessor, that the SUBJECT LINE of that thread's opening post be changed to "Run, Nigger, Run and variants." This is an approach we could all follow voluntarily. Or perhaps a consensus might develop that it should become official policy aided in operation by the clones when people forget to follow it as they start a new thread. On the downside, this would tend to let most of the hot air out of all the censorship ranting people seem to enjoy so much these days. :~) I'm for simplicity, though, and it is quite a simple solution. ~Susan |
|
30 Apr 05 - 02:49 PM (#1475125) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Q (Frank Staplin) What a load of bullshit posted here- and the proposed action as well. The initial post by Robbie can only be answered by pointing out that he must use a home computer, not one tied to a firewalled system. There is no other logical solution to his problem. Blocks that are triggered by breast, X-, etc., as many school and government systems are, can never be satisfied by a website's actions. There are too many possibilities. Comprehensive firewall systems set up for school systems read CONTENT as well as titles. With regard to Mudcat's internals, one of its great advantages is that it is open to both guest and registered member. Much of value has been posted by 'guests,' some of whom do not wish to have a possibly traceable connection with a post, for legal or personal reasons. A 'cookie' (read registration) system would limit contributions. Would threads containing both 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' lyrics to be 'filtered,' destroying relationships among the songs? How would searching the DT for a song with several versions, both 'acceptable' and 'bawdy, be affected? It is amusing (and sad) that words heard and known by children exposed to playgrounds and camps everywhere are a cause of censorship among supposed adults. I find much of Mehlberg's collection childish, but so are Mother Goose rhymes and games. |
|
30 Apr 05 - 02:58 PM (#1475130) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Raedwulf Guest - The point that you seem to be missing is that, despite your mindless bitching & name calling, Joe is at least trying to find a compromise between differeing points of view. All you are doing is whining. Be constructive or give it a rest. So far you have not managed the former... |
|
30 Apr 05 - 06:57 PM (#1475296) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,Jon If Jon or somebody wants to post a "filter-out" link for us before Jeff gets to it, I can't do that with the current filter Joe. At least not for multiple "bad words". As with other things, there are a lot of possible solutions. I would opt for a prefix in the title (eg, bawdy:) rather than filter on words but heaven forbid what would happen at the moment is you dared make a change to a thread title to include this "filtering term". From then on, it's easy. Just have a checkbox next to filterout "include bawdy" which is unchecked by default (although that could be overridden by a member preference). I think with this system, the programming for the main listing would just need something along the lines of this adding (I'll use VB - not familiar with Cold Fusion): if not bawdy then SQL=SQL " AND NOT Like 'bawdy:%'" end if Anyway, will wait and see what Jeff comes up... |
|
01 May 05 - 06:48 PM (#1476022) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: dick greenhaus Seems to me that if libraries have a midless filter (censorship)in place, that's not really a Mudcat problem. When I was young, "objectionable" material was locked up in the stacks, and access was by individual application. That type of thing shouldn't be a problem with today's technology. If your library won't permit such a permission system, I suggest you take it up with your library. Remember, A****** B* A******** in your R***********! |
|
01 May 05 - 08:47 PM (#1476095) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,sick of moaners cant be arsed .. sorry.. a***d.. reading all this .. if your workplace firewall filters wont permit you to access important adult sites that include swear words and other such enjoyable filth. then fuck off back home and use your own paid for internet accounts you cheap skate bastards..!!!!!!!!!! |
|
01 May 05 - 09:21 PM (#1476113) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: JennyO cant be arsed .. sorry.. a***d.. reading all this .. GUEST, sick of moaners - that was all too obvious by your next comment, as WYSIWYG only 5 posts back from yours had pointed out that some people, far from being cheapskates, were not able to have internet connections at home - there being at least one that she knew of who lives in a rural area and has a "spotty connection". Apart from that, there are some people who can't afford a computer. Calling them cheapskates just shows your ignorance. I know what I speak of, because if it were not for my wonderful brother buying me a computer, I would be one of those people. The monthly connection I can just afford, but the initial outlay would have been too much for me. So I'm just lucky. Having said all that, I think Joe and Dick have come up with a good solution. The idea of going to the main page first and having the option of filtering out the threads with troublesome titles should work on any systems with profanity filters that are blocking the forum page. If some systems go beyond that and look for profanity all through the site, then I think that, like Dick says, that it should not be a Mudcat problem. To try to make ourselves so clean that there is no profanity at all on the site would be taking censorship to ridiculous extremes, not to mention impossible. My post would be gone for a start because I said "Dick". Jenny |
|
01 May 05 - 09:34 PM (#1476122) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,sick of moaners sorry JennyO.. i'm in a drunk and happy silly mode.. respect to you.. but it sure is an ongoing struggle for adults to constantly fight the battle to keep a sensible public life that dosent treat every body like simple minded easily depraved children in need of constant care and protection.. |
|
01 May 05 - 09:57 PM (#1476136) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: JennyO Fair enough, my friend. I certainly agree with your last comment. I also meant to say before that I definitely do not think that the song titles themselves should be interfered with and ****** in any way. |
|
01 May 05 - 11:30 PM (#1476187) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: GUEST,.gargoyle MR. GREENHOUSE It takes a lot....to make me laugh out loud....
But you of ALL people - can elisite an elastic exclamation from my larnyx....quicker than a lynx in a turnip patch.
Well written and thank you!@!!
