|
24 Jul 06 - 10:10 PM (#1792219) Subject: Fee From: Bert |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:10 PM (#1792222) Subject: Fo From: Bert |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:11 PM (#1792223) Subject: Fum From: Bert |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:13 PM (#1792224) Subject: RE: Fee From: harpmaker Morning Bert! |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:18 PM (#1792235) Subject: RE: Fee From: Jack the Sailor She said Will you sing for me? Professionally? I said Certainly For a fee. |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:27 PM (#1792250) Subject: RE: Fo From: number 6 |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:28 PM (#1792254) Subject: RE: Fee From: number 6 |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:31 PM (#1792263) Subject: RE: Fie From: GUEST,khandu Bert...your fie is open. k |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:31 PM (#1792264) Subject: RE: Fee From: Bill D aww,,c'mon, bert...what the $%*&&@# is this all about? Summer doldrums? |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:32 PM (#1792267) Subject: RE: Fee From: number 6 It aint necessarily me |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:33 PM (#1792269) Subject: RE: Fum From: GUEST,khandu ...thing's happening here What it is ain't exactly clear k |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:34 PM (#1792271) Subject: RE: Fo From: number 6 she said it wasn't necessarilly so, so, then go |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:34 PM (#1792273) Subject: RE: Fee From: GUEST,khandu ...dom's just another word for nothing left to lose k |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:35 PM (#1792274) Subject: RE: Fum From: number 6 What the hell is that man carrying over there. |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:35 PM (#1792275) Subject: RE: Fum From: GUEST,khandu beware! |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:36 PM (#1792276) Subject: RE: Fum From: GUEST,Jon Oh, it is very clear, Khlandu. |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:49 PM (#1792284) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Azizi Have a look. Do not fear. |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:53 PM (#1792287) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Azizi Show courage, now. Be full of cheer. |
|
24 Jul 06 - 10:57 PM (#1792290) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: artbrooks Saemus...in his kilt...nothing to fear there... |
|
24 Jul 06 - 11:16 PM (#1792304) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Sorcha Some Clone is a poop head!!!! |
|
24 Jul 06 - 11:17 PM (#1792305) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: GUEST,khandu AMEN! Sista Sorcha! Amen! |
|
24 Jul 06 - 11:21 PM (#1792308) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: GUEST,Jon I say well done the clones. |
|
24 Jul 06 - 11:26 PM (#1792310) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: JennyO Send in the clones - there ought to be clones........ |
|
25 Jul 06 - 12:00 AM (#1792326) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: GUEST south of the border, be of good cheer, picture postcards say, "wish u were here, "drop me a line if u feel so inclined" south of the border... |
|
25 Jul 06 - 12:06 AM (#1792330) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Amos Weather is here, wish you were beautiful, or at least that your posts were... A |
|
25 Jul 06 - 01:04 AM (#1792359) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: John O'L I suspect somewhere on some Shambles thread a point is being made. |
|
25 Jul 06 - 01:29 AM (#1792369) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Joe Offer Yeah, I wonder what's the point of it. If Gargoyle refreshes a dozen Shatner threads, and Bert starts five "feefifofum" threads and an "intentionally blank" thread, and Guest starts half a dozen online gambling threads, and Shambles keeps a dozen complaint threads going, and the politicoes flood each other with 700-message copy-paste propaganda threads, who's going to bother to come to Mudcat for folk music? I guess all these people are trying to give the Mudcat moderators a feeling of self-worth, hey? Would you people mind telling us why you feel you should post this kind of crap on a folk music forum? -Joe Offer- |
|
25 Jul 06 - 08:30 AM (#1792588) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: jacqui.c Because they can Joe, that's the only reason they need. |
|
25 Jul 06 - 08:34 AM (#1792591) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Big Mick You know my opinion, Joe. There is no reason to allow these threads to exist. They have nothing to contribute, and do nothing to enhance the non music discussions. They are simply carpers who want it their way, and are too damn lazy to start their own website. |
|
25 Jul 06 - 08:36 AM (#1792595) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: wysiwyg I'm sure we ALL have great ideas from time to time on a fun way to use Mudcat for a giggle or to make a point. It's nice that Mudcat usually takes these great (lousy) ideas with good humor and sees the (assumed) good intentions behind them. But it's also OK when Mudcat (members or admins) say, "Hey, knock it off!" Bert-- I love you darlin', but whatever was your point, knock it off! ~Susan |