Sincerely, |
|
02 May 05 - 02:06 AM (#1476244) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: The Shambles To try to make ourselves so clean that there is no profanity at all on the site would be taking censorship to ridiculous extremes, not to mention impossible. To try and do something is usually better than finding excuses to do nothing. Posters (for practical reasons) choosing not to place the obviously problematic words in thread titles - for the benefit of everyone - can't really be described as censorship. Self restraint perhaps? Imposing yet more filters and using this issue as an excuse for even more 'tinkering' by our volunteers - this end - is. As with most Mudcat Forum 'problems' - the solution is with us. |
|
02 May 05 - 09:09 AM (#1476382) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Cool Beans And after we learn to spell John Mehlberg's name correctly, cant we work on learning to spell Greenhaus. Come on, folks. It's only laziness but it makes you look ignorant. |
|
03 May 05 - 09:12 PM (#1477528) Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: Joe Offer I think it's time to change the title of this thread to something everybody will understand. I also thought I'd include the messages on this subject from the Help Forum. The last message is especially good. -Joe Offer- Subject: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: nutty Date: 29-Apr-05 - 12:18 PM It has been pointed out that we risk offending Mr Melberg by misspelling his name in the thread title. As Mr Melberg is a 'valued' member of Mudcat and a 'respected' researcher of 'Folk Songs', it would seem that this matter needs attending to. Could someone please oblige? Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: nutty Date: 29-Apr-05 - 12:21 PM Ooops ... sorry. I just keep on causing offence, it should be Mehlberg Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberg Thread From: Joe Offer Date: 29-Apr-05 - 03:14 PM I haven't heard any complaints from Mr. Mehlberg -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: nutty Date: 29-Apr-05 - 03:19 PM He must be a happy man then Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: Malcolm Date: 29-Apr-05 - 10:27 PM I had thought better of you, "Nutty". We've met at least once, I think; and you had worthwhile and intelligent things to say, which I valued. Your current attack on John isn't fair or worthy. His very worse sin is a lack of tact. How many of us have failed in that respect? Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: nutty Date: 30-Apr-05 - 01:25 AM We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one Malcolm. During my years as a barmaid at my local rugby club I heard enough of this sexist twaddle to last me a lifetime and nothing will convince me that this is serious folk music. You also disappointed me by your defence of it. Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: Date: 30-Apr-05 - 10:17 AM It's disappointing, you thinking YOUR sensibilities should matter to anyone else, nutty Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread From: Date: 03-May-05 - 12:26 PM I've been following both of this thread and very disturbed by it. I have also valued many of your posts in the past, nutty, but this is censorship of the worst sort. Over the centuries, many genres of traditionally transmitted song have been dismissed by the Establishment as trivial or beneath scholarship or crude or unworthy is some other way. Thus we have comaparatively little and too late records of cowboy song, sea and Lake songs (for all the hundreds of records, they are heavily censored), bar songs, rugby songs, children's songs. Even Child falsly applied these standards, eg to animal songs (it is believed). Bawdry, in particular has been censored, to the extant of driving superb scholars out of academe. Yet the material is vast (say, 10% of all tradition), ancient (some of the oldest surviving art & folk material), and meeting any definition you like of "folk." So much of the common "parlor" material began as bawdy and was progressively Bowdlerized until much essence and meaning became lost. Without systematic collection, such as John's, any possible scholarship of the material - difficult now - will become all but impossible. Of the genre, we have thousands of under-the-counter books and records but I am stunned that, to my knowledge, there are only three scholarly books on bawdry, and all published in the 1990's. Considering the prevellant obscene material on television, theater, pop song and even comic books, it is amazing that scholars are prohibited from publishing. I have great admiration for John's honesty and efforts and the significant cost and labor he has given to the Work. He has been collecting in a single location huge resources simply not available elsewhere. Where sizable collections do exist, they are usually restricted or private and all but inaccessable or else commercial and costly. John makes all freely available to those interested. A quick look at immortalia.com, especially at the songbooks, will quickly show you that when there is a need for students, sportsmen, military, etc. to hand publish for posterity the songs they actually sang and transmitted, it is the bawdy material they print. Many of these books go back to WW I and the songs, much further. I don't know why you so vociferously object. The vast majority of the material is nothing but funny. You may not appreciate the humor but the intent is humorous 95% of the time. As Cray says, the material is, therefore, rarely actually obscene - you just can't be tittilated while you're laughing. But vociferous objection may have a non-related cause. (I don't pretend to know this in your case, just something I've seen from time to time.) Once I sang a particularly raunchy song and a female friend became wildly upset. (I always ask "permission" of the crowd to sing bawdy songs in the folk club but sometimes people think I mean "off color.") She left the room and wouldn't speak to me for two years. I was bemused but didn't change my behavior. Finally she did some thinking about it and explained she couldn't tolerate such songs because they flashed her back to childhood and being mortified when her uncouth uncle would sing such songs. I asked what songs and she reeled off several titles that I felt were likely Oscar Brand, from the LP "Backroom" series. The timing was right. I said, you know, you should go listen to those songs again - you'll find they were considerably cleaned up and pretty mild as these things go. But they were not suitable for children. She did and, surprisingly, agreed. So now we're friends again and she can tolerate the good & funny material. But she doesn't sing the choruses. Nutty, you also wrote something about their being anti-female, though I'm not clear in what way. Often most of the transmissions (like other ballads) are mainly through females - both in the US and Scotland. Every sex seems to enjoy them. But yes, a few songs certainly are sexist and some downright psycho-sadistic. No need to sing those or judge the whole field or Mehlberg. You don't have to sing any bawdy songs. Or listen. Abby |
|
03 May 05 - 11:27 PM (#1477578) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Seamus Kennedy Hey, guys, I've been on the road performing for a few weeks. What's happenin'? Seamus |
|
03 May 05 - 11:29 PM (#1477580) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Peace Hey, Seamus, how bes ya? |
|
03 May 05 - 11:55 PM (#1477593) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D Abby...as one of those who had made mild protests, I think I should re-state carefully what several of us have said, even though you 'seem' to be addressing only nutty. You have given an eloquent defense of non-censorship of bawdy/explicit lyrics, and I heartily agree with you. This thread, however has at least three aspects.... expressions of disgust or offense with bawdy material in general, expressions of discomfort at the MOST extreme words appearing AS titles, and those who see no reason to bother with any restraint or censorship when the topic is legitimate research and sharing of lyrics. It is so easy to get distracted into defending the right to collect & publish that we forget the pragmatic issues of what is appropriate in various circumstances. I simply want to make a plea for keeping the various arguments separate, and not becoming interwoven until we find ourselves losing the point and arguing at cross purposes. Almost no one seems to believe that John Mehlberg should be prevented from pursuing his research, our only serious debate is about whether he should exercise more discretion in his titles. |
|
04 May 05 - 03:57 AM (#1477629) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: nutty There are a number of issues being dealt with in this thread ...... 1. Should John Mehlberg be more sensitive to people's feelings when posting threads regarding "bawdy" songs on the Mudcat forum? 2. Given that it is accepted that the research he is carrying out is of an unusual, can the 1950/60,s songs he is requesting information on really fit the category of "traditional" folksongs? 3. Should John and others be more sensitive to cultural differences and opinions? 4. If they want to claim the freedom to say and write whatever they will , they need to be prepared to take the responsibliity for the offence caused? I have made my feelings known on all of these issues. For me the matter is now closed. |
|
04 May 05 - 07:16 AM (#1477717) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: greg stephens Re Question 2 in the previous thread, as to whether John Mehlberg's topics of interest can be defined as "traditional folksongs": it strikes me as rather difficult to define a traditional folksong in some way that excludes orally passed on anonymous songs subject to variation in the tradition. Unless, of course, you include in the definition "traditional songs have to be approved by Nutty". But I cant really see that definition getting wide scholastic acceptance. |
|
04 May 05 - 07:49 AM (#1477752) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Rapparee I'll take a moment and weigh in here and point out a some book titles: Mictruating In the Snow The House Of Ill Repute's Bell Were Ringing and, of course, Ten Thousand Gol-darned Cattle. You can probably think of others. |
|
04 May 05 - 08:05 AM (#1477762) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Rapparee It would also make it difficult to discuss: The Illegitimate King of England Three Filles de Joie Came Down From Winnepeg The Winnipeg Lady Of The Evening Anorchidism At All Self-pleasuring Blues John Brown's Masculine Appendage The Finest Reproducing Family Honky Tonk Rectal Opening Four Old Soiled Doves Blinded by excreta Charlotte the Grande Horizontale The Ancient and Old Irish Prophylactic The Flatulent Chap From Sparta. |
|
04 May 05 - 11:36 AM (#1477917) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D why, not at all Rapaire, *grin*...folks would stream into a thread with one of those as a title, if nothing else, just to correct you or see what the joke was! |
|
04 May 05 - 11:58 AM (#1477931) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Rapparee Well, the first title has caused wars in the past..... |
|
04 May 05 - 12:27 PM (#1477954) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: greg stephens Some favoutite fiddle tune titles Piss on the grass The auld wife piss'd and paidelt in it Slip it in easy Kiss my arse Rump Wriggle at Vauxhall Black Dick's Hornpipe Reddish Knob(OK, I admit it, that's not a fiddle tune, it's a mountain in Virginia). |
|
04 May 05 - 01:04 PM (#1477990) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Emma B From the title page of the first edition of "The Merry Muses of Caledonia" published in 1800 - "Say Puritan, can it be wrong To dress plain truth in witty song?" The frontispiece of my 1966 edition has the following quote - "Poetry has somehow acquired a boring, prissy brand-image. "Poetry lovers" have given it a bad name. It might get a glorious reversal if all the bawdy verse that all the poets invariably write - even that stately old Tennyson, so scholars tell me - were published in pocket-size bar-room editions. In the meantime we have at least got a great rollicking collection by Robert Burns" Elizabeth Smart in "The Queen" Subsitute "folk song" for "poetry" ! |
|
04 May 05 - 01:14 PM (#1477994) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: wysiwyg Must say I am surprised no one has commented on my proposal a "few" posts back, especially the dash-requestors. ~Susan |
|
04 May 05 - 01:50 PM (#1478015) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles How come this new (imposed) thread title can be so much longer than the ones that ordinary posters can put in the box? Perhaps part of the problem could be solved by enabling ordinary posters to make longer and more informative thread titles? |
|
04 May 05 - 01:57 PM (#1478023) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST There are currenlty several user created thread titles as long as this title showing on the main page. |
|
04 May 05 - 02:29 PM (#1478044) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: George Papavgeris Roger, I hope you were joking, though I did not see *smiles" in your post. Are you really complaining that the editorial team's tools enable them to create longer thread titles (by 3-4 characters) than the rest of us mortals? Is that a sign of favouritism towards them or censorship towards us? Were you serious about that? |
|
04 May 05 - 02:33 PM (#1478048) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST As a librarian in a school library, my ONLY objection has been to the use of the swear/curse words in thread titles. The reason I object to it is because most public libraries and schools now have profanity filters. If the library/school you are posting from does have those filters, those filters will pick up the words like "motherfucker" in thread titles, because the thread titles page is the front page to the forum. I realize that the forum home page is not the website home page, but the filters don't. So when a person goes to click on the second link at google that is indented under the www.mudcat.org home page when doing a google search for "folk song lyrics" here is what I mean: Google search for "folk song lyrics" the first hit is to the Mudcat home page, but the indented second hit says "Digital Tradition Folk Song Database" but the actual URL is to the forum home page. So, if a person working from a computer with a filter clicks on the DT page link, and there are words like "motherfucker" in the thread titles, the filter will block the users access to the site. So, you will, if you keep the profane word in the thread title, block some users from gaining access to the site until that word falls off the front page. All that needs to happen to insure you don't block out users with profanity filters (like many library and school users), is have the Joe Clones watching the thread titles, and doing whatever it is you agree to do to remove the offending word and either substitute another word using a code (you could show the code at the top of the forum home page), or whatever. The way it works with our profanity filters is that if you can get past the home page into the site, even with profane words on sub-pages, the filters won't block your access. So it's a question of just being sure people can get into the forum home page. While I agree you can't possibly adjust to all the possibilities of how filters are set (and who would want THAT thankless job), you can certainly avoid the "most commonly used" profanity words, and insure that most people can get to the site even when there are threads with bawdy lyrics. As to the people who are offended by bawdy lyrics in their presence, I say fuck 'em. We're adults. Don't like profanity and bawdy lyrics and chat, then don't come here. As to the actual value of bawdy songs to "the tradition" I'm not convinced. While some are clever and funny, most aren't. People need to remember that these are songs usually performed when people are drunk/drinking their way to drunkeness. Quality does tend to suffer under those circumstances and you don't usually get the best of the tradition--though you do often get the worst of humanity. It isn't just songs about sex that are usually bad. Racist songs are usually bad too. As are songs that celebrate violence, humiliation, etc. etc. You can hear tons of those sorts of songs today--turn on the radio, tv, etc etc. They sucked a hundred years ago, and they still suck today. IMNSHO.