|
25 Jul 06 - 10:31 AM (#1792696) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bee-dubya-ell Would you people mind telling us why you feel you should post this kind of crap on a folk music forum? What does the fact that this is a folk music forum have to do with it? This part of the forum, the BS section, has nothing to do with folk music. On the south side of my house I have a vegetable garden. On the north side of my house I have a "garden" comprised of interestingly arranged broken pottery. One garden is for sustenance, the other is just for fun. Some people find my pottery shard garden interesting and artistic. Other people think I should haul it all off to the dump. One thing for sure, though, I don't let the fact that I call it a "garden" delude me into thinking I'll find food growing there. If I want to pick green beans I walk around to the other side of the house. |
|
25 Jul 06 - 02:04 PM (#1792890) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Joe Offer You know, Bee-dubya-ell, that's all well and good. The BS is fun - and some of it appeals to some people and some to others. That's not the objection. Bert starts six blank-message threads in his fee-fi caper. Shambles posted the same "please close this thread" message in eight threads. Gargoyle resurrected eleven Shatner threads, all with nonsensical messages. And on top of that, we regularly get barrages of posts and threads trying to sell us online gambling and get-rich-quick schemes. It get old. It really does. I'd probably enjoy a tour of your potshard garden - but don't force me to go through eight identical gardens. That would remind me too much of my mother and her irises.... -Joe Offer- |
|
25 Jul 06 - 02:39 PM (#1792915) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bill D It's simply a matter of excess and reasonable coherence. Yes, I know...de gustibus and all that, but there has to be a cut-off point for just gratuitous nonsense. Some "guess what I'm doing" threads can be cute and/or funny, and some are just tedious. If all the "don't censor/edit/move/alter/delete anything" folks had their way, someone could run threads where they post the names of their gerbils in 40 point type twice a day, and ask for 'comments'. Sure, there will be grey areas where it's a toss-up whether to let it go or 'contain' it.....**personally**, I'd rather Joe/Jeff took the 'err on the side of caution' approach he has used recently. I like to read 'interesting' threads, but I object to folks using the forum for stream-of-conciousness eccentricities. We have had trivia threads, political threads, religious threads, joke threads,....and tractor repair threads..etc...none of which were messed with, but when threads start becoming self referential and circular and filled with blanks and questions that just confuse, I think I LIKE having them ....ummmm....'limited'. A 'mostly' free, open forum is nice, but folks need to contain some of their more arcane impulses. |
|
25 Jul 06 - 08:52 PM (#1793231) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: dick greenhaus bill, you sound almost virginal. |
|
25 Jul 06 - 08:54 PM (#1793233) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bill D you mean like one of them funny little piano-like gadgets? |
|
26 Jul 06 - 01:55 PM (#1793812) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bert The idea was to have a song challenge where you write a song using messages from each of four SEPARATE threads. I guess that was just TOO much of as challenge for some stuffed shirts around here. As JennyO says "Send in the Clones" The intentionally blank thread was a joke - and it WASN'T blank. Some people got it. We'll never lighten things up around here unless some people get their heads back in the light of day. |
|
26 Jul 06 - 10:27 PM (#1794194) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Jeri People are supposed to see the word 'fum' in a thread title and be inspired to write the verse of a song? Maybe in a world full of desperate, sensory deprived people who actually believe other people would be blown away by their witty, insightful song on 'fum', possibly because someone once complimented them on being able to find a rhyme for 'be'. Those people aren't here, Bert. Well, maybe a couple of them, but they're likely respond to a blank prompt by pasting a plagarized political article. Your attempt proves the disposabiloity of blank messages rather than the opposite. I think it was bait, cleverly disguised as ...bait. It's way too obvious, Bert. Seriously, why did you think people would believe that YOU believed a single word in a thread title would make people care about songwriting? |
|
26 Jul 06 - 10:31 PM (#1794198) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bert Aaaah well. It was an attempt to start a song challenge - an on line variation of the 'Limerick' party game. You know the game. The first person makes up the first line then it passes on to the next person who writes the next line. This goes on until the limerick is completed. Now if the editor (who couldn't understand that, and combined the threads) was to restore them to their original places then perhaps the rest of us can get on with the game. |