-Joe Offer- |
|
04 May 05 - 02:47 PM (#1478064) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles Were you serious about that? I simply asked a question. I have just tried to squeeze this (imposed) thread title into the 'create a new thread box' - and it won't fit................
-Joe Offer- |
|
04 May 05 - 03:06 PM (#1478081) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: George Papavgeris If that was a serious question, Roger, I think there is little left to say. |
|
04 May 05 - 03:57 PM (#1478129) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: RobbieWilson I have just been able to read this thread now, as I can't do it at school. The pge13 filter may work for me personally, I don't know as I cant test it till back in school. I have used mudcat as an example of a discussion forum and would think it a shame if it was not open for students to discover the wonders of mudcat. The problem with the opt in filter is that obviously you need to know about it to use it and so these thread titles can still prevent people from discovering the cat. A more reasonable version might ne that you have to opt in to the profane option; a top shelf as it were so that the default settings do not lock out new or inexperienced users. |
|
04 May 05 - 04:20 PM (#1478158) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Abby Sale Bill D- All points well taken. I think that's why I didn't post to this thread but to the shorter one which was nearly all "Objection to JohnMehlberger." It's now conjoined here, of course. I think highly of Mehlberg. I am also forced, very reluctantly, to agree that propriety counts. I sang the "real" version of "Serafina" at our club recently (having asked permission of the crowd - I'll accept that I back off if even one objects). A few days later I sang at a public Earth Day event at a State park. The event was billed as "family oriented" so I had to accept I was, as it were, visiting someone else's house where rules were posted. But "Serafina's" a good chantey with a catchy tune. So I announced the song and asked people to sing along. One lady who'd been at the club shouted "I'm not singing along on that one!" I assured her I knew where I was and I'd adjusted the words some. So she believed me and sang and everybody enjoyed it. Except me, really - it was thinned and weakened and I'd copped out. But it was still a good song and a catchy tune so what the fuck. I just mention this to show I'm not totally inflexable and insensative. I also see I made a small error when I wrote that such songs "were not suitable for children." That should really continue: "in some countries." Not in the UK or US, perhaps. Especially the US. But there is nothing biological about this - it's a cultural norm. There's nothing Harmful about bawdry unless adults create guilt and perversion and all that stuff. Even the Bible enjoys occasional erotic material. The problem with libraries is awkward. I know that libraries must comply with the demands and morality of the citizens that pay for the library - they are its bosses. I also know that really few librarians are staid "Marians." Most seem to detest all forms of censorship. Whatever they personally read, they'd have all knowledge available to all. Good luck to them. |
|
04 May 05 - 05:03 PM (#1478185) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: John M. I also think that the new pg13 filter, the way it is currently implemented, is inadequate. I currently have two dirty ditties "Hymn, Hymn, Fuck Him" (trad.) and "I Hate Your Fucking Face" (trad?) which I would like to post to mudcat. But the way the pg13 filter works everyone who needs (or wants) to avoid the dirty song titles will have to know about the posts BEFORE they are posted otherwise they will be blocked from the threads. I am beginning to think that dash expurgating the song titles are is the only "solution" to the filter problem. The question remains will "f-ck" also be picked up by library filters? Will "f---"? Should I just go with "How I hate your ----ing Face"? |
|
04 May 05 - 05:19 PM (#1478194) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: wysiwyg John, people have done it a certain way when they have posted, that seems to have worked for MMario-- and I think his school district's filters are pretty tough. That is, the consonants in the "sensitive" appear intact but the vowels are dashed or asterisked. (F-ck, f-cking) We can but try and see what happens. If you do post a thread title that way, please remember to change the subject ine of the first post (or a later post) so the for-real, intact title WILL appear if someone looks for it on a Supersearch. ~Susan |
|
04 May 05 - 05:44 PM (#1478213) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: dick greenhaus Mr. Bowdler! Mr. Bowdler! Where are you when we need you? John Mehlberg--I'm not sure I understand your objection to the pg13 scheme. Do you really think that those who choose to block out these titles will be contributing to the thtreads you start? What I think would help is a means for those who wish to avoid the dirty words (or to keep them away from the kiddies) to preset the filter so that it stays on without having to be reset each time. |
|
04 May 05 - 05:48 PM (#1478216) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: greg stephens John Mehlberg: thanks for checking in and posting. Rest assured that your research into this interesting topic is noticed and appreciated here. Apart from the postings of "Nutty", and the usual GUEST stirrers, I think everyone here is trying to have a reasonable discussion to balance the opinions of free speech addicts, folk song researchers, people with natural reservations about extreme language, and people using libraries etc which impose some funny censorships schemes. We can solve this, because the vast majority are treating it with good will. |
|
04 May 05 - 06:47 PM (#1478271) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: John M. Joe Offer, Is there any way to covered the filter box in this message to a URL ? Joe we need a filtered forum link that looks like the following: This way people who have workplace filters could access the pg13 filtered form without using a form and you could place a "filtered forum" link on the front page of www.mudcat.org.
By the way, not that lyrics from your Website answered a question from Amos in this thread (click). -Joe Offer- |
|
05 May 05 - 05:41 AM (#1478616) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles You're probably right, Roger. I think my thread title editing box has a three or four more spaces than the thread creation box has. The number of spaces is somewhat arbitrary. -Joe Offer- A lot of things regarding censorship here - are somewhat arbitrary. Joe - am I right or am I just probably right? For it is indeed a fact that I cannot squeeze your longer (imposed) thread title into the box. If I am right - perhaps if us ordinary posters were given - even the extra three or four spaces that appears to be available to you and your anonymous volunteers - more informative thread titles could be given by ordinary posters? This measure would perhaps help ensure that there was liitle need or excuse for you or your anonymous volunteers to impose longer thread titles upon fellow posters, without the originator's knowledge or permission?
-Joe Offer- |
|
05 May 05 - 06:08 AM (#1478623) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles I am not so sure we are - all roads lead to Rome. But OK. Problem with thread titles Objections to Joe Offer
-Joe Offer- |
|
05 May 05 - 05:08 PM (#1478953) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Ferrara John Mehlberg wrote: I am beginning to think that dash expurgating the song titles are is the only "solution" to the filter problem. If you could see your way clear to doing that, John, I think it would solve a whole bunch of problems. For me, even though I would really like to see dashes used in the publicly displayed titles, I sometimes want to check out a bawdy song thread, so I probably wouldn't use the filter. But I would like dashes were used in the displayed titles. And it would probalby solve the filter problem which is more important. Actually I would like to see more than just replacing vowels in the "censored" words. I think f--- or ---- are more appropriate in this context than f-ck. Anyone who actually knows something about a song with ---- in the title :-) will surely not be put off from reading or contributing to the thread by the dashes? I mean, how many songs are there called "----, ----, ---- and ----?" The worst song I think I ever heard sung for sheer raunchiness with no redeeming content was called "I Love My Girl." WYSIWYG, I think your post at 2:43 PM on April 30 was quite wonderful, helpful and well stated. The reason I didn't comment on it earlier is, I had given up and stopped reading this thread; thinking a final decision had been made I figured the rest was probably just grousing. I'm glad the subject is still open to discussion. Rita F |
|
05 May 05 - 05:33 PM (#1478962) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: RobbieWilson It seems to me that people are much more intelegent than mechanical filters and it doesnt seem to take much to post a title where you and I will know what the words are but the machines dont. The full words in the posts will ensure that anyone searching for a particular term will still find it and just that little bit of consideration will keep the whole forum open to more people. JM seems to be agreeable to this so is that the problem sorted and time to let this thread drop? |
|
05 May 05 - 09:08 PM (#1479098) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Q (Frank Staplin) I hope, next week, to get the details of the public school system firewall here when the person in charge returns from holidays. Talking with two teachers I know, it is their understanding that if there is objectionable material anywhere on the site or in the message, and the material is scanned, a block will ensue. I have asked particularly about the use of dashes, asterisks, dots, etc. Would OLD threads and OLD messages have to be changed? An impossible task! If I am correct about the nature of the firewall, an "objectionable" word posted in a message in a thread, e. g. "Annie Laurie," would interrupt access if the message was scanned. This would mean that the censorship must be controlled by the individual accessing the website. Digression- My daughter, a former teacher, told me about a friend who once taught in a NY black school. Before a class of hers was scheduled, she dressed for a meeting that would take place immediately after school. When she entered the classroom, students gave her a compliment- "Hey, f--king nice!" - along with the whistles. |
|
05 May 05 - 09:48 PM (#1479119) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Joe Offer I am sorry to report that the Mudcat search engine is broken. It got overloaded after Ferrara's post - too many people looking for "I Love My Girl." [grin] It will recover soon, I'm sure. It got exhausted with all that heavy breathing. -Joe Offer- |
|
06 May 05 - 02:07 PM (#1479522) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: John M. SOLUTION! I have found a way to make a forum link url that will automatically filter out PG13 threads. Here is the url: http://www.mudcat.org/threads.cfm?Title=pg13&Age=1&submit=Refresh&FilterOut=1 Please bookmark this URL as the Mudcat FILTERED forum. Those needing (or wanting) to access a "clean" forum can use the above link. So PLEASE bookmark this URL Nutty and Guest! Joe here is a link that gives a filtered forum for the last twenty days filtered. See there is no "Motherfucker's Ball"! |
|
06 May 05 - 05:23 PM (#1479653) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: nutty That may partly be a solution, John, and I have already bookmarked it BUT 1. Will it work when we have to access Mudcat through the back door? 2. Will it work for those people who are having problems with profanity filters? |
|
06 May 05 - 05:55 PM (#1479679) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D Well, that is one solution to part of the problem, John, and thank you....but the question remains: What are YOU planning to do in the future? Will you 'temper' your thread titles or post them in all their startling glory? There will be people everyday who do not have that filter bookmarked. We need an agreement that will ease the conflict no matter where folks come in and no matter what their proclivities. I am trying to preserve your ability to post uncensored lyrics for only those who wish to view them. |
|
07 May 05 - 01:10 AM (#1479850) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: JennyO ...but the question remains: What are YOU planning to do in the future? Will you 'temper' your thread titles or post them in all their startling glory? The question may remain for some people - not for me, and probably not for a lot of others. I think it is important to have the proper titles of songs there for the purpose of searching for and harvesting songs, and as far as I am concerned, John Mehlberg has gone out of his way to be helpful, and doesn't need to do any more. Those whose sensibilities are offended by seeing rude words can use the new URL. For the sake of newcomers, I would suggest maybe putting a link to this URL on the Mudcat front page for all to see, and maybe on the forum page too for those who accidentally stumbled straight in and aren't familiar with the way the filter works, so that they will know next time. Maybe it can be in the FAQ too. As for profanity filters, if they only pick up profanity on the forum page, the filtered forum link should take care of that, but if they search for profanity all through the site, I can only repeat what I said before on May 1 at 9.21pm: "To try to make ourselves so clean that there is no profanity at all on the site would be taking censorship to ridiculous extremes, not to mention impossible." Nutty, in regards to your other question about the back door, I believe this works - it was simply a matter of putting the numbers in the URL instead of www.mudcat.org http://207.103.108.99/threads.cfm?Title=pg13&Age=1&submit=Refresh&FilterOut=1 Jenny |
|
07 May 05 - 04:00 AM (#1479889) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Joe Offer Thanks, John - I knew there was a fairly simple URL for doing it, but I couldn't remember the formula. I have to say I'm still "iffy" on the idea of putting euphemized song titles in thread titles. Throughout the history of Mudcat, we've encouraged people to put the title of the song being discussed into the title of the thread. How can somebody use the Filter to find threads on a song, if the title is euphemized? -Joe Offer- |
|
07 May 05 - 05:07 AM (#1479910) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST,Jon Yes Joe, I could have given you a link like that ages ago but I didn't think that was what you were asking for. I thought you were asking for a filter on multiple "bad words" themselves which the filter can not do. This approach does of course (as I said) demand that a filter term (pg13 now) is included/added to the thread title. Although a part solution, I don't think it will be of much use to people accessing machines where content filtering is allowed unless they can bookmark that URL - which would be out for new visitors. If someone tries to enter the main forum without the pg13 filter and get blocked because of thread titles, they are not going to get into the forum to find out. Also, the URL will revert back to just threads.cfm when a post is made. |