|
26 Jul 06 - 10:53 PM (#1794216) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bert Jeri, We cross posted. The idea was that in the Fee thread people would post something relevant to Fee. E.G. "Charge for a service" In the Fie thread someone might post something relevant to Fie such as "Shame on you" In the Fo Thread it might be "Enemy Mine" And Fum might come out as something like thumb or inch. And a very poor attempt a verse could end up something like... I get a charge out of you but shame on you for what you do You're my enemy and it's a cinch that your dick is no longer than an inch (I know Amos could have done much better had he be given a chance.) Then people would start posting messages that they could use in their next verse. But everyone here is so damned touchy. Lighten up a bit luv. -------------------------- Have you written any good songs lately? Mine seem to be a load of junk. Let's get back to music and stop squabbling. Luvya, Bert. |
|
26 Jul 06 - 11:19 PM (#1794230) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: GUEST Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bert Date: 23 Jul 06 - 08:33 PM I know I've said this before but it didn't take, so here goes again. If somebody starts a thread or posts a message and says "posted without comment" (I know our friend Dick Greenhaus has done that in the past) then THAT is allowed. But if someone posts without comment simply by leaving the message blank, then some damned trigger happy editor (who doesn't have the intelligence to realise that no message can also mean no comment) comes along and deletes it. For those of you WITH low intelligence, NO MESSAGE can also mean NO COMMENT. Here it is again 'cos I know that you missed it the last time that I mentioned it. For those of you WITH low intelligence, NO MESSAGE can also mean NO COMMENT. |
|
26 Jul 06 - 11:29 PM (#1794238) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bert GUEST!!! are you messin' with me or with them? *GRIN* |
|
27 Jul 06 - 04:18 PM (#1794828) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bert I guess Joe still doesn't understand or he would have fixed things by now. Let me explain again. The "Fee", "Fie", "Fo" and "Fum threads are part of a song challenge and are supposed to be kept separate. They were posted ABOVE the line 'cos they are part of a song challenge and they have nothing at all to do with Shambles or Gargoyle or Shatner or anyone else who does not wish to participate in a rather odd song challenge. Unfortunately they were hijacked by others who wished to promote their own agenda. Now Joe, you have said that you would not allow threads to be hijacked so I'm holding you to your word and expect you to delete any of the above messages that are not relevant to the song challenge, and to separate the threads back into their original parts with their original messages so that we can continue with the song challenge. The "Intentionally Blank" thread was a joke and was posted in the BS section where folks seem to be enjoying it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with THESE threads. |
|
28 Jul 06 - 10:24 AM (#1795430) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: The Shambles The point being missed is that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly expressed (in the following editting comment) that he does not like Song Challenge threads and would wish to interfere and issue ultimatums in the way he feel he is entitled to do with any thread subject that is not to his tastes and move then ALL to the BS section. Quite why any individual considers that our forum must now be ordered to their personal requiirements rather than impartially reflecting all tastes - and why they should expect to be supported in this - is not clear. Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix? This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first? Thank you. Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu. The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads. If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section. You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about. -Joe Offer- |
|
28 Jul 06 - 10:27 AM (#1795434) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: MMario The answer is simple. Max said he could. Max gave him the ability. If max wants to take it away or censor him, Max will. It is Max's site. |
|
28 Jul 06 - 12:28 PM (#1795515) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bert JOE! Where are you? |
|
28 Jul 06 - 08:43 PM (#1795875) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: GUEST,Joe, at work No, Bert, I still don't understand. What am I supposed to fix? If you insist on having your feefifofum song challenge, start a new one. -Joe- |
|
28 Jul 06 - 11:05 PM (#1795921) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bert Joe, You have stated that you would not allow threads to be hijacked but MY thread has been hijacked. You also requested that other clones leave the editing to you which is fin e by me. Whoever went in and combined the threads has the moral obligation to fix them. You don't want ME to do it - TRUST ME ON THAT.