|
07 May 05 - 05:34 AM (#1479915) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: JennyO Also, the URL will revert back to just threads.cfm when a post is made. Hmm. I didn't think of that - that's when you click on "forum home", which I don't because I usually use the back button, and just refresh once in a while. It's all right if you do it my way, but you'd have to know to do it. I still strongly agree with Joe about the song titles - I'm hoping that the final solution won't involve euphemizing them in any way. Jenny |
|
07 May 05 - 05:50 AM (#1479920) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think. I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones. -Joe Offer- Perhaps people (even the same people) would also judge that these 'bawdy' songs and titles to be "obnoxious"......Are these also to be "fair game for the clones"? If not - why not? Surely the point is that what is considered as "obnoxious" or not - is a matter of personal taste. No one is being forced to read anything - so no one is forcing their personal taste upon anyone by posting. However the personal tastes of some - are being forced upon others when such censorship is imposed on our forum. Instead of asking posters to accept this double standard - perhaps this ROUTINE censorship - based on personal taste can now cease and posters be permitted and encouraged to use their own taste - and to always RESPECT the tastes of their fellow posters? |
|
07 May 05 - 06:20 AM (#1479927) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST,Jon No one is being forced to read anything - so no one is forcing their personal taste upon anyone by posting. If the reports are right, some people are being blocked access to the forum because of thread titles. They might not be being forced to read anything but apparently are being forced to read nothing. and to always RESPECT the tastes of their fellow posters? And whose tastes would those be shambles? There isn't common ground here. My tastes would allow "bad words" at least in a song thread title and view the material JM has as coming under folk (even though those songs are not to my tastes). Nutty takes a different view, etc. There are times I think the best policy is to try to cater for different tastes, and certainly to try to ensure site access is possible for all. As far as I can make out, you seem to be advocating no "bad words" in thread titles as that would seem to be the only way that no one could possibly be offended. That to me smacks more of censorship (especially as you will never get 100% voluntary conformance here) than the alternative suggestions. If that was adopted, what stance would you take when a thread with a "bad word" was started? |
|
07 May 05 - 06:33 AM (#1479930) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: RobbieWilson I'know I have said this before but what is the problem with putting dashes or asterix. in the title? Everyone knows what the thread title is, or if there is any ambiguity can open the thread to look. The full title in the thread would mean that it would still be picked up by the supersearch and and th.e whole forum would not be put out of reach for days at a time to everyone in my school. This is quite different to using euphemism in my book, which I would oppose, because when I look at words with blanks ny brain tells me what the original was. Of course if the point is to shut out those lesser mortals like me who are often behind a profanity filter then that is another matter. |
|
07 May 05 - 02:55 PM (#1480133) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Joe Offer Hi, Robbie - If John puts the exact song title in the thread title, people can find threads on that song by using the Filter. If he puts a euphemism instead of the actual word, how are people going to know which euphemism he's using? And then there's the question of which words should we euphemize. I'm still hoping somebody will post a list of the words that most commonly trip up a profanity filter. I have a feeling most filters sort out too much, and we'd end up going to ridiculous extremes in order to satisfy the filters. And there seems to be something offensive about kowtowing to a filter, even if it's something that has to be done to allow people access to Mudcat. There are expressions that bother me, but I can think of only two words that make me cringe - f**k and c**t. Well, there are some racist terms for ethnic groups that make me cringe, too. I'd rather not see those words in thread titles - but if those words are in the actual title of a song, then I'd rather be consistent and see the actual song title in the thread title. But that's my opinion. If it's the title of a legitimate (folk) song, I'm not likely to edit it out. It it's gratuitously posted just to provoke people, that's another matter. -Joe Offer- |
|
07 May 05 - 03:31 PM (#1480156) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: RobbieWilson Joe, The term does not have to be in the title for search to find it. It will find the term within the thread, is this not so? How do you tell when a post is gratuitous? |
|
07 May 05 - 10:35 PM (#1480330) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Joe Offer How can I tell when provocative words in a post are gratuitous? Well, I don't usually worry about a post - it's just the thread titles we're concerned about in this thread. It's a judgment call, and I have exceptionally good judgment. Just ask Sh----es. If somebody starts a thread and titles it "Motherfucker," I'll usually open it to see what's inside. If the first message is blank or filled with a chain of vulgarities, that's usually a pretty good indication that it's gratuitious vulgarity. And yes, if that's the case, I feel justified in deleting the thread. If somebody starts a thread asking for information about a rugby song called "Motherfucker," there are good arguments for and against deletion. The usual Mudcat policy is to give preference to very conservative (i.e., limited) editing, so I would not delete or euphemise such a title. And if I were looking for information on a song with the word "Motherfucker" in the title, I would put motherfu in the Filter and expect to find something. I would not use the term in a Forum Search because it would pull up too many Martin Gibson threads. Generally, we do editorial actions on what I call "no-brainer" situations, and let the rest of the stuff go by. If everybody is calling everybody names and a thread is obviously an all-out brawl, I feel justified in closing or deleting it. If it's a little irritability here and there, or even a veiled insult, I'm not going to bother. See what excellent judgment I have? Just ask Sh----es. -Joe Offer- |
|
08 May 05 - 02:45 AM (#1480376) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: JennyO Just ask Sh----es. I wouldn't dream of it. He just might answer! |
|
08 May 05 - 05:02 AM (#1480406) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles As far as I can make out, you seem to be advocating no "bad words" in thread titles as that would seem to be the only way that no one could possibly be offended. That to me smacks more of censorship (especially as you will never get 100% voluntary conformance here) than the alternative suggestions. What I am suggesting is that when posting, reading or responding - that all posters should respect their all fellow posters and any practical problems they may have. If this mutial respect is encouraged - there will be no need or excuse for any censorship to be imposed (via filters or by the personal tastes of our many anonymous volunteers). That you may never obtain 100% conformance - is not a reason why the attempt to do this should not be made - or that the attempt that most posters already make - should not be respected and encouraged. |
|
08 May 05 - 05:16 AM (#1480415) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles And then there's the question of which words should we euphemize. I am right to suspect that 'we' used here - refers to 'us' volunteers and not the rest of 'us' ordinary posters? There is a question of what words posters may choose to euphemize with the thead titles they choose to create. But euphemisims' like 'indexing' 'consolidation' etc - meaning routine imposed censorship of thread titles - by anonymous volunteers upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without the originator's knowledge or consent - do not currently seem to present our volunteers any problems. Is this another Mudcat double standard? |
|
08 May 05 - 05:21 AM (#1480416) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles Gratuitously = in an uncalled for manner. Perhaps all posts will be now considered as gratuitous - and deleted by our anonymous volunteers - as a matter of course? That will solve a number of problems....*Smiles* |
|
08 May 05 - 12:34 PM (#1480473) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST,The Shambles Generally, we do editorial actions on what I call "no-brainer" situations, and let the rest of the stuff go by. If everybody is calling everybody names and a thread is obviously an all-out brawl, I feel justified in closing or deleting it. If it's a little irritability here and there, or even a veiled insult, I'm not going to bother. Yes 'I' may not. But do 'we' bother? How we know and how to you do you ensure - that your volunteers are using the same personal judgement? Let me see if I can follow this. The word F****** in a song is safe but - when not in a song - the same word will be considered by Joe Offer's judgement (if not other anonymous volunteers) - to be "gratuitious vulgarity" - and deleted. So if I post a song called (for example) Ouit F****** With The Aardvark - this will be safe. But if I post 'quit F****** With The Aardvark' - not in a song - this will be considered by Joe Offer's judgement as "gratuitious vulgarity" and deleted. If some loyal Mudcat 'posse'member posts 'quit f****** with the Ardvark - as a clear abusive personal attack on a fellow member (as recently happened) - this "gratuitious vulgarity" in a posting remains perfectly safe? Clear as mud. No wonder Mudcat posters are confused. |
|
08 May 05 - 12:39 PM (#1480476) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST,f****** f*** for f***'s sake, give it a rest Fell so much better now. Hey, anyone wanna buy some asbestos? |
|
08 May 05 - 12:54 PM (#1480485) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST "No wonder Mudcat posters are confused" says he... Like, man, WHO? You're the only one who is confused, permanently. The rest of us are very clear, thank you. You do not represent us, so f*** off. |
|
09 May 05 - 11:41 AM (#1480727) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: dick greenhaus F** C*****'* s***, g** * l***! |
|
09 May 05 - 12:00 PM (#1480748) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D It seems the SuperSearch won't look for asterisks....too bad....and why not? (I have had several legitmate occasions when it would have been useful) |
|
09 May 05 - 12:54 PM (#1480832) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: George Papavgeris It's unfair asteriskism. I bet Joe Offer can search for asterisks, but denies us the right. |
|
09 May 05 - 01:14 PM (#1480856) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Kim C Like I said in another thread about another subject, I can't believe you all are wasting so much time on this. Bawdy songs with bawdy lyrics are a huge part of folk tradition, just like gory songs where people get killed in many nasty ways. Deal with it. |
|
09 May 05 - 01:58 PM (#1480896) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D Kim...you are, of course, right...but whether bawdy songs are part of folk tradition is not the point at issue. Almost no one here would deny that OR censor the songs. Some are just requesting some toning down of titles when the titles are extreme. **ANYONE** who wants to search for songs containing 'those' words can easily do so, and it is perfectly easy to title a thread to indicate that **bawdy** lyrics are within. As far as I understand, censoring filters at libraries, workplaces, etc...do not usually search INSIDE threads, but merely approve or dis-approve the language that is visible when the page is loaded. |
|
10 May 05 - 09:52 AM (#1481605) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: RobbieWilson Bawdy songs may have always been with us but they are not sung everywhere regardless of whether other people in the room have a problem with them. It's easy to be rude on the net, what is the problem with showing the same courtesy that you would in a public place to a room full of strangers? What the f_ck is the problem? If you genuinely want me to look at a thread called help with the motherf-ck-rs ball then I need to be able to open the forum front page and know it is there. |
|
10 May 05 - 04:53 PM (#1481931) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Q (Frank Staplin) A little information on the program used by the Calgary (Canada) Public Schools to block indecent material. The program is carried out with an "iPrism" internet filter. The masters have set parameters to suit their needs. There are daily updates. It is designed to block websites, words or categories on which filtering is desired. Teachers are not a party to the parameters, which are only given out in general form. Teachers working on research (e. g. breast cancer, etc.), can get exemption by applying for it. The ENTIRE website is evaluated, not just the home or title page. My informant says the filter cuts in if any word, dialogue or prohibited website is encountered, and is in effect for the entire website. The masters can program to block any website they deem inappropriate. In other words, Mudcat can do nothing to stop the filtering of its website. The Calgary Catholic School System (also public here) has filtering, but I have no information. (Calgary has a metropolitan population of over one million). "IPrism" hardware is US$2195, plus subscription fee for software upgrades and daily database updates. Some state offices and businesses use these systems to prevent non-business use. |
|
10 May 05 - 09:33 PM (#1482128) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Q (Frank Staplin) The link above is to iPrism: http://internet-filters.stbernard.com |
|
11 May 05 - 01:33 AM (#1482213) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles In other words, Mudcat can do nothing to stop the filtering of its website. Perhaps not - but Mudcatters themselves can try and ensure that they do not post anything that would cause this site to be blocked. |
|
11 May 05 - 08:18 AM (#1482375) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: JennyO Shambles, there is a little expression known as "pushing shit uphill" that you may or may not be familiar with. For a start, before you start asking people to censor themselves, there is the little matter of what is already here on Mudcat. The site contains songs and postings going back many years, no doubt containing words such as "breast", "shit" (see above), "arsehole", and many others. SURELY you are not suggesting that someone go through all those contributions and (shock, horror) CENSOR them, without the posters' permission, in order to make this site squeaky clean? |
|
11 May 05 - 10:14 AM (#1482452) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST I have said this several times now; just modifying the thread titles would allow many more people, my school included, into the forum. We use RM Safety Net which is I think the most widely used system in UK and I have always been able to get in until recently despite the content of many old threads. Other people may have a deeper filter than we do but I really cant see the problem in modifying the thread titles. They wont be censorred because you and I can still read them, only the stupid machines cant. |