-Joe Offer- |
|
29 Jul 06 - 03:04 AM (#1796004) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: The Shambles The problem here are assumptions and imposed action taken based on these assumptions. does it mean that just because a 'moderator' may not understand a contribution - that is wise for them to act only on assumptions? Whatever this was or was not intended to be could have been established (if required) by leaving everything as posted until the poster could have been contacted by PM and given the opportunity to explain. As the threads were not offensive and NOT candidates for any urgent imposed editting action. They may have been thought or assumed to be offensive to some 'moderator's' sense of order - but our forum's threads and posts can be ordered - without any need for judgement and censorship based only on assumptions and personal taste and automatically imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission. Or are threads and posts that our 'moderator's cannot understand being adding to the list for automatic interferance and imposed censorship action. Why cannot a thread's originators be contacted first, before any action is decided and imposed? One of the advantages of membership stated is that of being able to post and to receive PMs. The originator in this case was not only a member but also a 'moderator' themselves. What message is being given when their fellow 'moderators' automatically impose censorship action based on assumptions - without first contacting the 'moderator'/member who originated the thread. There may be occasions when a contribution is so obviously offensive that immediate censorship action may be judged to be requred. I suggest that such cases are in fact rare and in most cases - there is always time for the originator to be contacted first (where possible) and a considered decision arrived at. Or is one of the problems the apparent lack of communication between 'moderator's? That as they all seem to be on watch at the same time - any hesitation involved in contacting an orgiinator will mean that another one may have already jumped-in and imposed some form of censorship action? If so - what change is proposed to address this? |
|
29 Jul 06 - 03:44 AM (#1796025) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Joe Offer Can you believe how much verbiage these guys can post to protest the deletion of blank messages? |
|
29 Jul 06 - 07:22 AM (#1796098) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: jacqui.c Yes. |
|
29 Jul 06 - 11:20 AM (#1796193) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: Bert Joe, Everything that has been posted since the threads were combined should have already deleted by you under YOUR OWN no hijacking rule.
-Joe Offer- This WAS a music thread Joe and if it had been left alone by the over eager editors it would surely have sunk ignominiously off the screen long ago. Get off your high horse and do the right thing and fix it. Bert. |
|
29 Jul 06 - 01:16 PM (#1796258) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: The Shambles If Gargoyle refreshes a dozen Shatner threads, and Bert starts five "feefifofum" threads and an "intentionally blank" thread, and Guest starts half a dozen online gambling threads, and Shambles keeps a dozen complaint threads going, and the politicoes flood each other with 700-message copy-paste propaganda threads, who's going to bother to come to Mudcat for folk music? Perhaps those who post on the musuc-related section and are still blissfully unaware of all of your concerns and the restriction you impose to deal with them. And many more tolerant posters than you. As you do not now share the tastes of your fellow posters - perhaps it is you who should find or start another forum - rather that feel you have some right to impose your tastes upon others.... |
|
29 Jul 06 - 01:42 PM (#1796280) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: JennyO As you do not now share the tastes of your fellow posters... Thought you'd slip that little bit of your particular brand of 'logic' by everybody, did you? Have you now appointed yourself to be "your fellow posters"? Well just for the record, Joe shares the tastes of this fellow poster. And if I had to choose who I think should leave, it wouldn't be Joe. So you don't speak for everybody - a fact which you are very good at ignoring. |
|
30 Jul 06 - 02:23 AM (#1796648) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: The Fooles Troupe I think ALL Song Challenges should have an appropriate prefix - since those two words chew up much of the subject line, how about "SC: " ??? |
|
30 Jul 06 - 06:35 AM (#1796730) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: The Shambles Can you believe how much verbiage these guys can post to protest the deletion of blank messages? -Joe Offer- The view that some of our 'moderators' now appear to have of our discussion forum could well be summed as the judgement of 'how much verbiage these guys can post'? The answer is that whatever the amount of (or in this case the lack of any) verbiage - any 'moderators' role is simply to enable the verbiage - NOT to use as much verbiage in return in order to justify the imposition of all this judgement and to attempt to further devide posters in public appeals for support for all this..... |
|
30 Jul 06 - 09:04 AM (#1796803) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: jacqui.c I'll go with JennyO. |
|
30 Jul 06 - 09:30 AM (#1796820) Subject: RE: Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum (threads combined) From: lesblank My suggestion is to pen up Bert and Shambles in an old silo and let them live out their climateric years attempting to "one-up" each other. When they are sufficiently spent, throw in Lizzie Cornish for a few weeks -- then we would all be better off !! |