|
11 May 05 - 01:24 PM (#1482540) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Q (Frank Staplin) Guest, the parameters for the machines are set by the administrator in charge. If Mudcat.org is put on the list of forbidden sites, it is closed for those on the network. Here is the UK website for RM Safety Net: RM Filter "RM Safety Net Plus works on a 'list' basis whereby the administrator can build up organized lists of permitted or denied websites." "It is possible to operate the site as a "walled garden" if preferred. This would allow a school to prevent access to ALL internetr websites as standard and then permit access to just those sites the school considered to be appropriate." |
|
11 May 05 - 01:30 PM (#1482544) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Clinton Hammond "ensure that they do not post anything that would cause this site to be blocked" Oh boy! Do I ever wish I could post something that would block YOUR access! |
|
11 May 05 - 01:54 PM (#1482569) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad Clinton - There ARE ways to block an individuals name using filters so you don't see their posts. Just a big blank spot. However if you were to block an individual from posting that would amount to censorship. We don't need another discussion on that topic do we ? |
|
11 May 05 - 02:09 PM (#1482578) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Clinton Hammond It's not censorship (and what's wrong with censorship anyway?) It's 'moderating'... |
|
11 May 05 - 02:13 PM (#1482580) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D Q...it is clear that certain administrators can set parameters to block any site they wish to. If someone at a company reads a naughty thread and decides to block Mudcat, there is little we can control. The issue, once again, is if & how a site like Mudcat gets blocked by ordinary filtering programs, where the page, as loaded, gets scanned for forbidden words or topics. On many sites....for example, porno sites, there are words and phrases that hit you in the face as soon as the page is loaded. This is done ON PURPOSE to allow search engines to find them so that those seeking porn can find them. Some even hide long lists of explicit words & phrases in white-on-white small script to maximize the number of hits! These places are TRYING to sell porn, and work hard to BE found. Now the question is, can or does a security program which uses a word list and related features, look *INSIDE* Mudcat threads to make its decisions? If "fuck" were in only on one Mudcat thread in 9 years, would the program read a couple of hundred thousand threads and cause the automatic censor feature to kick in? I doubt it! But if FUCK is in one of the thread titles at the moment someone loads Mudcat, of course it will! Then, I suppose, there may be a feature that places an offending site on a "do not allow" list, just as I can put spam IP addresses in my email filters. In this way, a site like Mudcat could be perfectly safe IF a user did not open threads that indicate there might be naughty words. The whole point is, MOST censoring filters and programs deal only with what they see, and 99.9% of Mudcat is NOT visable at any one time. But as I have said, anyone who is interested in bawdy (I wonder if THAT word is censored?) lyrics can easily find them INSIDE the threads, and John Mehlberg can easily phrase a title to indicate that bawdiness is contained within. Interest in bawdy lyrics being what it is, those who care about such things..(INCLUDING ME!) can open the thread, and it is not likely John will miss many likely contributors to his research. I do NOT see why it is so difficult for some folks to separate the issues of whether explicit material should be 'available', and whether very explicit language should appear in thread TITLES. Let me end with a joke:
She stepped inside and said to the proprietor, "You have such an interesting display in your window. Do you sell timepieces?" "No, I don't," said the storkeeper. "Well, then you must repair them," exclaimed the woman. "No, I don't repair them either," said the man. "Well, what do you do?" asked the woman. "I perform circumcisions!" said the man. "But you have watches and clocks in your window!" exclaimed the woman. The man replied, "So what should I put in the window?" |
|
11 May 05 - 02:23 PM (#1482588) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D (I suppose, to be totally relevant, the joke should include a line about the shopkeeper pointing to a small sign in the corner of the window that said "Mohel", which denotes someone who performs ritual circumcisions) |
|
11 May 05 - 03:07 PM (#1482636) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: The Shambles SURELY you are not suggesting that someone go through all those contributions and (shock, horror) CENSOR them, without the posters' permission, in order to make this site squeaky clean? No However, It would give all our volunteers something useful to do and keep them out of the way. Especially if they had to obtain the original poster's permission first. *Smiles* |
|
11 May 05 - 03:17 PM (#1482641) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Clinton Hammond Why do you think any of the admin/mods here would NEED the 'original posters' permission to do ANYTHING to their posts?!?!?! I donno what you think this place is Shambles, but I don't think it has anything to do with reality... |
|
11 May 05 - 03:20 PM (#1482644) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: George Papavgeris Should then people be requesting the thread originator's permission to continue posting messages irrelevant to the thread, and diverting attention from the subject that the originator wanted discussed? Troll... |
|
11 May 05 - 03:43 PM (#1482667) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Q (Frank Staplin) All very well, Bill D., but the filtering at the public schools here is set to reject 'breast' and similar words. Here, it all depends on the administrator(s) of the filtering system and their boss, the Calgary Public School Board. The administrators are professionals, technically trained in computer science, and are hired to run the filtering system by the School Board; they are not teachers themselves. The teachers have nothing to do with the set up, and little input as a result. My older daughter, who has quit teaching, calls it censorship, and I agree. |
|
11 May 05 - 03:48 PM (#1482671) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Clinton Hammond And what's wrong with censorship? |
|
11 May 05 - 03:52 PM (#1482677) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: George Papavgeris Awww, CH, don't go "shambly" now.... That's for t'other thread...:-) |
|
11 May 05 - 04:11 PM (#1482692) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Clinton Hammond It's for whatever thread it gets posted to... |
|
11 May 05 - 04:15 PM (#1482696) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Bill D "...It would give all our volunteers something useful to do and keep them out of the way".......uh, right, Shambles. You do make your goal quite clear. Now if we could only find a task that worked that well for you! (You haven't totally solved all that PELS stuff, have you? Aren't there MPs who need emails? Go get 'em!) |
|
11 May 05 - 10:46 PM (#1482966) Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu From: Blissfully Ignorant "And what's wrong with censorship? " Well, censorship might, initially, stop me from saying 'fuck'...which wouldn't be too much of a tragedy. But, censorship might concievably start taking liberties, and might stop me from saying, for example 'the government sucks'. Which would be a tragedy. Although, i'm talking about censorship generally....how a privately owned forum censors itself is pretty much up to itself, as far as i can see... |